We watched Stanley Kubric’s, Dr. Strangelove, today as part of our mini film festival. Most of the middle and high school students got the choice of what to watch, but the Dr. Strangelove was required for the American History students.
My second question during our discussion after the movie was, “What does this have to do with the Cold War?” I got a number of blank stares. The next question was, “Do you know what the Cold War was?” Apparently they’ll be getting to that next semester.
Dr. H tells me that she’s heard the complaint from the college history department that incoming students don’t know much, if anything, about the Cold War. It’s now history. It occurred before any of them were born. Is this a lament? An observation about aging? I’m not sure.
A proton is made of three quarks. Image by Arpad Horvath via Wikipedia.
LiveScience has a neat little slideshow that briefly describes the different types of elementary particles. These include the particles, like quarks that make up protons, which have been observed, as well as sparticles and the Higg’s boson that have not.
CERN also has a nice page describing the Standard Model.
The Standard Model of elementary particles. Image by MissMJ via Wikipedia.
The precious metals are those few that are not gasses, and not reactive. Of these, only gold (Au) and silver (Ag) are not extremely rare and hard to extract and work.
A while back, I posted a radio article by Planet Money on why gold is so valuable, and has been used for money for so long (God, Glory and GOLD: but why gold?). They’ve now created a nice video explaining the same thing. Though there’s less detail, the dramatic visuals (of the reactivity of sodium for example) make it quite interesting.
When it comes to particle physics … [m]easuring something once is meaningless because of the high degree of uncertainty involved in such exotic, small systems. Scientists rely on taking measurements over and over again — enough times to dismiss the chance of a fluke.
New research, out of the Large Haldron Collider in Switzerland, shows a 0.8% difference in the way matter and antimatter particles behave. This small difference could go a long way in explaining why the universe is made up mostly of matter today, even though in the beginning there were about equal amounts of matter and antimatter. It would mean that the current, best theory describing particle physics, the Standard Model, needs some significant tweaking.
The Standard Model of elementary particles. The LHC experiment looked the charm quarks (c), and their corresponding antiquarks, which have an opposite charge. Image by MissMJ via Wikipedia.
0.8% is small, but significant. How confident are the physicists that their measurements are accurate? Well, the more measurements you take the more confident you can be in your average result, though you can never be 100% certain. The LHC scientists did enough measurements that they could calculate, statistically, that there is only a 0.05% chance that their measurement is wrong.
Cahokia‘s just one of almost a thousand sites around the world that UNESCO considers to form, “part of the cultural and natural heritage” of the world that has “outstanding universal value.”
It’s a remarkable selection of places, from natural geological wonders like the Grand Canyon, to biological preserves like Peru’s Manú National Park, to cultural landscapes like that of Bam, Iran.
The long, detailed descriptions of the importance of these sites makes the World Heritage List website is a remarkable resource for cultural and physical geography.
Students observe the physical and human geography of the Mississippi flood plain from the top of the main mound at Cahokia. An ox-bow lake can be seen to on the right side of the picture, and behind it is a glimpse of the Mississippi River with St. Louis in the distance.
Almost a thousand years ago, 20,000 people lived at a place called Cahokia. At the center of their city, was the largest artificial mound in North America. A large part of Cahokia’s success is surely its location: near the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers — just across the Mississippi from modern-day St. Louis. Yet less than 400 years later (see timeline) the city was abandoned, and no one is quite sure what happened.
Our middle and high school took a trip out to Cahokia last month. It was during the same intercession between quarters when we visited the Laumeier Sculpture Park, the Da Vinci Exhibition, and did our brief biological survey of the campus.
The elevation of the main mound, sitting on the flat Mississippi flood plain, with the St. Louis skyline in the distance, was a great place to talk about the importance of physical geography in the location of cities (your biggest cities are always going to be on rivers, or the ocean or, often, both) and to reflect on how history repeats itself — a once thriving metropolis is nothing now but displaced piles of alluvium and mystery.
Cahokia is a World Heritage Site, and it has an excellent museum. I particularly liked the detail in their life-sized reconstruction of a section of the city.
