Your Student Can Find Supernova

On July 22, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, Pedagogy, Research, STEM EducationLeave a comment

“Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious.”
Stephen Hawking

Fifty years ago, humans first set foot on the moon. In recognition of this, I thought I would discuss how astronomy classes can conduct real astronomy research. As I have said in many of my posts, most current best practices in STEAM education recommend that students perform real science.

One of the arguments I have repeatedly encountered is that real science requires equipment that is too expensive for student labs. Nothing could be further from the truth. While scientific equipment on the cutting edge of science can be costly general improvements in technology, mean that students can use hobby grade instruments for scientific observations.

As an example, digital SLR cameras can be used to find supernova. As a step up a simple telescope and digital camera like many schools already have can also be used. Having the equipment fixed in a dedicated spot in a shed or dome that opens is helpful but also not necessary. Students can also set up the equipment each night to make observations.

The basic technique to find supernova is to take lots of pictures of night sky night after night. Then compare the images and look for a star (you’re looking at galaxies, not individual stars) that gets brighter or appears where there was not a visible star. The biggest drawback to the discovery of supernova is simply the amount of data that the students will need. On the website for BOSS Backyard Observatory Supernova Search under the setting up a search page they list supernova discoveries from several individuals

Tim Puckett (one of the largest in the world) ~1 SN every 8000 images (300+ SN)
Robert Evens ~ 1 SN every 4000 observations (47 SN)
Peter Marples ~ 1 SN per 5000 images (8 SN)
Me ~ 1 SN every 2800 images (57 SN)

Using these numbers as a baseline, we would find one supernova on average every 4950 images. If we assume a 15-week semester, the class would have to take 330 pictures per week. Assuming students take one image every minute, 330 images would take 5.5 hours over one night or 2.75 hours over two nights. With a class of 25 students, each student would need to examine 198 images or 13-14 images per week. A better approach would be to have two students review 396 images so that two students separately review each 198-image set. All these numbers seem reasonable for a semester-long class.

Once students capture the images, students analyze the images in one of three methods. In all methods, you compare the new images you take with a set of reference images. You can either make your reference images. Or download reference images from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). You then compare your new images to the reference images and look for differences. The first way to do this is to compare the two images side by side and look for differences. The second method is to blink the images. The new image is aligned and laid on top of the reference image, and the computer rapidly clicks between them. A free tool to do this is Starblinker. The third method is automated software, but that can be expensive and is only suitable for projects that collect 1000s or more images a night (there are problems and drawbacks to automated software I will not get into).

When your students discover a new Supernova (we will assume that if you review enough images, you will be successful.), the students can learn about submitting their discovery to Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. A new supernova report will require the students to take additional images and measurements.

Any scientific research can be used to teach students the basics of research and observation. The search for and discovery of supernova can be included in everything from a class for nonmajors to a dedicated research seminar. Additionally, the students that conduct this type of research can be in almost any age group. When we teach scientific research, it is essential to remember that science is a process and method of looking at the world, not the equipment we use. So, get out there and find some stars that blew up.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Why Do We Use Words in Education?

On June 29, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, Pedagogy, Research, TextbookLeave a comment

“A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.”
Ansel Adams

A picture is worth a thousand words. As someone who has practiced the art of photography for most of his life, this phrase has always rung true. The phrase seems to have had its origin in US advertising in the early 20^th center. (The Phrase Finder, retrieved June 25, 2019, from https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words.html) While it is certainly possible to learn without images, ask the 63,357 K-12 blind students in the US, (National Federation of the Blind, Blindness Statistics, retrieved June 25, 2019, from https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics) image use is quite prevalent in education.

I don’t know many biology teachers that teach the structure of a eukaryotic cell without using a picture like the following one.

Unannotated version of File:Animal_Cell.svg, Author Kelvin Song, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animal_Cell.svg. This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

Not only does this diagram display the components of a cell, but it also helps to establish a relationship between the different parts of the cell. In the textbook Concepts of Biology, the introduction to the structure-function of eukaryotic cells is 14 pages long. There are 16 images and 4486 words on 14 pages. That works out to about 320 words and one image per page.

The ratio of text to images in textbooks changes as students’ progress from kindergarten to college. The structure of the college textbook is different from primary school readers. For example, in the Jack and Jill or Little Dog Spot readers, the whole page is a picture with a maybe seven words (Jack and Jill went up the hill). While I don’t think a cell biology textbook written like a Jack and Jill book would be a good idea. Can you imagine how long a college textbook would be if each page were a full-page image with a single sentence like, “eukaryotic cells contain a membrane-bound nucleus?”

