What is Innovation?

The new administration talks frequently of innovation as being one of the key ingredients to recovery and future success. It sounds great, but what is innovation?

Would you consider it innovative to add a PDF export button to your word processing program, for example? I wouldn't. Yet, we often see just such sorts of incremental changes being touted as "innovative" or even "groundbreaking." The dictionary definitions (there are many) seem rather bland and run to something like: "a new invention or way of doing something." This sort of definition tends to equate change with innovation, an invalid equation.

I prefer to measure whether some change is an innovation by its impact. Does it make a fundamental difference in the way that things are done? Microwave ovens began as a curiosity that was used at a post office where I worked over holidays to heat vending machine sandwiches. Ultimately, they have really changed how we handle food both at home and in restaurants. The microwave oven is an innovation.

Going way back in time, you will find that the invention of the wheel was innovative. The issue here is moving things. The change was from being able to carry relatively small masses by hand from here to there to being able to move much larger masses more rapidly.

The first step must have been using rollers. You had to constantly pick up the rear roller as it came free and carry it to the front. Someone must have noticed that rollers with smaller middles moved stuff farther before having to more the roller from the back to the front. At some time, the idea of smaller middle was replaced with the idea of larger ends. Once the tools were available to do so, wheels were fashioned and added to the roller, which became the axle. Only one more step of adding a platform with the wheel-axle assembly permanently attached was required to reach the true innovation.

The wheel and axle not only allowed people to move larger masses, they allowed people and goods to move about more rapidly and over longer distances. Commerce was transformed.

In education, we see few innovations. Most classes are still taught as they were 200 years ago. We have books and teachers. Students read books, listen to teachers, do homework, and take tests. The ability to play films in classrooms basically added motion and sound to the textbook (and made it easier to fall asleep in class), but did not innovate. Some films were just better lectures by better lecturers than the teacher, although without being able to interact with the lecturer.

The role of computers has mostly been to make typing, charting, and presenting take less time. These effects are not transformations of learning.

Online learning looks like it may truly be an innovation. Students can learn at their own pace and at convenient times. It's possible to track student progress and success and intervene as necessary. We've passed through the "curiosity" phase of online learning but have not yet reached the full potential of this new mode of learning.

Science labs in secondary education began in the second half of the 19th century. Their emphasis was on practical skills: equipment manipulation, safe lab practices, making observations, collecting data, presenting data clearly, and so on. Still, this approach was an innovative step forward from the previous lecture and read only mode of learning science. Students could, for the first time, experience a part of the life of a scientist instead of just reading and hearing about it. This innovation also paved the way for the next step.

Around the end of the 19th century, science educators such as Frederick W. Westaway and Prof. Edwin H. Hall began to use science labs to help students understand the nature of science and to develop scientific reasoning skills. With this simple change in emphasis, science classes with their labs became a valuable experience for all students, not just those who planned a life in science or affiliated fields. John Dewey recognized this point in the 1920s.

Thus, science education was transformed from a specialty to a core discipline for all students.  Today, we accept that science labs are a necessary part of science learning.  Too few truly scrutinized this assumption.  In 2005, the National Research Council published "America's Lab Report" examining the role of science lab investigations in high school science.  They called for change: more and better labs.

However, shortening instruction time and dwindling budgets have pushed us in the opposite direction.  We can respond with innovation, and I have.  Now, students can run real lab investigations on their own and at their own pace.  I claim that the technology of prerecorded real experiments (PRE) with interactive data collection is a revolution in science education and represents its future.  It's a real innovation in science education that allows teachers to "flip" the science lab.

Support this innovative new idea.  Leave a comment or go to http://www.smartscience.net for contact information and to learn more.

© 2012 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net

Simulations Created for Expensive and Dangerous Experiments?

Simulations were invented hundreds of years ago to test models.  That has remained their purpose in science ever since.

Science education is another thing entirely.  Simulations were not invented for education but adapted to it.  The earliest science education simulations that I saw were for projectile motion, hardly too expensive or dangerous.  It was merely convenient for the purposes of visualizing trajectories under different circumstances.  I have reproduced in real life many trajectories without great cost and with no danger.

Some point to the Manhattan Project and the space program as examples of using simulations.

The purposes of the Manhattan Project and the space program are quite different than those in a science classroom.  This analogy fails completely.  Space engineers are not attempting to visualize something for the purpose of learning a new concept.  They're designing equipment.  Ultimately, they do as much real-life testing as possible before committing their devices to space.

Here's my approach to when it's too expensive or dangerous to do the real thing.  Have someone else carefully plan and record those experiments, just as I have.  Do the recordings in such a manner that students can take data from them interactively.  Don't bother to figure out the model because the real world IS your model in this case.  That's the best possible model for science.

You don't have to worry whether the model on which your images are based is correct or not because the real world is always correct.  When you drop an object, it accelerates at a rate determined by mass, shape, size, air resistance, gravity, wind, and any other parameters that may be involved without writing one line of code or using a single equation.

Simulations are great tools for visualizing the unseeable.  They can also be an adjunct to or replacement for videos of difficult-to-understand concepts.  They are not a replacement for good science lab investigation experiences.  Many people think that they have to be that because they're the only alternative to hands-on.  BUT they're NOT the only alternative.

One, very limited, alternative is remote robotic labs.  They don't have interactive data collection and work only on a limited range of experiments.  But, they're real and are online; they do provide access to expensive equipment.

My alternative is to record the experiments ahead of time.  Theoretically, you can record every parameter combination likely to be chosen by students.  Although you've time-warped the experiment, it makes no difference to the students.  They cannot tell that the experiment was performed in the last minute or month or year.  Once those bits get onto the Internet, they become virtual and can be stored for recall at any time.

However, just watching the experiment is not enough.  With simulations, that's all you get, and you get it in an unreal world that I'd even call fake or cartoon.  The real experiment begs you to take the data yourself.  The data are not known beforehand as with a simulation.  Your taking of data has real meaning to you.  It's your data, not the data some programmer set up with an algorithm (possibly flawed and definitely imperfect as a representation of the real world).

