I have used Mindstorm kits in my classroom, and they are great (and actually cheap comparatively. I was able to get a 3k grant that allowed me to purchase 15 kits from Target on sale). They do, however, require lots of prep time to develop and test an idea before bringing it to students. A nice benefit is that there is tons of existing curriculum and books to help out if you go this route, which is the only way to go for classroom robotics.
My dad, a middle school science teacher, would have his kids make Rube Goldberg machines for a GATE class. The projects were always outstanding, and it really puts the focus on ingenuity and original design. Now, it's not really DIY tech, as the point is that there is no point, but there are many practical mechanical principles, and if you really get adventurous, chemical or electrical principles (which may lead directly to important first aid principles).
An idea that I have had, but haven't done, is to have students build a simple amplifier. The reason I haven't done it is that I can't figure out how to really make it a great educational experience. I want them to use the soldering iron, I want them to learn how to use a multi-meter, and that's all covered. But I also want them to do some design or discovery, or at least understand what's going on, and a simple amp design is usually going to involve an opamp, which isn't going to make any sense. Or maybe it does and I'm just not thinking about it the right way. A project like the Cmoy pocket amp would be perfect, especially as it can work with a super cheap opamp like the tl086.
It's anecdotal, I know, but I agree. The one time I had a class of 16 students was the only time I have ever felt like I was able to really individualize instruction. It was a completely different experience. (Public school Algebra class)
It's funny, because basically every business leader in the country will say exactly what parent says. Specific skills and facts are less important than being creative, easy to work with, and capable of picking up new ideas. A further point is that even though foreign students entering PhD Math programs test WAY higher (GRE Math test), they don't graduate any faster than their US counterparts. Nor do they produce more research.
Your post really resonates with me. Honestly, it's not all the schools fault. A lot of the really great curriculum and classes have been eliminated by 1) a push to standardize curriculum for classes statewide, and even nationwide, and 2) the minimum requirements for university expanding. After 8 semesters of English, 6 semesters of Social Studies, 8 semesters of Math, 6 semesters of science, 2 semesters of fine arts, 6 semesters of a foreign language, 4 semesters of physical education, which is the minimum requirement in many cases (UC recommended A-F list), that's 42 out of 48 semesters for a normal high school student. This displaces some great elective opportunities that students really enjoy and have some choice about.
I love your categories. And while we are at it, since home language is such a problem, let's also create a category for those who's first language isn't English. Also, since culturally relevant instruction can help, and students aren't always comfortable with students of other races, let's make sure to make a categories for each race too.
Seriously... do you think about what the implications are? It might work great if you're lucky enough to be chosen, or more likely have pushy or connected parents to get you into the top track. Sorry, I have a conscience, I'll pass.
Really, one of the most powerful unions? I guess I better get on exerting my union power and demanding wages that come somewhere within 10k of what someone with a comparable education and skill set has in industry. I won't even talk about hours.
Also, you may want to check around about the unions love. Support was more about the lesser of two evils. If the union really needed payback Obama would drop the push to link salaries to performance on standardized tests. No one's a fan of the Dept. of Ed right now in my union. Drop the stereotypes, it's sexier with out them.
Some people will discount this because I Am A Public School Teacher (do I get an acronym?)
People are frequently quick to compare our school system to that of other countries, but it's really not practical. The cultural and school infrastructure differences are too vast. In many of the countries that are "getting ahead" on test scores it's common practice to create a competitive environment by only allowing advancement to students who can score in a certain range on a test. This isn't limited to post secondary education, but frequently applied to 12 and 13 year olds who are having their career path defined for them at this point. And no, they aren't taking these comparative tests. Another example is how in Japan all kinds of stress and work is put into passing the exams to get to university, but the university experience itself is frequently described as the most enjoyable and least stressful time in student's lives. In the US, it's frequently the other way around.
I can't deny that quality is the issue, but quality is a little tough to pin down. Is it curriculum, method of delivery or volume of work? With it probably being a mix of all of the above, adding days, or hours is likely only to have a consequence of costing more (paying for those extra hours/days) and/or driving away quality instructors by eliminating one of the few perks of the job (loads of vacation time)
A couple of things:
PhD = Philosophical. ED,MD even your JD are all "professional degrees"; the idea being that you will use your training as a professional in the field as opposed to research alone. Saying it's easier is, in my opinion, saying an applied math degree is easier than a pure math degree.
