In this context, I am able to fully embrace the motto “Talk less and teach more!.”  My PBL colleague Mark, a decorated teacher (Medal of Freedom, Purple Heart, Silver Star, or something, for valor in the classroom), has taken that idea and transformed it into Teach Less! What does he mean…I think he means it literally.  We talk too much, listen too little. Even when students are mispronouncing, missing connections, perverting our treasured discipline, they are learning and modifying their mental constructs.  That way they learn and enjoy it at the same time.  And, more than just occasionally, they say things beautiful and true.

But, it should be fun. We will learn from each other, help each other, and occasionally we will kick back at the DP.

First the back story. The lead author on this report was Mary Schweitzer from North Carolina State and one of the co-authors was her graduate adviser, Jack Horner, from the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University.  Dr. Schweitzer is a former high school teacher that came to doing cutting-edge research after having a family and raising kids.  Somehow, she became passionate about digging for fossils and one thing led to another with the result that she became part of one of the most exciting science stories of the past few years.

But the story is not over.  As you might expect, the article aroused skepticism and, it turns out, others turned to re-examining the long bones from other remains.  So, today, there is an article in the PLoS One (Public Library of Science, the open-access online journal that I mentioned in an earlier post) that suggests that structures similar to those found in T. rex may be found in other fossil dinosaur and mammal bones, but the authors interpret these structures as bacterial biofilms, not remnants of dino tissue. Like the original report, they used a variety of tools and techniques to collect data and make inferences and explanations.

So, the story seems, to this outside observer, to be a live controversy–more research to follow. Conclusions are tentative, framed in a particular context, and proof is outside the realm of science.  I love it.

There is no evidence that instructional reform is a panacea for the national problem of low achievement, particularly among disadvantaged populations. The associations observed in this study, however, illustrate the importance of increasing teachers’ awareness of the need to develop diverse instructional repertoires and the skills to deliver them. Investments in classroom conditions that facilitate multimodal methods of inquiry and accommodate differences in individual learning styles and backgrounds are most likely to pay dividends in terms of academic excellence and equity.

A big Duh. Once again, education researchers have found that investing in teacher skills and in classroom conditions  is money well spent.

I disagree with the premise that IQ tests are robust indicators of innate abilities. Of course, no one argues that “intelligence” has a innate, heritable component. However, the ability of IQ tests to unify within a single number the multifactoral and poorly linked capabilities of “intelligence” is flawed from the start. Further, the tests are culturally embedded so that they do not measure “innateness” but rather, at least in great part, the familiarity with the context. Stephen Jay Gould wrote extensively about the ontogeny of IQ testing in “The Mismeasure of Man“. Gould regarded IQ testing as one of the great scientific travesties of the 20th Century. He notes that, as one of many examples, immigrants from Slavic and southern European regions were given IQ tests (tests that were supposed to be culturally unbiased), their scores as a group were exceptionally low, but given a few years acclimation, their scores dramatically improved. Some immigrants were turned around and summarily deported based on their scores. There are many examples of truly gifted individuals whose talents would not have been recognized by the reification of the “intelligence” into a single number on a linear scale.

Parenthetically, IQ testing was envisioned originally by Alfred Binet as a tool that would help identify students that need extra help.  It is not the tool, but the use to which it has been put that is borderline criminal.

Murray’s suggestion that there are many students in college that are wasting their time, not suited or incapable of the work, may be valid. Until we can provide alternative attractive career pathways, and until we can celebrate the merit of work itself, this situation will probably persist. Furthermore, one of the great strengths of the educational system in the U. S. is that we never give up on a kid. They can fritter away years of schooling, and still recoup as a late bloomer.

An important issue that gets submerged when we focus on sorting and classifying people according to their aptitudes and abilities is that everyone, in the 21st Century, will be expected to update and enhance their skills and understandings, whether they are a teacher, a lawyer, a plumber, or a energy analyst.  “Learning is what most adults will do for a living in the 21st Century”–Bob Perelman.

It might be useful to review the goals that NSF has for the program. Quoting from the  NSF RET program solicitation, we find a concise and ambitious description of the program goals from the NSF perspective:

• build long-term collaborative relationships between both in-service and pre-service K-12 teachers, community college faculty, and the engineering research community;
• support the active participation of these teachers and future teachers and community college faculty in research and education projects funded by NSF ENG;
• facilitate professional development of K-12 teachers and community college faculty through strengthened partnerships between institutions of higher education and local school districts; and
• encourage researchers to build mutually rewarding partnerships with teachers and community college faculty.

Nothing about research advances. All about collaborations and partnerships, mutually beneficial long-term relationships. And, reading sort of between the lines, it seems to me that they want to create allies in the long term goals of 1) increasing public awareness and support for the profession of engineering, 2) increasing the interest of students in the opportunities provided by a career in engineering, and 3) building, in appropriate ways, mechanisms for positively influencing classroom practice.

It may be frustrating to hit the wall in research, that is understandable. But don’t feel that is representative of failure, that is pretty normal, and, if not expected, is equivalent to student frustration in doing inquiry. Frustration can be a creative force.

But are we creating partnerships and collaborative relationships? Partnerships mean that both get something out of it. What are the faculty getting out of this? What can we do to facilitate the goal of a collaboration growing, organically, out of this experience?  I dunno.

What NISE teachers are doing this summer is maybe a bit outside the box of summer professional development, but I imagine that most of you empathize with Ann, because, if it wasn’t this, then it would be something else.  The career of a teacher is one of continual learning and reflection. Just as I want my physician to be updating his skills by going back to school, I want the teacher of my children to be doing the same. “Learning is what adults will do for a living in the 21st Century!”

I hope they are wrong, because open access-means everyone can “read, redistribute, and reuse your research without cost: colleagues, patients, policy makers, journalists, and the next generation of researchers” (from the  PLoS Home : http://www.plos.org/journals/index.php, italics added) .

If you haven’t already, take a look at the PLoS Biology or the new journal PLoS One (a direct competitor for Nature since it accept all sorts of articles).  From an occasional reader perspective, the articles are authoritative, attractive, and visually appealing.

While Nature remains one of two pre-eminent science journals (the other is Science), it is clear that “the times they are a changin.” The Nature editorial staff clearly recognizes this–and maybe they are a bit worried.