Tag Archives: Science Education

One of an Infinite Means to Approach Science, Education, and the Universe: Part 4 – Science Education

08 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Science Education

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

What does all of this mean for science education (see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)? Is this a depth and understanding all educators should have – all students should have? How does it look to teach this in a classroom? What about the barriers and divides that exist between the practice of education in classrooms and the achievement of these learnings for all members of society? What of the shortfalls of the Western education system? Why do we sit in desks? Is it the best way we learn? Do we all learn different?

Despite it being paradoxical, if everyone was capable of embracing and recognizing these issues through lenses of kinship with nature, pluralism, multiple perspectives, and subjectivity this may allow us all to proceed towards a collective “good” as a mosaic of individuals belonging to different cultures and places. We could critically analyze oppressive structures that are a fundamental part of our society today and see how they influence our perspectives and worldviews.

If you’ve been reading these posts or watching the videos up until now, you should see the passion I have for science education – how it looks for me – what I value – my perspectives and worldviews. It’d be short-sighted of me to think this is the way, but as I’ve hopefully conveyed, it is one of infinite potential ways of approaching science education and nature. One interpretation of an “infinite” universe based on a finite, limited experience, and who knows I may watch this video years from now and not agree with things I’ve said in it – and I asked questions in the videos and throughout their production. In creating these videos, I considered not having my face in it – simply doing a voice-over, yet then, instead, felt it would humanize me more, allow us to connect more by making me appear more real or “mortal”. Yet the fact that this video now is found on a system and network of electrical wires and code perhaps makes me immortal, despite my finite existence as a remixed compilation of atoms, cells, and experiences. The human you observe here may be long gone, yet continues to be a part of our new, natural world that includes the digital realm.

These thoughts in these blog posts and all of these videos – the nature of science, perspectives, kinship… they’re all parts of what I think science education should be and make you feel inside or outside of a classroom (wherever you learn, which should be everywhere). It’s why science shouldn’t be something you feel you aren’t good at, it’s why science should make you feel that kinship with nature and the universe, it’s why you shouldn’t just like science and nature, you should love science and nature. I believe as science educators and students, this is how it happens, you model what loving the universe feels like and what questioning everything looks like. What you do with that feeling, whether it is support environmental policies or simply find your place in this universe, is up to you.

Thanks,

Logan Petlak.

One of an Infinite Means to Approach Science, Education, and the Universe: Part 3 – Life & Kinship

08 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Science Education

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

perspective.jpg

Perspective via A Life Less Ordinary

Perspectives are subject to change from individual to individual. Discussing my life is a relativistic idea that is entirely dependent on the angle you approach it – do I discuss the changes over time through generations of my family? Do I discuss the influences of my childhood experiences? Or do I discuss the forms of life that existed long before humanity emerged in Earth’s history? If that’s not enough, our definitions of life are constantly being redefined and we are always learning about how complex life on Earth is. That being said, we can still explore our understandings and definitions of life and how it can serve to connect multiple perspectives.

tumblr_lzbiewJvNT1qfsqzho1_1280.jpg

Earth’s Awesome Geological Timeline via Geologyin.com

When studying life, you may begin to appreciate the complexity of life that exists within organisms. The deeper you dig, you begin to see shared biological processes; whether it’s molecular similarities existing in unicellular bacteria shared with multicellular humans (like the enzymes that break down chemical compounds), the common repeating segments of nucleotides found in our genes and that of Protists, or behaviours existing in specific types of animals that provide more long-term care for offspring like that of homo sapiens (us).

Alas, even in our perception of the complexities of life, we still find ourselves relating it to how it connects with being human. We may fail to appreciate the perspectives of all aspects and parts of our universe. Spiritually, or creatively for some, we may consider the worldview of our air, the grass, an ocean; what is their story or narrative? Some of us may not be interested in that as it sounds too abstract, but the activity of challenging and considering multiple perspectives is paramount when approaching science. This approach lends itself to the idea of kinship with nature, and extending the idea of multiple ways of knowing and perceptions of nature to beyond the human experience. Some of us already do it for the non-human organisms we care for in our homes (examples being pets, like cats and dogs), but this idea seeks to extend this empathy to everything in nature: abiotic and biotic. It’s an ecocentric approach that places a value on everything in the natural environment – and even-so-far-as to use the phrase “natural environment” to be inclusive of the artificial creations of humanity.

