HUNBlog

"Pollution On Earth"

  

    Since the beginning of time and throughout the years people have increased the pollution on Earth. Without any questions or doubt human have really notice that the pollution has been affecting the Earth extremely dreadful. Animals, plants, air, water, and land has been impacted the most because we human don’t stop the production of manufactures. Every second we want more of something that contain usage of plastic, paper, glass, oil, metal, cotton, medicine, food, and etc. As we increase our needs of these things we are making the factories, harvest trackers, boats, science experiments, 18wheelers, airplanes, and more to work every day burning gas, chemical, plowing, capturing of animals to happen.

    If we continue polluting the Earth we are going to be living on our trash because there is going to be so many junk yards around that eventually the whole landscape of Earth is going to be cover with the trash and we are not going to have a chose to build homes over it. If we don’t start watching how much we use of things, recycle, and burn gas we are end up to die because we are going to be killing everything as we are starting this process. As the water moves along the river, ocean, lake, and creek died sea animals start to rise and float because of the chemical in the water.  With the slowing start of that we start to kill our food, then since the water is effected with chemical we have to work double hard in making sure the drinking water is safe to use. Also with the watch of trying to stop pollution we can save all plants and endanger species that could be used for varies things, like save human lives. A lot of medicine comes from plants and sometime very unique plants can save one’s life. And if the pollution kills those plants because they are not getting the photosynthesis, carbon dioxide, and clean water they won’t grow at all.

    We humans need to change the increase of pollution because we are just killing ourselves and the future species and generation that will really be affect it today’s society don’t start the change. Today action really does affect tomorrow’s action.

Tasers, The Good, The Bad and The Better

Law enforcement officers are sent out each day with the intent and expectation of stopping crime.  Citizens count on them to rescue them in times of emergencies and to take the ‘bad guys’ off the street.  But, what resources are we giving them?  Most law enforcement officers carry a gun and a taser.  Of all  the devices that they are armed with, the taser is the most controversial.  I believe that this is because most citizens were under the impression that situations when a law enforcement officer had to use force, it would no longer be deadly force.  The taser provides a unique alternative to the gun.  A taser disables a person by introducing electrical impulses into the body, which temporarily renders the person unable to control their muscles to move.  Research has shown that these impulses are not fatal and do not provide any long term effects.  This allows the office the opportunity to defuse a dangerous situation with less chance of fatally harming the suspect.  A win-win right?  For the most part, yes.  However, there is no such thing as something that is ‘zero risk’ when you are talking about introducing a foreign object, such as a bullet or electrical impulses into a person’s body.  But, the chances of a suspect being fatally wounded by a taser is much less than that of a bullet.  There have been cases where a suspect was shot with a taser and died.  In all of these cases, the suspect either had an unknown medical condition or was under the influence of a substance that caused their body to react in a much more violent way than another person.  In my opinion, citizens should support the use of tasers.  They have less potential to fatally harm the suspect, they take the opportunity of an innocent bystander being harmed by a shooting away and allow our officers to do their job.   

Recycling in Europe vs. the USA

We always hear how it’s so important to recycle, but for most of us, it goes in through one ear and out the other! We know that we should do it, but we just don’t seem to have the time or energy to actually do it.  At least that’s the case for me!  Just recently, I was at Brock Elementary, the school where I do my student teaching, when I overheard a teacher talking about the importance of helping our planet by recycling.  To be completely honest, I was not very interested in the conversation, but yet I continued listening.  Suddenly, she said something that caught my attention.  It was very interesting to find out that she was recently traveling around Europe, which just happens to be a continent where they strongly push recycling by making it more accessible for its citizens.  She was amazed to see that Europeans recycle everything and that they see it as a way of life, instead of a burden!  Some of the things she mentioned were that they have many different colored bins for different materials all over most public places in Europe, which makes it much easier for everyone to recycle.  I’ve never traveled to that part of the world and I was curious to find out more, so I did a little research comparing our American ways when it comes to recycling with those of the Europeans.

