Nano Days! Informal Nano Science Education

Here is a video of me on Syracuse's Bridge Street morning show from 2012!

New Science Standards: A Framework for K-12 Science Education

A Framework for K-12 Science Education

It has been over 15 years since the last national science education standards were written, and now it is almost time for some new ones.  The National Research Council has published a report called A Framework for K-12 Science Education.  This 385 page document is being used to inform the creation of the new standards. These standards are currently being written in collaboration with 26 states who have agreed to give serious consideration to adopting the standards when they are finished later this year.  Once written and adopted, these standards should have a profound effect on the way science is taught in schools.  For those of us informal science educators that work with schools and teachers, these standards will have a big impact on us, too. 

I finished reading the report this weekend and would like to share with you the general structure of what the report outlines as well as include some of my own thoughts.  The report can be purchased from amazon for $39.95 or downloaded as a pdf for free on www.nextgenscience.org.  Throughout this review I will include passages from the report.  While reading through it I recorded many passages.  I’ve uploaded these notes on my site here for any who are interested.

What is wrong with the old science standards published in 1996?

According to the introduction, the overall goal of the report is “to ensure that by the end of 12^th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology.” 

The problem, they say, is that our current system of science education is failing to do these things.  The system “is not organized systematically across multiple years of school, emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and does not provide students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done.”  And apart from this, scientific knowledge, technology, and understanding of how students learn science have all changed since the mid-1990’s.  Now, more than ever, in order to properly make choices that relate to legislation as well everyday decisions, citizens need to have a certain level of scientific literacy.  We are also currently in a time when states are collaborating on educational standards, which gives an added push toward the creation of new standards.

How will the new standards achieve their overall goal?

The report sets out some specific directions on what components should make up the new standards.  Mostly, they call for science education to be based around three dimensions: scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify science and engineering across grades and disciplines, and core ideas in four disciplinary areas.   How exactly these pieces will fit together will be determined by those writing the standards, but the report is clear that all three should be intertwined.  For example, when learning about a specific core idea a student should actually explore the idea using scientific and engineering practices, and be able to identify how that idea relates to some of the overall crosscutting concepts in science.

Here is what the dimensions look like:

Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices

1.       Asking questions and defining problems

2.       Developing and using models

3.       Planning and carrying out investigations

4.       Analyzing and interpreting data

5.       Using mathematics and computational thinking

6.       Constructing explanations and designing solutions

7.       Engaging in argument from evidence

8.       Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Dimension 2: Crosscutting Concepts

1.       Patterns

2.       Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation

3.       Scale, proportion, and quantity

4.       Systems and system models

5.       Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation

6.       Structure and function

7.       Stability and change

Dimension 3: Disciplinary Core Ideas

1.       Physical Sciences

PS1: Matter and its interactions

PS2: Motion and stability: Forces and interactions

PS3: Energy

PS4: Waves and their applications in technologies for information transfer

2.       Life Sciences

LS1: From molecules to organisms: Structures and processes

LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, energy, and dynamics

LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and variation of traits

LS4: Biological evolution: Unity and diversity

3.       Earth and Space Sciences

ESS1: Earth’s place in the universe

ESS2: Earth’s systems

ESS3: Earth and human activity

4.       Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science

ETS1: Engineering design

ETS2: Links among engineering, technology, science, and society

These three dimensions, used together, will make up the bulk of the new standards.  Let’s take a look at each dimension separately.

Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices

The thinking here is that students learn by doing.  As an informal educator I can certainly agree with that.  The report recognizes eight scientific and engineering practices that students should become familiar with through experience.  You may notice that nowhere on this list do you see the scientific method.  Instead we have scientific methods.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The scientific method is gone.  Some form of it, I’m sure will remain, but the report wants the students experiences to greater reflect the variety of scientific methods used in the real world. 

