al-mofhariz

Comment: Looking for a way to kick off the year and teach students how to use observational skills along with concepts such as variables and inquiry projects?  Several years ago, my colleague and I created a unit that was based on the great Steve Spangler's You Tube videos involving diet coke and mentos.  I mean...what great fun!  My son and I first tried it several years ago in the back yard, then we did it for a birthday party for 7 year olds, and then I decided...I gotta do this in the classroom. So, we decided to tie it into a unit on introducing scientific investigations. Many teachers like to do this at the beginning of the year as a way to introduce science vocabulary words and observation techniques.  My students loved it!  Check out my blogs about the experience from last year by looking at the side posting labels.  You can see what it looked like in action. It is such a big hit it is now my student's #1 favorite activity (three years in a row!) as well as my #1 seller

Swinging synapses! Decode and dismantle your brain with neuroscientist Anne Churchland What to do ... what to do? Your brain is working overtime, sifting through sensory input. Both consciously and unconsciously , you're constantly computing the advisability of various actions (and inactions) . Should you stay or should you go? Has the mayonnaise gone bad? Is that T-shirt really worth fifty bucks? Is it a good idea to spend the weekend binge-watching three seasons of Breaking Bad ? At Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, neuroscientist Anne Churchland works at the cutting edge of research on decision making . She asks: --How does your brain compile all the bits of sensory data it receives to make good (and even not so good) decisions? --What can new technologies and experiments tell us about how we think—even when our “thinking” is subconscious? --How does the brain handle multisensory input? Is one sense favored over others? --Why are simple decisions sometimes so complex? What m

Melinda Baldwin, a historian of science interested in the development of peer review, has written a guest post about some interesting parallels between the High Quality Research Act and an older controversy about peer review at the NSF. You can learn more about her work here . A few months ago, Hank and Lee shared some thoughts about the discussion surrounding the "High Quality Research Act," a bill drafted by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the current head of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The bill would require the NSF director to pledge that funded projects are "high-quality" and benefit the American people, and it seems to be grounded in Smith's concern that the NSF is funding "questionable" projects. Shortly before a draft of the HQRA leaked, Smith had called Presidential science advisor John Holdren and acting NSF Director Cora Marrett before Congress to justify the NSF's spending decisions.  Smith's repeated statement

Ten years ago, you couldn't walk into a K-1 classroom without seeing a nature center. There would undoubtedly be magnifying glasses, objects to observe and many other science centered activities.  Now when you walk into a classroom, what do you see? Reading and Math. Now, I am not saying that there shouldn't be reading and math in an early childhood classroom, I just want you to consider the reasoning behind early childhood science.   Recently, I have reread one of my favorite books.  Doing what Scientists do by Ellen Doris.   The book has gotten a facelift and upgrade since the original version, but the basic premises are the same. How do children learn? ·        By doing ·        Constructing knowledge through collaboration ·        Behavior and thinking take time ·        As individuals ·        Revise their understanding of the world through experiences ·        Feelings are part of learning       All of these ideas are true, and are especially true in science.  As a con

Yesterday, The New Republic  published a big article by bestselling Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker . The title says it all: "Science Is Not Your Enemy." Or does it? After all: whose enemy is science supposed to be? Pinker's answer is there in his subtitle: the targets of his "impassioned plea" are "neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians." http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Steven_Pinker_2005.jpg Humanists: according to Pinker, science isn't your enemy—it's your friend. Or your extremely successful younger sibling. Its methods and results are yours if you want them—all you have to do is ask. The problem is: you don't  want them—you shy away from science, or reject it outright. Pinker's got a solution, and he's calling it "scientism." As Pinker points out, "scientism" is a term of abuse. It's usually hurled at "reductionist" efforts to pose scientifi