Paper Airplanes

The first days of school are a critical time.  Everyone is excited to see their friends, to meet new teachers, and find out what they will be learning about.  Several years ago, after reading a book on teaching research skills, I began our first couple of lessons in Science class with my upper elementary students by making paper airplanes.  Not only did they enjoy making and flying their planes, but we also got to introduce several important science ideas.

The first challenge was to learn as much as possible about paper airplanes during exploration time.  As expected, there were many different designs, much sharing of ideas, and much discussion about what worked best.  The results also varied widely from some fairly long flights to some quick crashes. Then questions began to emerge about the goals.  Was it only about how far a plane could fly that was important?  What about the ability to do loops or corkscrews?  We simply reiterated that their goal was “to learn as much as possible about paper airplanes”.  This was to keep the class from simply turning into a distance contest and about “who” was better. 

What everyone clearly saw was that some designs flew better than others, which of course, was one of my goals.  Three girls came up with the idea of trading their planes, with each testing the planes of the other two.  That way, they reasoned, they could get a better idea about the design of the plane separate from which of them was better at throwing a plane.  I had not expected them to figure out a method for controlling variables this early in the process, but we brought that into our closing discussion.

In our next session, the goal was changed to find a way to modify your plane so as to increase the time aloft, as measured by a stopwatch.  Again, I wanted to focus them on improving their own plane, rather than on beating someone else.  Pure competitions can have value at times, but in these early days of class I want their emphasis to be on what Carol Dweck calls a “growth mindset.”

These lessons had four goals, OK five goals.  The first was to introduce a couple of more complex ideas in a fun and accessible way.  The second was to vividly illustrate that design makes a difference; one set of folds ends up turfing your plane pretty quickly, while another set of folds yields a long smooth flight.  Developing skill in design thinking is also a big goal of the year. Thirdly, as in most all design projects, sharing and collaboration produces better results than simply going it alone.  The penultimate goal is to introduce the concept of variables; anything done to modify the plane or how energy is imparted to the plane is a variable.  Finally, the addition of the stopwatch purposefully presented the importance of measurement.

This year, learning how to design controlled experiments is a major instructional goal. We will follow these lessons on planes with a module on pendulums and one on catapults, which culminates with designing and building their own in our tinkering space.

Project-Based Learning

At a recent workshop on Design Thinking, someone asked the presenter to explain the difference between Design Thinking (DT) and Project-Based Learning.  This led me to reflect on Project-Based Learning (PBL), DT, and inquiry science, in general.  All three have much in common and how you go about doing each of them involves many of the same steps, same mindset, and same values.

At its heart, PBL is an approach to teaching that fully embraces the well-established principle of active learning (see How PeopleLearn and many, many other authoritative sources).  PBL puts authentic student projects at the core of the curriculum.  Students learn by working together, learning what they need as they go along and from the project.  Teachers plan rich, interesting projects that lead students to learn important content and master important skills, drawn from key standards. 

For example, a middle school science teacher might pick up on the interest of her students in the quality of water in local ponds and streams.  She would then map out a project to learn about local water quality and simultaneously meet NextGeneration Science Standards (NGSS) for chemistry in the Disciplinary Content I   (DCI), as well as the very important Science and Engineering Practices (Practices), such as Asking Questions and Defining Problems (#1), Planning and Carrying Out Investigations (#3), Analyzing and Interpreting Data (#4), and Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information (#8). 

The class might learn how to use water test kits and then take a field trip to a local lake.  Using the test kits, the students could collect data on water quality, and draw conclusions about the overall health of the lake in terms of acidity, phosphorus levels, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen, among others.  They could collect macroinvertebrates from the lake to identify and classify, using the types of species present as another indicator of overall water quality.  They might also observe other plant and animal life, taking photos and writing field notes.  Perhaps back in the lab, they conclude that the overall health of the lake is poor. 

But why is that?  This could lead teams of students to explore each factor.  Some students might want to understand how the chemical tests work, which could lead them in a different direction.  Perhaps the students want to DO something about the water quality.  This might draw in their social studies teacher to learn about community action, their English teacher to help them with persuasive writing, a technology or art teacher to help them make a student-written and –directed documentary to present at a town meeting.  In this way, a well-conceived PBL unit, not only teaches important school content, but also develops major life skills, often in the service of improving the world.  The Buck Institute and Edutopia  are  great resources for PBL.