The report maintains that “a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science - a single “scientific method” - or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science.  In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods, and although science involves many areas of uncertainty as knowledge is developed, there are now many aspects of scientific knowledge that are so well established as to be unquestioned foundations of the culture and its technologies.  It is only through engagement in the practices that students can recognize how such knowledge comes about and why some parts of scientific theory are more firmly established than others.”

If that passage didn’t convince you that the scientific method needs to go, than the report gives this objection to the method as well: “For example, the notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion- a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks- is fundamentally wrong.  Scientists do use deductive reasoning, but they also search for patterns, classify different objects, make generalizations from repeated observations, and engage in a process of making inferences as to what might be the best explanation.  Thus the picture of scientific reasoning is richer, more complex, and more diverse than the image of linear and unitary scientific method would suggest.”

I’m not sure how I feel about the scientific method going away.  In some ways it reminds me of the emotional resistance many feel toward Pluto being demoted to a dwarf planet.  I think many of us have a deep connection and loyalty to the scientific method.  It is a powerful tool for understanding the empirical nature of science, and we know that it works in the classroom.  It is also relatively simple, so there is less for an instructor to get wrong when teaching it. However, if the alternative in the new standards is to have students doing more hands-on activities and working through a variety of methods, then that seems good too.  Hopefully, this will help them to better understand how science is done, deepen their understanding of the content, and in doing so build a greater respect for scientific knowledge.

Dimension 2: Crosscutting Concepts

The idea of crosscutting concepts really appeals to me and the way I think about science.  This isn’t altogether a new idea, but as I read the report, this dimension is what got me the most excited.  I believe that recognizing the concepts that permeate each discipline and core idea will help students better understand what they are learning because it will provide context.  A student may have trouble with a certain scientific idea, but if their teacher can help them to place it inside one of these crosscutting concepts, then it will give them a reference point.  The new standards are committed to having less content and more understanding, which is exactly what I think these crosscutting concepts help to do.  It is unknown how exactly the standards and school curriculum will integrate these crosscutting concepts.  Personally, I think the concepts will be most effective if they are referenced and explained frequently throughout K-12 education.

Dimension 3: Core Ideas

Dimension 3 illustrates the actual science content students are expected to learn.  Each of the major disciplines is broken up into core ideas.  In the framework a summary of each idea is given, and then guidelines are set for what aspects of the idea should be taught by certain grades.  The core ideas should help to solve the problem of organizing content systematically through the years.  From the report and its appendix - which talks about the reports revisions - it appears that the writers of the report took much care in understanding the learning capabilities of children at each grade level.  Research into the cognitive abilities of students as well as feedback from many teachers, scientists, and engineers helped to divide these core ideas appropriately. 

Personally, I like the way the ideas were divided.  If the standards adhere to them, then subject matter will not be repeated over and over in each grade, nor accidentally or purposely left out.  Instead, from the youngest grades, students will start to learn what they need in order to grow with the core ideas and follow them through their educational career.  As part of these grade divisions, the report suggests the standards should have boundary statements.  These will let teachers know what they shouldn’t teach at each level. 

The report describes it like this: “Boundary statements can signal where material that traditionally has been included could instead be trimmed.  For example, in the physical sciences, the progressions indicate that density is not stressed as a property of matter until the 6-8 grade band; at present, it is often introduced earlier and consumes considerable instructional time to little avail.  Boundary statements may also help define which technical definitions or descriptions could be dispensed with in a particular grade band.”

In looking over the core ideas you may have been surprised to see engineering listed as one of the four main scientific disciplines.  On this the report says: “Engineering and technology are featured alongside the natural sciences (physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences) for two critical reasons: (1) to reflect the importance of understanding the human-built world and (2) to recognize the value of better integrating the teaching and learning of science, engineering, and technology.”  I think focusing on engineering and technology is a great idea.  It does bring up some questions on how this will effect class instruction, particularly at the High School level.  Will students be required to take an engineering class in High School?  The report itself cannot answer that question, but it will be interesting to see how this is interpreted when the standards are adopted.

