Tag Archives: science

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

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.

Maximizing Education for Digital Literacy

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in ECI 832, Education Blog, Science Education

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Greetings ECI 832 bloggers, I’m going to bypass the introductions but if you’d like to know about my thoughts on distance education, EdTech, or social media, that might help you get to understand my philosophies of digital education a little bit better!

I have been really torn over what I should do for my project. Like, Katie, I feel well-versed in the educational app industry that investing my time analyzing some of them or new ones may not be as rewarding as either pursuing a social media activism project or creating a digital literacy resource. I think either of these would improve my capacity for change.

Motivations directing my learning

In the past several years, I have found myself at a loss on my personal social media platforms, specifically Facebook and Instagram. Individuals whom I have spent a variety of stages of my life with, share posts and like pages that either incite division between people, or are factually inaccurate. The specific catalyst to consider this challenge as a project was the sharing of an anti-vaccination video that made claims that had no evidence or validity to their claims (my critique of this video isn’t to disparage critically looking at vaccinations or any medicines at all, mind you, but rather to challenge inaccuracies and our roles in perpetuating them when able). In discussing this with my students, I still noticed the need to approaching it from all sides, and giving each narrative the opportunity to share with dignity. This empathy rarely occurs in social media.

I value the difference of opinion and belief that exists among my friends, yet struggle to simply remain silent when, as an educator, I would feel obligated to address inequities or educate the uninformed when able. However, this presents the paradox of living the life of an educator in a classroom, promoting inclusion, empathy and reflective thought, yet practice the avoidance of “opinion” online and in social interactions among peers.  When considering the neutral-stance some (not all) educators must take on social media as they represent their divisions, schools, families and themselves, it also serves as a reminder to be aware of the wording and permanence of what is shared online, which is good, but it drives the narrative of: “you can educate your students, but beware should you take it to wear what you say never disappears”. I think we have to be digitally literate educators to model these behaviours online for our peers in addition to our students. This “moral imperative to share” needs to occur as educators when we have the means to educate beyond our classrooms.

So, how should this look then? What maximizes the capacity for change and education as it pertains to digital literacy? I was divided between creating activism posts (in vlog format) to share with my peers starring myself (which could double as classroom resources), and creating a senior science digital literacy resource to circulate for my fellow high school science teachers. I approach them as separate below, but it’s important to note that the end game may have some overlap!

Activism Posts: Promoting Empathetic Objectivity in Vlog Format or as a Senior Science Digital Literacy Resource

How I imagine the personal vlogs would look is very similar to that of the vlogbrothers. Attempting to educate others on being objective and empathetic (#empatheticobjectivity) when approaching certain scientifically-rooted “debates” on social media. The specific intention would be to promote mutual understandings, knowledge and therefore progress on issues that people otherwise remain divided on. I find John Green does a great job presenting alternative views (example below) on certain issues while providing evidence-based explanations, and would hope to emulate this with the intention of my videos also getting shares on my social media.

Here is an example I created for my biology courses in the distance learning course also with Alec.

I figured that this sharing would function as activism in my peer groups. I considered activism projects like this alongside my students, however, I want to try this within my social circle rather than having them potentially compromise their own social groups. That being said, I may involve them in the process I pursue by inviting them to observe and critique my comments and postings. If I were to continue these types of videos, but perhaps scale back and revolve around the Broad Areas of Learning in Saskatchewan Senior Science, I would need to identify certain mindsets to approach the vlogging – note that many of these revolve around the Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship, with a specific focus on digital (and scientific) literacy. The main ideas that have been productive in the classroom when approaching discussions, is empathy and objectivity.

Then I considered the barriers if I were to simply go with vlogging, rather than a digital literacy resource:

  • How do I know peers that I think would benefit from the posting would actually watch it (tagging them in them would be too specific?
  • Resources: do I have enough time, digital recording tools and software to actually create something of acceptable quality.
  • If videos like this already exist, why not just share those?

The reality is, I probably wouldn’t be able to change the first two barriers in the foreseeable future, and the third barrier or consideration could be a positive short-term solution with less input of time required, and more transparency if this was an accumulation of resources educators in a variety of different contexts (not just the one I am apart of). Therefore the necessity or broader creation of the digital literacy resource for a content area in which I have a background, science, would appear to achieve a similar goal of empathetic objectivity. That would allow me to determine a definitive outline for potential videos in the future, were I to secure more resources, or begin promoting these ideals among other educators in our province. If that were successful, this may translate to an increased personal learning network that would increase my sharing-base in the future.

 

Critiques, thoughts?

Let me know!
Logan