Brain Games

Computer games have something to teach us ... and maybe even improve our brains.  The work of Adam Gazzaley at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) has garnered evidence that computer games can be designed to improve brain function in such areas as "multi-tasking" or the ability to shift attention priorities rapidly with low loss of critical information. 

Parents and educators have long held the hope that the great attraction of video games might be harnessed in the service of learning.  Who hasn’t seen teens repeatedly defer homework while playing games?  What if we could make learning as compelling as a video game?  There have been many forays along these lines.  The first use of computers in education were little more than digital flashcards and, once you got used to the (then in the 1970’s) novelty of using a computer for learning, it was just as boring as using physical flashcards.  Anne McCormick, a teacher in inner city Buffalo, NY schools, re-envisioned the concept of learning with computers by creating “learning games,” such as Rocky’s Boots.  Computer game developers are adept at designing games that are highly compelling.

All learning changes brain structure, whether that learning occurs in a traditional lecture format or via video game.  But that does not mean that all learning is equal in terms of its effectiveness and its efficiency.  Traditional lecture learning, in fact, can be among the least effective ways to learn if the students are simply passively letting the lecture wash over them.  Active learning is not only more effective in terms of the amount retained, but also efficient in creating brain structures that enable the student to use their knowledge to solve problems, whether it is quadratic equations or removing a brain tumor.  This is why hands-on, inquiry science instruction is so much effective, as well as more interesting than read-the-chapter-and-answer-the-questions approaches.  Gazzalay’s work opens up the exciting possibilities of also improving brain function and underlying capabilities, as well as building knowledge structures. 

Crystals from Eggshells

Calcium crystals

The other day I was reading an article about using an egg drop activity to teach engineering to kindergarten students, based on the a design process derived from the Engineering is Elementary (EIE) curriculum, developed by the Boston Science museum. Though EIE does not have a specific egg drop activity, this is a good series for introducing engineering in elementary school. The article mentioned putting one of the eggs in vinegar to show that there was a chemical reaction.  This chemical reaction activity in the article was really just bolted onto the egg drop and not really scaffolded for K students, but it did remind me of an activity I hadn’t done in a while – making calcium crystals from dissolved egg shells.

This activity is pretty simple.  All you need is a washed, empty eggshell; some plain, white vinegar; a glass tumbler to hold the dissolving shell, and a pie plate or other broad, flat dish for growing your crystals. I took an eggshell from my breakfast, washed it out with water, and put it in an old jelly glass. I broke mine into smaller pieces so it would react and dissolve faster. Then I poured on enough plain white vinegar to cover it.  Any vinegar should work, but plain vinegar will make it easier to watch the reaction.

As soon as you pour the vinegar over the eggshell, you’ll see carbon dioxide bubbles coming off the shell as the acid reacts to the shell’s calcium carbonate. After a couple of days, a white inner coating from the shell will slide off and you can discard it. Let the shell sit in the vinegar for about 5-7 days until it is mostly dissolved. Once you are down to just a few fragments, you then run it through a fine kitchen strainer or even a coffee filter to take out those remaining bits of shell.  Pour the vinegar-calcium solution into a pie pan or some other broad shallow dish so it will evaporate quickly.  You’ll get better crystals if you let it evaporate slowly.  I put mine in a closet and left it for another week or so until it is all evaporated.  These are the crystals I got in the photos.

Pie plate for evaporation

 This can definitely lead to a whole new set of investigations about crystal and  all the ways you can make crystals with household stuff.

DO try this at home!

Homemade catapult

The other day I received a newsletter from Home ScienceTools, a supplier of science materials for teachers, parents, and anyone who wants to do science at home.   This company was started in 1994 in the garage of a chemical engineer and his wife, when they couldn’t find materials for their own children.  Their letter got me thinking about learning science and the value of doing science at home with your children.

