Why+Science?+Book+Discussion

= =

Book Discussion =Why Science?=

By James Trefil
This will be a good book.


 * Chapter Assignments:**
 * Chapter #1: Science: A World Understood - //**Becky Ciocca 10/10/2011**//
 * Chapter #2: Scientific Literacy: What Is It? - //**Tim 10/10/2011**//
 * Chapter #3: Scientific Literacy: The Argument from Civics - //**Masam Mousavi 10/17/2011**//
 * Chapter #4: Scientific Literacy: The Argument from Culture - //**Chelcee Culp 10/17/2011**//
 * Chapter #5: Scientific Literacy: The Argument from Aesthetics - //**Meredith Kroeger 10/24/2011**//
 * Chapter #6: The State of Scientific Literacy - //**Angel Sanderson 10/24/2011**//
 * Chapter #7: The Research Pipeline - //**Matthew Mechler 10/31/2011**//
 * Chapter #8: The Historical Struggle with Science Education - //**Geoff Foster 10/31/2011**//
 * Chapter #9: Apportioning the Blame: How We got to Where We Are - //**Christa Chappell 11/7/2011**//
 * Chapter #10: The Goals of Science Education - //**ALL**//
 * Chapter #11: Training for Galileo in the World of Craig Venter - //**ALL**//
 * Chapter #12: The Great Ideas Approach to Scientific Literacy - //**ALL**//

For each chapter you should approach it from the point of having to teach it to a class. Your presentation should be posted by 10pm on the assigned date.
 * So What do you do?**
 * What were 2 or 3 ideas in the chapter that interest you, and that you can expand upon? We do not simply want to provide a summary of the chapter, but rather go deeper with the information it presents. Mention the page number the idea(s) are found in the book.
 * Provide a basic description of the idea along with 3-4 elements for each idea that either support the idea or do not support the idea. May be the idea you present is controversial, and there are others who feel differently. Present the evidence you find from online resources such as You Tube, organization sites, primary literature (think journal articles), or other quality resources. Remember to evaluate the resource before posting. __Remember__, we are using a wiki for our discussion so include visuals, movies, audio recordings, graphs/charts/data, as well as written information in your presentations.
 * How does this relate to ISLS? Your experiences in the program?


 * What should you do if you are not presenting the chapter?**
 * Once posted, respond to the ideas and information presented by your fellow ISLS'ers in the discussion tab for that chapter.
 * On the main page, post additional resources you find supporting the ideas or not supporting the ideas.
 * How does this relate to ISLS? Your experiences in the program?

Chapter #1 - Science: A World Understood
(//Becky - Post here)//

Chapter #2 - Scientific Literacy: What is it?
Two Points:
 * 1) Scientific Literacy
 * 2) Knowledge Matrix (Schema)

As you can see from the cartoon to the right, just being able to explain why the sun sets takes a basic understanding of ideas in science. Obviously the father's explanation is not exactly accurate, and he needs a lesson or two. To answer this question one needs to understand several aspects of science relating to Earth and our sun.
 * So I ask, what do we need to know to understand //'Why does the sun set?'// (Oh, this is discussion question #1 to respond to in the Discussion tab. List the various ideas in science that related to the question.)

This is but one example of the idea of scientific literacy. In the chapter, Trefil approaches the topic of scientific literacy (SL) starting with the much broader idea of cultural literacy, and defines it as such.
 * Cultural literacy is the knowledge that educated people, at a given time in a given place, assume that other people possess. (pg.20)

It is this assumption of knowledge that is important. As it pertains to SL, it is the assumption of knowledge relating to science.Think about having a conversation about primary head water habitats and bank full width with your parents or a friend. Did you assume the person you were talking to knew something about PHWH? Did you have to go back and explain the characteristics of a PHWH and what they are before talking about bank full width? Ok, so this may not be a great example of SL as we may all not need to know that a PHWH is and how to characterize one. (Do you remember what bank full width is?)
 * Can you think of an example where you made an assumption of someone's scientific knowledge during a conversation only to have to go back and explain midway through? (Discussion Question #2)

To go a step further, SL (and for that matter CL) is the assumption we all have a defined matrix of knowledge. This matrix as it was defined to me as I pursued my education degree can also be thought of as a system of interconnect schema. See the following link for more information about schema, []. Yes I know it is a Wikipedia link, but it does a good job explaining the basics of schema. Schema become important for learning and well life. I use the example of my previous career. While an undergraduate studying microbiology I took courses in genetics, anatomy, immunology, and well all those other great -ologies important to my future career. Some of these courses I found less challenging or to say I fit them into existing schema making new connections and developing new ideas. Others were very challenging. It was not until I graduate college and went to work in a lab investigating vaccine candidates for Otitis Media (for those of you who do not have this as part of your matrix/schema in science, Otitis Media is inflammation of the middle ear - ear infection.) But as I was saying, it was not until this opportunity that immunology really started to make sense. I started to make the various connections to those other courses and schema I had developed due to my studies in them.