In most European countries, glass and paper are just some of the things the average European refuses to throw away.  At most supermarkets, beaches, and other public places there are bottle banks with separate slots for clear, green and brown glass.  Europeans also recycle hard and soft plastics, as well as newspaper or papers and cardboard.  Most towns in countries throughout Europe have a free paper collection once a month and most people recycle everything made of cardboard or paper, from cereal boxes to old telephone bills.  In addition, there are recycling plants or recycling centers all through out Europe which totally facilitates and promotes their recycling effort.  Green waste, such as garden trimmings, is put out on the street in a neat bundle and they are collected every two weeks.  If that’s not enough, aluminum and tin cans be taken to local depots, old batteries taken to the local supermarket, and old oil or other chemicals taken to special sites.

On the other hand, in the USA most of the recycling of paper and plastic takes place at schools, universities and/or offices.  Most of the time people don’t recycle simply because they have to go out of their way to take the materials to a recycling center.  For the most part, we see apartment complexes and houses with just one trash container where all the garbage is tossed.  It’s rare when we see houses or apartment complexes that actually have one or two recycling bins. Can you imagine how much people would actually recycle if the different recycling bins were conveniently placed at their house or even near their house in public places such as parks?  I believe that the amount of actual waste would be tremendously reduced if that was possible.  Everything could be recycled and we could actually commit to it and make it our way of life.  We could start teaching it to kids at a very early age and eventually they would look at recycling as a part of their life too. 

I truly think that the appropriate authorities in this case, should do more to help us become more aware of recycling and most importantly facilitate the ways in which we can help the recycling effort more efficiently.  I understand that money might be an issue in this case, since it would actually take large amounts of money to actually initiate the process of making, distributing, and placing large quantities of recycling bins/banks all around the USA.  However, I feel that they should take a serious look into possibly starting it, even if it’s done at a small scale because the rewards for our Earth would be huge since recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions, conserves natural resources, and saves landfill space.  Europeans are definitely helping to save our planet with their huge recycling efforts and therefore helping to slow global warming.  So why is it that we can’t we do the same for our planet? After all, we just have one planet Earth and we should take care of it! Don’t you think?

Is time precious?

Recent studies have gone underway with regards to an early alert system for earthquakes. Imagine...the ground begins to shake, everyting is crashing down around you, buildings and houses collapsing. Why? An earthquake has happened. Every year, earthquakes destroy many homes and buildings and in some cases entire cities collapse as a result. Many are killed, mamed...if only there was an early warning system in effect that gives you enough time to take cover, protect yourself and loved ones. It is even scarier because we cannot accurately predict when the next earthquake will occur. But acording to a system of detectors in Los Angeles, we might be able to warn that an earthquake is coming. Even if it only comesa few seconds before the actual hit, we can then at least have a few seconds to get out of a potentially dangerous situation. So how would a few seconds really save? DO you think it will really make any difference in this new early warning system?

Is STEM synonymous with science?

We see the acronym STEM all over the place these days, from HUNSTEM to CSTEM to the STEM Education Coalition, and on and on. It has become a common term when referring to science and math education. STEM, of course, stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; but it seems to have become synonymous with science education.

We've always been a bit confused about what science means exactly in science education. We seem to use the word to refer to the list of topics that are science related more so than to the process of solving problems scientifically. Of course, if we are teaching for science literacy, we would want to emphasize science process and the use of scientific knowledge as a tool for inquiry rather than the end goal. Science is a process used to solve unique types of problems.

This is why problem-based, or project-based lessons are so important in science education, but we often lose track of the types of problems that are truly "scientific". Science is only one problem-solving strategy that uses scientific knowledge. Engineers solve problems differently. So do physicians and mathematicians, and inventors, and computer programmers. They all use perfectly legitimate problem-solving strategies, but they are not the same method scientists use. Engineers may use trial and error to arrive at the best design, but these are not controlled experiments testing hypotheses. Physicians would not want to form a hypothesis about your illness and then run controlled experiments to determine if thier diagnosis is correct before prescribing medication to treat your symptoms. Both of these professions utilize scientific knowledge but do not solve problems "scientifically." We wouldn't want them to.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are combined in STEM education so that we can emphasize the interrelationships between these endeavors. They are intertwined historically, and in practice. We need to understand how they work together synergistically, and how the integration of these strategies lead to innovation.  But, we shouldn't lose sight of how they are distinctly valuable independently. Mathematics and technology provide tools for doing science. Advances in science often lead to new technolgy and new applications for engineering and medicine. Mathematical modelling is especially valuable to the practice of science, but it is in the distinctions between the mathematical model and the results of experiments with natural phenomena that we find the value of the model. Technology allows us to do experiments we couldn't have performed in the past, and it is often the needs of scientific inquiry that drives technological advancement, but we must never lose focus on the limitations of technology in data collection and analysis.

