As the year has progressed, my presentations have become more simple with each time. Part of this may be attributed to time constraints on myself, but there's a more overriding reason for it. Previously I had tried to fit into the curriculum as best I could, making math the first priority and application secondary. While there is no reason a priori that this could not work, I found that my talks ended up becoming rather dry in spite of the best intentions. This time, I focused almost entirely on the application with few equations and only a very broad overview of how math was related. For this reason, my usual slideshow was cut down to about 7 slides that complemented the talk rather than led it. This change was also inspired by some interesting notes made by Edward Tufte on the subject of slideshows. For this reason, I will briefly outline the talk below.
Slide One: The Gadget
I began by informing the students that this would be my last day with them. I had planned on being a bit more subtle about the affair, but Molly's sudden departure proved rather disruptive. I mentioned that I would be going to Cleveland to work with NASA for about 10 weeks on my research. I brought up that I'd be shifting from a math oriented approach to one that focused on the application but assured them that math governed each aspect of the talk. Afterward, I asked the students what kind of engineer I was and reiterated common perceptions about the word "nuclear". I then drew their attention to the slide and told them that it was a recreation of the first nuclear bomb ever detonated, The Gadget. For some historical background, I mentioned the Manhattan Project, its duration and some of the people involved.
Slide Two: Ivy Mike
After mentioning that the first nuclear test occurred in July 1945, I projected a rendition of the Ivy Mike test. I used my hands to indicate the approximate scale of the picture. I mentioned the TNT-equivalent of the first nuclear test and tried to describe the sheer magnitude of the event.
Slide Three: Uranium
I told the students that we were getting a bit ahead of ourselves, and really had started at the end of a long story. After probing them for their knowledge about atoms, I also attempted to convey the size scale of an atom. I also described the basic subatomic components along with a qualitative description of radioactive decay. In particular, that uranium is always a bit unstable, but that it can take around 100 million years on average for a single atom to decay.
Slide Four: Fission
This was an excellent segue into how adding a single neutron could disrupt the balance of the atom and cause it to split apart. Because the image of smaller nuclei being flung away from and fissile atom inherently implies kinetic energy, it was simple to describe the reaction as exothermic without resorting to the concept of mass difference. I also indicated that on average two or so additional neutrons were generated for every fission. When asking what would happen if I grouped together a large number of uranium nuclei, it became pretty clear that there would be a large growth in energy and neutrons.
Slide Five: Hiroshima
After building up to the excitement of understanding the bomb, I shifted toward its effects. I mentioned what happens immediately after a blast and the resulting effects on the people below. I tried to emphasize the human aspect of the situation and expressed my dismay that one of the greatest scientific achievements was also immediately used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. That the event also signified the beginning of my field made it especially relevant.
Slide Six: Atoms for Peace
The idea of an uncontrolled chain reaction was pretty well developed by this point, so I introduced the concept of a neutron absorber and moderator. Using a clever combination of the two, one can create a device where the number of neutrons is always constant as is the energy output. I mentioned that the energy output could be used to heat water, run a turbine and generate electricity. As a side note, I gave a brief description of Cherenkov radiation, in terms of the wake following a boat in water. Following all the advantages of nuclear fission plants, I also discussed the fact that every method of generating energy produces and undesirable byproduct, in this case nuclear waste.
Slide Seven: The Z Machine
This led to the concept of a nuclear reactor with a less objectionable byproduct. I mentioned that energy could also be produced by joining small nuclei together, and that the natural deuterium found in the water could provide the Earth with power for millions of years. The only byproduct being helium (I neglected to mention the low-level activation of reactor materials). This led to the question of why fusion isn't being used for all power, at which point I expressed how the reactions require an environment that's hotter than the sun. I briefly described several approaches; the magnetic bottle, inertial confinement fusion (both NIF and the Z Machine). I ended by describing how this was the material that had captured my imagination and got me into the discipline I chose. I thanked the students for letting me work with them throughout the year, and said goodbye.