Second, unsurprisingly you have a poor idea of how education programs and research works. The education majors you speak of are all going to be elementary. There is no such thing as a secondary ed major, only a minor to accompany a degree in a subject area. Therefore it is unsurprising to me that a group of people who spend their time learning how to teach abstract ideas such as place value and denominators for fractions do poorly on a test designed to generally assess graduate level reasoning. Now ask what you would get if you ask your fellow JDs or those chemists and engineers to teach a 6 year old how to read...
Your jab at research has some historical significance, and I agree that teachers are reluctant to accept real data driven information. but fails to recognize that isolating single variables and control groups are not realistic in our "laboratory". How would you like to explain to a parent that their kid is doing poorly because they were selected as a control for a 4 year curriculum revision of math and science?
I now go to schools and give talks about particle physics and they have usually heard of quarks (here in Canada) even if they are not quite sure what they are.
I appreciate this, as sometimes it may be tough as a secondary science teacher to keep on top of things. Example: In my 1997 chemistry class I was instructed that a neutron was a proton with an electron attached to it (which accounted for the greater mass of the neutron, of course). I took the teacher to task, but only because I was hooked years before by a program at Lawrence Livermore Labs where I got to play with their Crays and tour some of there cooler stuff, like the Nova Laser. Posters in my room were then airplanes, rock bands and the standard model.
If it wasn't for research science reaching out to hook kids (and hopefully teachers, but they can be a tougher sell) new findings would only slowly trickle down to k-12 schools.
I second Mindstorms. As an educator, it does allow for easier access to different modalities. Also, you can solve authentic problems, (get the robot to rescue a ball out of a maze) as opposed to contrived programming exercises. The programming environment is intuitive, and flexible and a great introduction. I use NXT kits in my high school math classroom with kids who know C++, and kids who have no computer access outside of school with great success.
Also, if you have more advanced students, the NXT brick also supports ROBOTC. So if so compelled, you can have your super-driven students working in C and other students getting their feet wet with the legos drag and drop software.
More modalities + differentiated instruction = good education. Regardless of the level of incoming student.
Exit polls aren't wrong, just the people who report them. When is the last time you were told the confidence level along with the margin of error, (or the sample size, allowing you to compute the necessary information)? A +/-2% margin of error with 68% confidence doesn't mean much.
Slashdot Mirror
I have used Mindstorm kits in my classroom, and they are great (and actually cheap comparatively. I was able to get a 3k grant that allowed me to purchase 15 kits from Target on sale). They do, however, require lots of prep time to develop and test an idea before bringing it to students. A nice benefit is that there is tons of existing curriculum and books to help out if you go this route, which is the only way to go for classroom robotics.
My dad, a middle school science teacher, would have his kids make Rube Goldberg machines for a GATE class. The projects were always outstanding, and it really puts the focus on ingenuity and original design. Now, it's not really DIY tech, as the point is that there is no point, but there are many practical mechanical principles, and if you really get adventurous, chemical or electrical principles (which may lead directly to important first aid principles).
An idea that I have had, but haven't done, is to have students build a simple amplifier. The reason I haven't done it is that I can't figure out how to really make it a great educational experience. I want them to use the soldering iron, I want them to learn how to use a multi-meter, and that's all covered. But I also want them to do some design or discovery, or at least understand what's going on, and a simple amp design is usually going to involve an opamp, which isn't going to make any sense. Or maybe it does and I'm just not thinking about it the right way. A project like the Cmoy pocket amp would be perfect, especially as it can work with a super cheap opamp like the tl086.
It's anecdotal, I know, but I agree. The one time I had a class of 16 students was the only time I have ever felt like I was able to really individualize instruction. It was a completely different experience. (Public school Algebra class)
It's funny, because basically every business leader in the country will say exactly what parent says. Specific skills and facts are less important than being creative, easy to work with, and capable of picking up new ideas. A further point is that even though foreign students entering PhD Math programs test WAY higher (GRE Math test), they don't graduate any faster than their US counterparts. Nor do they produce more research.
Your post really resonates with me. Honestly, it's not all the schools fault. A lot of the really great curriculum and classes have been eliminated by 1) a push to standardize curriculum for classes statewide, and even nationwide, and 2) the minimum requirements for university expanding. After 8 semesters of English, 6 semesters of Social Studies, 8 semesters of Math, 6 semesters of science, 2 semesters of fine arts, 6 semesters of a foreign language, 4 semesters of physical education, which is the minimum requirement in many cases (UC recommended A-F list), that's 42 out of 48 semesters for a normal high school student. This displaces some great elective opportunities that students really enjoy and have some choice about.