I am writing this blog to proclaim the distinct value of each type of problem solving covered by STEM. Each part of the whole is invaluable. We are best served, however, when we fully understand how each part operates in order to contribute to society. We should not confuse STEM simply with science or vice versa because to do so minimizes the distinctions between each strategy encompassed by the acronym.

You may want to consider this as you teach "science".

Global Warming and Energy

There are many issues facing our nation today, the economy crisis, the war in Afghanistan, and finally last but not least our environment crisis. Even though the United States has been criticized for being over dependent on fossil fuels I am glad to find out we still have a chance. During my Natural Science class, I learned about many concepts that I had never been introduced to before like sustainability and everything that has to do with it. One thing that caught my attention is the ongoing process of developing alternative sources of energy, which to my knowledge will help alleviate some of those harmful emissions we release out into the environment when we process our energy with fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil, or natural gas. Global warming is definitely an energy problem, and we cannot have both an increase in conventional fossil fuel use and a habitable planet. Yet the United States is projected to consume 35 percent more oil, coal, and gas combined in 2030 than in 2004.

So, what is alternative energy? Alternative energy refers to energy sources that have undesired consequences such for example fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Alternative energy sources are renewable and are thought to be "free" energy sources. They all have lower carbon emissions, compared to conventional energy sources. These include Biomass Energy, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Geothermal Energy, Hydroelectric Energy sources. I really think that it is our duty to demand our politicians to quit avoiding the issue and act quick.

I have read lots of reports where politicians deny and question what is in fact happening. I recently viewed a commercial here in Houston of some person claiming that global warming is not real and the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is beneficial to our planet. I was shocked, of course at the end of the commercial there was an ad or a sign that stated he was in the oil business. I am sure that there are many people who think like him, but look at it like this. Just because tobacco companies advertise their product in a positive way, does it mean that is healthy? No, not really smoking has been found to be one of the main reasons for lung, and other types of cancer. Yet people still smoke, and go on with their life as if nothing is happening.

There are many reasons for us to take part in the future development of renewable energy sources, the main one is the future of our precious planet, there is also the economic factor, the government incentives, and last but not least, our ethical duty to do what is right.

By: Evelyn Martinez

What's really in your food? High Fructose Corn Syrup as a Possible Contributor to the Obesity Epidemic

    I found an article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that discussed the obesity epidemic and its possible relationship to the increased consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in recent years, particularly in beverages. The article, entitled Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity, can be found by following this link: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537 . Although the cause/s of the obesity epidemic are still unclear, some scientists and health professionals think that the increasing presence of artificial sweeteners in foods and beverages may play a role. High fructose corn syrup is the most common of these artificial sweeteners, accounting for 40 percent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages. In fact, it is the only artificial sweetener that is used in beverages in the United States. The consumption of high fructose corn syrup (hereafter referred to as HFCS) increased 1000% between 1970 and 1990, mirroring the spread of obesity throughout the population of individuals aged 2 years and above in recent years.
    One reason that HFCS is thought to contribute to weight gain is because the body doesn’t process fructose (a sugar found in fruits) the same way that it processes glucose (a simple sugar found in carbohydrates). Fructose doesn’t cause the body to secrete insulin or produce leptin like glucose does. Both insulin and leptin act as key signals that tell the body to stop eating when it has received enough nutrients (creating a feeling of being “full”). This is why consuming HFCS may contribute to increased food intake, and thus weight gain.
    Corn-based syrups are inexpensive to produce, so they are being used more and more in place of sucrose (table sugar) as an added sugar (sweetener added to manufactured food). Fructose is also a lot sweeter than sucrose. Since HFCS is added to so much of our food, I think that the extra sweetness has caused us to develop a preferred taste for very sweet foods. This might make us prefer artificially sweetened foods over foods that are naturally sweet or foods that are sweetened with sucrose.