While textbooks composed primarily of images will probably not work, I do wonder if we make proper use of images in textbooks. One of the most common complaints, besides cost, I hear from students is that textbooks are boring, too long, and hard to read. While the central point of a textbook should be as a teaching tool not merely as a download of facts, we also need to remember that learning to extract information from text is essential. There are times when books of exclusively just text are necessary, even essential. I don’t see my Shakespearean literature class having worked without reading the plays. That said I do wonder if textbooks should not only include more images but use the images as a central teaching tool rather than just support for text after all image use is a core part of our mental processes.

Images have been with us for longer than written language. Some of the earliest examples of human-created images are cave paintings, like the paintings found in the Leang Timpuseng cave on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Scientists have dated the paintings in this cave to at least 35,400 years old. While they are not as well-known as the paintings in France’s Chauvet Caves, they are older than Chauvet (32,000 – 28,000 years old) making them possibly the earliest cave painting in the world.

Written language was developed around 5200 years ago in the form of the cuneiform script by the Mesopotamians. The cuneiform script has a direct linkage to images carved in small clay tablets. The earliest writing was to take these clay tablets and press them into a sheet of clay, “recording the image.” These images evolved into the symbols of the cuneiform script. In addition to the fact that humans have been using imagery for 10s of thousands of years longer than written language, there is also evidence that images are more effective for learning than text.

One of the ideas behind images being better learning aids, then the text is the theory of dual-coding. Simply the theory of dual-coding is that images activate two memory centers. A text-based system and a separate image-based system. While text by itself only activates a text-based system. It is also possible that this dual-coding system would work with the other senses, touch, smell, and taste. In education, dual-coding gives the learner twice the number of memory locations for recall.

Beyond cognitive mechanisms like dual-coding, there is also the idea of visual langue. “Visual language is defined as the tight integration of words and visual elements and as having characteristics that distinguish it from natural languages as a separate communication tool as well as a distinctive subject of research.” (Visual Language and Converging Technologies in the Next 10-15 Years (and Beyond)) Infographics are an example of visual language. Additionally, the paper Visual Language and Converging Technologies in the Next 10-15 Years (and Beyond), says that visual communication increases information transfer. “For example, improvements in human performance from 23 to 89% have been obtained by using integrated visual-verbal “stand-alone” diagrams.”

The ideas of dual-coding, coupled with visual language, suggest that textbooks should include more images. Additionally, these images should be integrated tightly with the text and viewed as a central component of the learning process. Authors should not consider Images as secondary to the text but as an essential learning component on their own.

However, like so many other aspects of educational research while there is research stating that textbooks are not useful learning tools. It is not clear if this failure is because textbooks are inherently ineffective learning tools or because of factors other than learning drive textbook design. As I have said repeatedly, we desperately need more research into what makes an effective textbook. In the meantime, maybe we should add a couple of pictures.

Thanks for Listing to my Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

In Research We Trust

On June 14, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, Research, Statistics, STEM and Society, STEM EducationLeave a comment

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”
Mark Twain

Anyone that knows me knows I believe in research and data backed decisions in education. Successful research is a balancing act between skepticism and an openness to new sometimes radical ideas. To avoid the possibility of bias, we have developed methodologies and techniques to determine the validity of an experiment. Experimental validity falls into two categories: internal, experimental design, data collection, and data analysis. The second is external, the progression from hypothesis to theory, and finally to the fact. Research drives the progression from hypothesis to fact with supporting evidence and replication.

Considering how vital replication is to research, there appears to be very little direct replication. Makel and Plucker showed that only 0.13% of educational research is replicated (Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences). Compared to a rate of 1.07% in psychology and 1.2% for marketing research. However, the rate of replication does not tell the whole story. After all, to publish research, you need to conduct an experiment, submit it for peer review, make changes, and then have your article published. Perhaps we can accept published results.

Looking at actual replication studies suggests that publication is not enough. One study in psychology, Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science, was only able to replicate 63% of the studies they examined. Replications of clinical research are even worse. A group from Amgen attempted to replicate 53 research studies in cancer research they only replicated 6 of them. Additionally, a group with Bayer Health could only replicate 25% of the preclinical studies they tested (Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research).