I love your categories. And while we are at it, since home language is such a problem, let's also create a category for those who's first language isn't English. Also, since culturally relevant instruction can help, and students aren't always comfortable with students of other races, let's make sure to make a categories for each race too.
Seriously... do you think about what the implications are? It might work great if you're lucky enough to be chosen, or more likely have pushy or connected parents to get you into the top track. Sorry, I have a conscience, I'll pass.
Really, one of the most powerful unions? I guess I better get on exerting my union power and demanding wages that come somewhere within 10k of what someone with a comparable education and skill set has in industry. I won't even talk about hours.
Also, you may want to check around about the unions love. Support was more about the lesser of two evils. If the union really needed payback Obama would drop the push to link salaries to performance on standardized tests. No one's a fan of the Dept. of Ed right now in my union. Drop the stereotypes, it's sexier with out them.
Some people will discount this because I Am A Public School Teacher (do I get an acronym?)
People are frequently quick to compare our school system to that of other countries, but it's really not practical. The cultural and school infrastructure differences are too vast. In many of the countries that are "getting ahead" on test scores it's common practice to create a competitive environment by only allowing advancement to students who can score in a certain range on a test. This isn't limited to post secondary education, but frequently applied to 12 and 13 year olds who are having their career path defined for them at this point. And no, they aren't taking these comparative tests. Another example is how in Japan all kinds of stress and work is put into passing the exams to get to university, but the university experience itself is frequently described as the most enjoyable and least stressful time in student's lives. In the US, it's frequently the other way around.
I can't deny that quality is the issue, but quality is a little tough to pin down. Is it curriculum, method of delivery or volume of work? With it probably being a mix of all of the above, adding days, or hours is likely only to have a consequence of costing more (paying for those extra hours/days) and/or driving away quality instructors by eliminating one of the few perks of the job (loads of vacation time)
A couple of things: PhD = Philosophical. ED,MD even your JD are all "professional degrees"; the idea being that you will use your training as a professional in the field as opposed to research alone. Saying it's easier is, in my opinion, saying an applied math degree is easier than a pure math degree.
Second, unsurprisingly you have a poor idea of how education programs and research works. The education majors you speak of are all going to be elementary. There is no such thing as a secondary ed major, only a minor to accompany a degree in a subject area. Therefore it is unsurprising to me that a group of people who spend their time learning how to teach abstract ideas such as place value and denominators for fractions do poorly on a test designed to generally assess graduate level reasoning. Now ask what you would get if you ask your fellow JDs or those chemists and engineers to teach a 6 year old how to read...
Your jab at research has some historical significance, and I agree that teachers are reluctant to accept real data driven information. but fails to recognize that isolating single variables and control groups are not realistic in our "laboratory". How would you like to explain to a parent that their kid is doing poorly because they were selected as a control for a 4 year curriculum revision of math and science?
I now go to schools and give talks about particle physics and they have usually heard of quarks (here in Canada) even if they are not quite sure what they are.
I appreciate this, as sometimes it may be tough as a secondary science teacher to keep on top of things. Example: In my 1997 chemistry class I was instructed that a neutron was a proton with an electron attached to it (which accounted for the greater mass of the neutron, of course). I took the teacher to task, but only because I was hooked years before by a program at Lawrence Livermore Labs where I got to play with their Crays and tour some of there cooler stuff, like the Nova Laser. Posters in my room were then airplanes, rock bands and the standard model.
If it wasn't for research science reaching out to hook kids (and hopefully teachers, but they can be a tougher sell) new findings would only slowly trickle down to k-12 schools.
I second Mindstorms. As an educator, it does allow for easier access to different modalities. Also, you can solve authentic problems, (get the robot to rescue a ball out of a maze) as opposed to contrived programming exercises. The programming environment is intuitive, and flexible and a great introduction. I use NXT kits in my high school math classroom with kids who know C++, and kids who have no computer access outside of school with great success. Also, if you have more advanced students, the NXT brick also supports ROBOTC. So if so compelled, you can have your super-driven students working in C and other students getting their feet wet with the legos drag and drop software. More modalities + differentiated instruction = good education. Regardless of the level of incoming student.
Exit polls aren't wrong, just the people who report them. When is the last time you were told the confidence level along with the margin of error, (or the sample size, allowing you to compute the necessary information)? A +/-2% margin of error with 68% confidence doesn't mean much.