We're Back!

We've been on a blogging hiatus for a
few months, but we're back.

Photo Courtesy Flickr User sidewalk flying (CC)

It's been a few months since we last posted, but we're excited to announce that we're back!  And we have tons of new things in store. Behind the scenes, we've been working away on plans for some major changes at Visionlearning, including:

• A redesign of our website (Stay tuned, we'll want your opinions on that soon!),
• New content and features for our modules and glossary of science terms,
• New comprehension tools to help students get the most from our materials, and
• More opportunities to connect on social media and discuss topics like STEM education, interdisciplinary teaching, and science in the news. (If you haven't found us on Facebook yet, come on by and connect with others who are interested in STEM topics.)

You've no doubt noticed that STEM education has been in the news lately (it even made the State of the Union address in January!). Everyone at Visionlearning is thrilled to be working at the heart of such an important topic. We think that discussing the issues and sharing resources that work is critical, whether you're a student, a teacher, a parent, a STEM professional, or a concerned citizen.

We intend for Visionlearning to be an open community, and we hope you'll join us in discussions here on our blog and on social media. Please use the comment areas liberally. Do you have a topic you want to discuss? A burning question? A must-have teaching tool? Tell us about it!

Thanks for your patience during our hiatus. We look forward to hearing from you.

The Visionlearning Team

Data Interpretation in the News: BPA

Here at Visionlearning, we are always looking for ways to provide our teachers and students real-life opportunities to put their knowledge to action. In scanning the news, this morning, we came across this interesting commentary on research recently released to the public on links between BPA and breast cancer.

This piece certainly conveys a strong opinion on the part of the author. But more than anything, it offers an excellent analysis of the misconceptions, misinterpretations, and bias that can occur in science. We will leave it up to you to decide if the study itself has merit. In the meantime, if you're looking for a great discussion for your classroom or community group, here you go!

Here are some links that might be useful (aside from the above article):

• The actual study in question
• Another recent study of importance that has not garnered much attention, but discusses how BPA moves through the body.
• Information on BPA from Health and Human Services.
• A discussion on the pro's and con's of plastic versus metal.
• Data Analysis and Interpretation learning module and quiz.

Let us know if you discuss BPA in your classes or community and what the results have been.

Steer away from controversy? Or grab it by the reigns?

In the August 5th issue of Science Magazine, Sara Reardon discusses the current state of teaching climate change in the K-12 classroom (see News Focus). It's an excellent discussion on the struggles science teachers face in this country, particularly in the wake of so many politicians denying its existence.  "Climate science," she says, has joined "evolution as an inviting target for those who accuse 'liberal' teachers of forcing their 'beliefs' upon a captive audience of impressionable children."

We'd love to hear your suggestions about how to handle this topic in any classroom (K-12 or otherwise). Do you avoid the controversy so as not to deal with parents and administrators? Or do you grab it by the reigns and teach what the controversy is really about? How do you, as a science teacher, deal with those in charge who have bought into the misconceptions surrounding climate change, believing politicians over scientists?

Share your thoughts here, or on our Facebook page.

New Developments in E-Learning

When Visionlearning started up in 1999, we were on the cutting edge of e-learning. Back then, something as simple as putting educational materials on the web was considered, if not revolutionary, pretty darn clever. In the last decade, though, we've seen monumental changes not just in technology, but in how content is delivered to the masses.

The Sloan Consortium recently held a conference in San Diego that featured some of the newer efforts educators and software developers. From using virtual classroom and presentation software, like Adobe Connect and Mediasite, to utilizing gaming techniques to teach critical thinking, there is certainly a lot of fascinating stuff happening out there.

Visionlearning is in the process of revamping the website in order to take better advantage of many of these new developments. So we wanted to take a moment and ask you, our users, what you think is most important. What types of new media do you find useful? What ways do you use bookmarking tools like Diigo, or do you not bother?

Throughout our redevelopment, we'd like to know what you think, so please let us know in comments below or on our Facebook site.

The Google Effect?

