[Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of opportunities nonetheless

Wed Oct 18 13:31:30 AEDT 2017

I have one you can borrow. (Spiker box) I have stayed away from the cockroach experiments at school because they are a bit horrible unless you have a strong teaching reason. I have been interested and have conducted other bioelectricity expts for a few years now, but it takes a lot of time to develop material.
I would like to collaborate with some others on this, once 12s have gone and if there is some interest.
Cheerrs, leon

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Consolas;
	panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
pre
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";
	color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
	{mso-style-name:msonormal;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
	{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
	font-family:"Consolas",serif;
	color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
-->

-------- Original message --------From: Greg Munyard <gmunyard at kennedy.wa.edu.au> Date: 18/10/17  9:21 am  (GMT+08:00) To: catalist at lists.stawa.net Subject: Re: [Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of opportunities nonetheless 

Hi folks.

I’ve just recently come across some biotech from Backyard Brains, a small group of neuroscientists
 who have begun looking at Bioelectricity. Some of the stuff that’s most useful is detecting the bioelectric spikes from the triggers on Venus Fly
 Traps using devices that are relatively cheap. There are a couple of fascinating TED talks where the lead guy, Greg Gage, demonstrates some of his techniques using modified Arduinos…one
 where he links two people together with nerve sensors and one person controls another person’s arm muscles, and the other where he links a Venus
 fly trap with a mimosa and the triggering of the Venus fly trap causes the mimosa leaves and stems to collapse. I’m very keen to see if we can get
 hold of some of the spike detectors here at Kennedy Baptist College. Fascinating stuff.

Regards

Greg Munyard
Senior Teacher – Science

From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net]
On Behalf Of Wesley Beck

Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:05 AM

To: catalist at lists.stawa.net

Subject: Re: [Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of opportunities nonetheless

Linda and all

you could try "Biotech out of the Box"

Wes

Wesley Beck

Mount Barker Community College

On 16/10/17 22:39, HARRUP Linda [Pinjarra Senior High School] wrote:

I would love to hear from people using STEM in the Biological context. Being one of the fluffy cuddly people, I’d like to get advice on what I can do for those students who are like me and need a Biological slant to get excited about circuits.
 All suggestions would be greatly appreciated:) 

Linda 

On 16 Oct 2017, at 17:05, Sharon Bergman <bergman.sharon at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

We have just bought a hummingbird classroom kit for my after school coderdojo. This can help us get the kids off scratch and onto higher level languages, as it supports both. They are working out how to drive all the I/O with scratch at
 the moment, and then we will challenge them with python, arduino programming ect 

Cheers Sharon

On 16 Oct 2017, at 4:27 pm, Mick Cameron <mrcameronsir at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Leon and catalyst members,

Thanks for throwing these ideas around, this discussion has been helpful. I’m still trying to digest everything in your original email. Thanks for contributing.

I’ve been thinking about how do we get the balance right between lessons with high-tech gear versus quick and easy to set up tasks with cardboard/rubber bands/sticky tape? We might invest in gear that have that real wow factor with the
 students. But then our gear gets out of date, we need to make the time to up-skill and this equipment can be expensive for high schools. Plus do we fall into the trap of just trying to compete for their attention in a ‘edutainment' way. At the other end of
 the spectrum an engaging lesson can be organised quickly and cheaply using everyday materials. In a project based problem solving task if you plan it right and setup the scenario sufficiently these make great lessons. The focus can be on the problem solving
 aspect and collaboration and cooperation with classmates. But do we need more than just balloons/string/plastic cups? Is this too dull and low tech? I’ve also noticed the more technical things get, the more you end up having to intervene and the students are
 passive observers.

Another way of looking at it is, how much of our lessons are about 'what gear we bring to class’ and how much is about 'the creativity and enthusiasm the students bring instead’. 

I’m curious about what schools are doing in getting the low tech / high tech balance right. 

Has anyone else had any success purchasing a set of Arduino kits to get into electronics and coding? Can you recommend any equipment that is good value for high school? Raspberry pi anyone?

Michael Cameron

On 4 Oct 2017, at 9:53 AM, Leon Harris <leon at quoll.com> wrote:

Greetings to all.
I am interested in some public debate on this STEM movement that our schools are being encouraged to adopt. I am posting this in the hope that it will stimulate such debate.

In this little missive, I will outline what I see as some of the problems with the current approach, highlight some of the opportunities and suggest some possible ways forward.

Problem 1: it is a case of the blind leading the blind
It seems to me that STEM in WA is not underpinned by any coherent educational philosophy, nor even any precise definition. At a recent conference held at Curtin, I would have spoken
 to at least 20 people who had no consistent definition of what STEM was, or what it might even look like in schools. How is it even possible to frame a coherent and effective response to this thing, that which our political lords and masters have asked of
 us, if we have no precise definition.

