January PBS/Classroom 2.0 Interactive Webinar: Middle Level STEM Education with "Design Squad," "Fetch!," and "DragonflyTV"

Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Time: 5pm Pacific / 8pm Eastern / 1am GMT (next day) (international times here)
Location: In Elluminate. http://tinyurl.com/pbscr20 If you haven't used Elluminate before, you can make sure your computer is configured correctly to enter the room by going to http://www.elluminate.com/support.

PBS Teachers and Classroom 2.0 are hosting a free interactive webinar for educators on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 with producers from Design Squad, Fetch!, and DragonflyTV share resources and practical applications for introducing and reinforcing science and engineering concepts in the upper elementary and middle school classroom.

About These Shows:

Design Squad: This reality series for students in grades 5-8 returned for its third season with a fresh cast of contestants eager to take raw materials, transform them into workable solutions, and take on design challenges for real-world clients hungry for clever ideas from a new generation of innovators. With a focus on engineering skills, Design Squad aims to increase students' knowledge of engineering and the design process, improve the public image of engineering, and encourage further exploration.

Fetch! with Ruff RuffmanFetch!: Part game show, part reality TV, and part spoof, FETCH! features real kids, real challenges, real science, and an unreal host named Ruff Ruffman, FETCH! mixes live-action with animation and breaks the mold with its educational and comical take on America's newest television genre. Targeting six- to ten-year olds, it is spontaneous, unscripted, and full of twists. FETCH! shows that reality programs can help kids learn how to tackle problems, overcome fears, brainstorm, and collaborate.

DragonflyTV: With science by kids, for kids, DragonflyTV showcases science experiments performed by kids ages 7-12 as they explore topics in earth & space, living things, body & brain, matter & motion, and technology & innovation. The show and its Website also offer a special series on Nanotechnology and video interviews with professionals across the science and engineering fields.

Learning Styles Theory Versus Sustained Hard Work

After interviewing cognitive psychologist Dan Willingham recently on his book Why Don't Students Like School, I went back and re-read his very thorough chapter entitled "Why Should I Adjust My Teaching for Different Types of Learners?"  I was struck by his assertion that children "are more alike than different in terms of how they think and learn."

eSchool news today reported on a study commissioned by Psychological Science in the Public Interest, and called "Learning Styles:  Concepts and Evidence."  How's this for a zinger?

Top News - Study questions learning-style research

“The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded. “If classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.”

This is a fascinating article that should produce some real dialog.  Here's some more from Dan Willingham to give context:

"Everyone can apprecaite that students differ from one another.  What can (or should) teachers do about that? ...Two basic methods have been suggested.  One approach is based on difference is cognitive style--that is, if one matches the method of instruction to the preferred cognitive style of the child, learning will be easier.  Unfortunately, no one has described a ste of styles for which there is good evidence.

"The second way that teachers might take advantage of differences among students is rooted in difference in abilities.  If a student is lacking in one cognitive ability, the hope would be that she could use a cognitive strength to make up for, or at least bolster, the cognitive weakness.  Unfortunately, there is good evidence that this sort of substitution is not possible.  To be clear, it's the substitution idea that is wrong:  students definitely do differ in their cognitive abilities..."  (pp. 125-6)

Dan's book is really worth reading. It's not a quick read, but it's hard to argue with his evidence-based approach and his somewhat stunningly simple conclusions. 

In this case, he argues that what really helps the student is background knowledge and (see chapter 8) sustained hard work.  Hmmm...