computational thinking: a digital skill for everyone

I grabbed the first periodical I could find for this article review. I wish I could say I headed directly to a journal I knew I could connect to the learning objectives for our course, Long Range Planning. I ended up finding Computational Thinking: A Digital Skill for Everyone, (Barr, Harrison, & Conery, 2011). Since my focus of education is technology integration, I am very interested in objective number 4, “Understanding the Characteristics of a 21^st Century School.”

The article summarizes Computational Thinking as a way of “solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science,” and refers to an article by Jeanette Wing from 2006 in the Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery. The ideas in this article are even more interesting to me because I am fascinated by the idea of computer-human interface and how we interact with machines. But I digress.

If there is going to be a fundamental in the way we do business in education, our spaces are going to have to be conducive to some informal thinking in the ways described in this article. Students will have to have spaces in which they can think, draw, sketch, collaborate, and analyze. Many of the problems described in this article are open-ended and very difficult to solve. In fact, some of these problems may not have known solutions. This means students will have to have the ability and confidence to deal with complex problems, be persistent in finding a reasonable solution, be able to tolerate ambiguity, and the capability to communicate their solutions and ideas to other students. This may be over the web through web 2.0 tools such as Skype, GoogleChat, or through a wiki. This means they will need a space with wired or wireless access, whiteboards for face-to-face collaboration and tables on which they can spread out their work.

Nothing in this article alludes to a classroom in which students sit in rows, face the front, and have information delivered from a lectern; the article talks about skill development, specifically collaboration, communication, and analysis. When I read about this kind of work with students, visions of a casual, informal space come to mind. Students are free to work, research, experiment, and communicate in the same space. There is not a separate lab in which they work and a separate room for lecture. Students would also need a small space for presentations. Maybe something with a few chairs situated around a Smartboard on which their information could be projected and used for brainstorming activities. This ideal classroom would encourage decision-making. It would allow teachers to differentiate learning, and encourage analytical thinking.

A change in education is going to require a re-design of where students work. They will expect to have information “talked-down” to them if we continue to have rows of desks facing the front. Multi-use spaces should be considered if we are going to expect students to use multiple skills. Actually what I have just described is my ideal classroom. I have moved away from the rows this year. I am resistant to that change (or any change) because my personality loves rows, but it was a conscious decision to begin to move towards a student-centered classroom. Our classroom now has 7 small groups of desks arranged facing each other instead of rows facing a Smartboard. As I tell my students, you cannot eat an elephant in one bite, you have to take tiny bites. My re-arrangement was a very small bite. A classroom as described above would be the entire herd of elephants!

It's nice to think about what you would have in your ideal classroom. What would you do?

References

Barr, D., Harrison, J., and Conery, L. (2011, March/April). Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38 (6), pp. 20-23.

Wing, J., (2006) Computational Thinking. Communication of the ACM. 49, pp. 33–35.

the final assessment project

We did a short video as our final project for assessment. I've learned a lot and the following is what I wrote to accompany my video (it's at the bottom of the page).

Before:

Last semester, while working on our classroom wiki, I used this rubric. I also gave this sheet as instructions. That was pretty much it. I didn’t assess to learn, I only assessed for learning at the end of the project. I knew this was not the best thing to do. I knew it was not correct practice, but I was not really sure what else to do or what to change.

After:

After taking the module on Assessment, I have put a significant amount of thought into what I am doing in my classes, particularly on my wiki project. I realized I was not assessing students formatively and giving feedback in a manner, which would be productive for them. I was only doing a summative assessment and students had no chance to adequately prepare for this final assessment.

Students will now begin with the same sheet for instructions and they will be given instructions on a wiki: what it is, how we plan to use it, how to edit, and the purpose of editing. The instruction sheet is now posted to my website and is easily viewable by students at any time as a reference page. They will also be taught about the use of delicious.com (a bookmark sharing site) and will learn how to appropriately share their research sources with the instructor through Delicious, the bookmarking/networking website.

After their initial wiki page is set up (and weekly thereafter), students will use a formative assessment rubric to self-assess each week. They will also be required to blog about their research for the week. We will use the “discussion tab” within the wiki to accomplish this simple formative assessment. Students should write reflectively about their topic and the process of research. I will use this rubric to assess their reflections. In addition to self-assessment, I will do a weekly formative assessment using a similar rubric to the one the students are using. We will conference together so students can get weekly feedback on their writing and research.

Finally, after students have had an opportunity to correct the weekly conference issues, a summative assessment of their overall page will be done using this rubric.