Is this way of thinking right? We could argue, that competition and individualism is reflective of the idea of natural selection, and how survival of the fittest governs the changes of life over time; the strongest-suited to particular environment, in our case the strongest-suited to success in the Western world the environment is a class-based democratic, capitalist world (and success may be assessed in the form of wealth accumulation). This way of thinking could seek to keep us divided, or nepotistic. Yet I could instead argue the value cooperation and living harmoniously with nature has had on humans and our ancestors as a species over millennia. Having an attachment to, responsibility for, or sense of place and belonging in nature is a desire felt widely throughout many Canadian First Nations communities, and this kinship with nature was/is beneficial to success and happiness in certain contexts and environments. Even perspectives as a part of science were arrogant in nature and we can observe greater perspective and complexity as illustrated by Leroy Little Bear’s description of Blackfoot Metaphysics.

This isn’t meant to discredit the value of competition for promoting characteristics we’ve deemed valuable in society that may be realized through the sports we compete and choose to engage in. It’s a huge part of many of our experiences in the world today. These values are part of individuals within this broad idea of kinship and cooperation. Kinship and cooperation within our species places value on every thought and part of it.

It’s easy to think with this expansive definition of kinship that we are insignificant and, in a cosmic sense, we are, but your capacity to feel that emotion, and think that thought, is significant. What I do may hold little influence and value to the majority of humans, other organisms, and particles in nature. But my place in nature holds value for me, as it should for you – and through that lens of kinship holds value to the universe.

Logan Petlak

This post part 3 of a series of blog posts.

Read Part 1: Nature of Science
Read Part 2: Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Perspective
Read Part 4: Science Education

One of an Infinite Means to Approach Science, Education, and the Universe: Part 2 – Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Perspective

08 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Science Education

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

A cornerstone of science, specifically the scientific method, is objective thinking. Objective thinking has become a hallmark of popular individuals in the media aligned within the scientific community, and the rationale for this is not without merit. Objectivity possesses positive applications, free of subjective and confirmation bias not only to aiding in the widening scientific understandings on contemporary issues like vaccinations and climate change which can bring about positive social change and ecojustice, but encourage productive interactions amongst peers: Being able to remove bias and emotions can be productive tools to resolve disputes when considering relationships within our species. But to disregard bias and emotion as detrimental parts of being isn’t prudent. It isn’t an inclusive approach to the full human experience and individual perspectives found within each of us and, as Derek Hodson points out, that inclusive aspect to approaching science may be critical part of learning for all individuals.

Before, I spoke of the importance of what the nature of science is and I made reference to the point that I merely hold one perspective or approach to it among many out there. The reality is that there is an incredible amount of cultural diversity on Earth, so acknowledging that my perspective is merely one from over 7.4 billion humans, is a critical part of acknowledging and being inclusive to that diversity through the idea of cultural pluralism. This, by extension, may even apply to functions of government in countries that in order to be truly inclusive, perhaps they should practice secularism which connects back to that idea of applying objectivity in a mass of differing perspectives; different subjectivities, narratives, and explanation for the complexities of the universe.

The idea of pluralism seeks to account for all these differing perspectives. In Canada, we have many individuals from different cultures and backgrounds existing in a diverse array of communities. This includes rural areas like Ituna, Saskatchewan, to urban centers like downtown Toronto, Ontario. The environment in which individuals interact shapes their perspectives and while we may find a shared identity for connectivity in Canada, what of the varying perspectives in other places around the world?

What of the perspectives we are exposed to in media? Different forms of media provoke the curiosities of science and questioning about the world we inhabit.

  • News posts, sometimes not completely accurately, convey information about new studies about the effects of coffee. Coffee drinkers may be inclined to shift their behaviour (sometimes negatively) based on their interpretation of this information.
  • Science fiction provides us with creative and imaginative perspectives beyond what we know in this world, yet even those forms of media are influenced by the perspectives and experiences of the author – yet they may connect us through mutual interests.
  • Listening to and observing comedians that we find funny due to their perspectives on life may connect us as well, or serve to divide us. George Carlin has a rant about national pride, and being proud of where you’re born not being plausible because you have no control over it – you didn’t earn it.

