Joel Zehring

Our site project has flip-flopped a few times, and each time the question is: what kind of data do we want? This question is directly related to another question: what are we hoping to accomplish? It’s a tricky question in “the real world”. With limited time and resources, how can scientific inquiry help us produce the most bang for the buck? On the current project, we’ve decided that our data should be chiefly qualitatitive and anecdotal.

Our goal is to identify opportunities to improve recycling practices on site. The primary factor that we hope to modify in the end is individual human behavior. To modify behavior, our department needs information with a human face. Therefore, photographs and personel interviews will accompany our basic tallies of recyclables seen in trash bins and number of trash bins with recyclables. The anecdotal data will hopefully provide ammo for advertising aimed at encouraging more thoughtful waste disposal. Our qualitative data regarding locations of trash bins with recyclables will provide some idea of where the advertising should be directed.

We’ve started posting waste stream lesson plans on the wiki. My first lesson teaches questioning and letter writing and provides an initial conversation/brainstorm session about trash and what we can learn from trash. Jen posted a great lesson (.doc download) about recycling juice boxes. I think the wiki is going to fill out nicely. Maybe it won’t be perfect or complete, but I think we’ll be able to piece together enough work to make it shareable, and I’ll definitely use it in the fall.

Our site work has developed some very clear expectations as we talk to managers and waste-collection people. After speaking with the rep from City of Tucson, we thought the best plan was a quantitative, weight-based trash sort. Our managers want something more qualitative and anecdotal. The plan is to gather a specific sample of trash and spread it out for an excavation-style observation. We’ll section out the trash, take pictures, and keep a tally of all the waste we see that shouldn’t be there, whether it’s recyclable, hazardous, etc. The end goal is to produce a presentation and literature that might raise general awareness on the site, rather than inform specific policy- and decision-making.

I’d like to post lessons for both quantitative and qualitative procedures. I think both methods have merit. North Carolina even suggests that qualitative precedes quantitative in a comprehensive analysis.

Differentiated learning was the topic of the afternoon. I had particpated in the training through my district, so Alison Murphy’s activities weren’t all new, but I did come away with some valuable ideas, tips, and activities.

• In planning lessons and units, plan for the advanced students first. Do this will eliminate “what do I do now?” syndrome, and it provides extension for any student that masters the core objective
• Break the core objective of the lesson down into very specific, attainable goals for students that aren’t immediately ready to demonstrate mastery. This gives the teacher a chance to praise students for their achievements, before they master the core objective.
• Post the core objective for all students to see. Leave that objective on the wall as long as possible.
• The teacher must find every student fascinating and worthwhile. Assessing each student’s readiness and interests early makes it easier to affirm each student.

In waste stream news, our meeting with a representative from Tucson Recycles was very productive. This guy has a huge volume of experience on projects in Australia, France, and the Bermudas. Sample size and interception point were the main topics of the day. There’s no way we can measure all the trash at our site, but we can deliberately select a sample and then make assumptions about the site based on that sample. Observing trash and collecting data at different points of interception in the waste stream can help us to insure that our assumptions are accurate.

We got to work on an initial draft of the project proposal for our waste stream analysis.

Project Scope

Purpose:

• Conduct a waste stream analysis to identify opportunities for Raytheon Missile Systems to capture recyclable, hazardous, and security-sensitive waste and direct it to appropriate disposal venues.
• Prepare documents and support materials for teachers and students to use in conducting their own waste stream evaluations.

Raytheon Implementation:

Research:

• Who has done this before?
• What are the steps in the waste stream analysis procedure?
• What waste is acceptable for the landfill?
• What waste is unacceptable? Why?
• Which waste service professionals can assist us in evaluation?
• How can waste stream analysis be implemented in a school setting?
• What tools, documents, and support can make a waste stream analysis efficient and effective?

Procedure:

• Write consistent practices for collecting data.
• Draft a data collection form for observation.
• Write a plan for alternate data collection (photography, personnel interview)
• Draft a photo log form (or obtain a pre-existing form)
• Draft an interview form with questions

Analysis:

• Transfer data to spreadsheet, graph, and other visual representation.

Results and Recommendations:

• Printed handouts
• PowerPoint presentation

School-based implementation:

• Map the waste stream procedure to AZ state standards.
• Write lesson plans including teacher resources, student activities, and documents.
• Write a plan for school-based waste stream analysis.
• Create website for teachers and students to conduct their own waste stream analyses.