My realization in this class has been something I teach in my own classes: “You cannot eat the elephant all in one bite.” This mantra certainly applies to assessment. It is unfair to expect students to be able to be successful on any assessment if they have not be getting little bits of assessment (with feedback) all along the way. I cannot expect students to be successful in their learning, nor expect them to even take responsibility, if I have not been giving them the tools for that success.

challenged

Today I really got challenged on the depth of my physics knowledge. I met with our excellent Junior class council from SNU and one of the students is taking General Physics. He had some homework and asked if I had a chance to help him with one of the problems.

I said, "Of course! I've always got time to do some physics!"

We sit down at the table (as I'm thinking, "great, this is second semester stuff and I don't teach this in my class" as I realize its Simple Harmonic Motion.

I think to myself, "Okay, I think I can do this" and suddenly come to the realization that I cannot. Now if you know me, I'm not one to walk away from a challenge, I just need some time. You know, I've been put on the spot. I wasn't in a "physics state of mind".

Student leaves for class, not physics, but a class he needs to be in since @mishelleyb is the teacher of this one and I can't, in good conscience, ask him to skip her class simply because I am not fast enough on the draw with my physics knowledge. After his exit, I resume my study of the problem. Just before he left, we started to look at it from a energy standpoint. This was definitely the way to go! Why, why, why do I not always think in terms of Energy?

I must admit, I got a little flustered initially. I mean how ridiculous is it when a student asks you for help on the subject you teach and you can't deliver?!? Oh well, after some careful thought I was able to come up with the correct solution. Any .

Throughout this situation, I had to remind myself. Take your time, be patient, always draw a diagram, and don't freak out when you get put on the spot! Sure, I'm rusty on SHM, but I will be teaching this again in the next couple of months so don't stress... there's still plenty of time to study!

An open letter to myself in 25 years (part 1)

Dear self,

How are things? I hope we are still teaching. There are many things that have changed by this time, such as the address of this blog, your flying car, and the amazing grandchildren we probably have now. I'm sure we are still a million dollars short of making a million dollars, but at least we still love the movie "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles"!

Remember how back in the day you used to get aggravated about "veteran teachers" complained all the time about how the kids have changed and how technology is too pervasive in the classroom and how they don't know how many more years they can take this? Are you there yet? Have you lost your will to change with the times? Are you burned out? Do you think you are having a positive influence on your peers? Are you discouraged or encouraged by the current state of affairs?

How about your classes? Are they still challenging you? Or have you fallen into the "rut" of doing the same things year after year? Do you still reflect on what you are doing in class? Do you still try to make class relevant to your students? Remember how frustrated you used to get over the batteries on the laptops we used in class? Have they fixed any of that? Surely every student has their own laptop now!

My hope for you is that you are still as passionate about Physics in your "now" as we were back in this "now". If you are ever able to do anything with time travel, I'd surely appreciate a visit from you.

everything you thought you knew

About Science is wrong. I love to turn student's worlds upside-down with that statement. I'll give you some examples:

1. There is no such thing as suction, there is only the absence of air. Its called a vacuum. Many students are heavily vested in this particular misconception, especially since it is such a part of our vernacular. Basically, atmospheric pressure is very, very strong! Check out the Madgeberg Spheres as an example of just how hard it will resist. Think of vector arrows pushing in on the spheres from all directions.


2. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of heat. Its called the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of an object, whether its a gas or not.

Yes, its late. Yes, I'm tired. I'll continue this list in another post. Stay tuned and as always, thanks for reading.

The LHC

It seems those crazy scientists are ready to play with their toys again; I guess they are still interested in finding out just exactly how the Universe works. Of course you know I'm talking about the Large Hadron Collider. I'm following the success (hopefully) of this venture as they go, step by step, using twitter. If you tweet and would like to follow CERN, go here. I am getting live information as it happens; where the beam is located, what systems are running, etc. And its all LIVE! I love social media!

I'll just be here, in my classroom, with students who are retaking tests, listening to music, and getting updates on the most expensive, most complicated machine known to man, learning how what causes the Universe to exist in the state in which it does. That is all.

definition by example

Tonight in class, our professor was talking about correlations between matched/paired vs. non-matched/non-paired and he chose not to give a definition as to what those are. I won't speculate on the reasoning behind his choice; I'll just say he chose to define them by giving examples.

I only bring this up because I did the same thing today in class and therein lies my question. Is this a valid way to teach students the definition of a term/word? Because I can tell you I didn't really get a good grasp on the meaning of these two contrasting educational research terms.

I wonder if my students felt the same way about the terms I was working with in class this morning? We were talking about constructive and destructive interference. I defined those two terms for them, but I chose not to define in-phase and out-of-phase. This refers to two signals which either correspond directly (in-phase) or are offset from each other (out-of-phase). Signals can be anywhere from zero to 359 degrees out of phase with one another. I guess my one saving grace is that I did a demo using two phase-shifted speakers which completely cancel the sound from the other speaker. Its my favorite demo of the year, by the way.