Yet a shared perspective and experience can bring members of a country together positively through a shared identity.

Or negatively, depending on your perspective.

We can look at the contexts in which perspectives propagate by observing our local communities and observe the importance of place on identity. These communities possess boundaries consistent with systems theory that outputs ideas and regularly gets new inputs of ideas. With social media contributing to greater amounts of globalization and the spread of ideas, however, the boundaries of perspectives are less static and even perspectives become positive feedback loops – spreading exponentially through communities.

positive and negative feedback loops.png

Positive and Negative Feedback Loops via Penn State University

Where do the boundaries of perspectives stop, though? Are there perspectives that hold more value to society or are there perspectives that are universally wrong? In certain parts of the world, gender and sexual diversity beyond heterosexual norms is a crime, which would be considered constitutionally wrong in Canada. In passing this kind of judgment, how does that impact the interpretation of our perspective by others? Does that make us less inclusive if we condemn certain policies and perspectives held by certain peoples in the world? Some would argue that’s the benefit of objective thinking – in transcends the potential flaws of subjectivity and diverse perspectives – but it may fail to fully encapsulate human thought, innovation and experience. Should we only account for perspectives held by certain, “worthy” peoples on the planet? Or, as we can see the immense diversity of perspectives in humanity, should we be extending our considerations beyond humanity?

Logan Petlak

One of an Infinite Means to Approach Science, Education, and the Universe: Part 1 – Nature of Science

08 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Science Education

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

“I’m not good at science.”

“I don’t like science.”

“Science is too confusing.”

Throughout my life I’ve heard these phrases uttered by my peers and students, and the implication of these comments has always baffled me. I’d like to say it’s not solely because I love science and I would assume others would share my thoughts and experience (despite my best attempts to think beyond said experience), but I’d be wrong to think my experience isn’t always a factor. These negative phrases baffled me because of the wondrous, imaginative nature of science and our existence that seemed obvious to see upon making simple observations about our world. Yet, in analyzing these statements, it would only make sense to consider what factors influenced the individual to feel that way, at that given point in their life, when I interacted with them concerning science. Questions I’d have to consider include:

  • Did they have unenthusiastic science teachers (if so, why was the teacher unenthusiastic?)
  • What were there genetic factors programmed into their DNA that would make them more or less capable of achieving traditional success in their respective science classrooms?
  • What environmental factors contributed then and now to their thoughts and feelings on the subject of science? (And how am I defining “environmental factors”?)Do I speak literally of the chemicals and interactions the entire individual (including their cells) has been exposed to in the world around them from their days existing as separate gametes of ovum and sperm to the present?
    OR
    Do I critically look at the societal constructs that dictate how we (and they) live, behave and change culturally as a member of our species over time?

These are all considerations about the influences that affect the growth and development of an individual, and all of us as individuals. The contexts in which each of us learn vary significantly from one individual to the next, and the limitless depth in how we analyze these contexts is evident in the overwhelmingly numerous questions. None of these questions are easy to answer – much like any scientific questions.

Questions can baffle us, not knowing can make us feel lost, fear of failure can discourage us, but there’s so much we don’t know, questions we’ve yet to answer, and endless amounts of failure that are all at the heart of science.

What of the big, philosophical questions of science?

What does it mean to exist? What is being? Is our whole experience just a series of neuronal pathways learning and responding to our environment as a direct result of eons of mutation and subtle change?

Given what the evidence I’ve been exposed to indicates, I am inclined to think that all we are is a series of chemical reactions. Holding this worldview might seem like it is in direct contradiction to other worldviews – and for some it may appear as condescending or injurious. I don’t mean to diminish the value of others based on my perceptions of truth and place in the universe, or that because I hold this particular worldview that I will stop questioning and doubting my particular explanation – maybe I’m wrong, and that’s okay. I just hold that perspective about life.

But, then, how do we define life? In the Western world, are our Eurocentric definitions of life inclusive enough to consider the universe, as a whole, living? Is it wrong if it doesn’t? Is there “life” that exists out there that doesn’t subscribe to the way that carbon-based life exists on our planet?

