How to learn to teach nanotechnology in 3 days

There are quite a few 1-3 day teacher workshops on nanotechnology offered around the world. Do they work? Can a middle school or high school teacher learn about these new advances in research AND learn how to effectively integrate it into their classrooms in such a short time? Most teachers who take nanotechnology workshops come away excited about the new applications that they have learned about - quantum dots are beautiful, gold nanoshells have tremendous potential, buckyballs are fun,and who wouldn't be excited about the idea of cheap and easy methods to clean up oil spills or purify contaminated water. However, how much of this content really gets back to the students?

Nanoscience topics are based on quantum mechanics and are challenging to everyone, especially for teachers that may have had excellent scientific training but have been out of college and the research environment for years/decades or for teachers that may have not have strong science backgrounds when they entered teaching. In 3 days, can we teach teachers about how gold nanoshells work via plasmon resonance, how scanning tunneling microscopes (STM) work via electron tunneling, how different chiral structures in nanotubes lead to different properties (metal or semiconductors), or how how the fluorescence of quantum dots is determined by it size because quantum confinement? In 3 days can teachers learn enough about any nanoscience topic to feel confident enough to teach it to their classes? In 3 days, can teachers take this newly acquired knowledge and tailor it to meet the needs of their students, align the requirements of the testing bodies, and are within the limited budgets of their science labs?

There are lots of articles, infomercials, products that claim to help people learn things fast: to read, to paint, to play piano, to manage effectively, to lose weight, to get abs of steel, learn latin. However, the real secret, and it is no secret, is time and practice. How long does it take to learn to be a surgeon, or a concert pianist, or an effective teacher, or great computer programmer?

Peter Norvig, the Director of Research at Google, has the "the best job in the world at the best company in the world" and some interesting essays on line, including Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years http://norvig.com/21-days.html. In this article, he discusses how long it takes to really master a subject. He reiterates that people learn by doing, that people learn things over time, that we are always in such a rush to learn or teach something that we don't really accomplish our goals.

I run a teacher internship program and a full semester course CHEM 570 Nanotechnology for Teachers. I don't want to train teachers to be come nanoscience researchers. It takes a minimum of 10 years+ to become a research scientist (4 years undergrad, 4-6 years in graduate school, and then postdoctoral research). It probably takes even longer become an effective high school teacher (and a lot of patience, management skills and emotional maturity). However, if we are going to spend taxpayer money on nanoscience training, I do want to make it effective. I want teachers to learn about new developments in physical science, bring these applications back to their classrooms and translate these findings into lessons where kids have real learning experiences that will help them learn scientific content, motivate them to study/do homework/pay attention in class(this is one of the real issues with American students), perhaps think about careers in science and engineering, and to become adults who are scientifically literate.

It is my belief that we need to rethink these short courses and workshops for teachers in nanotechnology. We need to slow down and engage teachers over an extended period. We need a long term commitment to teaching advanced scientific content and helping teachers use it in their classrooms. Isolated workshops may be engaging and beneficial but it is too separated from the teacher's curriculum. Just in time teaching, ie. teaching the content to the teachers, when they are teaching the subjects in their classes and making it relevant to their teaching goals, will make these programs more effective.

by any other name

What is nanoscience? Is it different from nanotechnology? Is it chemistry? Many chemists do think that nanoscience is another word for molecular chemistry. However, there are many who would argue that definition (including the physicists, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, bioengineers working in nanotechnology). Is molecular physics also nanoscience?

Here is the interesting issue about nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kids tend to think it is cool. Or at least they don't associate it with words like chemistry and physics - words that they tend to have very negative feelings about. Scientists and chemists in particular are often the bad guys in movies (e.g. Batman).

What difference does the name make? Do kids seek out nano-related activities over more traditionally named activities? Is this just rebranding of the same old science or is it something new? Can we make nanoscience something different? The physical sciences with real and currently developing applications that can positively impact human and environmental health? Could it be a course that is taught using inquiry based pedagogy w/o a lot of the baggage that other science courses have to carry around (rules and rote memorization)?