So, you get to choose.  Would you have your students investigating an algorithm non-interactively or investigating the real world interactively?  In both cases, they do it online with all of the benefits that flow from that medium.

© 2012 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net

Clear Learning Outcomes

[Author's note:  These subjects have been taken from the goals in America's Lab Report, a groundbreaking report from the National Research Council.  The text and images explain how authentic online science lab experiences meet those goals.]

Design of lab includes clearly stated learning outcomes.
Every one of these virtual labs has a full activity plan to support teacher and curriculum writers. The first image above is the header for the plan and includes the purpose and goals of the lab for use by the teacher. The second image is taken from an introduction to one of the lab units and will be seen by both students and teachers.

© 2012 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net

Mastery of Subject Matter

[Author's note:  These subjects have been taken from the goals in America's Lab Report, a groundbreaking report from the National Research Council.  The text and images explain how authentic online science lab experiences meet those goals.]

Enhance student understanding of specific scientific facts and concepts and the way in which these facts and concepts are organized in the scientific disciplines.

In order to use science lab experiences to aid subject matter mastery, labs must have supporting material that helps students. At the upper left, you can see a reduced image of a warm up page. This page includes a brief description, goals and objectives, and a series of questions designed so that students begin to think about the topic and, possibly, to challenge their preconceptions. At the upper right is the beginning of a post-lab quiz that helps students to consider the science investigated with the experiments. Students can review their experimental work and support materials during this quiz.
The lower image shows the vocabulary and scientist mini-biography taken from the same Cell Respiration lab. The vocabulary list links to a hyperlinked list of all words related to this lab.
Not shown above is the Procedure page, which has additional background material on this lab, a procedure discussion when warranted, and information on errors, graphs, apparatus, units, and more. Also not shown are the fully worked out solutions for all quiz questions and the Solution Strategy page that explains principles in more detail and provides some sample worked-out problems.
All of this material creates a greater mastery of the science illustrated by the experiments being performed by the students.

© 2012 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net

Definition of "Laboratory Experience"

Definition of a Laboratory Experience

"Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science."

This definition forms the critical basis for all of the goals specified in America's Lab Report according to Prof. Susan Singer, the lead author of the report. All data from science labs must originate in the material world. That definition does not provide for data that originates from a programmer's pencil: simulations.

Simulations can have pedagogical value, but this value does not include substituting for true laboratory experience no matter how well designed or well integrated the simiulation is.

I will be providing examples of online activities meeting the goals of America's Lab Report that all use data that originates in the material world. In some instances, the online activities have been augmented by hands-on experiments that provide another dimension of experience to students.

© 2015 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Books about Marketing

If you've created something you'd like to sell or are even considering creating some such thing, you'll immediately run into the issue of marketing.  Few software developers know anything about marketing.

If you find yourself in this predicament, don't despair.  There's a great resource, the ESC Marketing Book Club.  For just $35 per year, you can join the Educational Software Cooperative at http://www.edu-soft.org and participate in this excellent online activity.

Al Harberg runs the online club and summarizes each new book he selects.  People then enter into a discussion of the topic, sharing their own experiences with software and marketing.

Why try to figure out all of those marketing books yourself?  Get the Harberg Digest online plus other members' insights.  Go to the website now and join.

While you're at it, check out the ESC blog at http://educationalsoftware.blogspot.com/.

For a summary of books already reviewed, see http://www.edu-soft.org/content/index.php/esc-book-club.

See you there!

© 2012 by Smart Science Education Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net

Pay Teachers More

Today, I ran across a column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times that surprised me. Mr. Kristof usually writes about things happening around the world. I think that the situation in Wisconsin motivated him to devote a column to this important topic. You can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html.

What I found fascinating about his column is how well he makes his point, marshaling evidence from many sources. He points out that one excellent teacher can raise the lifetime earnings of each student, on average, by $20,000. For class sizes of 20 (small these days) and a lifetime career of 30 years, the impact on our economy of a single excellent teacher over that teacher's career is an amazing $12 million. For the superb master teachers, it's even more: nearly $20 million.

Each year such a teacher works adds future value to our economy at a rate that's eight times greater than a teacher salary of $50,000 for the excellent teacher, and that ratio assumes only 20 students in a class. In New York City, typical classes exceed 30 students and so increase the ratio by 1/2 to 12 times greater.

Doubling teachers' salaries would still provide us with a great deal if we only had great teachers. But, we don't. Mr. Kristof then turns to teachers' unions and nails it. He says that they have misused their clout to ensure job security for teachers instead of better pay. The former rewards poor teachers. The latter attracts good teachers.

He goes on to explain more about our underpaid teachers. Starting teacher pay today averages $39,000 according to Kristof. Increasing it to $65,000 would allow us to fill our teacher vacancies from the top third of college graduates instead of getting nearly half from the bottom third. He suggests that it would be enough to turn our education system around as long as politicians and others stop using our teachers as verbal punching bags.

© 2011 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Take a Closer Look at Science Education

With Jerry Brown taking over as governor of California and Mayor Bloomberg appointing Cathleen Black as chancellor of New York City schools, the time is right to review what's happening in science education in these two very large school markets. New York City has over 1,000,000 students in its schools, about 1/3 in high school, and the California high school population is estimated at a bit over 2,000,000.

In addition, Texas, no lightweight in education, has begun its RSSM (Request for Supplemental Science Materials), which seeks to certify 100% web-delivered materials for all of the high school science students in the state. Every Texas student must take four years of science, so all 1.3 million high school students are covered by this new requirement.

With so many articles bemoaning our nation's science education, what is to be done? New national science curriculum standards are being readied right now as is a national education technology plan. Neither of these will have substantial impact on the quality of science education. They may help a bit around the edges. Textbook manufacturers and others who create curricular materials will find their work a bit easier if they can begin with a single set of standards instead of 51. Technology does have great promise, but implementation has its problems.