Problem 2: STEM appears to be politically rather than educationally driven
It is, of course, quite possible that the whole STEM movement (as distinct from the individual disciplines that make up Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is just
 a political construct. A cynical observer might notice that STEM received its current great push in the USA in 2009 just after the GFC collapse, and in Australia in 2015 when the mining boom started to look sick. From this, one might conclude that once again,
 pointing to that old ladder of success that science is, was a very deft bit of smoke and mirrors designed to cover an option-bereft government’s behind.

Problem 3: There is negligible new funding of the educational sector to achieve it
Certainly in WA, we have not seen any new investment in bringing it about. That $1M per year STEM consortium essentially cannibalised the funding from an earlier successful science
 enrichment program SPICE – no new cash was added to the sector.

Problem 4: There is no STEM-specific pedagogy, or philosophy, and particularly no deep intellectual analysis of the phenomenon
The University participants at the STEM conference were strangely lacking in any sort of intellectual depth or rigor on this subject. Sure, the usual platitudes about the importance
 of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics to WA economy were trotted out. Those old “we are educating our children for future jobs that haven’t been invented yet” memes seem to have come back into vogue, having not been a feature since 2010 or thereabouts.
 Actually, the whole shebang reminded me of a peacock spider waving its’ brightly coloured behind at its potentially lethal mate – us, the classroom teachers being that mate! Dazzling display, where is the content? There was no framework to hang this on – no
 definitions of the problem, no useful bits of philosophy to help us the poor sods at the coalface pick what is worthwhile. In short, the university people were decidedly lacking in any sort of intellectual leadership. Do they think that STEM is just a passing
 fad? 
It was quite interesting also to see how light on for analytics the speakers collectively were. Our current students were decried for avoiding the hard subjects and gaming the ATAR
 by people from the very institutions that set the rules that govern the ATAR game. In other words, if you are a university academic, look to your institutions lack of requirement for higher maths prerequisites for entry rather than to the kid who wants to
 achieve the goal of a vocation that your institution controls access to! However, these were treated as student (human) failings rather than the systems failing that they were. This suggests to me that they are unlikely to be fixed soon.

Many of the interesting social phenomena that we see that seem to indicate the need for STEM subjects have not been examined – no one is asking why. Why is China rising industrially
 and scientifically? Why does their technology out compete ours? Why do our students decline in ability in mathematics and science over the last 20 years? Why do fewer of our students choose science subjects? (hint: look at the marketplace, and the ROI for
 different degrees). What criteria should we use to choose whether to adopt or reject a particular technology? Nobody was thinking clearly about this!
Problem 5. No-one seems to know how to teach this.
Another interesting thing to observe was the emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches. At least 2 of the keynote speakers decried the silo approach to teaching. Employers like that,
 silo bad, multidisciplinary good. Ugg ! So simple, only an old Neanderthal like me wouldn’t get it. Except that on all of the multidisciplinary teams that I have worked on in academic research and industrial contexts, the thing that is valued is deep technical
 expertise, held by a number of participants, brought together and working in a collaborative team. You don’t get your tea lady to do your microbiology test for you, and you don’t get your molecular biologists to commission and calibrate your Mossbauer spectrometer.
 However in the ideal team, the physicist commissions the spectrometer, the tea lady keeps the microbiologist off the food utensils (at least until they have been cleaned up from the lab), and the microbiologist types and tends to the cultures. Interdisciplinary
 collaboration isn’t dumbing down. So what is wrong with developing deep expertise and then, once people can, bringing it across the disciplines? That is what we do now! Be very wary that STEM doesn’t lead to dumbing down of subjects, contrary to popular opinion,
 there is a heck of a lot that you can’t just Google, and in science, whose knowledge base growth has been more exponential than many other subjects, we actually need more time not less for content and its application.
Unless there are huge and radical shifts to timetabling and DOTT structures, there is little way an in-school collaborations between different disciplines can happen on any systemic
 basis on anything other than trivial projects. I have set up and been involved in such collaborations. The only way we could do it is voluntarily in our own time, and I would be hesitant to do it again without 0.2 worth of time to hand out among the 3 participants
 – it was a lot of work. I don’t know about you guys, but I put in around 60-ish h a week, peaking at 80 in reporting weeks. I don’t have time to do 5 subjects and pick up STEM, unless it is in a superficial manner.

At this point, I’d like to turn my attention to some of the opportunities that STEM affords.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20171018/47364c76/attachment.html>