Science begins with questions and kids are natural questioners.  We all know that kids have millions of questions and feeding that curiosity helps them build a lifelong habit.  The questions that they ask about are the important ones to start with.  And the ones that come from their observations and interactions with the world provide a natural entryway into hands-on science.  Encouraging these questions and having the tools nearby to explore their ideas, empowers them and removes it from the realm of a homework assignment.

You learn science by doing science, by actively investigating the world around you. Reading about science is wonderful and rewarding.  For really learning how to do science, however, nothing beats looking at a bug under a microscope, digging up some compost and watching the critter, or mixing up cornstarch and water and playing with it.  It is a well-established principle that active involvements with real materials leads to more and deeper learning that simply watching a demo, live or on YouTube, or just reading about it. See How People Learn.  Nothing is wrong with reading science or watching science shows; they are just not as effective as doing hands-on science. Both definitely have a role, especially when they encourage kids to try things out for themselves.

Learning science actively naturally leads to developing skill in the inquiry process used by scientists. When children learn to form their own questions and then to try things out, to experiment in order to gather evidence, they are doing science.  They are doing science the way scientists do science.  It is a short step to recording data, interpreting that data, and sharing their discoveries with others. 

Science is not about amassing facts; science is a process of discovery that generates new knowledge.  For a child trying to make her baking soda and vinegar bottle rocket go higher, she is discovering knowledge new to her that expands her world.  If she is encouraged and supported, then maybe one day, she may be at Stanford experimenting with a new idea in rocket propulsion.  She is now discovering knowledge that is new to the entire world and that expand the possibilities for all of us.

Building a Star

Taylor's first TED talk

 Taylor Wilson built a fusion reactor when he was fourteen years old. As amazing as it sounds, this achievement was the logical conclusion of years of work on his part.  His interests in nuclear physics grew out of his earlier interests.  First, he wanted to be an astronaut and learned everything he could about the space program.  Then, he began to focus on rockets, building and launching model rockets at an empty fairground near his home in Texarkana, Arkansas.  About then his grandmother bought him the biography of David Hahn, a teenager who tried to build a nuclear reactor at his home in Michigan, only to end up contaminating his home and neighborhood.  After devouring this book, The Radioactive Boy Scout, Taylor told his parents, according to Tom Clynes, Taylor’s biographer, “Know what?  The things that kids was trying to do, I’m pretty sure I could actually do them.”  And he was right!  His first TED talk is above.

Clynes bio of Taylor

Clynes, excellent biography, The Boy Who Played with Fusion, recounts the journey from his grandmother’s garage in Texarkana to the basement of the physics building at the University of Nevada, Reno, where Taylor’s dream finally came to fruition.  The story of this journey is a fascinating tale of hard work, acquiring important mentors and allies when most needed, strokes of great fortune, setbacks, hugely supportive parents, and probably most of all, the power of a clear compelling vision, unflagging optimism, personal charisma, and supreme confidence. 

A big leap forward comes when Taylor’s parents, Kenneth and Tiffany, decide to move their family to Reno, Nevada so that both their sons can attend the Davidson Academy, a school for the profoundly gifted, sited on the grounds of the University of Nevada at Reno.  Taylor’s brother, Joey, is highly gifted mathematically and both boys had more than topped out in the Texarkana schools and were beginning to languish.  In Reno, Taylor took the initiative to introduce himself to Ron Phaneuf, a top plasma physicist at UNR.  Phaneuf, amazed by Taylor, decided to help him and together with the chief engineer in the physics department, Bill Brinsmead, they aided Taylor in his quest to build a fusion reactor.  Taylor’s reactor worked and worked spectacularly.  When Brinsmead asked Taylor if he ever imagined, when still back in his grandmother’s garage, that he’ d be here in the lab on this day making his reactor work.  Tellingly, Taylor answered, “To be honest, Bill, I did.  I just didn’t think it would take me this long,” said the fourteen-year-old Taylor.

Taylor's fusor

Motivation in the 21st Century

Daniel Pink's book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, presents the findings of social science and explores the large gap between theory and practice in most of our organizational and daily life, at work, at school, and in the community. Most of the motivation we experience in these settings is external, carrot-and-stick motivation. Do this and get a nice bonus. Don't do that or you will be fired, failed, or fined.