    The article says that HFCS is a favorite substitute for sucrose in carbonated beverages, baked foods, canned fruits, jams and jellies, and dairy products. I think that it is in a lot more foods than the article listed, though. In reading labels, I have found HFCS in canned soups, all kinds of packaged breads and other baked goods, salsa, canned tomatoes, crackers, dried fruits, and the list goes on. This is frustrating to me because a lot of people eat canned fruits and dairy products like yogurt thinking they are eating healthy foods, when, in reality, they are eating large amounts of HFCS. I know there is some debate over whether HFCS is worse than sucrose or not. But, even if it is no worse than sucrose, the fact that it is being added to so many foods that do not need sweeteners is alarming to me. Why does applesauce need extra sugar? It’s naturally sweet! I think it is very deceptive for companies to add so many sweeteners to their products, especially when the foods are portrayed as healthy snacks in advertisements. If it is true that the consumption of HFCS doesn’t signal regulation in food intake, making people feel hungry even after they’ve eaten a lot of food with HFCS in it, then perhaps that is why food companies put it in foods that don’t need sweeteners. If consumers eat their products but don’t get full, they’ll eat more and more of it, increasing food sales. Unfortunately it also increases obesity and associated health problems in consumers. 

    The article also discusses studies that have been done using rats. The researchers provide sweetened beverages for them to drink then record the results. In this particular study the consumption of the sweetened beverages decreased the amount of solid food the rats consumed, but the rats still gained weight, slowly progressing to an obese state. This is alarming considering the large amount of sodas that people consume on a regular basis. So many people grab a soda from a vending machine or an extra large beverage from a fast-food joint in place of a meal (or in addition to a double cheeseburger and fries). Added sweeteners are not only in soda, though. Many fruit juices have high contents of HFCS. Again, I think a lot of people drink fruit juices instead of sodas, thinking they are being health-conscious, when there is sometimes just as much HFCS in a bottle of grape juice as there is in a bottle of coke. All in all, I think the food industry is taking advantage of un-knowing customers by adding HFCS and other sweeteners to foods that most people assume are more healthy than they really are.

Hilary Weber

Resources:  "Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity" from the Journal of Clinical Nutrition http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537 .

Welcome to the Meritocracy

Last night's election was historic on many levels. One of the most interesting things said about it was that "the election has changed the gray matter of the country". Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson made this comment on MSNBC last night in trying to describe the impact the election has had on him, and will have on all of us in both profound and subtle ways. Many commentators have talked about how this election will change the psyche of America and the world.

I've been trying to think about this phenomenon in terms of what it means for education. I believe it could have subtle and profound impacts here as well. In the most profound way, I believe that Barack Obama's success resonates as a blueprint for the American Dream, and that it is now finally and truly available to everyone in this country. How many times did we hear last night from teary-eyed civil rights leaders, "now we can tell our children that they can be anything they want to be, and now we will be telling the truth".

While this shift in ideology is profound in itself, what is even more profound for education is in the analysis of the blueprint. Barack Obama is where he is today because of education. Anyone looking at his story can now see clearly that the pathway to the American dream is through education. What is soaking into the gray matter of this country right now is that the hope of our future is through the education of everyone in our society.

Barack Obama talks about how his mother would wake him up early to study. This resonates with educators on at least two levels. One, his family valued his education, and was integrally involved in his disciplined journey through the education system. Barack Obama rose from a modest background into the intellectual elite in this country through education because it was expected of him, and because he had the support of his family . And two, education is hard work. Here is a man who I've already described as intellectually elite. A man who attended Harvard Law School and edited their Law Review. A man who eloquently addresses and analyzes complex issues. And, he worked hard in school.

We have much work to do to make the dream of equal education for everyone a true reality. There are still too many inequalities in the state of facilities, the allocation of resources, and the veracity of our commitment to the schools in our under-served communities. These inequalities will not be overcome easily or quickly, but now there is a new mind-set for the students, teachers and parents at these schools. For the first time in many of these communities, it is conceivable that hard work can lift a child from the conditions of their surroundings to the heights of their imaginations. It is now conceivable that any child who works hard can compete in America's meritocracy and be rewarded. For the first time, it is conceivable that though barriers will still exist, there is a pathway through them that leads to success.

If this indomitable spirit oozes into the gray matter of all of our children, all of our families, all of society, then our educational system can finally become the meritocracy it has promised to be.