I will be revisiting phase shift with students tomorrow. Even if there is a chance students feel half as vague about phase as I do about about matched pairs, I need to re-teach the concept. At the bare minimum, I'll be asking if anyone has any questions at all about phase and I will certainly think twice before teaching "definition by example" next time.

everyone loves a tesla coil

Wired.com posted a great video with Dr. Megavolt. Dr. Richards, as his alter-ego is known, lives a normal life as a particle physicist working on the AMANDA telescope, which interacts with neutrinos instead of visible light. In the video, Dr. Megavolt performs a some cool demos with his metal suit and Tesla Coil, reminiscent of Nikola Tesla's shows, way back in the day. It's a spectacular show and I believe I need to find out when he plans to come to the Science Museum of Oklahoma. I'm sure this type of demo leave a lasting impression on the viewer, especially when you consider that Tesla did his demos without a metal suit. No wonder people thought he was crazy and we now realize he was a genius. Probably mentally ill in some capacity, as well.

Check out the video and then go get out your Tesla Coil and light up some light bulbs or something! I can't wait to get mine out in class. The students never forget it.

Who needs science fiction

When you have reality? Universe, you never cease to amaze me. Ever.

I follow a blog called Physics and Physicists (for obvious reasons) and I normally enjoy what ZapperZ has to say. I say normally because I have a difference of viewpoint on the occasion of this post. It seems that there are some inaccuracies in an article in the Telegraph called "The 10 weirdest Physics facts" and he chooses not to nitpick because "it won't matter for those who don't understand physics", even though it seems he encourages his readers to pick out the aforementioned inaccuracies. That said, this is just the kind of article in which high school student would become immersed.

Sure, the content of anything should NOT be sacrificed just because it is delivered in an interesting manner. However, we're talking about extremely abstract concepts that might not be completely understood by the general public, especially by a humanities graduate that writes articles for the Telegraph. Okay, I haven't made my point very well; hopefully, that has more to do with the residual effects of my dental visit today and not the early stages of dementia. *puts soapbox away and gets back to the strange Universe*

The strangest theory of physics (from the article mentioned above) states: "The fundamental description of the universe does not account for a past, present or future." Basically, that means there is no absolute reality. (please save all arguments about absolutes for your religion class) Reality is different for each observer and is based on their velocity and their location. If you were moving significantly faster than I was, your clock would still tick the seconds as normal, for you. But from my vantage point, it would keep time much slower than my own, identical clock. This, of course, means you would age much slower than I would, since your reality is that time is moving at that pace. This could also be true if you were much closer to the center of the Earth, a.k.a it's "gravity well". Next time you use the GPS navigation system, remember: someone had to calculate how far away the satellite for navigation would be from the gravity well (causing its clock to run faster) and how fast it is moving (causing its clock to run slower). And this needs to be synced with a clock on the Earth in the receiver unit in your car. Someone is really smart. Really smart.

What's the point, Mr. Bowie?

This was the question posed to me this week when we were discussion particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider in our classroom by an exceptionally bright student. She followed it up with "This just seems like an enormous waste of money."  I surely see her point. When you have friends at school who come from homes were there's not enough to eat or when they can't (or won't) keep the electric bill paid.

I imagine its also due (at least in part) to the idea students have that "everything that can be known, is".  As a student in high school, a person who has a constant inflow of information everyday, its easy to think the world is pretty well all figured out. I would say this is not the case, nor will it ever be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop questioning.  In fact, even if we, as scientists, think the world is all figured out, it would be a huge mistake to stop asking questions. According to Humphrey Davy: "Nothing is so dangerous to the progress of the human mind than to assume that our views of science are ultimate, that there are no mysteries in nature, that our triumphs are complete and that there are no new worlds to conquer." It is worth mentioning that Davy was the mentor of Michael Faraday, who produced the theory that electrical force and the magnetic force are the same thing. This was the first Unified Theory of Physics, which laid the groundwork for all other unification theories in Physics. So in essence, we can thank Davy for everything we know about Physics, for without his encouragement of Faraday, we might not understand physics much better than we did back in the 1800's.

I think Albert Einstein said it best: "The important thing is not to stop questioning".  That is the point! That is why we do research. All of the technology we gain from particle physics research is just a bonus. The reason to do the research is for the knowledge gained.

Thanks for reading.

For the Love of Science!

Caution: this may be the most random, crazy post so far. Continue at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Do you know anything about quantum mechanics? Well, that's good, because I don't really either. I once heard a quote by Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" (insert dramatic pause for effect, followed by laughter).  Actually, I know some of the basics of quantum mechanics, but being able to recite something, is a far cry from actually understanding it.

