Yes. If you won't/don't use it, it's difficult to get anything out of it. Before dumping a lot of cash into something you're not 100% sure about, I might take a stepped approach.
First, I'd start with some software (others have mentioned Google Earth/Sky -- which is a pretty cool use of Hubble's pictures) or books to learn the skies.
Second, I'd might recommend a lower-budget scope (Edmund Astroscan, $300 4" sealed reflector; looks funky but works great) or binoculars that would provide good views to familiarize yourself with wide-angle views (beautiful).
Only then would I make the jump to a scope w/ astrophoto capabilities. Dobsonian (big mirror) or refractor (smaller lens) would be the two choices -- I'd choose a 4" refractor (~$500) with a good mount, but that's because I love the planets and higher magnifications.
Camera (CCD or film) is going to take a chunk of money. You might be able to save some $ by looking for a well-kept used manual Nikon or Canon model (camera shops usually sell used cameras). The point others have made is valid -- most who do astrophotography spend upwards of $10,000+ on equipment and such....so keep a reasonable set of expectations with your more limited budget.
How is it going to make them more assertive? Why not, instead of spending the $30 per student on clickers, and then however much on the software and other crap for it, try to REDUCE the class size, and have a better student/teacher ratio?
Gee, think about it. A class where you could like know everyone in it? Where the teacher could remember your name. Where you might even have daily social interactions?
Did Socrates lecture to huge groups? No. He engaged people in small groups in CONVERSATION. This little clicker thing is not engaging people in conversation.
Actually, the use of personal response devices can greatly ENCOURAGE discussion/conversation. This method is used in the physics dept at Harvard by Prof Mazur (mazur-www.harvard.edu). The whole process is not just selecting a multiple choice answer - but choosing your answer, and then discussing this with your peers and determine which answer is correct (also teaches you to argue/debate well). After a minute or two to discuss, everyone votes again and you see how the answer percentages have changed. Then the professor talks about the how to arrive at the correct solution (and all the little traps that distracted those that chose the alternative wrong answers).
there was a quote in the Globe a while back that summarized the differences between Harvard and MIT elegantly:
Harvard has museums, MIT has laboratories.
Appointing a woman neuroscientist as president is HUGE. Between this, the Whitehead Institute, and the many recent faculty scientist hires, MIT is troucing Harvard, and really is pushing the neuroscience envelope.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. If you won't/don't use it, it's difficult to get anything out of it. Before dumping a lot of cash into something you're not 100% sure about, I might take a stepped approach. First, I'd start with some software (others have mentioned Google Earth/Sky -- which is a pretty cool use of Hubble's pictures) or books to learn the skies. Second, I'd might recommend a lower-budget scope (Edmund Astroscan, $300 4" sealed reflector; looks funky but works great) or binoculars that would provide good views to familiarize yourself with wide-angle views (beautiful). Only then would I make the jump to a scope w/ astrophoto capabilities. Dobsonian (big mirror) or refractor (smaller lens) would be the two choices -- I'd choose a 4" refractor (~$500) with a good mount, but that's because I love the planets and higher magnifications. Camera (CCD or film) is going to take a chunk of money. You might be able to save some $ by looking for a well-kept used manual Nikon or Canon model (camera shops usually sell used cameras). The point others have made is valid -- most who do astrophotography spend upwards of $10,000+ on equipment and such....so keep a reasonable set of expectations with your more limited budget.
Actually, the use of personal response devices can greatly ENCOURAGE discussion/conversation. This method is used in the physics dept at Harvard by Prof Mazur (mazur-www.harvard.edu). The whole process is not just selecting a multiple choice answer - but choosing your answer, and then discussing this with your peers and determine which answer is correct (also teaches you to argue/debate well). After a minute or two to discuss, everyone votes again and you see how the answer percentages have changed. Then the professor talks about the how to arrive at the correct solution (and all the little traps that distracted those that chose the alternative wrong answers).
there was a quote in the Globe a while back that summarized the differences between Harvard and MIT elegantly: Harvard has museums, MIT has laboratories. Appointing a woman neuroscientist as president is HUGE. Between this, the Whitehead Institute, and the many recent faculty scientist hires, MIT is troucing Harvard, and really is pushing the neuroscience envelope.