The reactions were different in my two classes, but more students were engaged than ever before. I got a lot of strange questions ranging from superpowers, to nuclear guns, to how bombs are actually built, and more all of which were entertaining and interesting. Third hour still suffered from several students that couldn't keep from talking loudly and interrupting me (including one that was eventually sent away by referral). After being instructed to stop talking to their friends another student harassed me with the poorly veiled sarcastic remarks before asking how science had anything to do with math. If the dear reader will recall, I have gotten this question almost every time I have given a presentation and always from this student. I asked the student to stop interrupting me and that the issue had already been explained to them several times, including at the very beginning of the talk. This of course drew accusations that I was being rude and dismissive. I barely managed to eke out the end of my talk about how I had learned about communicating technical principles from them and doubt that many heard it anyway.
Fourth hour was generally more receptive and those that didn't care had the decency to just fall asleep. Several seemed genuinely interested and appeared to get a lot out of the talk. It also helped that many of the students that are usually disruptive just didn't bother showing up. I had a great time with the talk and feel like this talk was the first unequivocal success for me this year. Afterward when I thanked the students they began to clap for me, and that was about it.
In respect to the TF program, this year has been a bit of a rollercoaster. I'd feel exhausted whenever I left YHS, but always managed to rebuild my eagerness for the next week in the hope that things would progress. With the end of the school year in sight, I think it is fair to say that some students did progress, but a large number simply remained stagnant. While the behavior has greatly improved, there is still a large margin between where the students are now and what is acceptable. If the final grades are a true reflection of how much the students understand algebra, I would be surprised if more than 60% were moved on to geometry. I was in the district for a limited time, and understand it much less than those that work there day in and day out, but my impression is that instead of trying to bring the students to the expectations, the expectations are brought to the students. In addition, my discussions with students and teachers indicate that many parents' involvement in the education of their children is minimal. On top of it all, many of the students have an air of entitlement about them; that the teacher and myself were there to serve them. The combination of all these factors is a bit frightening.
While my exposure to the politics of YHS was small, the tension between the faculty of YHS and the White House was palpable. How the school is reorganized under its new principal during the summer will be indicative of how the school will evolve over the next few years. There is a lot of mistrust floating around, and while everyone agrees that something is wrong, no one can agree on what it is. Hell, no one even knows what missing the AYP requirements again would mean. At the very least Mr. Moore must prove himself a charismatic leader that is capable of convincing others in his plans. There is a still a lot of loyalty and respect for Mr. Brown, and many don't seem to understand his departure. To make a long post longer, below is a compilation of some changes that I think should be implemented.
- Return to the old grading system: Basically, the current system assures that the student cannot receive below a 50 on assignment so that poor performance on a single assignment is not overwhelmingly discouraging and an enormous setback. While this is an admirable goal, the reality is that this policy artificially inflates grades and gives the appearance of improved performance. It has become quite difficult to fail a class (though some students still manage) and I can guarantee that many students will be moving on to sophomore level classes without adequate understanding. In addition, if a class has enough grades, then a single bad grade will not doom a student anyway. Stop lying to yourselves.
- Intervene for recurring absences: There are some students that miss almost every day of class, a formula for failure (or moving on without understanding the material). While parents are notified of each absence, there appears to be little effort to alter the situation or any efforts are inadequate. While the Program of Study lays out an extensive policy, I cannot help but wonder at its implementation. At the very least, I notice that it promises in-school suspension for recurring cases, but there is no such thing available. I have heard of students missing over 100 classes in just this semester or around 1 out of 5 days of school. This is just plain embarassing.
- Confiscation of electronic devices: Look, all this pussyfooting about liability is dust under the rug. If students are listening to music or text messaging the only option for teachers is to remove them from their classroom. This reduces instruction time and helps no one. That no one seems to have come up with a better solution is scary.
- Comprehensive school-wide behavior policy: There has been some effort to produce something similar to this, but it's limited to a small set of rules posted on everyone's doors. A group of teachers, students, and parents should be assembled to develop a single document on expectations and rights of students as well as appropriate reactions if expectations are not met. Once approved by the administration, the document would be signed by all parties to signify that they understand the document and promise to abide by it. A necessary corollary is that the document is fully and consistently enforced.
- Get parental buy-in: While Molly seems to be calling parents incessantly, I have rarely seen the phone calls result in any significant change in behavior. Parents have enormous flexibility in correcting the behavior of their children, while teachers are much more limited. It is reasonable to expect then that the parents provide the brunt of corrective action. If there is a better partnership between teachers and parents, then I believe that the school would be much more effective. Of course, this is one of the more difficult suggestions to incorporate.
No comments:
Post a Comment