In quantum mechanics, there is an interpretation of the mathematical formulas, which seems to indicate that the observer of anything, affects the object. You can do a little research on Schrödinger's cat to get a little better understanding. Basically, the way his thought experiment worked, the only way to observe whether the cat is alive or dead, would kill the cat. Now I've been thinking about this for a couple of years now and I am just beginning to be able to wrap my brain around it (albeit not very tightly). So if you don't get it on the first go around, don't sweat it. Keep thinking about it. If you don't accept this basic tenet of quantum mechanics, stop reading now, because what follows is based on your acceptance of a theory which has some experimental evidence. To understand that evidence, you'll need to have a basic understanding of Young's double-slit experiment.

I know! What's the point? Right? Actually, I do have one and it goes something like this: if observing the Universe changes the condition of the Universe, how in the world do we know the condition of anything? Most of this thought applies to quantum mechanics, but we could also apply it to, say, a classroom. How many teachers have asked a principal to come observe a particularly rowdy class, only to find when the principal enters the classroom, the students act in a completely different manner? Okay, I know its a stretch, but that's why they are called analogies.

I'm asking these questions, not because I want you to do some thinking, although that is part of my purpose. I'm asking these questions because I really want to know some answers.  I'm not sure what the answer to the question is. The problem with even asking the questions is that humanity is intrinsically connected to the very thing which they are trying to understand. Its kind of like walking by a mirror and thinking, "That's not really what I look like! Is it?" Based on Snell's, you are seeing an exact representation of yourself being reflected back from the mirror. For many of us, we have picture in our heads of what we look like. This is our reality, but once we actually observe our reality, we change it. (I can almost hear the crickets from my vantage point.)

As usual, I always understand things better after I process them through writing. Even though I didn't talk specifically about quantum entanglement, I think I understand it better than I used to.

Any thoughts? As always, thanks for reading.

In my classroom

Today we had a special speaker in our Pre-AP Physics class, Dr. Flera Rizatdinova (who is originally from Moscow and has a very strong Russian accent, which makes the talk much more interesting) from the Oklahoma State University Dept. of Physics. She is a scientist working on the ATLAS collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider. She shared some of the writing she has been doing for the DOE (which I mistakenly confused with the Dept. of Ed. initially) towards the end of her presentation. She was writing for them about the "benefits of particle physics research" which is a subject that arises frequently in my class. I hear something like "Mr. Bowie, isn't this just an enormous waste of money?"

Dr. Rizatdinova talked extensively about what the questions the LHC is trying to answer (see previous post). This was the deepest part of the presentation and was probably a little above level of my students (but if I don't set the bar high, they won't achieve as much, right?).  At the end, she took some questions which was really good for the students. I'm glad they have some opportunities to interact with college professors/scientists.

There wasn't really any ground-breaking material in her talk. I have been keeping up with the goings-on of the LHC recently and did some research over the summer with Dr. Rizatdinova, so much of this was a review for me. I'm not sure how the students will react to it, I'll try to get some feedback tomorrow.  I was simply excited about having a real, live scientist in my classroom and wanted to share the experience!

Why are we here?

Literally, why are we here? What was the cause of our existence? I'm not asking "what is the meaning of life?" I'm asking "what is the mechanism which causes our Universe to exist?" This is the goal of the LHC: to find the reason our Universe is ordered the way it is. Many talk about this as "The Hunt for the Higgs Boson". I learned today (via a special guest speaker in my classroom) the only particles needed to build our Universe are two types of quarks, electron neutrinos, and electrons. Wow.  Our physics research (worldwide) wants to know "why do these particles exist?" "What causes our these particles to exist?" "What is it that tells those particles to form?"

Talk about some big questions! Its a really difficult issue to wrap your brain around. In fact, I'll admit, I can't do it. I'm not sure I could ever be a part of the collaboration(s) which are trying to study this. Its some big picture thinking, and I'm not great at that. I try, in class, to impress on my students the level of thinking at which top scientists work. I admit freely to them that I am not capable of this level of thinking. I suspect that every now and then I will run across a student who is and I hope I can inspire them to choose an area of physics which suits their level of thinking.

I realize you came here to get an answer to this post, but I have only raised more questions. That is part of my job as a teacher, not to answer questions, but to encourage students to ask "the right questions" (see critical thinking).  So, have I done my job? Do you have more questions now than you did a minute ago? Go ask the right questions!

Who knew Science was so dangerous? (aka my 100th post)

I think its very appropriate this post is the 100th to make to my blog. So, without delay, let's get to what I want to share: a day in the life of Bowie's Physics classes.

