Hands On Science

What does 'hands on' mean?

The drive for more 'hands on' activities in science has been a largely misunderstood cliché for decades.
The notion may come from the old saying 'idle hands, idle minds', but really isn't reflective of
the processes of much of science. Is there a 'hands on' cosmology, DNA strand or bacteria? Much of what we know is from models of what we can't see or encompass and from extrapolations based on inferential experiments. At the least, very elaborate instruments are needed to enhance our senses so we can observe the micro and macro scale. So, what is the bridge between the obscure realities of hard science and the most basic introductions to understanding the world that we face in elementary science? My sense, after many years experimenting on students, is that a person needs a real solid grounding in the skills of sensing, observing, and measuring at the most basic level so that one can make the leap to the inferential and abstract world of science models. I would prefer to refer to my lessons as 'directed multi-sensory engagements' (a bit cumbersome) rather than 'hands on' . I've always tried to engage my students with projects, challenges, and unusual experiences. Some of them may have accidentally qualified as 'hands on'. On reflection, the best experiences have been the closest to
a real world situation, condition or scenario. Challenging students in this way provides a lasting
framework for thinking which persists for a long time. Sensory stimulation of this sort involves all of the senses, skills involving design and fabrication, and artistic rendering. Reducing all this to 'hands on'
is akin to teaching math by only using worksheets. How about 'senses on'?

The World is Flat

Thomas Friedman’s book about the convergence of technologies changing the nature of
the world has been revised three times since it was published early in 2005. The ‘flattening’ Friedman refers to is the leveling of the economic ‘playing field’ between the developed west and the growing powers of rapidly developing economies like India and China. ‘Flattening’ is characterized by faster communication worldwide, the development of alternative ways of sourcing and producing goods and services, and the shifting of expertise to a mobile and highly educated cadre of knowledge workers from the second world. During the past eight years, most of the effort in education has been focused on
the tool of literacy as if it were the reason that the United States was falling behind
economically and technically. Friedman points out that the lead the United States had in producing engineers during the post Sputnik years has evaporated and that we are actually not keeping up with the demand for highly trained STEM workers. The average age of practicing engineers in the US is over 50, while India is turning out tens of thousands of highly qualified engineers every year. No Child Left Behind has sucked the air out of any efforts to prioritize science in elementary schools, even though this is a critical period for students becoming excited about career paths. I recommend every STEM educator read The World is Flat (ed 3) and try to get the information in this book disseminated to administrators and colleagues ASAP.

Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005-7. ISBN 978-0-312-42507-4

The Climate Change 'Debate'

As an Earth Science teacher for many years before becoming involved in elementary science, I have always been interested in long term climate change. I have steered away from the term 'global warming' and have shuddered when the term 'greenhouse effect' was used to describe insolation trapping gases. I am a fan of James Lovelock and his 'Gaia' feedback mechanisms, which make the issue of climate change more complex but still understandable in a fundamental way. The political issue revolves around whether humans are in some way responsible for climate change, and therefore obligated to put it right. I don't care for that reasoning, because even if we do make a short term change, the global feedback mechanisms will correct those changes in non-human time scales. But, this begs the question of whether humankind should pillage fossil fuel resources, terraform for precious metals, and produce radioactive waste for our own short term excesses. In the US, it is clear that the consumption path is not a good economic choice, and beyond that, the impact on daily city life of carbon pollution may spoil the Olympics in China. It is rather self serving to suggest that climate change isn't an issue: us humans need to respect that we are 1. part of a greater bio/geochemical system 2. in need of the flexibility to change our lifestyles to accommodate cooling or warming 3. in need of greater understanding of climate feedback systems like el Nino/la Nina 4. becoming ignorant of the basic sciences necessary to deal with changing weather and climate. As a teacher of elementary students, I feel it is more important to give them the tools to understand weather and climate than to burden them with the politics of the issue. Climate variability has been a culture changing event for the Anasazi, North Africans, Romans, Vikings, Easter Islanders, and potentially many other groups. Climate change is a historical and present reality which needs our student's attention free from pay per view polemics and popular hype. The 'debate' is over how society should behave with regard to using resources: do we use them sparingly and in a respectful manner for the benefit of future generations, or do we justify their exploitation for immediate consumption with little regard for any future humans or other living things on Earth?

'No brainer' for me.

Kits are not the best answer...

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” Abraham Maslow

I was interested to observe a vigorous discussion of kits on the NSTA list serve which left me with the impression that using kits was inevitable for many school districts, despite the cost and difficulty of using the kits as they were designed. I see the issue of kits as one which demands that they are tailored to a district’s curriculum, are maintained and stored in a central area, and come with proper inservice time before they go out to teachers. Having custom kits for your curriculum presupposes that a comprehensive and integrated curriculum development process has been undertaken in the recent past. When was the last time that happened in your district or state? I’m concerned that many of the pre-teaching components and vocabulary for science are non-existent in a kit based culture of teaching elementary science. Developing a rich language and culture of science can't wait until the kit comes on the scene. I do give FOSS credit for having a coherent internal curricular flow in their kits, but they are only meant to supplement a comprehensive and pervasive science curriculum. What is the answer? Ideally, science specialists should be as prevalent as art and PE teachers to provide continuity, expertise, and depth to a comprehensive program. Relying on kit based science is akin to solving all of our medical problems with handy pharmaceuticals rather than getting in shape and improving our diet. Why get caught up in the fine points of kit based education when a cadre of science specialists could do the job with expertise, passion, and creative use of real science tools?