When reviewing the core ideas, one could go into great detail.  The only specific subject matter I would like to highlight is climate change.  The report is firm and confident in dealing with this topic.  Since this is such a hot political issue, I wonder how different states will approach this.

Here is part of what the report says on climate change: “It is important to note that although forecasting the consequences of environmental change is crucial to society, it involves so many complex phenomena and uncertainties that predictions, particularly long-term predictions, always have uncertainties.  These arise not only from uncertainties in the underlying science but also from uncertainties about behavioral, economic, and political factors that affect human activity and changes in activity in response to recognition of the problem.  However, it is clear not only that human activities play a major role in climate change but also that impacts of climate change - for example, increased frequency of severe storms due to ocean warming - have begun to influence human activities.  The prospect of future impacts of climate change due to further increases in atmospheric carbon is prompting consideration of how to avoid or restrict such increases.”

Additional Chapters

After explaining the 3 dimensions, A Framework for K-12 Science Education report focuses on ideas relating to diversity, equity, teaching strategies, implementation, and assessment.  In many cases, finding answers to the questions these topics bring up is out of the scope of the report, so the report identifies what further work may need to be done.  The additional chapters brought up many important issues related to education, but the one I would like to mention related to working with students from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds. The report talks about finding ways to bring students’ ethnic experiences into the science classroom.

On this topic the report reads: “Recognizing that language and discourse patterns vary across culturally diverse groups, researchers point to the importance of accepting, even encouraging, students’ classroom use of informal or native language and familiar modes of interaction.” 

Certainly, this is a very interesting idea.  I sometimes work with English Language Learners and try to find ways to incorporate their native languages into my presentations.  So, how could this strategy be used in a school classroom?  The report gives an example, saying “Brown has recently extended this line of work by developing an instructional model that helps students bridge the transition from using their vernacular language for scientific phenomena to using disciplinary terminology and forms of discourse; essentially, they describe and discuss the same phenomena in both modes in turn.  The challenge for teachers is to know enough about their students’ relevant linguistic practices to be able to support this transition in the classroom.”

Final Thoughts

The last time national science standards were written I was eleven years old.   My K-12 education was effected by those standards, but this time I get to observe the writing of the standards and participate in the implementation.  Reading through A Framework for K-12 Science Education was an enjoyable experience.  The ideas are engaging and thinking about how they may be implemented is really interesting.  The report’s vision makes a lot of sense, but I must say that I do worry about the implementation.  If school teachers are expected to teach science in the way outlined in the framework they will need professional development.  Yes, teachers have professional development every year, but this will need to be much more extensive.  Textbooks and lessons need to be rewritten.  I believe in the vision of the report, and hope these changes don’t become rushed.  I worry that the burden of responsibility will fall on teachers, and that they will be without the proper resources they need to successfully make this work.  I hope this is not the case.

I would like to end on a positive note and say that I am very much looking forward to being a part of making this happen.  My own school presentations and educational programs will change, and I will hopefully be a part of the teacher development in the Central New York area.  When working with teachers I hope they become convinced of the vision in this framework, too, and that I will be able help provide them with the resources they need

Thanks for reading and please leave your comments.

Erie Canal Village Memory & ASTC Connect

ASTC logo

If you have ever gone to a science museum and looked into their memberships, you probably noticed that buying one membership allows you access to over 300 other museums. In fact, I wrote a blog article about this. The reason you can get into these other places is because they are all part of the Association of Science & Technology Centers or ASTC. ASTC is a great resource for informal science educators. They publish an inspiring magazine called Dimensions, host a big annual conference, and have some great resources on their website. I recently started checking out the ASTC Connect portion of their site, which has online workshops. The first one, called Science Center Basics is great resource for museum educators, particularly for newer workers. The workshop is described as a "self-paced tutorial" that "introduces key aspects of science center philosophy and practice." The goal is to have the student learn more about their museum and visitors, and to use this information to better understand their job. The first activity relates to thinking about the importance of museums in your own life and asks the student to write about their first museum experiment. I enjoyed this assignment and hope my memories will spark some of your own. Enjoy!