OK so if I did not do a great job explaining the importance of schema lets try a video. What I think I left out in my explanation is the idea of mental framework, but nevertheless take a look. This also happens to be one of Mary Lou's favorite authors, John Medina. We may read more from him later. I have also included a couple videos to help you gain a better idea of the importance and definition of scientific literacy. After you finish watching these take a few minutes to answer finish the discussion questions above, and the follow DQs as well. Remember these are to be reflected on in the appropriate discussion thread in the Discussion tab.


 * Thinking about something you have learned recently. Think about how you learned this piece of information, and the schema you used during the learning. Now tell us about it. What were the previous ideas or knowledge you already had, and used to learn the new information? Did your previous knowledge contain any misconceptions?
 * In the chapter, Trefil explains that the need for scientific literacy is necessary to participate in current events, discussions and voting. What is one current event that you can think of, other than those mentioned in the chapter, that requires you to have a basic understanding of science? Can you list the scientific ideas one needs to participate in a discussion of this event?

===Finally, please remember you can post resources about scientific literacy here as well. If you find a great video, article, link or other resource please post it below the You Tube videos. OK, thanks for reading and I will be back later to continue our discussion. Please check-in regularly or set it to notify you of updates so you know when to check-in.===

media type="youtube" key="mzbRpMlEHzM" height="315" width="420"media type="youtube" key="5gK2EEwzjPQ" height="315" width="420" align="right"

media type="youtube" key="PGNxgm3tdG0" height="315" width="560" align="center"

//Chapter 3//

**Chapter 4 - Scientific Literacy:The Argument from culture**
Two Topics: 1.) Non-fiction reading 2.) Science Curriculm


 * When thinking further on the required non-fiction books I was told to read so far in my school career, I can say none come to mind. Then the big question is why?
 * Is it because the system thinks the children cannot handle texts without pictures or a lot of words? [[image:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/miracleequation.png width="184" height="244" align="right" caption="miracleequation.png" link="http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php"]]
 * Is the truth or scientific findings too hard to understand?
 * Putting the elementary schools aside, surely middle school aged children and higher are able to comprehend books without pictures and made up stories. How are they supposed to grow in society if the only books or knowledge they have has been spoon fed to them by the teacher and fairy tale chapter books?
 * Also how are colleges and universities supposed to expect there students have the mental capability to understand the aspects of research and written journals when the average student entering their freshman year most likely has never read anything comparable.
 * “Western Society has been shaped by the development of science in the last three centuries … The fact that science is not regarded this way is one of those things that people tend to accept as a matter of course, but when you think about it, it begins to seem strange” (p. 47).
 * If what has shaped our society is expected to be the main push and emphasis of our culture and society then what is the hold back of the knowledge in our society?
 * Can our society grow without the knowledge of what is pushing us forward?
 * For example, if our economy is driven by the use of a dollar and only the researchers investigating the growth of the economy know the answer. How is the economy going to grow if no one else knows the information? But, since the information is available to everyone we all just need to take advantage of the resources and gain the knowledge.
 * So, why is it that even though the scientific research is out there the majority doesn’t know it?


 * Moving on to Science Curriculum what comes to mind is the questioning of why there are so many other requirements to getting a degree besides just pertinent information in order to understand and master your degree of study.
 * After reading the chapter it becomes clearer to me that the requirements are there to shape us as rounded members of society.
 * Though your goal might be to become an engineer or in my case a math teacher it is important that you can bring as many skills to the table other than a “know it all” in your field of study. If all you are able to do is preform research that is not going to get you very far. The moment that you are asked to present your findings your lack of writing skills will become apparent. And what good is an engineer with no other skills?
 * (refer to page 49 in the book) By having such a large amount of requirements in field related studies the curriculum board leaves little room for the gaining of skills in other areas is slim.
 * As the chapter continues it goes on to talk about how science focused degree holders attend more arts related activities then people who hold degrees in similar areas.
 * Do you agree being of someone in a science background you attend more art related programs?
 * A question to think about is: Would you be / could you be an active member in society without being forced to take and study classes that are outside your core curriculum?
 * Without being forced to take these classes would you go out on your own to research and know other aspects of the world outside of your comfort zone of learning?

Tying it together: Being members of ISLS all of this is important. Being knowledgeable in many aspects outside of science is relevant because being able to let the nation see what we have accomplished and achieved is the reason we work hard in order to accomplish our goals. Also beign aware of all that has happened in the past to get us to where we are now is important information to know in order to be a well-rounded person in society.

Just something funny i found pertaining to non-fiction reading media type="youtube" key="VFpBWuarZr4" height="315" width="560"

Chapter 5

=**Chapter 6: The State of Scientific Literacy**=

__**Who knew such a thing existed?**__
//__Its purpose:__//
 * 1) Knowledge of basic scientific constructs.
 * 2) Understanding the process of Science
 * 3) Understanding Sciences Impact on Society.
 * When James Trefil was creating it he ran into a few problems.**
 * 1) **How do you ask scientific questions that can be answered by generations to come in a similar manner so you can accuarately express the change in data?**
 * 2) **How do you get the data to express a general population and not just men?**
 * 3) **How do you ask questions in a manner that won't wear the test taker down?**
 * 4) **How do you calculate the data you collect knowing that not every test has the same questions?**
 * To begin with he chose context that wouldn't change over time, staying away from questions about current science discoveries or natural disasters. In time people wont know much about them.**
 * Secondly, he set up women "spies" to go into house without the husband knowing and questioning the wives of third world countries.**
 * Thirdly, he only askes a few extended response questions; the rest are true or false, multiple choice or which is better questions.**
 * Fourthly, he set up what is called, "The Item Response Theory"**
 * **it is a theoretical method for analyzing test and survey results by looking at responses to specific questions or "items".**
 * **it consists of 3 numbers- the guessing parameter, the threshold, and the slope. These are used to find the slope.**
 * 1) **The guessing parameter- the percentage af answers you can get correct without even trying.**
 * 2) **The threshold- the spot where 50% of the test takers answer the question correctly.**
 * 3) **The slope- its just data but culture is also added to the slope.**

Don't be like these ladies know the facts of science! zebu.uoregon.edu
 * Why not take a similiar less dense test to see your science literacy rate?**
 * [|Click on me to see the test!]**

teacher.justinwells.net According to the science guy science literacy is a must for any 21st century person. Click here to read more

media type="youtube" key="TO9rQEWPZHU" width="425" height="350" align="right"

With my experience in Igniting Streams of Learning in Science, I learned that knowledge is pertained through deep thought, inspiration, discovery,visual, hands on, or repetitiveness. My overall favorite way to gain knowledge is through discovery. In school why cant I be tested on the way I think and process information instead of on how much I can comprehend in a given time period. Like this science literacy test tends to prove is people who are scientifically literate ask lots of question and need to see the problem solved in multiple ways to fully understand the answer. I can spend two week memorizing a manuscript of lecture notes given by a professor but five years from now you can ask me the same questions as on the test that I aced, and I wont be able to answer half of them correctly, because I didn't learn the material in a hands on way, discovering it and proving its truth with my own two eyes. The way I see it is the most effective way to teach is getting the students involved with the learning and actively participating as a team to get a problem solved. media type="youtube" key="0JIePamH8TI" width="425" height="350" There are a lot of really cool possibilities out there it just up to us to find them.

=Chapter 7: The Research Pipeline=

__Main Points:__

 * 1) Basic Research
 * 2) Applied Research
 * 3) Research and Development

__Basic Research__
In Trefils own words, "basic research is research undertaken solely to learn more about nature, to push a particular boundary of knowledge farther into the unknown." In other words, basic research is done to increase our knowledge of nature, and the laws that govern it.

To better understand what basic research actually is Trefil uses the analogy of a tree for all the knowledge we have. At the heart of the tree are the basic fundamental laws of science such as Newton's Laws of Motion, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Einstein's theory of Relativety. Moving outward from these core principles, we come to a 'gray area,' to quote Trefil. Here we have ideas that are not yet fully verified, and thus they can not become part of the core. And finally we have the very roots of the trees. These 'roots' comprise the science that happens in basic research.

What occurs here on the outer edge follows the basics of the scientific method. A hypothesis is given and it is tested. As Trefil puts it, basic research can be done on single miniscule topic that will only be noticed by people in that field of science, or it can be done on large earth shaking topics that can effect the whole world. This brings up an important question. If scientists doing basic research find something that could have drastic and dangerous effects for mankind, is it unethical to not release this information?

**Hexachlorophosphazene**
Putting this question on the backburner, consider the group of polymers known as phosphazenes. Phosphazenes are a group of compounds that contain phosphorous atoms bonded to nitrogen atoms in a sequence. At the time that this group of compounds was developed, all scientists wanted to do was make a compound that resembled a basic hydrocarbon chain, but had phosphorous and nitrogen instead of carbons. What was developed from the basic research of this topic was a whole group of new compounds with variuos properties and behaviors. But more on that later.

One last thing about Basic Research. Often times, scientists are trully unaware of the effects that their discovereys will have on the world. For example, Trefil mentions Arthur Schawlow's (the Nobel laureate who developed the laser) response to the question, "what uses could your device (the laser) have outside basic research." Trefil says that Schalow's response is, "it possible could be used to make an improved tool for correcting mistakes on manuscripts being produced on electric typewriters."

Imagine that! Today we lasers in almost every aspect of our lives, and the inventor only thought it/they would be used to correct typos.

__Applied Research__
Often times scientific laws can not be directly applied to human needs. As Trefil puts it, "spadework has to be done to take something from the laboratory to the point it can be put to use. This is where applied research comes in. There seems to be two different situations that applied research can be applied to. One situation contains a problem, and applied research supplies a technological solution, and the other situation takes some form of technology and tries to apply it to specific problems.

Looking a the phosphazene example mentioned earlier, scientists started to look for ways this group of compounds could be used. They looked at the compounds' characteristics and found most of them had a high resiliency towards heat. Not only that, but they could be used to quelch flames in an emergency. Now I don't know how many of you have actually been in a lab with organic compounds, but I can tell you that many of them are highly flammable. If we are talking about solvents, almost every organic solvent out there is flamable to some degree, and most are less dense than water. Meaning if these solvents caught on fire, and water was used to put it out, the solvent would just float on top of the water, still burning! Also, many bases used in organic chemistry are very water sensitive, so good luck putting that fire out. It would be like adding gasoline. So, eventually someone began to use these phosphazenes as fire retardents, but that has more to do with R&D. In this case, science had developed something that was later applied to specific problem/situation. The scientists that developed these compounds did not know they would be used fire retardents, they just knew they had developed a new compound.

For the opposite direction consider the development of the air bag. Do you think people created an inflattable bag for no reason? No, they created it to solve the problem of drivers flying through their windshields at high speeds and dying.

Lastly, if some of you are having a hard time discerning applied research from basic research think about like this. Basic research is simply trying to discover something new about nature, while research tries to solve problems by scientific and technological means.

__Research and Development__
The scientific ideas, theorems, and laws of nature verified by basic research are used here for generally non-scientific goals. In this phase of a project scientific ideas, theorems and laws are judged on non-scientific criteria. Price is an important issue in any industry. It doesn't matter what industry your looking at, if there is a cheaper way to do/make something then eventually the industry will adapt that way of doing/making something. Another question that is sometimes asked, is how easy is it to do or make something? Generally, if there is an easier way of doing/making something then corporations will also adapt that way of doing/making something, if the conditions are right. Durability is another issue these days. People always want there new toys to last forever, which is hardly the case. Weight is another criteria used to judge scientific findings, especially in aerospace projects. The effectiveness of the idea must also be taken into consideration also. For example, how effective would switching to hydrogen fueled cars really be? The answer is not at all. It costs more money to make the hydrogen, than it does to import oil. Oh, and the most common methods for producing hydrogen, all use fossil fuels to some extent.

So lets apply a little R&D mentallity to phosphazene. Some coporation somewhere, got permission from the patent holders to begin to use these compounds as fire retardents. These corporations consider the cost to make these compounds, its longevity as a stored material (how long can just lay around/how many time must it be replace in a certain amount of time), and finally how effective it was as a fire retardent. The price to make this compound is relatively low and it is quite easy to make. The time these compounds can stay around is quilte long, as long as it is kept in a moisture free environment. Lastly, these compounds are fairly good fire retardents that have a wide variety of properties.