But that type of external motivation does not work well for the most important parts of life anymore, as not only a large body of empirical evidence shows, but also our daily experience. Designing highly creative new products, learning complex new skills, or building meaningful relationships with loved ones, clients, or your community clearly are incompatible with carrot-and-stick behavior. External motivators actually reduce intrinsic motivation, lower performance, crush creativity, and encourage short-term thinking and unethical behavior (think Enron and AIG).

Pink moves from showing the limited cases where external motivation works well, such as highly routine, boring, rote chores, such as an assembly line to demonstrating how 21st century work, learning, and life now depends more on creative and passionate engagement. He cites Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose as the key elements of intrinsic motivation, along with suggestions about how to re-tool our motivational systems.

Autonomy means that people want control over their own schedule.  They want the freedom to work how they want and when they want.  Mastery refers to people’s desire to immerse themselves in their craft and to get really, really good at it.  They want to develop expertise.  Purpose refers to some goal that is bigger than just a production schedule, meeting a quota, or hitting a deadline.  For many people, purpose refers to something that is larger than themselves that gives meaning to their lives, whether it is family, a community, or a cause.
Drive reads quickly, provokes thought, and provides some guidelines for improvement.  For teachers, it is helpful to remember that most of the traditional ideas of motivation always were limited in usefulness, and many are now worthless.

Train Teachers Like Doctors?

In an Op-Ed piece in yesterday’s NY Times, three administrators of the Banks Street School proposed that teachers be trained like doctors.  The key idea is that a teacher residency program would improve teacher training, reduce teacher turnover, and increase teacher effectiveness.  In the type of teacher residency they propose, a new teacher would be paid to work for a year, along with and under the supervision of an experienced master teacher while studying child development and teaching methods. This differs from traditional student teaching, which typically runs from 10 to 20 weeks, beginning mostly with observation in a classroom and progressing to teaching full-time with the lead teacher observing, though time in the classroom can vary widely among programs and states, as can what counts as “full-time teaching.” 

They assert that such a residency program would improve our schools and reduce the high cost of excessive turnover.  They estimate that it costs the U.S. $2.2 billion each year to replace teachers who leave their jobs. Of course, some of this turnover is natural, expected, and characteristic of any job; new teachers, however, are estimated to leave teaching at a much higher rate than normal for a typical job, as much as 50% turnover is a widely cited figure.  This article, along with others, such as Valerie Strauss’s Washington Post piece, The Real Reasons Behind the U.S. Teacher Shortage, decries a shortage of teacher throughout the U.S.

The authors argue that we should spend more money on teacher training and development and compare the costs of a residency program to the public money spent on training and developing new physicians.  The U.S. now spends $11.5 billion annually on medical education, which comes out to about $500,000 for each new doctor.  Good doctors are essential, but so are good teachers.  By their estimate, good residency programs would cost about $65,000 per year, including tuition and stipends.  They point to some areas in the public education budget to begin finding these dollars, such as substitute teachers and the $6000 to $18,000 spent per teacher on professional development, much of which is deemed by teachers as “ineffective.”  Sounds like a good idea.

Starting Early

   To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower 

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 

And Eternity in an hour

--William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

We start Science in the early childhood years to channel and build on children’s natural predilection for discovery and their indescribable joy in finding out about how the world works. Today an earthworm; tomorrow, perhaps, a cosmic wormhole.

Young children are natural explorers and natural investigators.  When children are introduced to science early on as an extension of their wondering and question, it becomes fun and natural.  When science is introduced as experiences and experiments, it stays fun and natural.  Kim Saxe, one of the founders of the Design Thinking movement, has recently tweeted about the experience of awe and the role awe in motivating and renewing our students and ourselves.  This is the way science should be, especially in the early years.  The impulse to want to know what something is, how it works, and why it works is at the heart of science.  Of course, as you learn more and dig deeper into how the natural world works, it takes more skill and more effort to find increasingly more subtle answers to our more complex questions.  And, we need more complex tools and techniques to find these answers.  And it takes more work, more effort, and more grit to learn to use these tools that are necessary ferret out the answers we seek.  But, if we push the tools and techniques ahead of the awe, we kill the natural curiosity of our students.

Jason Silva gets at this same idea in his amazing video Awe.

See this YouTube video!