So how do we resolve the replication crisis? We need to reproduce previous research and publish the results. The problem is that professors, postdocs, and graduate students don’t benefit from replication studies. Even if researchers get the articles published, they don’t carry the same weight as original research. One possibility would be to have graduate students replicate experiments at the beginning of their graduate study as part of their training. However, this is probably not a workable solution as it would likely lengthen the time to degree.

So, who would benefit from reproducing research? The answer is undergraduates. Conducting replication studies would more effectively train students in research methodologies than any amount of reading. Why would conducting replication studies help students with research design? The reason is that if you replicate a study perfectly (exactly as undertaken previously), you might have the same problems the original researchers had. After all, most of the issues in research are not intentional but unintentional and probably unidentifiable problems with data collection or analysis.

Statistical analysis of most data involves a null hypothesis. When the data is analyzed, the null hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. Errors analyzing a null hypothesis, are classified as Type I (rejecting a correct null hypothesis) or Type II (accepting a false null hypothesis). The critical thing to keep in mind is that it is impossible to eliminate Type I and II errors. Why can’t researchers eliminate Type I and II errors? Think about a P value, P < 0.001, what does the number mean. Written in sentence form as P value < 0.001 means: the likely hood that these results are the product of random chance is less than 1 in 1000. While this is a small number, it is not zero, so there is still a tiny chance that the results are due to random chance. Since P values never become P < 0, there is always a chance (sometimes ridiculously small) that results are due to random chance.

In addition to Type I and II errors, there could be problems with sample selection or size. Especially early in the research were influencing and masking factors might not be known. Alternatively, limited availability of subjects could lead to sample size or selection bias. All these factors mean that a useful replication study looks at the same hypothesis and null hypotheses but uses similar but not identical research methods.

Beyond the benefits students would gain in experimental design, they would also learn from hands-on research something that many groups say is important for proper education. Additionally, replication research is not limited to biology, chemistry, and physics. Any field that publishes research (i.e., most areas of study) can take part in undergraduate replication research.

Of course, these replication studies will only benefit research if they are published. We need journals to publish replication studies, how do we do that. Should a portion of all journals be devoted to replication studies? The Journal Nature says it wants to publish replication studies; “We welcome, and will be glad to help disseminate, results that explore the validity of key publications, including our own.” (Go forth and replicate!). Hay Nature how about really getting behind replication studies! How about adding a new Journal to your stable, Nature: Replication?

However, if we want to disseminate undergraduate replication studies, it may be necessary to create a new Journal, The Journal of Replication Studies? With all the tools for web publishing and e-Magazines, it should be straight forward (I didn’t say free or cheap) to create a fully online peer-reviewed journal devoted to replication. Like so many issues, the replication crisis is not a problem but an opportunity. Investing in a framework that allows undergraduate to conduct and publish replication research will help everyone.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

Common Core Math Does it Work?

On June 6, 2019June 6, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, Pedagogy, Research, STEM and SocietyLeave a comment

“Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.”
Albert Einstein

A friend of mine sent me a YouTube video comparing common core math with “old math.”

My first thought was this is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Now let’s be clear my reaction was not because the old math was so much faster. After all, the person doing the old math is merely solving an equation. The teacher is instructing the students in a common core mathematics process which takes longer. So it was not the length, it seems to me that the process is complicated, off track, and fails in several cognitive theories.

However, I believe in letting the research speak for itself, which means double checking your opinions with the literature. Most of my work is at the college and university level with a focus on STEM education. So what effect has the common core had on college students, primarily STEM students?

Before we look at the effect of the common core standards lets review what the common core is. The common core standers are a guideline of what students should learn each year of K-12 education. The standards are meant to be rigorous and meet the need of colleges and employers. According to the criteria for the working group, each standard should have:

“Goal: The standards as a whole must be essential, rigorous, clear, and specific, coherent, and internationally bench marked.

Essential: The standards must be reasonable in scope in defining the knowledge, and skills students should have to be ready to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing, academic college courses, and in workforce training programs.”

The publishing of the full common core standards was in 2010. As of 2017, 46 states have adopted the common core standard to some degree. Eleven of the states have announced they are undertaking rewrites and changes to the standards.