We’ve had some guidance on how to conduct the analysis, but the internet has really been our friend for specific procedures and documents. We may end up defining the waste stream analysis process for Raytheon. Of course, we may also get our proposal completely shredded and overhauled. Ah, the joys of educators in industry.

Speaking of education, I’m excited to see how students might be able to engage with waste stream analysis in their classes and schools. We’re working on a wiki that will hopefully serve as a resource for teachers and students with procedures, documents, lessons, and instructions.

Representatives from the Phoenix Mars Mission, Raytheon, Tufts University and the University of Arizona presented today about LEGO Robotics and Mindstorm activities in the classroom.

Professor Samuel Kounaves – Department of Chemistry, Tufts University
Phoenix Mars Mission Co-Investigator, Wet Chemistry Lab Lead, Chemical Analysis

More information about the lander and the unique science and engineering challenges. Robotics is a projection of human action by machines.

Craig Wittman – Raytheon Missile Systems

Craig is an engineering fellow with Raytheon and a coach in the FIRST LEGO League for grade-school age students.

In the near future, the U.S. will need an additional 70,000 States-based engineers to support national security.

Charlotte Ackerman Sunrise Drive Elementary
Programming Autonomous Learning: Robotics for Grades 2-5

LEGO activities offer a unique opportunity to engage students in critical thinking and analysis as well as creative problem solving with both LEGOs and computers.

The Arizona state stadards in science promote systems thinking, which is right up the ally of robotics. Robotics help to satisfy a list of other standards in a variety of content areas.

Students learn about multi-step tasks and missions which combine this knowledge to achieve goals like finding cracks in a pipeline.

Checklist task sheets help students to manage their progress autonomously. Tasks like learning goals, investigation, and demonstration are included. Short demos get students started, and then groups can run with the checklists with occasional support.

Teachers must find tasks for students that are difficult, but doable.

LEGO Robotics @ UA: Future Opportunities
Student-Teacher Outreach and Mentorship

Tufts partnered with U of A to introduce and support LEGO use in the classroom. They’re working on lessons aligned to the standards, classroom visits to support. The big goals for education hope to answer questions like “how can LEGOs help us learn?” and “how do LEGOs change classroom teaching?”

Lots of LEGO programs exist, but the U of A hopes to create programing specific to Arizona and it’s unique climate.

UA LEGO Robotics Outreach

Presentation of NXT and LEGO MINDSTORMS
Presented by Tufts University Representatives

Thinking like an engineer involves thinking systematically and thinking in drafts and revisions. The design process uses this thinking with creative problem solving and team-oriented analysis of data.

state the problem
Generate ideas
select a solution
build the item
evaluate
present results

Cool Kinder idea: challenge students to create a sturdy wall. Ask them to create a test to evaluate their design. They might drop their wall, or place a book on the wall. Another idea: create a chair for Mr. Bear.

Gender equality and diversity is a significant factor in LEGO engineering. Boys often benefit from competition, girls often benefit from context. In groups, a teacher might have individuals race to complete complementary parts of a larger robot. This engages many boys. Create a story with a problem to solve with robotics to engage many girls in the process of LEGO engineering.

Check out these links from the day’s presentations:

I’m participating in the Research Experience for Teachers (RET) funded by a grant with the University of Arizona and the National Science Foundation. Our goal is to design lessons and activities that engage students in school-based scientific inquiry.

For my part, I now have a more clear view of inquiry in the classroom, which is different from professional scientific inquiry. This approach is generally student-centered and project-based, requiring the student to ask questions, develop tests, observe results, and analyze data to form conclusions. In the classroom, restrictions on time and resources mean that a teacher must round off the inquiry process to emphasize concepts noted in the state standards. More authentic inquiry would allow for analysis and conclusions followed by further questioning.

School-based inquiry has it’s challenges. It seems that planning for inquiry in the classroom is much more demanding than planning a teacher-centered or text-centered lesson. Also, open-ended, student-designed tests require materials that might not be readily available in the classroom. A teacher might enlist parents or other adults in the community to support these kinds of activities.

As we talked today, I noticed that many of us threw up some concerns about incorporating and managing school-based inquiry in our classes. In general though, we all discussed the approach with a positive outlook for its potential to engage students. Fortunately, we’ve got another 29 days to plan and brainstorm and problem-solve issues that may come up. It should be fun.