These important philosophical, scientific questions – are never completely answerable – I’d almost go so far as to say that nothing ever is. Even the idea of “scientific proof” is loaded and misrepresented at times, as many scientists will say we are “more certain” of some things. Some of these questions we, collectively as a scientific community, may have a “pretty good idea of”. Some we have no clue, but, like anything, just because a question isn’t answerable doesn’t necessarily give every possibility validity.

Or does it?

When all of us are seeking our own source of truth and validation, how do we separate our subjectivities with being objective? Are we objective and critically competent enough to pursue and acknowledge what is likely truth or fact when it is presented to us?

All of these considerations lie in the nature of science – or my perception of it. Science is relishing the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing – yet feeling that desire to know more than you did before. Wanting to know everything about anything, always striving to become better, while knowing you’ll never achieve perfection or an absolute truth. Science shouldn’t be a negative force to justify division in our world, yet it can be used thusly. Science should attempt to constantly ask questions to educate us, rather than be used to belittle opinions and worldviews as it, too, is unfortunately used. Science occurs through individuals with different philosophies, it includes an evolving history transcending Homo sapiens and has subjectivities inextricably linked to its growth. Science is having curiosity and humility when analyzing and observing our specific place, at a specific point in time, in a specific, tiny corner of an ever-expanding universe.

petlak universe quote.jpg

As an educator, I want my students to love science.

To love not knowing.

To love asking questions about everything.

To consider every perspective.

 

Logan Petlak

Read the next blog post here:
One of an Infinite Means to Approach Science, Education, and the Universe: Part 2 – Subjectivity, Objectivity and Perspective

Can we ever be “fully literate” in all dimensions of literacy?

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in ECI 832

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Am I “fully literate”?

Is anyone?

As evidenced on my page, I believe we are all lifelong learners, so is it even a fair question to consider the notion that there exists a specific point in literacy that we officially “hit” and are considered “fully literate”?

Probably not, the idea of literacy seems too subjective.

Indicators exist in certain subject-areas that would serve as evidence to infer literacy-attainment, so in that sense we can create benchmarks for literacy. But when considering the ever-shifting development of subjects and or expanding knowledge on learning, benchmarks today may shift tomorrow. What is the next benchmark or desired milestone associated with grades and subjects?

Being literate today is a tall order (inadvertently implying that it was necessarily any easier at different points in history). I feel like becoming fully literate today has become synonymous with wisdom, utilitarianism and benevolence (or maybe that’s just my view on it). But you’d think the wise would know that you can never be fully literate (this is me thinking that I’m wise).

Literacy seems almost synonymous with learning (you have to learn to be literate). If you’re capable of continuous learning, consuming information, and improving in all dimensions of literacy (or perceived important ones of today), with certain benchmarks, maybe that’s the way!

BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH BARRIERS TO LEARNING AND INFORMATION CONSUMPTION?! IS THE SAME BENCHMARK OF “FULL LITERACY” STILL A SPECIFIC GOAL DESIRED?! HOW DOES “FULL LITERACY” APPLY THEN?!

science 10 scientific literacy.jpg

A Scientifically Literate Student via SK Curriculum

This brings me back to my post about media literacy and, as Carter also said in his vlog, it is needed. And to me, social and media literacy almost seems to transcend specific subject literacies. But then I think of how important scientific literacy is and how passionate I am about it (so much so that I’m making a resource for it an media literacy) – and how that, too, is needed for citizens today. Yet it needs to be delivered in a non-Eurocentric way which requires some cultural literacy.

Aside: these are great considerations for the development of my science resource.

The considerations are making my head spin, though. We probably need some form of benchmark to provide students with skills to become “fully literate” in today’s society, yet don’t want to be so specific that it becomes constrictive or culturally-uniform (devoid of diversity). The reality is that there are many different forms of literacy that I haven’t listed yet that are important to the holistic growth of individuals (health and physical literacy, for example) and all need to be pursued when able. Especially when all of these forms of literacy depend on one another as an intricate web enhancing the impact of another.

digital_literacy_newest_copy.001.jpg

Literacies for the Digital Age via Educorp

If all forms of literacy are continuously pursued, beyond the benchmarks, we become the benevolent, wise, and “fully” (but not really, “fully”) literate. As educators we have to be pursuing this personally, regardless of the courses/subjects we instruct, to model this for our students as well.