What is your first memory of a museum?

The Erie Canal Village in Rome, NY

The first museum I can remember visiting was the Erie Canal Village in Rome, NY on a 4th grade school field trip. I don’t recall the museum portion itself, but I do have some fond memories from the day. I remember walking around outside, learning about the canal locks and about how mules helped to pull the boats. Going inside a one- room school house was fascinating, and made me curious about what it would have been like to be a student there. My mother volunteered to help with the trip, too, and I loved that. She let me buy a toy train whistle from the gift shop and I just thought it was the coolest thing. That wooden whistle ended up in a drawer of old things. Years later I would find it now and then accidentally, blow a couple toots, and remember how excited I was when I first got it. My favorite part though, had to be the Erie Canal song. I don’t recall if we learned it before, during, or after the trip, but that song has always stuck with me. I just looked up the website for the Erie Canal Village and was glad to see that they have the lyrics prominently posted on the site. Even today the song will pop into my head. A year or two ago I bought my father a Bruce Springsteen DVD, and would you believe it, it had a performance of him singing the Erie Canal song. One doesn’t always realize the historic importance of the places you live, but if Springsteen is singing about it, then it’s got to be important. I only visited the Erie Canal Museum that one time, but what I experienced there is still a part of my life today.

Performing for Adolescent Psychiatric Patients: Part 2

In part one of the "Performing for Adolescent Psychiatric Patients," I described my experience last week performing a science show for adolescent patients at a psychiatric center.  I was initially unsure of how it would go, and even uncertain that it was an entirely appropriate venue for a science demonstration show; but somehow it worked.  In this post I want to talk about why I now think psychiatric centers are a great venue.

I don't presume to say that one enjoyable 45 minute show is going to "fix" the patients' problems.  I'm not a mental health worker, or even someone who can be around long enough to see if there are any quantifiable results.  But I do believe that not only did the show not cause any harm (number one rule), but that it was helpful to the patients in a few ways.

1.  Confidence Building - The patients that made up the audience got to ask and answer questions, volunteer to help me, were trusted to pet a turtle, and a couple even got to drum with me in front of the others.  They weren't really working on skill building, like in wilderness therapy programs, or expressing their innermost thoughts, like in journal writing, but they were getting a chance to be heard and included through voluntary participation.

2.  Content - Learning about how an optical illusion works or why a male slider turtle has long claws may not be information that specifically related to the patients' problems, but they don't have to be.  Our universe is a fascinating place, and sometimes we need some exposure to its wonders to remind us of that.  Science stems from our natural curiosity, and demonstrates that there are things worth learning and participating in that are bigger than ourselves and the personal problems we can become trapped in.  Books like Last Child in the Woods describe some of the benefits children gain from exposure to nature and problems that come from losing it.  I don't think it is just the "nature" that kids need, but exposure to ideas about "nature" and the wider world around them.

3.  Role Modeling - This is probably the most important of the three I've listed so far.  In fact, without it I'm not sure much of the confidence building or content gets through.  So, what do I mean by role modeling?  I mean practicing what you preach, embodying a lifestyle or attitude that connects with the content.  Here is a great quote from Kipling that explains what I mean.


No printed word, nor spoken plea can teach young minds what they should be. Not all the books on all the shelves – but what the teachers are themselves.

Rudyard Kipling

When my audiences see me giving a presentation I know they are picking up more than I'm saying.  Even if they don't realize it themselves, they are bringing all their experiences, prejudices, and current mood with them to color their perception.  And everything from what I'm wearing and how I'm standing, to my pronunciation and delivery are a part of what they take from the presentation.  Certainly, this could be a roadblock.  Imagine how many people would listen to my message if they thought I was unsure of the content, untrustworthy, or unpleasant.  But, on the other hand, what if I can convince them of the opposite.  Along with the content, the presenter is also the message.  The phrase, "The medium is the message" applies to people as well as newspapers, cellphones, and TV.  