Today was a crazy day. It started out like any other. I was able to remember that I had duty, so I went down there and "did my duty", literally.  First block went of without a hitch. We covered some homework and then proceeded to an activity I learned at an AP conference. Students stand one meter apart, stopwatches in hand, while another student (or myself) walks/runs/jogs past. Since they have all started their stopwatches at the same time, they stop their watch when I pass them. We use this data to make a graph of position vs. time. We interpolate and extrapolate. We find the slope of the line, which just happens to be the velocity. I show them how you can have a negative velocity. Literally, the activity is everything that is right about physics. Unless, of course, something goes wrong.

Like today, during second block. Things went horribly wrong. I changed things up a bit. Problem  #1: we did the activity inside, normally we do this outside, like we did in 1st block. Problem  #2: I was the person doing the walking/running/jogging, normally a student or two are the ones doing the running/walking/jogging (I'm no spring chicken anymore). Problem #3: I was wearing my most comfortable shoes, which also happen to be the worst shoes in which to run. Note to self: either wear your running shoes, or wear a helmet next time!

Trials 1-4: I walked, I jogged, I walked really slow, I walked backwards (negative velocity). Everything was fine. Trial 5: I decided to move at a variable velocity by starting at a walk, increasing to a run, then slowing back to a walk. And then it happened: I ran out of room when I got to the part where I should have been slowing to a walk. I put the brakes on and started to stumble. I had no more breaks, lost all control, and fell. My only thought was, "Hmmmm, there's the greenhouse (made of metal and glass) right in front of me. I'm going to go straight through the glass. This is going to be really bad." I went down and negatively accelerated my head in a very short amount of time, thereby splitting the back of my ear open. I immediately said a few words, which were hopefully not heard by my students, and  got up to sit on the bench in front of the greenhouse. I realized later this was the same bench that just a second ago was in contact with my ribs. I put my hand to the side of my head and thought, "Okay, this isn't that bad. But boy does this hurt!"

I looked up at my students and said, "Why don't we just skip Trial 6?" I looked down at my hand, upon removing it from the side of my head and realized I might have a couple of small cuts there, since I noticed some blood, but not an enormous amount. No problem. "Could someone get me some tissue?" Strangely enough, only one or two students were actually moving. (I think they were stunned that I was that clumsy.) Tissue arrives.

We returned to the classroom, I got them started entering their data into the excel spreadsheet. Standard operating procedure for this activity. I walked over to the stunned look of my department head and asked would he mind keeping an eye on my class while I walked to the nurse to get a band-aid on these little cuts on my ear. Of course, that was after an abbreviated description of what had just transpired. I look in on my students and said, "I'll be back in a little bit. Mr. Stark is across the hall if you need someone."

I proceed to the nurse's office, all the while noticing there is now a considerable amount of blood on my tissue. Concern begins to set in. I arrived, again to the stunned look of the school nurse. I explain. She says, "Let me see!" I remove my hand and she informs me that I have a "gaping hole back here". I immediately go into shock. I begin to sweat. The color, all of the color, leaves my face. I don't feel so well. I lay down. She recommends that I go to an after hours clinic. Then, upon further inspection and a pupil exam, she thinks I may need to go to the emergency room. I really begin to panic a bit. I show panic by the above listed symptoms. My symptoms increase, which does nothing to alleviate my panic (or my symptoms).

Michelle (my wonderful and amazing wife) decides to come take me when the word ER is mentioned. Initially, Jessica (my exceptional daughter) was going to drive me. We decide against that. I talk the nurse. It is worth mentioning that Michelle is on pain killers for some dental work which she had done yesterday. She may be over the legal limit as far as narcotics and driving goes. We're not really sure and frankly don't want to know.

By this point, I have talked the nurse out of calling an ambulance. She rolls me out to the student pick-up area in the wheelchair. My symptoms begin to resurface as they had subsided after laying down for a bit. I feel worse. I really begin to feel terrible. I tell my caretakers, the nurse and Teri Voss (an asst. principal) that, "I'm just going lay down here on the ground". In front of the school. On the concrete. Is that weird? As I begin to get to the ground (on all fours) Michelle rounds the corner to pick me up. I'm sure her first thought upon seeing my condition, head wrapped bandage and all, was "Oh Lord! He's practically dying. I'm just in time to say goodbye!"

To make a long story (somewhat) short, we get to the hospital. The doctor reassures me that I do not have a nasty head trauma and that I will be fine. I just need, oh about 15 stitches. Yes. From the top of my ear to the bottom, I am stitched. My ER experience was quite jovial, once I realized I wasn't going to die or forget who Michelle is (at least not anytime soon). I twittered while there. I even twitpic'ed.

The doctor and nurses were very understanding and made my time almost enjoyable. It takes an amazing person to do their job. Next time you talk to a doctor or a nurse, thank them for me. After all, someone has to pick up the pieces after we are done doing dangerous science!