Agree? Disagree?

Get at me!
– Logan Petlak

 

Developing a high school science digital citizenship resource

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in ECI 832, Education Blog, Science Education

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

In my first post, I highlighted my desire to create a resource for digital literacy, I clashed with making a series of vlogs to educate my peers or making a document to assist science educators in delivering digital literacy in their science classrooms that corresponded with the curriculum. I decided to pursue the latter as I feel it may be a more realistic venture with the resources I have available to me (I reflected on my previous attempts to make a video series in the distance learning course I took, and concluded that it takes a lot of resources and time for only one person to put together – not that this won’t also take time, the resources may be less).

In my brainstorming for this assignment I had many ideas come to mind when considering the philosophy and approach that educators should have when implementing a document associated with digital citizenship in a high school science course. Some of my initial considerations to include in the completed document were:

  • Considerations of applicability to general Saskatchewan curriculum focuses like broad areas of learning, specifically how science and digital citizenship coincide to promote lifelong learning, engaged citizens, and a sense of self and community. The same can be said of cross-curricular competencies in science like thinking, literacies, identity, and social responsibility.
  • The creation of digital citizenship resources associated with different senior science courses (including learning outcomes) – ideally in an area where many can access this information and try to make it applicable for curriculum across Canada. This would likely begin with courses I am familiar with: Environmental Science 20, Health Science 20, and Biology 30.
  • Overlap between digital citizenship pieces and an “effective science education program” including attitudes, skills, knowledge and STSE. Ultimately using scientific literacy for digital citizenship, or digital citizenship as a form of scientific literacy. Informed through some guidance associated with 21st century learning.

    Scientific Literacy Framework

    Scientific Literacy Framework via screenshot of Saskatchewan Curriculum

  • Guidelines to equip educators to model online behaviours for students, specifically centered around Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship (dominantly on access, communication and literacy – more below). These guidelines would try to provide suggestions to approaches while bearing in mind the diversity of educators existing on a spectrum of digital visitors and residents. The suggestions would be rooted in delivery of digital citizenship through the lens of Respect, Educate and Protect – as all are essential to “ideal” digital consumption.

Access (allowing for access) – as part of a pre-read to the document, or philosophy to approach the guide with, there will a piece for educators on access and attempting to overcome barriers to students’ device-usage, including information that they may want to share with parents regarding the benefits of having their students exposed to and participating in the usage of devices/the online world. I thought this was innovative, then I saw Alec and Katia had included this in their DC Guide, through BYOD practices.

Communication/etiquette/rights and responsibilities – establishing an emphasis on productive communication in text-format existing through social media and other forms of digital writing. This would provide education on being hyper-aware of the implications of word-choice, phrasing, and delivery of ideas.

Literacy – critical analysis of “scientific articles” as well as the utilization of digital technology to enhance understandings and concepts in science as an industry through forms of content curation.

 

As I begin to put this document together the main ideas should act as a framework to begin approaching organizing these ideas together. The reality is the landscape of the digital realm is constantly shifting so it needs to be designed with adaptability in mind as well as inclusive to the variety of learners and educators interpreting the material.

Any feedback or things you feel are necessary to be included in a high school science digital citizenship document, please share!

– Logan Petlak

 

 

 

Additional considerations:

In my other class I am currently taking, ECI 842, we recently discussed the overlap between Indigenous Science and “Western” science and would consider trying to have a sub-document that provided strategies or suggestions for implementing Indigenous ways of knowing in the classroom effectively while coinciding with digital citizenship as an extension of real experiences, diverse worldviews, community and its practices, and the digital realms’ relationship to land and ecosystems. This would include the idea of identity and the digital identity also simply being a part of our greater identity, as Paul Brown mentioned, and not something that is meant to be separate.

“You’re born a teacher”. Making teaching a science?