I'm going to digress from my usual approach of leaving my business out entirely or leaving any commercial comment until the end because the situation is so dire. We've dropped from the first-place science education country in the world to somewhere in double digits depending on which data you use.

You cannot ignore the fact that all of the paths to success in science education that are being tried have been tried before. Why should they succeed now?

Some say that science education is being hamstrung by poor math and language arts skills and seek to improve science education by focusing on those areas. That idea appears logical but puts the cart before the horse. After all, science can be taught without complex language or advanced math skills. It's just not the way people usually teach it. Besides, science can be the trigger to engaging students in learning better math and language arts skills.

I created Smart Science® education just to deal with these issues. I looked at highly rated schools and found their science programs often lacking in basic science understanding. They did quite well in producing students who have memorized the materials: words, formulas, and procedures. But, their students did not understand the nature of science and often lacked decent scientific thinking skills.

My analysis indicated that these students simply did not have enough true science investigation (lab) time. Oh, they may have had plenty of science labs, but those labs were either verification labs (answer told to them ahead of time) or technique labs (focused on learning a particular technique). Students did not go into the lab wondering what they'd find.

Even in cases of investigation, the time and availability of materials and apparatus prevented a complete investigation. In addition, many great labs were being eliminated due to new safety requirements and increasingly tight budgets.

I chose to attack our science education failings right at the lab level. Anyone can provide memorization classes and create memorization software to aid in that course of action. However, creating great science labs is not so easy. You must have a number of factors such as:

1. Low cost, or the labs won't be used in most schools.
2. An unknown outcome of the experiments
3. Enough experiments to allow exploration and discovery
4. Data from the material world with systematic and random errors so students learn the nature of science.
5. Students collecting their own individual data point by point while exercising their own care and judgment to extend their understanding of the nature of science.
6. Data analysis made on students' own data to engage students by providing data ownership.
7. Certainty of experiment operation so that entire periods aren't wasted with totally failed experiments.

These criteria can only be fulfilled with the support of technology. Consider a couple of technologies that are being promoted to improve science education, simulations and probeware.

Science animated simulations use a formula to produce data for students to study. In general, they do not produce a data table of individual data points. These simulations violate criteria 4, 5, and 6 above. Using a simulation to mimic a true science lab tends to leave a very inaccurate impression of science in the minds of students: precise and easy. Science is just the opposite. Teachers should reserve simulations for understanding content and not attempt to use them to replace labs, where the nature of science is one of the major outcomes sought.

Probeware provides an efficient way to collect data from the material world. However, this approach violates criterion 5 above and may run into criterion 7 due to failure of the experiment or of the electronics. It also does not truly meet criterion 1, low cost. Probeware should only be used in advanced classes where students have already mastered the concepts of the nature of science to a reasonable degree. Unfortunately, even in advanced classes, the students often enter without having had the opportunity to master those concepts.

Only Smart Science® education, with its patented approach, meets all of the listed goals.

1. In large school districts, purchasing contracts allow students to do entire labs of many experiments for on the order of 25 cents per lab.
2. The labs do not disclose the outcome before the experiments are performed.
3. Each lab has a number of experiments, sometimes more than twenty, to allow a full investigation.
4. All labs use filmed real experiments as the source of data so students get a true feeling for real data with the same sorts of errors they'd get themselves.
5. Each student must collect individual data and cannot simply copy someone else's data; their own care and judgment affect the results.
6. Students analyze their own data; they even determine how much data to take.
7. Prerecorded experiments ensure success.

There's simply no other system for science investigation that matches Smart Science® education.

The above does not preclude traditional hands-on experiments. Rather, it embraces them. Many Smart Science® labs have a hands-on component so that students can have a kinesthetic experience and have the opportunity for experimental design beyond that available in prerecorded experiments.

Furthermore, Smart Science® labs are suitable for homework. Students can do a hands-on lab in school and then go home and expand that experience enormously with the platform-independent, 100% web-delivered Smart Science® system.

We must improve science education dramatically. All of the paths being trod today are old ones being revisited except for this one. The Smart Science® approach as been adopted from very successful programs in the past. These programs were successful in outcomes but were incapable of scaling to the entire population because of their high cost and difficult training requirements for teachers.

Those impediments can now be overcome with technology. The patented technology of Smart Science® education does exactly that.

Other measures must also be taken to succeed. For example, we must recruit the best possible science teachers and provide them with excellent tools for classroom use. Yet, these measures will take time. Implementing Smart Science® education can be done immediately so that its benefits can begin to be felt today.

The Smart Science® technology currently has implementations for grades 6-13. We have designs to add grades 1-5 so that this remarkable technology be used throughout every student's education beginning at first grade and continuing through the first year of college. We also can expand its capabilities to augment the lab experience beyond the freshman year of college.

Smart Science® education can revolutionize science education.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Educational Software Cooperative

Sometimes something just makes sense.

People who write software for education have a large hill to climb, especially if they're doing it alone or in a small group.

After all, how many people can write great software, understand the pedagogical aspects of good educational software, run a business, do market research, perform marketing, make sales calls and close sales, design web sites, establish marketing channels, write contracts, negotiate deals, perform bookkeeping, handle all tax filings, and so on?  What is the minimum number of people required to do all of these functions well?

If you don't have these skills and don't have associates who can fill in the blanks, then you'd better have enough money to hire those who do -- or have a great support group.

The Educational Software Cooperative with a blog at http://educationalsoftware.blogspot.com/ is just such an organization.  Members include developers, publishers, distributors, and users of educational software.  While anyone can participate in the group on its public forum, the real advantages stem from its members-only forum.  That's where Al Harberg hosts his world-renowned ESC Marketing Book Club.  Each month, Al selects a book on marketing.  He provides excellent summaries of the topics in each chapter, a sort of "Reader's Digest" of great marketing books.  Members comment on their perspectives of the current topics.