Even with 11 states announcing rewrites or changes, this is still a high adoption rate. The adoption rate does not tell the whole picture. In K-12 education a lot is left up to the local school districts. While states have adopted the standards, it is not clear how consistent implementation is. It will likely get even harder to study the common core standards, as many states are renaming and modifying the standards. Many of these changes may be cosmetic as Tom Loveless says:

“A lot of states have simply re-branded the standards, changing the name or slightly tinkering with them without making any great change in substance” Loveless says. “That to me suggests that it’s more a political response than anything else.” (Common Core no more? New York and 21 other states revise or rename K12 standards, District Administration, By Alison DeNisco | October 9, 2017, retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://districtadministration.com/common-core-no-more-new-york-and-21-other-states-revise-or-rename-k12-standards/)

How do teachers view the standards? According to a report by the Center for Educational policy: “Across the five focus groups, most elementary school teachers expressed positive views of the Common Core State Standards. … Teachers said the Common Core had changed instruction in positive ways, such as teaching for conceptual understanding and developing students’ thinking and problem-solving skills.” (Listening to and Learning from Teachers: A Summary of Focus Groups on the Common Core and Assessments Key Findings and Policy Recommendations, Center on Education Policy, By Diane Stark Rentner, Nancy Kober, Mathew Frizzell, and Maria Ferguson, October 12, 2016, Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=RentnerKoberFrizzellFerguson%5FSummary%5FListenLearnTeachers%5F10%2E12%2E16%2Epdf)

So why don’t I like the method of mathematics presented in the video? Let’s look at the steps the students are being asked to do when answering, 35 x 12. In the first step the students break the numbers down into their components 35 = 30 + 5 while 12 = 10 +2. Students then plug the numbers into a grid and multiplication is done by multiply the rows by the columns. The multiplication produces four numbers which are added to get the final answer.

I have heard several arguments about why this method is better. First, it teaches students how to manipulate numbers. Second, by breaking the numbers apart, it is easier for students to remember and do the math in their head. The grid is a rectangle some instructors use area equations to represent the multiplication, height x width = area. By using this representation, students get a feel for the real size of numbers.

While I agree learning to manipulate numbers is essential for students, I am not sure this method teaches students that. I think it is more likely that students are viewing this as a trick or formula. We know from research that students are good at plugging numbers into formulas without understanding what they mean. Just look up the original research on the Force Concept Inventory Test.

The idea that this method makes it easier to do in your head sounds intuitively correct. However, it might fall short of our research on how memory works. Again we know that working memory has a capacity limit (I wrote about it here).

So when multiplying 35 x 12 in your head, you have to remember two numbers. When you separate the numbers, you need to remember four numbers; 30, 5, 10, & 2. Additionally, as I do the math, I need to remember more numbers 30 * 10 = 300. I need to remember; 30, 5, 10, 2, & 300 additionally, I need to remember that 300 is different than the other four. Using this method, it is more likely that a student will run out of working memory.

Lastly, I have two problems with using the grid to represent the actual size of the number. There is a counter argument of numerals being symbols so we can deal with numbers that we can’t intuitively grasp. However, that is not the biggest problem; the real issue is transference. Transference is the ability of students to take the information they learned and use it in new situations. If students get to fixated on numbers representing fiscal shapes and physical quontites, they may have trouble with things that are difficult to see or understand.

So what does the research say about college students that were taught using the Common Core standards during their K-12 years? According to a 2016 study, there is disagreement about what math standards college students need. “Mathematics finding 4 indicates that although middle school and high school teachers generally agree about what mathematics skills are important to success in STEM courses and careers, college instructors or workforce respondents ascribed much less importance to those skills.” (ACT National Curriculum Survey 2016, ACT, Inc, retrieved June 6, 2019, from http://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/reports/act-publications/national-curriculum-survey.html ) At least part of this discrepancy comes from colleges and universities have different views and requirements. The 2015 Brown Center Report on American Education (https://www.brookings.edu/research/2015-brown-center-report-on-american-education-how-well-are-american-students-learning/) shows small gains in student performance in states that fully implemented the common core standards. Unfortunately, these difference are below or borderline concerning statistical significance.

Sadly it appears there is not a lot of research, at least yet, on the common core standards. What research exists seems to be leaning in the direction of the standards not living up to its goal. Whether this is the results of implementation or the standards themselves, it is not clear. For the time being, I will have to live with my dislike while trying to keep an open mind. What is defiantly clear is that more research, mainly that focused on learning gains, is desperately needed. Also, colleges and universities frantically need to work with K-12 so that everyone knows what is the need and expected of students perusing higher education.