16 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by in ECI 831, eci831

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

8131490485_b87c0af943
Photo Credit: jackzeitgeist via Compfight cc

Ask a Question (Background Research)
Many teachers share a similar opinion on the instinctual nature of education: “teaching is an art form”, “she was born to be a teacher”. Universities offer education programs to prepare educators for the workforce, yet students transfer out of the program after working with youth. Strictly based from here-say (therefore subject to opinion), some Ed students may complain that education programs simply discuss theory rather than practical in-class preparation (they only receive this in the practicum-portions). This is exasperated by “teacher burn-out”, a real issue afflicting teachers in the early years of their career. Not all prospective teachers drop or burn out, but enough for me to pose several questions: Why does burn-out occur? What is the cause? Is there a science to teaching that can avoid this, or just tips?

Hypothesis
I would like to approach it with the belief that the cause of drop/burn-out is personality and habitually-based… of course this invites us to address the question: what is the ideal personality of a positive educator? What are the top habits of a happy teacher? And to provide a solution to this, how does one make teaching a science? Is it possible with the emphasis on the diversity and art of teaching practice?

Data Collection and Analysis: Personality of an educator.
In Nine Characteristics of a Great Teacher, Maria Orlando addresses several tips to better serving your students. Amidst this article we see terms like mutual respect, establishing a sense of belonging, high expectations, and genuinely caring about students. All of these should be a given to any teacher, but the next steps include loving learning and the ability to shift gears.
From my perspective, desire to know and appreciate your students (flaws and strengths) lends itself to classroom management. Tyler Hester, addresses the number one point of loving your students as the basic requirement.

Data Collection and Analysis: Healthy habits of happy teachers
Driving question: What are some healthy habits of effective and happy teachers?

> Organization: This can be achieved through a combination of organizing student and teacher work and resources. Student work can involves exemplars and displays in the classroom, combined with timely feedback. Teacher work and resources can be addressed by the idea of curation of content, which speaks to the collection and management of digital resources… extending beyond simply organizing bookmarks on internet explorer back in the day. The article also speaks to the type of information gatherer to avoid and be: collect, sift through what’s important, and then share what is important.

Side note: This particular educator has historically been guilty of being a Scrooge and Hoarder of content… to improve, simply put: be aware of and involved in your information and resource gathering process. Then, be aware of what you share.

“The Hoarder: a curator who collects  everything indiscriminately, who doesn’t  organise their content, and doesn’t  share – this is really closer to simple aggregation than curation.

The Scrooge: one who, similarly hoards their information – although they may organise their collection, they don’t share either; one of the key purposes of educational content curation!” – Kay Oddone

> Embraces change/is open-minded:
Teachers need to be prepared to embrace the organized chaos. With a plan in mind that is able to adapt to change and an appreciation for student learning, this should come easy.

> Has standards:
A teacher has expectations and standards for the students and themselves (here we see an overlap with personality). Through blogging a teacher can achieve standards for themselves as well. Michael Drennan poses the idea: “Students realise how high the bar of public domain writing is.” This should extend beyond the realm of public domain writing and into all of their learning. Conversely, teachers also know the bar they are capable of, what they can and can’t achieve within reason. Set standards for yourself and students.

> Gives 100%:
Be genuine – to revisit an old idea. But if you live the personalities and habits of healthy teachers, you likely are giving it 100%. Just remember the balance required of a happy life outside of the school. You are a teacher 100% of the time, a learner 100% of the time. Don’t let the weekend change you and practice what you preach in your classes. Hypocrisy isn’t a part of teaching and it isn’t a part of science.

Conclusion
Every teacher is different, but there are definite attributes that will make an individual more successful in this profession. Different personalities exist and are required within the school setting. This opens the door for opportunities in connected learning. This learning is not possible without it. If you aren’t practising all these habits and characteristics (taking into account this post oversimplifies them a bit), you may need to reflect on how you fit in the teaching profession. And yet, from the perspective of making teaching a science, so much of the content of this post is opinion-based, which isn’t necessarily scientific, so can it even be done – or is this truly a creative outlet or art-form? Is that what the the Education faculties strive for in future teacher preparation? Should they? Can they?

– Logan Petlak

Do you agree? What are your thoughts on this? Comment below!