In an interesting article published online in Friday's Science, Dr. Betsy Sparrow talks about her study assessing the effects of the Internet on people's memory. Do we, as modern people, rely on the Internet as a giant, collective memory bank and save our own brain-space for the things that are most important to us (and not readily available online)?

Sparrow's study provides some convincing evidence that this may be exactly what we are doing. If we know that we are more likely and able to look something up in the future, we are less likely to retain that content in our own brain.

What are your thoughts on how this might effect the future of education? Not just online learning, but the classroom experience, as well?

Arsenic and Scientific Controversy

The June 3 issue of Science contained a research article written by a NASA astrobiologist fellow, Felisa Wolfe-Simon, and her colleagues titled “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.” The manuscript reports on research in which the bacterium GFAJ-1 was grown in an environment low in phosphorous and high in arsenic, traditionally considered a toxic and unstable metal. The authors hypothesize that not only does the bacterium tolerate arsenic, but it thrives in the environment, replacing some of the phosphorous normally used to manufacture biomolecules such as DNA, with arsenic. Steven Benner, an astrobiologist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida stated that if the authors’ hypothesis proves true, it would “set aside nearly a century of chemical data concerning arsenate and phosphate molecules.”

While the findings of the research are significant, even more remarkable is the discussion and debate that began after the article was first published online by Science on 2 December 2010. By the time of its print publication in the June 3 issue, the manuscript had spawned a record eight Technical Comment articles that were published in the same issue, and a Response to the Technical Comments by the lead author Wolfe-Simon. Several of the Technical Comments questioned whether the DNA was simply contaminated with arsenic instead of having incorporated it into its genome. Others questioned whether arsenate compounds would be stable enough to be utilized in the bacterium’s DNA. In her response, Wolfe-Simon provides further explanation of their work and interpretations. But the controversy over the hypothesis will take much longer to play out. Bruce Alberts, Science’s editor-in-chief, remarked in a note introducing the Technical Comments that “The discussion published … is only a step in a much longer process.” That process will likely involve further research, additional publications, and continued debate until a preponderance of evidence eventually supports or disputes the hypothesis put forth. The research stimulated by scientific controversy is not only a healthy aspect of scientific discourse, it is, in many ways, essential to the process of science as we know it. As we wait for this particular controversy to play out, you can read more about the role that controversy plays in scientific discovery in our website module Scientific Controversy.

What's the value of higher education?

There have been a number of articles recently discussing the "value" of a college education (such as this one in the New Yorker) . In other words, given the cost in time and money, is it a good investment to make? Traditional wisdom, with research to support it, is that people with college degrees earn significantly more over a lifetime than those with only a high school diploma, so that even discounting the intangible benefits of higher education, it's still a good investment. So what is driving these new discussions?

The first is that many recent college graduates are struggling to find jobs in the current job market. The unemployment rate in the 20-24 year old age group is 15%, nearly 6% higher than the overall population. Even those with college degrees are struggling, and it's as bad as it's been since 1970.

The second is that the cost of a traditional four-year private University is now around $50k a year (tuition + lodging). Nearly a quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money, especially with the prospect of no job or a low paying job waiting for you when you graduate. With more students graduating with heavy debt burdens, the need to find a job is even more pressing.

The third is the rapid change in skillsets in demand in the workforce. In the technology world for example, four years is a very long time and skills that might have seemed important then are far less relevant now. Consider that the iPhone was introduced just four years ago, and the app store three years ago. Are colleges properly preparing students for the jobs that are actually out there? Do they adjust fast enough to stay relevant?

Finally, there is a large amount of education material available online now, from Visionlearning to OpenCourseWare and Kahn Academy. Why spend money living in an expensive area and taking classes from well paid professors when can you do it all online for free or cheap?

These are interesting discussions to have, but I feel it's important to remember one thing: higher education isn't so much about the actual content that you cover but about how you go about learning it. By physically placing students together in groups (e.g. a class) and working on difficult problems over the course of a semester, they learn skills that are useful in just about any job. The real value of the education is not in the course material but in the process of attainment.

It still would be nice to find a job though, wouldn't it?