Update: Breaking Video!

I was able to get some video of my accident. Enjoy!

09-10 school year begins

Here it is another school year and we are almost a week into it. We started class last Thursday at Putnam City High School.

So far things are going well for me. I am teaching an Earth Science Class this year for the first time. Its a slightly different population than what I usually teach in my Physics classes, but not really any different than my Physical Science classes. They are just 2 years older than the Physical Science students. Many of these students have not had success in science in the past so I have to think outside the box to get them engaged.These guys will challenge me, I'm sure! Only time will tell if I am up to that challenge.

My Physics classes seem to be typical except for two things:

1. I am teaching a section of Physics I which has over 25 students in it.


2. On the information sheets, many students said they decided to take the class because of me. Talk about pressure. Its like being chosen for a role in a play and asked to perform. This really makes me feel good about being a teacher because it tells me students are talking about me and that those are good things.

I have also started a new educational chapter in my own life as I have begun the Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instruction at SNU. I did some serious study about whether to attend OSU, OU, or SNU. I did give UCO a precursory glance, but never any serious thought. I chose SNU for a few reasons over the other schools. I was a little hesitant to pick them just because I didn't really want both degrees from the same school, but alas, fate had different plans.

The MACI program at SNU is eligible for the teach grant. This was a big one for me. The grant is from the federal government and is available to anyone who is working on a teaching degree, either undergraduate or graduate. It comes with some conditions but they are easy for me. First, you have to be teaching in a school that receives Title I money. Putnam City High School qualifies. You also have to agree to teach in a high need field such as English Language Learning, Special Education, Math, or Science. I teach Physics, so that's taken care of. You also have to agree to teach for four years for each TEACH grant program you participate in. Since I'm not planning on leaving teaching, that seems to be taken care of, as well.

SNU's program also works towards getting their master's candidates certified as National Board Teachers. In Oklahoma that means a yearly stipend of $5000 which will go a long ways towards paying off student loans incurred during my time at SNU. If you don't already know, they are a private university and have some pretty pricey tuition. I'm not saying it's not worth it, I'm just saying its expensive. Concerning that, I do feel like I was very well prepared to get into the classroom and teach.

OSU and OU had some great programs and I felt like all three had options that were suited for an older student like me, but the National Board put me over the edge with SNU. None of the state institutions offer National Board certification and that was a great component of SNU's program. Of course they don't guarantee that you will pass the certification, but then no school guarantees that you will pass ANY certification test once you finish your education. All one can hope for is that the school will prepare you well enough that certification will not be an issue.

(edited)

I am really beginning to feel at home in my classroom. I was able to have my SmartBoard mounted to the wall, I got a fish tank full of fish, and due to the departure of some of my colleagues, I am an old face around school. These are all good things and just endear my job to me even more than it already is. I am even able to help a new teacher work with the development of a brand new class: Earth Science. He is coming to me for help and guidance and ideas, which is weird since it seems I was JUST finishing school and staring my first year right in the face. Good things are happening in my school and in my classroom and I am excited to be a part of them!

thanks for reading,

jb

concerning the upcoming school year

This week is a special time of year. I am nervous, excited, and a little bit giddy. Classes start at Putnam City High School this week. I have learned to enjoy the anticipation of the start of school over the last two years. I get to the point of not being able to think about much other than school.

I am going to be doing some technology training this week with teachers in our building, so that has done a good job of keeping my brain occupied with other stuff. But now the week is nearly here! Its almost time to begin working with the most amazing students ever to walk the hallowed halls of Putnam City. My Pirate Time students will all be seniors, so that makes it even more exciting!

I have done a wiki with my students in the past. However, this year, I am going to be teaching a section of Earth Science, as well as my regular schedule of Physics I and Pre-AP Physics I. I found a great blog post today about using a wiki in a history classroom. He is working on getting his students to think critically when they write. What a terrific concept! I am trying to figure out how to adapt that to my classroom. I am also trying to decide what to do about using the wiki in my Earth Science classroom. I'm just not sure exactly what direction to go with it. Its really easy to have students choose a famous physicist and write about them, but Earth Science? I'm stumped. If you have ideas on how I can improve the current assignment for Physics or adapt it to fit Earth Science, I'd love to hear about it!