You cannot help but gain great understanding of marketing educational software this way because Al goes out of this way to interpret the books specifically for educational software developers.

Each year, the ESC presents an award for Outstanding Achievement in Educational Software.  The submission rules are being revised for the 2011 award, and the 2010 award will be announced soon.

I just makes sense for anyone who's involved in educational software in any capacity to join this stellar group of dedicated professionals.  The membership fee is very modest; you can't lose.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

What is Science?

For those educators out there, please understand that I know that doing science and doing science education are very different. In many ways, the latter is more difficult than the former.
I'll quote a person whom I met and spent some time listening to. I only know him though his works, although my time watching and listening to him at Caltech brings the written transcripts of his words to life in my mind.

Richard Feynman, speaking to an NSTA meeting, said, "In order to talk to each other, we have to have words, and that's all right. It's a good idea to try to see the difference, and it's a good idea to know when we are teaching the tools of science, such as words, and when we are teaching science itself." You can find his complete transcript at http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html.

I've found this concept very difficult to explain to people, even those who teach science. I happen to believe very strongly that understanding this difference, really understanding it with all of its implications, is critical to teaching science.

If you do not understand the difference, you can readily fall into the trap of teaching the tools of science and not teaching any science at all. The tools of science are easier to teach and to test for than is science.

So, when you teach students how to do a chemistry lab procedure, you're teaching a tool of science and not teaching science. When students learn the phases of mitosis, they've learned no science at all. Learning that planets and moons travel in elliptical orbits is not learning science -- unless you figured that out all by yourself.

How do you know when you've learned some science? Feynman has a test you can apply. Like all tests, it's not absolutely perfect, but it will work when words are involved, especially for young children. Here's his test.

Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language.

This is vintage Feynman, clever and succinct.

However, this idea will not completely explain science to those who don't really understand it. Some will insist, for example, that science is observation. Like words and procedures, observation is an important tool of science. But observation is not science. Here's Feynman again.

Suppose I were told to observe, to make a list, to write down, to do this, to look, and when I wrote my list down, it was filed with 130 other lists in the back of a notebook. I would learn that the result of observation is relatively dull, that nothing much comes of it.

It's not enough to observe and record. You have also to think. In addition, you must realize that many observations do not lead to new ideas.Too often, science classes force students to make lists, to observe, without thinking. My son's high biology teacher had students fill a notebook with tree leaves. And that was the end of the exercise.

Frequently, teachers have their students perform some activity and make a record. Then, they take students figuratively by the hand and show them how these observations lead to some wonderful conclusion about science. Everyone says, "Wow. That's wonderful." This approach leads students to believe that every observation leads to science. Not so.

To do science, you must engage your mind scientifically, and you must be patient. To teach science, you must help students learn how to engage their minds scientifically and to be patient. Few science classes provide these insights to students, except possibly as just words. Fewer give many real opportunities to learn these concepts by the work the students do.

Yes, I know that there's not enough time, not enough money for equipment, etc. It's hard enough to get students just to listen and to learn the tools of science (words, formulas, procedures, etc.). But that attitude (which is correct as far as it goes) misses the real point. Once students begins to understand science, they become engaged. Then, the learning of the tools becomes easier and sticks better in their minds.

It's like activation energy. It's a tough push up the steep hill initially, much tougher than the gentle rolling hills of learning tools. But, once you get to the top, everything goes forward much better and faster.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

iPad and Science Education

The noise over the iPad is deafening.  Steve Jobs and Apple have really created a huge stir and executed a major marketing coup.  However, what is there behind all of the hoopla for science education in ordinary classrooms?

Take the iPad apart one feature at a time.

Price: At $499 for the minimum configuration, it's more costly than some laptops and many netbooks.  Yet, it delivers less performance.

User Interface: You have to love the user interface, which blows away the others for many applications.  On the other hand, the screen keyboard won't be good for extensive typing, the kind that many teachers assign to their students.

Ports: The few ports make it harder to use this platform with the popular probeware.  I'm sure that Jobs & Co. did not plan the iPad for use in school science labs.  My personal opinion, backed up by some studies, is that probeware gets in the way of learning science by focusing on procedure and automating data collection.  Although many like this approach, I think that it's exactly backward.  You should automate the procedure and focus on data collection and analysis.

 Software Support: The iPad does not support either Flash or Java.  While I have little use for Flash, which infects too many web sites with annoying animations, many educators have found use for Flash animations that help explain difficult science concepts and provide quality visualizations for students.  These students won't be able to view them on their iPads.

The situation with Java really bothers me.  Java provides much more capability than Flash with its limited Actionscript scripting language.  You can find some excellent science learning software written in Java because of its multi-platform capability and the fact that you can write serious software with it.  One example, of course, is my own Smart Science® education system.

Interaction with Screen: For data collection from the screen, you might think that liberation from the mouse would be a good thing.  However, the finger tip has two serious problems as a data collection device.  It's big compared to the pixels on the screen.  You cannot position your fingertip to within a pixel.  Then, even if you could, your finger is opaque.  You cannot see where you're pointing.

Although the touchscreen on the iPad is wonderful for doing many things and for a gesture interface, it fails completely when you try to collect data by pointing at a specific pixel.

The bottom line here goes something like this:  The iPad is a wonderful technological advance but is not ready for mainstream science classrooms.  It costs too much for what it brings to those classes and lacks some really important features.

I do believe that someday, maybe sooner that we expect, tablet computers will be found in the hands of every student in many of our K-12 classes.  The things that will be done in support of learning will be truly extraordinary.  It's not the little red schoolhouse anymore.  And this learning will be available regardless of economic circumstance.  No longer will too many of our young people be denied a great education based on where they are growing up.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

The Mars Rovers and Science Education

What does the Mars Rover program have to do with science education -- aside from studying the Mars Rover program?