Can a new curriculum in nanotechnology improve science education?

I was at a nanotechnology meeting and this question was thrown around. Since American kids, in general, don't like high school chemistry and don't even take physics, could we offer them an alternative science course that was developed by scientists. Would this be better than current science classes and who might take a course in nanotechnology?

Most of the scientists and educators at this NSF sponsored meeting agreed that our high school chemistry curriculum is in a sad state. There is no time for labs and the labs that we have are high stress cookbook affairs. There is little insight into the process of scientific discovery. There are many teachers who don't have the proper background in chemistry (i.e. not chemistry or chemical engineering). We don't have national standards for these well defined courses. and the list goes on.

So what if we developed a really good science class that integrated chemistry and physics and was driven by discovery learning, well trained teachers, and exciting applications and called it nanotechnology? What if we started with what is relevant to kids (their bodies, their gadgets, their environment) rather than significant figures, balancing equations, dropping bowling balls from airplanes? Could this work?

With the high emphasis on 5 point, advanced placement courses in high school, who would take this new class? Maybe it wouldnt attract that population of students, but perhaps it would engage a whole new demographic of students who think that science is just something that old white men do in isolated labs in boring places.

Maybe it could work - the next question is how would could it be implemented.

In light of Sunday’s Houston Chronicle article about Houston Independent School District (HISD) magnet programs that suggested that support for magnet programs waning both locally and nationally, I would like to stress how important it is that support our magnet programs because they represent the some of the best schools in our city and provide school choice without funding private schools and igniting divisive church/state issues. HISD Superintendent Dr. Saavedra‘s statement that “only 27% of magnet students transfer to schools with higher academic ratings than their neighborhood schools” is either wrong or perhaps reflects that so few HISD schools have high academic ratings. In 2008, no zoned high schools received TEA exemplary status, however, there were 5 magnet high schools that received this highest academic rating. All 5 of these exemplary high schools were magnet schools with their own campuses. Every student at these 5 schools, Carnegie Vanguard, DeBakey High School for the Health Professions, East Early College, Eastwood Academy, and the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (HSPVA) transferred from a zoned school with a lower academic rating since no locally zoned high schools in HISD are exemplary.

Any student in Houston can apply to these 5 outstanding high schools since they are not restricted by the geographical boundaries that have lead to such high disparities in our American educational system. Admission criteria vary amongst the schools and they are not all about test scores (for example there is no academic requirement for HSPVA). These schools represent the economic, racial, and ethnic diversity that make Houston such a dynamic city. These schools belong to every person in our school district and, as such, should be supported by all HISD board members. A serious effort should be made to inform families, especially those with limited resources, that their children can attend these schools.
HISD needs to invest in programs that work. Rather than encouraging students to attend their local schools, why not replicate or expand these successful programs? Large locally zoned schools that do not require any commitment from the students and their parents, other than showing up on the first day of school is a school model has resulted in high dropout rates and a huge achievement gap between wealthy and poor students. In a time when Houston’s population is growing faster than any other city in the nation, HISD’s enrollment is shrinking. Perhaps the magnet schools can serve as a mechanism to attract and retain students in our school district.

I have been very impressed with the quality of education that my children have received through the HISD magnet programs. My daughter is a senior at HSPVA and my son is a sophomore at Carnegie Vanguard. I want all Houston students to have the same educational experience my children have had and attend schools where the teachers are master in their subjects, where the curriculum is stimulating and engaging, and where the students and their parents all feel honored be part of educational excellence. It is time for a renewed investment in the 30 year old magnet program. Otherwise, HISD’s enrollment and quality will continue to decline as the most motivated students, most educated families and the most gifted teachers will continue to leave the district. This continued erosion in of one of the largest school districts in our country will result in greater inequities in our society.

