The 5 TED Talks that Most Impacted My Life

Now that online TED Talks have reached one billion views, it seems that everyone is sharing their list of their favorite talks.  This got me thinking about the role that these short videos have had on my own life.  I realized that watching them has opened new doors to me, pushed back against my views, and shifted my perspective on many issues.  Here are my five most influential TED talks:

Will our kids be a different species? by Juan Enriquez

As a science educator and parent, this talk really opened my eyes to the possibility that technology could impact the speed of evolution, and that my children might be that different from my generation.

Aliens, love — Where are they? by John Hodgman

There is little that Hodgman creates that I don’t find mercilessly hilarious.

The 4 a.m. mystery by Rives

Possibly the funniest TED talk that I have ever watched, this one has impacted my own sense of humor and the way I use it in my teaching.

How to learn? From mistakes by Diana Laufenberg

Laufenberg is one of the awesome teachers at Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, who explains here how failure is an important part of teaching.

Religions and babe by Hans Rosling

Rosling’s way of presenting data graphically is remarkable and it influences much of the way that I teach my students to create graphs.  This is the most recent of his several TED talks.

These are the ones that changed my thinking the most.  What are yours?

Splitting Science Classes

Last month, in a special science education issue of the online magazine Slate, one of my favorite science writers proposed an intriguing plan for the future of science education in America.  Deborah Blum, who wrote one of my favorite pieces of nonfiction that reads like fiction, is both an author and a professor of science journalism.  Her opinion as an educator and writer is worth listening to.

Blum writes that the solution to our growing problem of a ignorant scientifically-illiterate citizenry, is to split all science education into two tracks: one for “majors” and one for non-majors.  She describes this as a plan for K-12, but I think that it would need to begin in high school.  Her primary concern is that the intensity and competitive structure of advanced science classes alienate many students into become completely untrusting and averse to science in general.  I think that she has a point.

You see, science education serves two purposes.  On one hand, we seek to make the scientific method and its fruits accessible to everyone to ensure an “informed electorate”.  On the other hand, we want to encourage and prepare future scientists (and doctors and engineers).  The problem is that combining these two goals in one course causes us to fail at both.

Two tracks of science education would allow the “non-majors” courses to focus on the critical concepts and vocabulary that the media and special interests often use and abuse to make their points.  It would go a long way toward eliminating the effect of recent anti-science bias in the Republican Party, and making this democracy of ours much more effective in the long run.

It would also allow those students with a keen interest in science to move through the courses at an accelerated pace.  They could get more field and lab experience at an earlier age.  They could intern in various research facilities, both public and private.

The advantages of a system like this are clear, but the downside is perhaps less so.  One question that lingers is this: how early is too early to put a student on one track or the other?  How do we avoid choosing children’s destinies for them before they truly understand what they are selecting?

What do you think?

photo credit: Out of Chicago via photo pin cc

A new kind of optimism

I like to think of myself as an optimist.  I spend a lot of time happy and quite a bit of time anticipating good news.  I think that many others would characterize me in the same way.

Looking around at some of my friends, however, I realize that the binary optimist/pessimist dichotomy doesn’t really cover everyone.  I know some people who seem to live under a permanent storm cloud–anything that can go wrong does.  When they begin to expect bad things to happen to them, that doesn’t really feel like pessimism to me.

Conversely, I don’t think that I am as optimistic as many people who continually anticipate good things happening even when they have experienced great tragedy in their lives.  My own life has been largely devoid of seriously negative experiences, and so for me to expect good things to come my way does not require any leap of faith.

All of this thinking led me to the conclusion that perhaps we need some new vocabulary.  To explain what I mean I decided to create a little table.  Yeah, I’m kind of a geek and I find visual representations of data to be very comforting.  So, I decided to put Expectations and Outcomes (referring to historic outcomes more than future ones) into a matrix that included positive and negative versions of each.  In the table, I inserted the term that we commonly use to describe people with each set of Expectations/Outcomes.  As you can see below, I find myself in a little quandary.

Negative Outcomes Positive Outcomes
Negative Expectations REALIST PESSIMIST
Positive Expectations OPTIMIST ???

It seems clear to me that people who expect bad things because that’s what has always happened to them are more accurately called “realists”, and that the term “pessimist” is better applied to those who expect bad things to happen even when there isn’t a history of that happening.  ”Optimist” is a term that should be reserved for those people who keep their chins up despite a history of bad events.