In Memory of Cherri Brinley

A dear friend of mine passed away over the weekend. She was a middle school science teacher, and she was the best I've ever known. She was the best because she enjoyed teaching and because she truly cared about her students. I know that may sound trite, but there is no better way to convey the truth of her professionalism as a teacher.

She also taught science the way it should be taught. She serves as a perfect example of how inquiry and PBL can be done effectively.  I know that inquiry and PBL are difficult, but Cherri was able to do it. She was able to do it because it was fun for her. She constantly learned new things and sought out new projects. And she did the projects alongside her students. Cherri's students even trained other teachers on her lessons in rocketry for NASA.

When I first met Cherri she was undergoing chemotherapy. She was also struggling, I think, with her self-confidence as a teacher, but I could see then that she was special. She asked me if I thought she should apply to a program at NASA and if I thought she was qualified. I told her she was exactly the type of teacher they needed. She applied and was accepted, and she proceeded to take that opportunity and turn it into an amazing run for herself and her students. I watched her confidence and her hair grow back over the next few years, and I was constantly amazed at her resilience and dedication.

Cherri was dedicated to doing things right even when it wasn't easy. Like any science teacher who uses inquiry in their classrooms, she had parents and administrators who didn't always understand the value of what she was doing. I know that it hurt her when she was rebuked for "not using the text book" or "taking too many field trips" but she knew she was doing things right and she perservered.

Her students certainly know she did it right. The number of former and current students attending her funeral service was testament to that. The number of students signing her guestbook, and the experiences they shared are a testament as well. But the greatest testament to her success is the number of students from her classes succeeding in high school and college. I know a lot of teachers through HUNSTEM, and I know her students are well thought of. This is the truest assessment of teaching. Her students are not only successful in their studies after her teaching, but they remain interested in science whether they plan to pursue it as a career or not.

Cherri couldn't beat cancer the second time, but she has forevor won the minds of her students and the hearts of all who knew her.

I'm writing this tribute to Cherri in HUNBlog to show that science can be taught through the principles of constructivism. It isn't easy, but when done right, it's the best way to teach science. For any teachers who are using inquiry and PBL, keep at it. Keep learning and keep searching for new experiences for yourselves and your students. Stay strong in your knowledge that you are doing it right.

Look to Cherri Brinley for inspiration. I know I do.

A New Paradigm for Public Education

A while back I wrote a blog about a new paradigm for public education (Devil's Advocate). I also mentioned the need for a new paradigm for public education in this entry: Why We Can't Blame Teachers.

I'd like to spend much of this year expanding on this paradigm.

I haven't been blogging for awhile, though my students have been contributing to HUNBlog. I will try to write my own entries throughout this semester, primarily on my thoughts about this new paradigm, but on other things too.

Anyway, here goes:

Let's start from scratch. Let's assume that there has never been public education but we now realize the need for it. In today's milieu, what do we need to do to insure the best education for every student?

Here are a few ideas I want to develop. I'll be brief and general at this point. Let me know what you think and we'll see where this goes:

School is not a centralized location. Students should meet with their teachers in a variety of locations, such as informal science centers, museums, public libraries, parks, plants, factories, office buildings, government buildings, etc. Accomodations and transportation can be arranged, and integrated curricula can be developed. A centralized school can be used for some lessons, test taking, assemblies, etc.

Curricula should be integrated across all disciplines.

Technology should be used to provide resources to students at all age levels. I'm not talking a lap top for every student, that's already obsolete. I'm talking about something along the lines of a pda/phone. Textbooks, internet access, podcasts, bulleting boards, etc. should be utilized to communicate to students and collect assignments (electronically).  Come on, seriously, if we're starting from scratch, isn't this a no-brainer?

Content standards can be assessed through standardized tests, but this should only be half of the students final grades. The other half should be performance based. Students should have to show that they can apply what they've learned to actual tasks.

Funds for public education should come from the industry and businesses that benefit from a well educated population. Businesses and industry should be taxed according to the number of employees, and funds should be distributed to schools/school districts according to the number of students they educate (with some adjustments for cost of living differences, perhaps).

Funding should be coordinated at the federal level. National standards should be developed for the integrated curriculum, with content strands and expected outcomes for skills, but there should be plenty of room for teachers to adapt the guidelines to their student's specific needs. Teachers should be paid well, and they should be trusted to develop appropriate curricula and assessment for their students.

Okay, have at it!