By demonstrating that a life filled with learning, curiosity, and respect can be a path worth traveling, a good role model can open their audiences eyes.  And for an adolescent who isn't sure about their future, this seems like an opportunity any adult working with them cannot afford to miss.

4.  Music - During the show I spent about 15 minutes demonstrating the science behind sound and playing music with various instruments.  I love music and it turns out that just about everyone else does to.  I started by asking them if they thought of music as being an important part of their lives.  Then I mentioned how powerful music can be on our emotions, and explained that even though it seems like magic, we can use science to help us understand how music works.  This seemed to draw them in, but honestly, music doesn't need much help to do that.  Why is music so powerful?  I don't really know and I didn't try to answer that question with the audience, but I do know that music works for any age and for just about everyone.

Performing for Adolescent Psychiatric Patients: Part 1

Working with new groups of people is one of my favorite experiences as an informal science educator.  I find it a great challenge and opportunity to teach science to groups of people I haven't worked with before, especially if I think my interaction with them can have a positive impact.  You may be surprised to learn I've performed science shows for immigrant and refugee children, grieving children, hospitalized children, the elderly, and religiously conservative groups who may distrust science.  In each one of these cases I felt their was something special I could offer, and I did my best to tailor my shows to accomplish this.

Whenever someone calls to request a traveling show, I never know where it might lead. Recently a phone call led to my first performance at a psychiatric hospital for children and adolescent patients.  Huchings Psychiatric Center helps children with a variety of mental health problems.  Their website provides informational material on Depression, Eating Disorders, Schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses.  Before going to the Center I read through all of these materials and asked the women who booked the show a number of questions about what I should expect from the young people and how my shows fit in with their schedule.  The Center wanted to celebrate the Thankgiving school break with the patients, and thought it would be fun for the students to have me visit and provide some educational entertainment.

I ended up performing a show for the younger patients and another for the adolescent patients (ages 13-18), but it is the show for the adolescents I want to write about.  I knew I would have no problem with the younger audience, but I did a lot of thinking about how I would connect to the older kids and deliver a show that would entertain, teach, and possibly help with the healing that the audience needed.  I don't perform traveling shows often for teenagers, and it always makes me nervous.  An 18 year old can ask questions that are a lot harder than a 10 year old usually can, and many times teenagers can adopt an "I'm too cool for this" attitude.  Whenever I do a show for this age group I prepare with some extra reading on the science topics and commit myself to giving an A+ performance.   Having an audience full of teenagers who were potentially cutting, attempting suicide, and starving themselves before entering the Center seemed like it could add more difficulties I couldn't plan for.  Would the patients have problems with me as an "authority figure?"   Would they be angry they were forced to live in a hospital and resent me for being a part of it?  I just couldn't know.

Thankfully, the show went great.  In fact, it was an experience I won't soon forget and I don't think the teenagers will either.  If you had observed, you would have seen an audience eagerly participating and enjoying themselves while learning about optical illusions, the science of sound and music, and meeting the museum's pet turtle, Patsie.  The experience wasn't magical and didn't resemble a Hollywood drama, but it was real.  I noticed only one of the patients seemed a bit withdrawn, but even he was interested when he saw the African hand drum I brought.  I couldn't have asked for a better audience.  I left this show feeling like I had made a positive impact on the patients' day, and maybe even on their recoveries.

If you are an educator and you get the opportunity to work with a group you've never worked with before, or whom you might be reluctant to work with, I say to just go for it.  Do what research you can beforehand, and go for it.

In this post I gave a description of the show and my thoughts leading up to it.  In Part 2 I will talk about why I think the presentation worked and what role science presentations might have in the recovery of adolescent psychiatric patients.