Thanks for Listing to my Mussing
The Teaching Cyborg

Is Free Enough?

On May 30, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, ResearchLeave a comment

“Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.”
John F. Kennedy

The history of free vs. tuition-based education is a long a twisted tail for the United States, one we are still debating. President George Washington encouraged public education as part of his farewell speech.

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”
George Washington, 1796

When the United States formed, there was no public education system. Children were educated at home by either parents or privet tutors.

The first schools in the US were established by religious groups to teach literacy for bible study. The first public school systems (covering areas more than a single town) began to emerge in New England in the 1840s. In 1852 Massachusetts passes a law making elementary education compulsory. Something that the rest of the United States would not do until the 1900s.

Today we have a system of publicly funded compulsory education from Kindergarten to High School. While there has been disturbing decrees in government funding for public higher education, historical governments have been involved there as well. Examples of this are land grant colleges and university, the GI bill, and Pell grants.

In recent years there has been a lot of discussion about free public education at the college and university level. The current debate over free college education was kicked off by President Barack Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. He proposed to cut the cost of community college.
“That’s why I’m sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college — to zero.” Since then, there have been arguments at the national level about the validity and cost of a free community college education. However, just like with elementary and high school education states are leading the way while the federal government debates.

There are currently 20 states that offer some form of free community college (College “Free for All” in Almost 20 States!, by Susan Dutca-Lovell, Scholarship, January 8, 2019 4:15 PM, retrieved from https://www.scholarships.com/news/college-free-for-all-in-almost-20-states on May 29, 2019) New York is even offering its program to 4 year college students. Most of these programs are last dollar programs; they cover whatever is left over after financial aid is exhausted.

While these state-level programs will undoubtedly make a college education more accessible, I wonder if free is enough. Higher education and its interactions with society can be a complicated process with a large number of pitfalls. However, it may be even more complicated than we ever thought. While earning a degree increases your earning potential. According to the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, lifetime earning potentials are:

High school diploma is $1.3 million
Associates degree is $1.7
Bachelors degree is $2.2 million
An advanced degree is $2.7 million

How does a college degree improve graduates’ employment and earnings potential?

Research suggests earnings potentials might not be as clear cut as these numbers indicate. All of us have heard the comment; “It doesn’t matter where you start your undergraduate education. All that matters is where your final degree is from.” Vanderbilt Law professor Joni Hersch published a paper, Catching Up Is Hard to Do: Undergraduate Prestige, Elite Graduate Programs, and the Earnings Premium that challenges the comment that only the final institution matters.

In her research, she compared students that earned their bachelors degrees from a lower tier (Carnegie Classification system) school than their graduate or professional degree. With thoughts that got both their bachelors and graduate/professional degree from higher tier schools. She found students who moved up to a higher tier school for their terminal degree had a salary that averaged $52 thousand less than graduates that started at a higher tier school. That salary difference works out to nearly $1.6 million over a 30-year career.

Additionally, it appears to be challenging to move up in from a lower tier school when applying to graduate school. Nearly 33% of all tier 4 bachelors recipients go on to earn a graduate degree. However, only 7% of these tier 4 bachelors students earn their graduate degrees from a tier 1 institution. Nearly 66% of all tier 4 bachelors students that pursue an advanced degree earned their degree from a tier 4 institution. The low student transfer rate suggests that it is difficult to move up in tiers for graduate degrees. Even if students do move up, they don’t have the same earning potential.

While making college free is a big step in making a college education accessible, several other questions need to be asked and addressed. Why do students that transfer from lower tiers to higher tiers still earn less? Even if there is a difference in rigor between different tiers the students received their final degree from the higher tier, there should be no difference. Professor Hersch suggests that the difference might come from things outside academics, like networking, family connections, and job/career assistance. Additionally, Why is the transfer rate up to the school tiers so low? How does the addition of an associates degree or community college effect these issues?

Therefore, merely making community college and even four-year state schools free will not completely level the playing field. We probably need to invest in accessory programs to help students make connections, network, gain real mentors, and gain an understanding of what their career will require. But most importantly, we need to do research and determine if problems are internal to academia, dependent on society or more likely both. Then we need to find a way to fix them. Free is part of the solution; however, we need to remember free is not all of it. If we don’t address the rest, we will still be wasting all that human potential.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg