When Grandpa Squirrel took science classes, he most likely used alcohol (or mercury) thermometers, mechanical balances, rulers, stopwatches, and other such equipment. When he did his data analysis, he whipped out his ruler, sheet of graph paper, and pencil. He may have even had one of those rubber adjustable curves (and I've forgotten what they are called).

When the current Squirrel (me) started teaching science, it is likely that Grandpa Squirrel would have felt perfectly comfortable in my classroom. I taught with the same equipment. A year in, I purchased a few tape timers so I could modernize. Education Week recently took up this topic.

This is not to bash old equipment. I love some of it. I use a lot of it. There are a number of labs in which it is simply easier to use the old equipment. Want to make the point that plants give off carbon dioxide and oxygen? You could use a dissolved oxygen sensor and a dissolved carbon dioxide sensor. I use Bromthymol blue. Carbon dioxide turns it yellow. When carbon dioxide disappears, it turns blue. Easy, and the kids get it. I test for oxygen by collecting bubbles given off by water plants. Then we test it with a glowing splint. My grandfather might recognize these labs, but they're so straightforward that I don't see why not to use them.

However, there are limitations to the old methods. I used to do readings of motion with a tape timer. This was a strip of paper tape that ran under a piece of carbon paper and a hammer that left dots on the paper. By measuring the distance between each pair of dots and knowing the period of the hammer, students could determine velocity, acceleration, and displacement. The limitation was that it took forever. If they recorded bad data, they had to redo the work.

Somehow, except with Physics lovers, the whole point of the exercise was lost in the interim. The point was to learn to read motion graphs, equate them to actual motion, and to equate them to mathematical formulas.

For the last several years, I've been using more modern technology. First I used CBLs. Then I took a step backwards to the original CBL. Now I've leapt forward to the LabQuest. What all of these have in common is that they allow instant data collection and graphing. They quickly curve-fit. Students instantly see how different kinds of motion affect the motion graphs. They also see how formulas are affected. I've found that my current students have a much more intuitive feel for graphs and formulas because they can see the relationship in real time.

For years I did the freshman lab where water (or alcohol) is boiled and the temperature is recorded every 30 seconds. Students recorded the data and graphed it and finally noticed that the graph leveled off. Some would "fake" the data because they thought something was wrong with the thermometer. Others would miss the point entirely because they didn't see how the graph changed as the conditions in the liquid changed.

During my last 2 years teaching freshman science, we used electronic thermometers. Students saw the graphs real-time. Frankly, I had many more who understood the link between phase change and the leveling of temperature. They came to it without my prompting.

All of this is to say that the high school science teacher needs to embrace technology. The old equipment has its place, but there are also many places in which it detracts from the lesson being taught. When we look at more professional laboratories, we see the modern technology in use. Shouldn't students be prepared for that?

What actually is the goal behind using the old equipment? I want kids to be able to read a scale. However, may I ask what purpose is served by using a mechanical balance? Is something taught by that which would be missed if a digital scale were used? (For budgetary reasons, I am still using mechanical balances. Look for that to change over the next few years.) Do students learn something by using an alcohol thermometer rather than a digital thermometer?

I've heard the argument for significant figures and I actually happen to like significant figures. However, they are being displaced in modern science. We are seeing more and more that scientists record margin of error rather than use significant figures.

Reading a scale is a valuable skill. However, my students use rulers and graduated cylinders and will probably continue to do so. I don't see any advantage to the alternatives. For the next few years at least, they will continue to use alcohol thermometers and mechanical balances. They will also continue to use force-meters, even though Vernier has created a digital version. At the moment, I see no advantage to the digital version.

Old skills are useful if they lead to better understanding or can be built upon. Don't throw out fractions. My students still do conversions in Chemistry. If they don't understand fractions, the technique is impossible. Long division is a great skill. When I taught Algebra, we used it with polynomials. However, even the math teacher part of me could care less that you can convert two numbers with logarithms, subtract, and then convert the answer back rather than divide. I would respond, "The calculator is a glorious thing, my friend." Mathematica supplanted most of those marvelous integration techniques (shortly after my foray into Calculus). The slide rule was cool in its day. Now, only nerds like me care about them.

Let's not continue to do things the way we were taught. Embrace the best of the new and keep the best of the old. Forge ahead!

I have made the observation before that the children of married parents seem to do better than the children of unmarried or divorced parents. It makes sense. A stable family is a good foundation for a child to build a stable personality and have priorities beyond survival or emotional needs.

However, I was realistic enough to recognize that I have a conservative, pro-family bias. My observations were purely anecdotal. Norway (of all places) recently did a study of this very issue and supported my anecdotal observations.

I would like more information on this study, but I do find its conclusions interesting, not least because they support my own views.

We can all point to two-parent families with horrible children and we can all point to divorces which resulted in better children. This study isn't about the individual cases. It is about large-scale trends. The study is also cautious about WHY there is a link between stable marriages and scholastic success. Is it the maturity of those who can maintain a stable marriage or is it the stability of the marriage itself? It is not made clear.

It is an interesting study and I'm glad that political correctness has not prevented its publication.

A recent study by Cornell University confirmed a common belief about students: given a choice, most students will seek out the "easier" teachers. After they leave the classroom, many of these same students will look back with fondness or gratitude on those teachers who challenged them. They will them join the crowd that demands higher standards in schools. (The first sentence summarizes the study. The other two come from me.)

The study should not surprise anyone. As a student, do you take English from the nice teacher who doesn't work you too hard, or from the old bat who makes you read lots of books and write lots of papers? Most students will naturally choose the easier one (even if she is also an old bat). Students live in the moment. At the higher levels, they certainly have plans for the future, but they mostly live in the moment. If they get the same credit from the old bat or the nice teacher, they'll choose less work and the better grade.

Before we condemn the folly of youth or the current generation, we should step back and take a look at ourselves. Most of us do this same thing. If school A has a nice lab, good location, and only 4 classes a day and school B has an older lab, poor location, and 6 classes a day, which is more attractive? I've taught in various combinations of school A and B. I actually learned more in the old labs and larger number of classes. I learned time management, how to create labs without equipment or resources, and I learned a lot about classroom management. The school I'm in now is closer to school A (with more classes and a remote location).

We look back with fondness and gratitude, but we don't enjoy it while we are in it. Some will choose the challenge. Many do not. When I was in college, I often chose the challenge in math and science classes. For my humanities courses I chose the "easy" professor. I'm like most people.

It is realistic to also consider grades. My science and math grades are not impressive. They are mostly average. My humanities grades are all really good. To the student looking beyond, it is important to consider this. Employers see good grades. They don't see what you've learned. What is the benefit of all that hard work if it makes you capable but you can't get the job you want?

That is where I'm impressed by the other part of Cornell's research project. They began by posting average grades for each professor to aid students in choosing classes. The next part is to put average grade and rank in the class on student transcripts. A transcript filled with A's is impressive. It is far less so if the average grade in all the classes is an A and the student in question rests in the middle of the pack.

I think that this is a great way to correct for the teacher who is too easy or for the teacher who is too hard. Yes, there are teachers who make their classes too difficult.

Grades will never be a perfect indicator of student ability or knowledge. However, by adding some information to them, it will make them a little more useful. Perhaps it will also encourage students to take classes from the difficult teacher.

I was about to head to bed (and a bit late) when I happened to click on the news. One of the greats of science fiction has died. Arthur C. Clarke passed away at the age of 90.

In the so-called Golden Age of Science Fiction, Clarke was one of the greats. He ranked up there with Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. He influenced several generations of scientists, and that is not an exaggeration.

I will confess that I'm not one of his great fans. I've read most of his books, but I don't rank them among my favorites. Nevertheless, they influenced me quite a lot.

Clarke can be blamed for my interest in space. I recall as a kid that I would take out Clarke's books in the library. His writing was accessible, even the adult books. He was a scientist and was always careful of scientific accuracy. At the same time, his books were readable. I learned what space was like from his books. I learned inertia from his books, and much of my initial knowledge and interest in Physics came from his books.

Clarke was the mind behind a number of interesting stories and ideas. The movie 2001 was inspired by Clarke. It is no coincidence that it is the most scientifically accurate movie ever made. Its sequels were also based on his work.

These movies also show the great weakness of Clarke's writing. He can be boring. Though he has written some great stuff, such as the story "A Walk in the Dark," it is interesting that much of his stuff lacks conflict. Much of it is based around a misunderstanding or man's fight against nature. His book A Fall of Moondust is an example of where this worked. In this book, a lunar "bus" and its passengers get trapped under the surface of a bed of dust on the Moon. What follows is a lot of Physics and a lot of human drama.

In other books, it didn't work. I recall one, though the name escapes me, where the whole conflict turned out to be that the colonists on Mars were keeping a terraforming project secret.

Clarke introduced me to the idea of the Space Elevator. This is the idea I am exploring in my master's thesis.

Clark changed as he got older, like many of us. Sexual things became more common in his books. His initial book Rendezvous with Rama was followed by sequels that included descriptions of repulsive sexual practices that seemed tacked onto the story for no reason. Homosexuality also made its appearance in several of his works. I am uncomfortable with this topic and I do not like to see gratuitous sex.

Still, it is worth noting that many of Clarke's works are classics that will long outlast him. It is also worth noting that there are many people like me who entered the field of science, in one capacity or another, in part because of his works. That is a worthy legacy.

I wrote the title to this blog as tamely as possible. I don't want to attract readers here for the wrong reasons. This entry is about a scandal in California in which photographs of male high school athletes appeared on pornographic websites without the knowledge or consent of the athletes. That these were water polo players makes it that much more "icky" as the typical swimming uniform leaves very little to the imagination.

It would seem that the photographer is clearly in the wrong...except that it isn't so clear. First of all, the photographer did not take pictures where privacy might reasonably be expected. He didn't lurk in locker rooms or restrooms. He took the photographs in an entirely public venue, right along side devoted parents and fans who were clicking away on their own cameras.

If it was wrong for him to take these pictures, it was also wrong for the devoted parent to take pictures. As this clearly isn't the case, we have to turn to where the pictures were posted.

It could be argued that the posting of the photographs on a gay porn website was wrong. However, he did this without identifying the students or suggesting any sort of sexual orientation (except by association). Again, few would protest a devoted parent or fan posting pictures on a photosharing website like Flickr or Photobucket. Some creep could certainly prowl these websites seeking visual stimulation from what look like totally innocent pictures to another.

The problem I see here is where this creep posted the pictures. I would say that this is slander and quite possibly puts these boys in harm's way. According to the article I linked, the authorities are being cautious. However, there is a precedent. If some student posted on the internet the observation that his teacher was gay, that would be slander. By posting these boys' pictures on that website, that is slander.

Photography of sports is fun. Though I don't photograph swimming, I've photographed high school basketball, football, volleyball, and cross country. I love getting action shots like a kid making a basket or mid-tackle. The pictures appear on my screensaver at school and on a private section of a photosharing website (accessible only to people I choose). Some of my pictures may also go in the school yearbook. My use of these pictures is like that of most photographers.

After reading this article, I felt a bit queasy. I do not understand a sexual fascination with teenagers (of either gender). This is a sickness on the part of this photographer. I also cannot imagine being one of these boys. To have one's image used for sexual gratification is degrading and wrong, especially in this case where it was done without consent.

Worse, this sort of thing will cause perfectly innocent photographers to be perceived as something they are not. In the process of my own photography I've met a lot of people who enjoy sports photography. It really is a challenge and good pictures are really good. The people of Sports Illustrated make it look easy. Now, however, the question becomes easier to ask: is it a photograph or is it something worse? I can conceive of the possibility of cameras being banned at high school games.

What really makes me angry about this is that there is so little I can do about it.

Some people read a certain phrase or a certain word and they see red. It doesn't matter what the article is about, they just go on the attack. I have a few minor examples in my blog, but they could just as easily be my fault: perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. To be honest, my small blog readership seems to be quite intelligent, at least if I judge by those who post here.

Now, if I go a bit further afield, this is much easier to see. Read the comments on most any editorial on Townhall.com. Some admit right away that, "I didn't bother reading this article, but..." This breed of commenter is often found in the editorials of Doug Giles, Mike Adams, and Ann Coulter. One is left to wonder what it is that they have chosen to comment on? Are they already so sure what this author will write that they need only use their clairvoyant powers to respond?

Another breed of commenter sees red when certain phrases trigger a response. Sadly, Townhall.com erased my favorite example of this. A year ago, Austin Hill wrote a piece entitled "Welfare Kings on Tractors." In it he essentially shredded current farm policy. My response was that I agreed it wasn't working. Then I added that I was a teacher in rural North Dakota and I was  tired of seeing my school and town empty out year after year because of the failure of our farms. A commenter responded to me with a comment about teachers' unions and how people like me have ruined education. Clearly, she saw the word "teacher" in my comment and saw red.

I see this quite frequently on the teachers.net forum. Some teachers have reached the conclusion that all administrators are evil. They post nasty comments whenever they hear the word "administrator." They immediately assume that the teacher is in the right and advise the teacher to get union representation. In one case, a teacher was complaining that the administration wouldn't help clean up all the smoke and fire damage in her classroom. A number of teachers immediately pounced and advised she use her union. She responded that her union wouldn't support her either, and this got the commenters even more riled.

What they all missed was at the end of her first post. She had left a candle burning in her classroom when she left on Friday. It was on a wooden desk and did what candles do.

In sum, we cannot communicate if we do not know what the other person is saying. Often we can find a lot more common ground than we expect. I survive in a liberal, heavily unionized industry because I share a lot of common ground with my colleagues. We all care very much about the students in our charge. Enough of us are intelligent to realize that so we can set aside other differences and work together for the students.

Of course, I'm glad of the division in congress. It keeps both sides busy so they can't accomplish nearly what they want. Less government action is better!