It makes a useful analogy to science labs in classrooms around the world. That may seem a bit far fetched. As you read this analogy, don't assume it's crazy. Read to the end before passing judgment. You may be surprised at how apt the analogy is.

When NASA designed the Mars Rover program, it had a number of goals and restraints. Assume that it could consider just about any approach and then had to adapt to the goals and restraints, a brainstorming session. What were the range of options available?

At one extreme would be no trip to Mars. At the other extreme would be a manned trip to Mars. In between is the idea of a remote robotic explorer.

At one point during your brainstorming session, a software developer jumps up and proclaims that you can have a software program that includes all known information about Mars. This program can then simulate the data that a trip to Mars, manned or unmanned, might produce. The program not only could produce data but even could put together simulated images of the Martian surface. Just look at the benefis.

• low cost (compared to a Martian trip)
• complete safety (no astronauts at risk)
• short time (writing software instead of building equipment and sending it to Mars)

At another point, a rugged test pilot stands up and says that the only way to explore Mars is in person. Simulations are for wusses and robots are for geeks. Lots of people like this idea, but it has some problems.

• very high cost (compared to a robotic mission)
• extreme danger (never been done before, may not be able to return, etc.)
• very long time horizon (years of preparation, very lengthy trip)

When discussing the options, the simulation idea comes in for some criticism. The scientists tell the software developer that simulations won't generate any real science. They may look real, but they certainly will not match what the actual science will be on Mars. How can they publish papers on Mars using investigations of a simulation?

The scientists carefully explain that computer science is not science in the usual sense. It's actually an engineering discipline that produces tools used by scientists and by society.

In the end, of course, the robotic mission wins out as the least expensive real science option for exploring Mars. The scientists have a number of options regarding how to handle the data from the mission. It could be streamed live continually (sort of), or it could be stored on the rovers and sent later. The received data could be stored in a database and available for retrieval at any time in the future, sort of prerecorded for use by many different people at many different times.

While bringing NASA into this discussion does exaggerate the situation, it also shines a very bright light on how best to teach science, especially the use of science labs. In today's discussions of science labs in science courses, you'll find two extremes: those who insist on 100% hands-on labs and those who, with equal vehemence, insist on using simulations instead.

Fortunately, some are finding middle ground. At MIT, they're working on the iLabs project, which allows real-time remote robotic experimentation. Unfortunately, these labs are mostly engineering labs, and the likelihood of covering a reasonable range of science labs with this technology is very remote at this time.

The fact that all Mars Rover data are stored and usable by many scientists in many locations opens up a different approach: prerecorded real experiments. Images, videos, data, and other information can be stored for retrieval by students. The science certainly is as real as hands-on and remote robotics approaches.

The pedagogy depends on the software and the instructors. People who write the software and create the experiment videos cannot also create the instructors. They can only provide software that's easy to use and instructions for correct usage. Better science teachers know how to incorporate science lab experiences into their classes.

Data collection forms a very important aspect of the science lab experience. Data should not be precollected or automatically collected. Just as in a science lab, students should take their own individual data point by point. Each point represents not just the experiment but also student care and judgment, an important factor in understanding the nature of empirical data.

Each video should tell a story and provide means for collecting experimental data. If the video itself doesn't tell enough of the story, then the lab units should be supplemented with text, diagrams, animations, and videos that complete the story: tell the students enough so that they truly understand the details of the experiment.

Finally, sufficient supporting materials should be provided so that both students and teachers are able to succeed. This approach and list form the basis for Smart Science® education, a system of more than 150 lab units for use in science courses from grades 6 through college.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Hands-On Labs are Not the Answer

From the beginning of science labs in education in the mid-1800s, they've been hands-on labs. Until the latter half of the 20th century, the only other sort of lab was the paper-and-pencil lab. Some of you may not have encountered these desktop labs.

In a paper-and-pencil lab, the instructor hands out copies of laboratory "data," which may have been created from equations and not taken from real experiments. Students then fill in provided tables with the data and calculations based on that data. Finally, they answer questions about the results.

What are the benefits of paper-and-pencil labs?

• low cost
• minimal time required
• high safety
• lab technique does not affect results

What are the problems with paper-and-pencil labs?

• no experimental design
• likely to have unreal data
• no kinesthetic experience
• no visual experience
• data not dependent on student technique
• data not dependent of student judgment

I'm sure that you can add to these lists. You'll note that these features, except for lack of visual experience, match those of computer laboratory simulations being hawked by a wide variety of vendors, instructors, and amateur scientists. With simulations, the visual experience is generally poor, being limited to cartoon-like animations.

With so many defects in these labs, whether pencil-and-paper or simulations, you can see why so many educators have pushed back very hard to the point where they insist that only hands-on labs can be appropriate for science education. It's a natural reaction by those appalled by the large infusion of simulations into the laboratory part of many science curricula.

However, these hands-on purists are throwing out the baby with the bath water. By denying any lab but a hands-on lab, they're making advances in science education difficult and limiting their student experiences severely.

They should be searching for means to make new advances in technology available in science education. The goals must include the following.

• lower cost of true science lab learning experiences
• improve safety of science lab experiences
• expand range of science lab experiences available to students
• use student class and homework time more efficiently
• provide exposure to the nature of science and all that it implies

Hands-on labs can be great learning experiences. Those that extend over many periods and involve iterative redesign and exploration can open up new vistas in students' imaginations. Instructors should not give these up entirely. However, recognize that such experiences are time-consuming and expensive. Usually, they require that students work in groups, and some in any group may opt out of the experience, just tagging along for the ride.

On the other hand, many hands-on labs are merely exercises in lab technique. How many students will find pipetting techniques valuable in the future? Other hands-on labs have been structured as "verification" labs, a class of labs that was railed against by F. W. Westaway nearly a century ago and by Carl Sagan much more recently. Students know all of the science and the numerical result expected before entering the lab. They are simply to verify this information.

Technique and verification labs do not teach science. They are a waste of time and money. Worse, they give students the impression that science is dull and uninspiring.