A "working" summer

This summer has been the busiest so far, at least since I've been teaching. I used to tint windows, so summers were my busy season. Its been refreshing to have a few weeks off to relax by the pool, catch up on some yard work, that kind of stuff.  This summer, I only had June to "goof off". I did do some pretty heavy goofing off, too! However, once July came around, I started going to Stillwater to Oklahoma State to do some research in the physics department. Specifically, I worked in High Energy Physics. Wow. That is some abstract, cool, mind-blowing stuff. It was awesome! I also was invited to present at the Oklahoma Alternative Education Conference. That was really good. I enjoyed presenting, but more than that I got some really good information that will carry over into my classroom. I did do a little bit of technology training during June. It was only three days, but I ended up getting a Mac out of the deal, so that was a really good deal. I also got to look at some great pedagogy methods for technology integration during the training. Plus, I was able to share my passion in a one day class I taught called Wikis, Blogs, and Discussion Boards. Definitely worth the time I spent preparing for it. I got good responses from the other teachers, so I guess it was as good for them as it was for me!

I guess I'll have to get used to this kind of stuff. I got so much out of my experiences I'm going to try to do some more of the same stuff next summer. The monetary compensation wasn't half bad either!

Signal to Noise ratio

This post is from my Summer Research summary which can be found here. Its long and probably a bit boring to many of you, but if you are interested in how I've been spending my time, check it out. I am only publishing this because I am proud of the analogy about "Where's Waldo" and wanted to share that with a broader audience. I had to post all of it, because the analogy alone wouldn't make any sense without some background.

Any time I hear this phrase (Signal to Noise Ratio), I always think of the guy who once came to my house to work on my cable service. He told me they can sit in their truck and measure the amount of background noise that is leaking from bad connections or improperly insulated wires. They even once told me the signal was turned up/amplified too much which was causing my On Demand problems. (it generally wouldn't work and kept giving some sort of error code)

In particle physics, when you talk about signal to noise, you are not too far away from this same idea. During particle collisions, there are processes that occur in which we are not really interested. This is called background. That doesn't mean its not important, it simply means for the particular process at which you are looking, its just not something you want to observe. You would like for your detector to measure this background so that you can then calculate a value for it and subtract it from the actual signal. If you tune out all of the background, you won't get an accurate depiction of the event in which you are interested. The signal is a value which is predicted (theoretically) by the Standard Model and can be verified (with a particle accelerator) experimentally. If you know the value of your signal, and by know I mean verify a theoretical prediction experimentally, you can then go on to look for new physics above and beyond the energy level at which you are working.

While driving from Oklahoma City to Stillwater, I had an epiphany on how to explain the concept of "signal to noise ratio". Think about the popular children's books and games called "Where's Waldo?" Remember those? (try it by double clicking the picture to find Waldo) You stare at a picture looking for a goofy-faced kid who is wearing a red and white striped sweater with a similarly-colored knit cap. You look and look and look until finally he pops out of the background, plainly obvious and you wonder "why didn't I seem him sooner?" The key is the red and white striped sweater. If not for that, it would be nearly impossible for you to see Waldo. He would blend into the background.This is especially true as you advance to harder and harder levels of the game. There are more and more people in the picture, therefore Waldo is harder and harder to spot.

Studying the Z boson, as we are, is the "putting on of the sweater". We are painting a better picture of what the signal, the actual Z boson looks like. When we advance to the next level of the game, i.e. searching for the Higgs, we will have a better understanding of what the background looks like so scientists may then look at whats left and determine whether there is evidence for the Higgs or not. If not, the Standard Model will have to be revised.

Let me know what you think and as usual, thanks for reading.

jb

40 years ago today

40 years ago today the United States was about to accomplish an unprecedented feat: we were about to land on the Moon. I know, there are people who don't "believe" we landed there, but I think there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that we did. Especially in light of the photos that came out this week from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Way back then, I was just a few days short of 4 months old, so I don't remember the event. In fact, as a kid, I doubt, based on my interests, that anyone who knew me would have ever expected me to teach any kind of science, especially not physics. So I probably wouldn't have cared had I even been old enough to remember. However, when I look back on my life, its really not a surprise to me that I became a physics teacher. I learned electricity in the Army, I have always been fascinated with the internal combustion engine, and I was a whiz a trajectories when riding (and wrecking) my motorcycle. What does surprise me is that I ever considered Pre-Medicine as a major. What was I thinking? Biology? Applied Chemistry? Come on! Everyone knows those are just extensions of Physics.

So, let's get back on topic: the amazing-ness of the Moon landing. I can actually understand why people so readily buy the notion of us not going to the Moon; not based on physical evidence such as videos or pictures, but based on the fact that the Physics that got them there was 300 years old! The only Physics you need to know (other than the radio technology) were discovered by Isaac Newton way back in the 1660's when he formulated his 3 Laws of Motion (he didn't publish these until the 1680's). That blows my mind and here is the reason: the basic Physics I teach in high school are all you need to calculate a trajectory to get to the Moon. Newton's 3 Laws of Motion and his Theory of Gravity are pretty much all you need to understand to get there. Wow. It reminds me of "The Astronaut Farmer", which is a story about a (modern day) guy who builds a rocket in his barn and goes into space.