Identifying what matters

I attended a Houston Independent School District (HISD) board meeting last night to hear if they had decided to build a new facility for my son's school. However, all of this debate over buildings just drives home the fact that facilities do not enhance learning. The chart shown on the right illustrates the importance of different variables in determining student achievement. This graph is from Dr. John Hattie's analysis of the New Zealand school system (see http://www.knowledgewave.org.nz/forum_2003/speeches/Hattie%20J.pdf) shows that a student’s own ability (for example as measured by an IQ test) is the factor that correlates strongest to high student achievement – not a very surprising result. However, the next important factor is the teacher, not school, principal, home, or peers. Teachers make the critical difference in student learning, therefore we need to ensure that all children are taught by effective teachers. We need to invest in high quality teacher professional development and create a system where teaching is a well paid, highly honored profession.

The highest paid jobs in HISD are not in the classroom, but rather in administration. The HISD superintendent’s salary as of July 2008, was $442,556. An article in the Houston Chronicle just announced that the new head of HISD’s human resources (named Department of Human Talent) will receive a salary of $145,000 (she was a teacher for 4 years). The highest pay grade in HISD is for a 12 month teacher with a PhD and 27+ years of experience is $86,000 It is not clear how many, if any, of the 12,000 teachers in HISD have a 12 month appointment and that level of experience.
http://www.houstonisd.org/HumanResources/Home/Pay%20&%20Benefits/Teacher%20Salary%20Schedule%2008-09.pdf

Out of field teaching in High Poverty Schools

The disparity among the quality of our schools is heartbreaking. Some of this is a result of complex socioeconomic issues. However, teachers cannot teach what they do not know, and therefore, poorer American students are receiving instruction from teachers who are less effective teachers.

The Education Trust just released a report that analyzed prevalence of out of field teaching in US middle and high school classes based on the most recent US department of Education School and Staffing survey data (2003-2004). Out of field teachers were defined as teacher’s lacking certification or an academic major in the subject they are teaching. Not surprisingly, out of field teaching was much more common in high poverty schools , i.e. schools where 75% of students receiving reduced or free lunch. Twenty-seven percent of the core courses in these high poverty schools are taught by out of field teachers while that rate is fourteen percent in low poverty schools (15% or fewer students receiving free lunch). Mathematics is particularly problematic with 41% of math courses in high poverty schools being taught by teachers without state certification or an academic major in math or a math related subject like engineering, physics or math education.

American schools are not broken, just fractured. While there are many factors that lead to the relatively low ranking of American students in most international comparisons (e.g. in mathematics the US ranked 24th of 29 countries that participated in the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment), it is clear that American students from our wealthiest schools are quite competitive as indicated by their high achievements at the university level. We need to provide economic incentives for the best teachers to take on the challenges of our inner city schools and we need to provide teachers who may lack content knowledge with the opportunity to gain content knowledge in the subjects that they are teaching. Recruitment bonuses for teachers at underresourced schools and high quality teacher professional development courses can help mend this fractured system.

How do we teach chemistry so that it is real and relevant?

A few weeks ago I went to an innercity high school to observe a teacher that had been a participant in our professional development classes. This teacher is outstanding and was doing her best to engage 16 year old, economically disadvantaged students in her lecture on the structure of the atom. She used inquiry based methods, including “what do you know, what do you want to know, and what have you learned” prompts before, during, and at the end of class. She also used fun, exploratory techniques like modeling the Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment using a bowling ball as a model of the nucleus and having students throw tennis balls (see image). The students were enthusiastic and seemed to be learning about atomic structure – that atom is mostly empty space, that most of the mass is in the nucleus, protons are positive, etc.
She then lead the students through an introduction to electron orbital theory, which was less exciting but still very well taught.

At the end of what was an inspiring chemistry class, the teacher asked if there were any questions. One girl raised her hand and asked “Are there atoms inside me?”


How can a student who has taken a semester of 11th grade chemistry, a 10th grade in biology course, and 9th grade integrated physics and chemistry course, not understand that everything, including our bodies, is composed of atoms? How can we have this huge disconnect between what kids memorize for tests and what they really comprehend about science and our world?