What's to be done? One way to view the options is to look at the Mars Rover program. It's real science, and not science pedagogy. So, you must be careful about drawing too close of an analogy. I'll be posting more on this analogy soon.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Are Science Labs Vanishing from K-12 Classes?

The pressures on science teachers just keep increasing. Authorities have been taking away their labs for years.

High-stakes testing requires time for the test and for preparation. Where does that time come from? Often, it comes from the lab time because labs are inefficient at learning content, the main focus of high-stakes tests.

Safety regulations have increased considerably in recent years. Now, you cannot have mercury in your classroom at all, for example. States and districts have banned experiments considered hazardous, an action that further limits the ability of teachers to provide lab experience to students.

Budget cuts have hit science departments particularly hard. The cost of providing expendibles and maintaining equipment for experiments has forced the removal of many excellent lab experiences from curricula.

Because many science teachers have been asked to teach in unfamiliar areas, they aren't prepared to develop and run effective labs in these areas. As a result, they do fewer labs.

At the same time, authorities are asking science teachers to provide more lab experience for their students. They rightly argue that such experiences, if done well, can help generate enthusiasm for science, help in understanding the nature of science, help improve scientific reasoning skills, and generally improve student outcome in science courses.

I say that these contradictory trends can only be resolved by the innovative use of technology, and I have chosen to work toward that end. My efforts are beginning to bear the fruit of interest from major online schools, large school districts, and important publishers.

Here's a comparison of the different means that people now employ to provide lab experience to high school students. The list includes hands-on experiments, simulations, large online databases, remote robotic experiments, and prerecorded real experiments. I have been working on this last item.

Type	Cost	NOS	Time	Safety	Design	Kines.	Range
Hands-on	high	high	long	low	high	yes	mid
Simulations	free to mid	none	short	high	low	no	very large
Online DBs	free	mid	mid	high	none	no	small
Remote Robotics	free to low	mid to high	mid	high	low	no	small
Prerecorded Real	low	high	short	high	low	no	very large

NOS means "Nature of Science"
Design means "opportunity for experimental design"
Range means "range of experiments available"

Clearly, the choices you make for science labs depend on your goals for the labs. If cost is your primary consideration, then you'll minimize the number of hands-on labs you do. For example, you can use free simulations while sacrificing quality and the nature of science.

Remote robotics and large online databases can be used but, due to their small range, can only fill in for a small amount of a typical high school science course at best.

In my opinion, there's really no contest. Trim down the number of hands-on labs by eliminating those that cost too much, take too long, or don't work well to teach an understanding of the nature of science. Replace these labs with prerecorded real experiments. Pay close attention to the four lab integration goals of America's Lab Report. Ideally, increase the number of investigation experiences by adding more prerecorded real experiments. Find a place in your course for one or two ongoing investigation projects each semester. These projects may involve online databases, remote robotics, hands-on work, field trips, and even prerecorded real experiments or some combination.

You can improve the student investigation experience and handle budget shortfalls too.

© 2010 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Simulations are Not Science

Simulations, especially animated simulations, are a great learning tool. They can help students visualize and understand difficult concepts in science classes. Interactive animated simulations can engage students with the concepts. However, you must be careful when inserting simulations into science labs, that is, into student scientific investigations.

Simulations in science have a long and highly-reputed history. They're really the output of calculations from a model. Newton used them to help him investigate his ideas about gravity. He even invented new mathematics to aid in his work. Until recently, the work involved in modeling (simulations) was intense and lengthy. Computers have changed all that. In fact, the first computer was used for simulations.

You might say that simulations are a hallowed tool of science, but they aren't science themselves any more than microscopes, telescopes, or spectrophotometers are science. Scientists don't investigate simulations; they investigate the universe and all of its contents. They may make models of their theories and spend considerable time adjusting these models to see how they may fit with real-world data.

Simulations in science education are another matter entirely. The issue of the appropriate roles of simulations in the science classroom has become very important lately due to the lowering costs of computers and the number of new science simulation options being offered to educators. How should one take best advantage of this sudden abundance?

An example may aid in this discussion. Consider projectile motion, one of the earliest and most common science simulations. For the simplest case of a projectile in a vacuum and a uniform gravitational field, there's no problem writing the equations of motion or calculating the projectile path and impact point. The projectile position is a simple function of time and starting parameters such as initial height, angle of launch, launch energy, and projectile mass.

Indeed, the equations are so simple that a student can perform the calculations necessary to determine the projectile path for a given set of parameters in minutes with a hand-held calculator. A beginning student of computer programming can write a program to print tables of the position in a very short time. All that an existing computer simulation does is save time and, if animated, display the projectile motion.

All of these approaches begin with an assumed equation of motion. Should students be working to discover this equation or using it in some other fashion? Are they investigating a mathematical formula or learning about gravity and motion?

An instructor might have students investigate the motion of real projectiles with the goal of elucidating ideas about motion. Then, these ideas could be used to create a mathematical model. The model can be used to generate data to compare with the real data. Error analysis will help to determine whether discrepancies are within the precision of the real experiments or whether the model has flaws that require revision of the original ideas upon which they were based.

This approach uses simulations in an entirely suitable fashion, one parallel with that which scientists use.

On the other hand, an instructor might decide to use an animated simulation of projectile as the object of student investigation. An entire set of questions could be posed for resolution by the process of trying different parameters in the simulated model. The intended object may be science, but the actual investigation is of some equations, and error analysis, etc. do not enter into this activity at all.

Unless this instructor issues a very strong caveat, students may develop a misunderstanding of science when performing this exercise. The equations have unlimited precision, unlike the real world. They also represent an idealization of the real world.

The gravity field is not uniform. The projectiles do not move through a vacuum. Imprecisions exist in the measurements of the parameters. Investigations of the real world will illuminate these issues and help students to understand science. Science courses are not simply about memorizing content. While simulations may help with content, they have to be used very, very carefully in the investigation part of the course or not at all so that they don't interfere with the important learning that should go on here.