But that leaves me without a term to describe… me.  I don’t like the words “charmed” or “blessed”, mainly because they imply a supernatural cause that the other terms don’t.  I understand that this is splitting hairs, and I want to make it clear that I’m not complaining.  I’m just curious what you think.  How should we describe people who expect good things to happen to them because they always have?

photo credit: avlxyz via photo pin cc

What We Can Learn From the Paper Clip

Those who know me well are aware of my strange obsession with office supplies.  That’s why I couldn’t resist this recent article on Slate.com about the paper clip written by Sarah Goldsmith.  It turns out that this simple device, which was invented in 1899, represents an extremely rare artifact in the history of design: an object whose design hasn’t changed in over a hundred years.

After reviewing the conditions that created the right atmosphere for the development of the paper clip, Goldsmith explores what makes them so unique.  She writes:

“Paper clips can be used to pick locks, clean under fingernails, and hack into phones. Straightened out, they are used by office workers to distract themselves from the monotony of their intended use.”

As I read this section, it occurred to me that this is the heart of what science education should be.  We should be focusing as much on innovation and exploration as we do on vocabulary.  Students need to learn the concepts of science, but we won’t really grab them until we engage their minds and their interests.  The way to our students’ hearts is through their curiosity.  We need to work harder at giving students opportunities to open things up and look inside.  We need to encourage them to find new uses for the objects around them.

I’m in the middle of Jonah Lehrer’s new book Imagine, in which he explores the source and importance of creativity.  This idea–that teaching innovation by allowing students to explore the world around them–is based on research that is central to our understanding of how the human brain can create novel ideas.

Can we teach creativity and innovation?

photo credit: Lady-bug via photo pin cc

Me and My Mom

When I was ten years old, I began to have episodes that verged on panic attacks.  I would lay in bed worrying about school work, and obsessing over the important things I would miss if I couldn’t fall asleep.  It was a cycle of paranoia that could only be broken by the caring touch and soft words of my mother.

Years later, when in the midst of my adult life, I would occassionally feel that tinge of panic well up in my mind.  It might be when a major life decision was ahead of me, or when the challenges of adulthood weighed heavily on me.  Each time, a phone call to my mom brought back a sense of peace, calming my fears.  She eased my (often irrational) anxiety and, through her advice, gave me back the confidence to move forward.

But, not all of my mother’s influences on my life were so obvious.  For most of my memory, she worked as a middle school nurse in a high-poverty community that was affected by the mobility of military families.  It was always clear how committed she was to helping children and building meaningful relationships.  She was the bedrock of the school community, remaining in her role while the rest of the faculty and administration changed over several decades.  My sister and I inherited that desire to help children, and our chosen careers–education and nursing–mirror her life.  In small ways, she inspired us to make a difference.

My dad is famous for his extroverted devotion to his friends, and my mother’s personality was often overshadowed by his.  At her memorial service, however, I learned that my mom’s coffee maker in the nurse’s office at school was a meeting place for teachers every day–a central part of the school culture.  This was especially surprising because my mom was never an extroverted person.  She was not as gregarious as my father, but she was fiercely dedicated to her smaller social circle.

When she got sick, I felt completely helpless.  I was surrounded by my father, sister, and brother-in-law–all nurses–and as badly as I wanted to make her feel better, it seemed beyond my reach to do so.  Those days were excruciating, and it wasn’t until just a few weeks ago that I felt some comfort, in the form of science.

A recent episode of one of my favorite podcasts, Radiolab, featured some research about fetal stem cells that can be found in the mother’s blood.  This was a topic I had learned a bit about several years ago, but hadn’t connected to my relationship with my mother.  The science has shown that a mother’s blood contains lots of cells from the fetuses that she has carried, and that those cells can remain in her body for decades.  This idea–that my cells and my sister’s were carried around by my mom throughout her life after we were born–was romantic and comforting.  But, then it got better:

“When they examined compromised tissue from [the patient's] liver, they discovered lots of fetal cells. ‘We found hundreds and hundreds,’ he said. Normally they’d expect to see five or ten, but in this case there were ‘literally sheets of cells — whole areas’ gathered at the liver apparently turning themselves into healthy cells.”

-Robert Krulwich quoting Dr. Kirby Johnson

My mind swirled with the possibility that my cells (and my sister’s, although it’s much more likely that hers would irritate my mother after all those years) might have been helping my mom to fight her hidden cancer.  I pictured cells that date back to before my birth swarming all over her wounds, healing and repairing.  Selfishly, I wondered if maybe she lived as long as she did because of me.

I still get that panicked feeling from time to time, and I’ve been forced to find my own ways to deal with it.  Appropriately, it is often memories of my mother’s soothing words and gentle touch on my back that do the trick.  And so, this Mother’s Day–my first without the comfort of my mother’s voice or her smile–I choose to think about the gifts that she gave me…

And the possibility that I was able to give a little back.