Their website is also good. Apart from the timeline, mentioned above, they have a nice interactive map for details about each of the numerous mounds, and a long page about the archeology.
The site is pretty big, so you can spend a fair amount of time exploring. Fall, when the leaves have turned color, and the air has cooled a little, is an excellent time to visit.
There was a neat little conference today, organized by LEGO’s Education division. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to include robotics in my math and science classes, but since I haven’t had the time to delve into it, I was wondering if the LEGO Robotics sets would be an easy way to get started. It turns out that they have a lot of lesson plans and curricula available that are geared for kids all the way from elementary to high school, so I’m seriously considering giving it a try.
Pedagogically, there are a lot of good reasons to integrate robotics into our classes, particularly as the cornerstone of a project-based-learning curriculum.
The act of building robots increases engagement in learning. Just like assembling Ikea furniture makes people like it better, when students build something the accomplishment means more to them.
Working on projects builds grit, because no good project can succeed without some obstacles that need to be overcome. Success comes through perseverance. Good projects build character.
The process of building robots provides a sequence of potential “figure it out” moments because of the all steps that go into it, especially when students get ambitious about their projects. And students learn a whole lot more when they discover things on their own.
Projects don’t instill the same stress to perform as do tests. Students learn that learning is a process where you use your strengths and supplement your weaknesses to achieve a goal. They learn that their worth is more than the value of an exam.
Projects promote creativity, not kill it like a lot of traditional education.
In terms of the curriculum, Physics and Math applications are the most obvious: think about combining electronics and simple machines, and moving robots around the room for geometry. A number of the presenters, Matthew Collier and Don Mugan for example, advocate for using it across the curriculum. Mugan calls it transdisciplinary education, where the engineering project is central to all the subjects (in English class students do research and write reports about their projects).
I’ve always favored this type of learning (Somewhat in the Air is a great example), but one has to watch out to make sure that you’re covering all the required topics for a particular subject. Going into one thing in depth usually means you have to sacrifice, for the moment at least, some width. The more you can get free of the strictures of traditional schooling the better, because then you don’t have to make sure you hit all the topics on the physics curriculum in the seemingly short year that you officially teach physics.
The key rules about implementation that I gleaned from presentations and conversations with teachers who use the LEGO robotics are that:
Journaling is essential. Students are going to learn a lot more if they have to plan out what they want to do, and how to do it, in a journal instead of just using trial-and-error playing with the robots.
Promote peer-teaching. I advocate peer teaching every chance I get; teaching is the best way to learn something yourself.
2 kids per kit. I heard this over and over again. There are ways of making larger groups work, but none are ideal.
A Plan of Action
So I’m going to try to start with the MINDSTORM educational kit, but this requires getting the standard programming software separately. One alternative would be to go with the retail kit, which is the same price and has the software (although I don’t know if anything else is missing).
I think, however, I’ll try to get the more advanced LabVIEW software that seems to be used usually for the high school projects that use the more sophisticated TETRIX parts but the same microcontroller brick as the MINDSTORM sets. LabVIEW might be a little trickier to learn, but it’s based on the program used by engineers on the job. Middle and high students should be able to handle it. But we’ll see.
Since LabVIEW is more powerful, it should ease the transition when I do upgrade to the TETRIX robots.
The one potential problem that came up, that actually affects both software packages, is that they work great for linear learners, but students with a more random access memory will likely have a harder time.
At any rate, not I have to find a MINDSTORM set to play with. Since I’m cheap I’ll start by asking around the school. Rumor has it that there was once a robotics club, so maybe someone has a set sitting around that I can burrow. We’ll see.
Everything depends on your point of view — more or less. Our picture of the universe has changed in the last 60 years as telescope technology has improved. Popsci has a great interactive visualization showing how much more we can see now.
Notice that in this picture, the Earth is at the center of the universe (the Sun is a little way off to the middle lower left). After all, we’re looking at the universe from the Earth, not the other way around.
The universe as it appeared in 1950, compared to what we can see now (2011). Image from Popsci.com