Educators should stop using simulations as the objects of investigations and very carefully use them to augment investigations appropriately or not at all.

These statements should not be interpreted as a license for hands-on purists to decry the use of virtual labs in science courses. Hands-on experiments have their own problems and will be the subject of a later blog entry.

Smart Science® education has found one way to thread the path between the science learning benefits of hands-on experiments and the efficiency benefits of virtual labs.
© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Balloon Boy Hoax??

The nation and its news channels were transfixed by a saucer-shaped hot air balloon traveling across Colorado. It purportedly might have contained a six-year old boy.

While the sheriff's office tracked the balloon, and many news channels trumpeted the "news," no one even thought to figure out whether a boy could be inside of this device.

Is our entire nation crazy, or do we, as a nation, simply lack simple scientific reasoning skills?

The first question anyone with any reasoning skills should ask is, "Can such a device lift a six-year old?" This sort of question is readily answered with available information.

At sea level, a hot air balloon might have a lift of 0.025 lb/cu ft or a bit more if the air is hot enough. For a boy to be alive inside of the balloon and not fall out dead or nearly so, the air could not be hotter than the estimate of 300° F. At Fort Collins, the lift would be substantially less because of the one mile altitude.

The balloon owners could readily provide the authorities with the dimensions of the balloon. We can see from images that its diameter is about 15-20 ft and its height around 6 ft. A few simple back-of-the-envelope calculations show that this device will have a lift of about 50 lbs at sea level and less at one mile high. Its own weight might be around 10 lbs. To be inside of the balloon, the child must have some structure on which to sit. That structure would also have weight, maybe around 10 lbs more.

The net lift of the balloon would be less than 30 lbs. If you know of a six-year boy who weighs less than 30 lbs, then he is very underweight for his age. But that's not all. According to reports, the balloon reached a height of 15,000 ft, about 2 miles above the starting altitude. With a six-year old boy as ballast, it could never have even come close to that height.

This hoax was more than just a publicity stunt. Perhaps inadvertently, it was a test of our population's ability to think. How could a large group of law enforcement officers and a fair number of news organizations not have considered the scientific rationality of the claim of a boy in such a small hot air balloon? Have we trained our citizens so poorly that those who present the world to us cannot ask and answer the simplest and most basic questions?

Shame on all of them for not bothering to spend just a few minutes thinking -- or at least asking someone who can think to do so. The question was obvious. Can a six-year be inside of that hot air balloon? The answer takes only a few minutes for any reputable scientist to answer.

If our students learned more about what science is all about, then they might have been able to answer this question or at a minimum to pose it. We most seriously must have an improvement in our education system right away. Real science labs will help to prepare a sufficient fraction of our people to confront issues such as this one so that we won't be duped repeatedly.

© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

School Science Labs

A recent article in District Adminstration magazine (http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1742) discusses the aging science labs in schools across our nation and the cost of upgrading them all.

The article points out that science standards have been raised recently while lab facilities have been left to deteriorate. The costs of fixing the existing labs run between $150 and $200 per square foot meaning that an adequate lab space for 24 students will cost around $250,000 to upgrade.

In these days of plunging school budgets, this allocation of funds is simply not possible.

However, there's another answer. Scale back the full upgrade of the lab spaces so that only inexpensive, safe, and efficient hands-on labs are done. Safety equipment may be partially eliminated. Gas would no longer be required. Bunsen burners come from the 19^th century and are really archaic today. Highly chemical resistant desktops could be replaced with less expensive alternatives.

Why can we make this adjustment? Because the primary advantages of hands-on labs are two-fold.

1. They provide a kinesthetic learning experience, rounding out the other learning in science classes.
2. They allow students to do experimental design and redesign.

Any other purpose cited for having hands-on labs either can be handled in other, safer and less expensive ways or is not really necessary for high school students. The two purposes listed above are easily achieved in a facility that is no more complex or expensive than a kitchen. While such facilities are more expensive than ordinary classrooms, they fall far below the cost of a fully-equipped science lab.

What do you then do to provide the science experiences not capable of being provided in a kitchen? After all, simulations will not do. They misrepresent the nature of science and can even deliver erroneous results. The data all come from a programmer's pencil, which cannot represent the real world and may have other flaws as well.

The answer comes from a breakthough technology: the Smart Science® education system. This system uses prerecorded real experiments to deliver the materal world to students online. For more information, see www.smartscience.net.

© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.net
Follow this author on ETC Journal

Science and History

F. W. Westaway wrote the book on Science Teaching (of that title). He concerned himself in this treatise of nearly 500 pages with every aspect of teaching science (in 1929). With respect to history, he makes a very interesting comment.

If the science teacher is lucky enough to have a history colleague whose sympathies are primarily on the side of the creative genius, whether of science or art or literature or music, his task will be comparatively easy. But there are still history teachers and history books that give prominence to such stories as those of a ruffianly baronage, of court intrigues, and of military and political adventurers. The stupendous events that have really made the world what it is are almost unknown to many of our children. The names of the great pioneers and discoverers, me things they have done, of what races they were, and how though separated by nationality each has built on the work of the rest: these are the things that history should teach. The year 1848 is mentioned in the history books as memorable for political "revolutions": how few of them mention that that was the year when Pasteur discovered the properties of asymmetrical crystals, a discovery which led to the birth of bacteriology, and thus to modern surgery, modern medicine, and other discoveries unrolling in almost endless series? Our historical perspective has been all wrong. There are still people who would place Maryborough and Napoleon, Richelieu and Palmerston, in the same rank as such mighty creative geniuses as Newton and Shakespeare, Rembrandt and Beethoven.

It's a very different view of history than what I was told during my schooling.

© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.netFollow this author on ETC Journal

Westaway Comments on What Physics Is

F. W. Westaway wrote many books. The most useful of the lot may be Science Teaching. Just about every imaginable aspect of teaching science in early 20^th century England is covered.