As I sit writing this, I am listening to the recording of the Apollo 11 mission which can be found here. It really is quite exciting to listen to, although much of what they are saying doesn't really mean anything.  What it does do is let me be a part of what they did. I imagine that I am a NASA worker, sitting in Mission Control, listening to all of it while it is actually happening. Ah, the wonders of modern technology. It is the epitome of virtualness. I am no longer in 2009; I am transported back to 1969. Hmmm... sounds like a Time Machine of some sort. I like it.

As a side note, while looking around for some links for this post, I found this. I think I'm going to try to by one of the US landing sites. Or maybe, I should find the next proposed landing site and buy that. Then I could charge NASA usage rights.

thanks for reading,

jb

skepticism

I find, in my life experience, skepticism is healthy.  This trait can become a crutch or that which makes you a better scientist. I'm looking to encourage the latter. I try quite hard, in my classes, to teach my students to be skeptical of pretty much everything, save their beliefs. I teach that belief requires some measure of faith and that there is no room in The Science Classroom for faith. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean people of faith (read religious leanings) have no place in science; quite the contrary, I am not ashamed to tell students that I am a Christian.

My understanding of history is that Man first began looking around him at the Universe to look for God. They wanted to grasp the enormity of God and how He fits in the Grand Scheme (or how the Grand Scheme fits Him). So, I am NOT teaching students to be humanists or atheists or any other "anti-religion", although that may be a result of things that I teach.

What I try to do is get the point across that there is no place in the DOING of science for any kind of faith. There is a great quote from 1905 by Henri Poincaré in his book "Science and Hypothesis" which says: "Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." Its one of my favorite quotes and I think it says a lot about what science is and what it is not. Science is intrinsically a human endeavor. There WILL be errors because scientists are human. However, science is not simply a collection of facts (that's called wikipedia). I would define science as a collection of EVIDENCE and the interpretation of said evidence.

This is why I teach students to leave their beliefs at the door and search for the evidence. The human part comes along with the interpretation of that evidence. I can give them evidence that the Earth is flat. Just go outside and look at it and explain to me how you "know" Earth is round. I doubt any student (or reader) would "believe" me when I say the Earth is flat, but I also doubt they could give me evidence to the contrary. I could give students evidence that that Sun is revolving around that Earth and that all of the planets are following suit. In fact, the data collected in the early days of Astronomy (circa Tycho Brahe) would support that assertion even better than the data would support a Copernican (Sun centered) system. So, I ask you, which is correct? Is Earth at the center of the Solar System? Why do you think that? What evidence do you have? Why does the data support a geocentric instead of heliocentric solar system? (hint: check out Kepler's Laws for the answer).

My goal is to have students question everything they have been taught.  And by everything, I mean everything! We begin class in this way. I call it "the Nature of Science". We play some games, take some notes, and generally discuss what misconceptions or preconceived ideas they have about science. One of the tools I use is an open-source program called Stellarium. Its (obviously) free and is a great virtual planetarium for those days when the Sun makes looking at The Stars difficult. In case you are confused, that's everyday since we attend school only during a time when the Sun is above the horizon. What I do with this program is this: I ask the students what their ideas are about Astrology (not Astronomy, there's a big difference). Most, if not all, know their astrological sign but fail to realize what it means to be born under a certain sign. Some have ideas about positions of the planets and Sun, but don't know that being a Sagittarius means the Sun was (should have been) in that constellation on the day they are born. Enter Stellarium, rewind time to the date of their birth and show them (~97%) that they have been taught wrong their whole life! They are actually NOT the sign they thought, but the zodiac is shifted by one astrological symbol. I also introduce them to the much overlooked 13th astrological sign. Maybe you are learning something new?

Here is the crux of my thought: even after showing students that astrology is a bunch of bunk, many still go out of the classroom "believing" the horoscope they read in the newspaper (or now on the internet). Why is this? Why are we raising a generation (or two or three) who refuse to have any skepticism, even a healthy dose? Many teachers talk about students being "vessels to be filled". I disagree! They are full enough! (I won't say of what.) Some of what they "know" needs to be poured out and replaced with a whole new body of knowledge. Maybe its the teacher's fault. Maybe they have passed this "vessel perception" on to students so they sit there like sponges, soaking up everything coming out of whatever information giver they happen to be sitting before at a given time. We need to teach students to digest information.

Application. Analysis. Synthesis. Evaluation. These skills are at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy. Did these teachers who just fill students up miss those pedagogy classes? Isn't that what we were taught to teach? Come on educators! Get with it! You do your students a disservice when you just spout information AT students. We need more discrepant events! Only then will students begin to learn.

thanks for reading,

jb