Help all the boys to acquire the art of reading. Let the old catch-words, " weigh, weigh, weigh ", give place to " read, read, read ". That weighing and measuring is the very life-blood of scientific method is, of course, true, but let the boys know all about the thing they are measuring and weighing. Too, too often, physics is treated just as if it were mathematics; a boy takes readings mechanically, settles down to arithmetic and algebra, and labels his work " physics ".

Ignoring the rather gender-biased notion that the students are all "boys," Westaway has found a true kernel of wisdom here. Science is not about weighing or performing mathematical tricks. He suggests that students read about the subject under investigation. He even says that students should, where possible, read the works of the original science investigators.

While Westaway is in favor of using students own experience to help them understand science, he recognizes the impossibility of carrying this approach through an entire school life of science. Eventually, students simply don't have the requisite experience and can't acquire the equivalent on their own or through lab work. Then, they must do the next best thing. If possible, read what the scientist responsible for the discovery said. Alternatively, find a good reporter of the work.

That's much more interesting than reading a textbook, in my opinion.

© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.netFollow this author on ETC Journal.

Interactive Does not Mean Experiential

Many supporters of using simulations to replace science labs point to their interactivity and equate that aspect with the simulation being "experiential." How interactive are simulations anyway? And, is being experiential the best criteria for deciding whether an activity can stand in for a science lab?

Simulations roughly divide into two types: data simulations and procedure simulations. The former focus on generating data for students to use. The latter emphasize step-by-step procedures and generally result in much less data than the data simulations do.

A very early and still popular data simulation involves the trajectories of projectile motion. Various projectiles are fired with different forces with a varying angle. Students observe an animated version of the projectile motion, and the simulation provides data for the student to use. This simulation, although rather simple, provides an excellent model of data simulations in general.

Of course, the equations for this situation are quite easy to calculate if you ignore air resistance, wind, projectile shape and size, and the like. Students have essentially unlimited ability to vary parameters and see what happens to the trajectory. Many people would consider this simulation to be interactive and experiential. But is it?

The same people will tell you that reading a book is not interactive nor experiential. Consider simplifying the simulation solely for explanative purposes. Reduce the parameters to just the launch angle and the precision of the angle to one degree. Allow a range of 0º to 90º. Those choices allow for 91 experiments. The simulation remains interactive in the same sense as it was previously.

Suppose, however, that you recorded those 91 experiments and stored them on a DVD. Now, the student interaction consists of selecting the angle from the DVD menu and watching the experiment play. The data and action remain the same, but the interactivity seems a bit diluted, and the experiential aspect is rather unclear.

Take one more step. Capture the image at the end of each experiment. That image will have all of the data and a static image of the projectile trajectory. You're only missing the animated aspect. Everything you require to understand projectile motion remains. Put each of these images on a page of a book. The student only has to look up the desired angle in the table of contents and turn to the page. Are those actions interactions?

The book contains exactly the same experimental information as the data simulation did. Yet, just about anyone would agree that reading a book is neither interactive nor experiential. Therefore, neither is the data simulation.

Meeting the demand for science education in the 21^st century requires better tools than data simulations. Like books and DVDs, simulations may have their place in education, but not in substituting for lab experience.

You'll also find plenty of procedure simulations, especially in chemistry. These simulations require students to use their mouse cursor and mouse buttons to move (drag and drop) images of experimental equipment and materials around on the computer screen. In some simulations, you simply must click on the correct items in the correct order to succeed. Others require that you drag an item to the correct place, and drop it there. Some have predetermined quantities of chemicals, while others allow you to "weigh" a chemical by typing in the desired mass.

As a concrete and simple example, take the analysis of hydrates experiment done in nearly every high school. In the hands-on version, students dry and weigh a small porcelain crucible. They add the hydrate salt to the crucible and weigh again. Next, they cover the crucible, and heat it with a flame long enough to drive the water of crystallization from the salt. After allowing the crucible to cool, they carefully use crucible tongs to move it to the scale for a final weighing.

The change in mass provides a measure of the mass of water lost. The difference in mass between the dehydrated (heated) crucible and the empty one provides the mass of the dry salt. Students are given the molecular formula of the dry salt and proceed to calculate the number of molecules of water in the crystal hydrate for each molecular formula amount of salt.

With a procedure simulation, students place the cursor on the bottle of salt, click to open it, move it to the scale, and so on. In many simulations, they cannot begin until they click on a safety goggle icon indicating that they have put their safety goggles "on." All of this moving about of the computer equivalents of cardboard cutouts has little to do with science.

While scientists may indeed perform operations like these, they aren't the central activity of science. In very many cases, lab technicians perform these activities for the scientists who are engaged in posing new questions, designing new experiments, analyzing data, and preparing papers describing their results. They document the procedure sufficiently well that it may be reproduced in another lab, and that's it.

All scientists should be able to perform the basic operations of their chosen discipline, and schools should be able to graduate future lab technicians. For these people, procedures and their ability to perform them are very important. For the remainder of the students, it's all a huge waste of time. After all, how many students will graduate and find that they must know how to operate a stopcock to perform a titration?

Procedure simulations miss the point of science labs entirely. By focusing on the procedure, they obscure the real science that should be the center of the experience.

The people who promote these simulations point to the value of simulations in training airplane pilots. And that's exactly where procedure simulations have value, if they have any. If a student performs a really good procedure simulation before going into a real lab to do the same procedure, then that student is better prepared and will be more likely to succeed. The procedure simulation does not replace the actual lab, it prepares for it.

Simulations of either kind, data or procedure, should not substitute for actual labs. Data simulations may be useful for visualizations rather than for producing data. Those data are too precise to be of much use in developing a sense of the nature of science anyway. Procedure simulations may be of use in preparing students for a real lab they're about to do. Neither should be considered "experiential."

© 2009 by Paracomp, Inc., U.S.A. www.smartscience.netFollow this author on ETC Journal.