Astronomy Classroom Connection

Add a Comment

7 Comments

Comment by Karrie Berglund on March 12, 2009 at 5:01pm

Hi all,

I'm from Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. (though I used to oversee a fixed planetarium), and I could use some feedback from you.

I'm often asked by potential customers about using our digital planetarium systems to teach non-astronomy content, so I wanted to find out if any of you already do this. I'm more interested in how you use the planetarium software or your starball to lead an interactive lesson rather than in simple movie playback.

If so:
What non-astronomy subjects do you teach?
Would you care to share some sample activities (just a short description, not a full length lesson plan)?
Do you try to address learning standards in these other subject areas?

In my opinion, some school subjects lend themselves easily to being taught in a planetarium--for example, using constellations from different cultures in a social studies lesson, or discussing stellar evolution as part of chemistry class--but some are not so obvious.

Anyone care to share his/her experiences or toss out some ideas?

Thanks!
Karrie
---
Karrie Berglund, Director of Education
Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc.
http://DigitalisEducation.com

Comment by Charles Miller on January 14, 2009 at 1:05pm

Hi, Folks.

I'm trying to establish a planetarium in my town (Iowa City, IA) without any extant support or positive inertia from any quarter. I thought that I'd do something a bit presumptuous here and do a "dump" of an email communication that I had with a potential contact in my school system. I apologize for the length, but I'm wondering if any of the following verbiage might be relevant to this group's interest. Sorry if it is not. Basically, I've written a rather open-ended "elevator pitch" (rather long elevator ride).


In response to your e-mail of today, I have tried to put together some of my thoughts that could relate to possible “agenda points”… or at least things I am thinking of. I am delighted that you are willing to meet with me and perhaps this is not the time for me to be presumptious and/or pushy, particularly as I am the “outsider” when it comes to science education or related ventures. However, I do hold some strong opinions (some which I hope might hold some water) which I find that other science-career friends of mine hold in common. I also have a personal desire to see our country (or at least community) become again engaged in real “popular science”, without resorting to what I might characterize as flashy or ill-conceived ways of bringing science to the young and the community. Also, I believe that I might have something substantial to offer, at least under some possible scenarios.

Thus, I wanted to express a few of my thoughts, naïve (or poorly informed) as they might be, regarding the topic of bringing science back into the public fold and re-invigorating new generations. Here are my preliminary thoughts:

General Statements on today’s science centers.

1. Children are not being challenged to think, explore, wonder. This is likely not a fault of the education system, per se, but rather sociologic conditions of our country where hyper-activity and commercialism have too strong of influences on young people. “Multi-tasking” is over-rated and fails to promote focus and depth. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the nation was spurred on to exploring “new math” and increased vigor in science education because of a perception of a “science gap” with the Soviets. In the present day, science has a much lower priority in the public mind. And it is showing, as there are more graduates of leisure studies programs than there are mathematics graduates (refereence needed for this statement).

2. Science outreach centers should not pretend to be giant Ipods, “Wi’s”, or Playstations. Attempts to meet kids on a realm that is similar to video games or other hyper-active activities is not a good way of appealing to kids with a science bent. It is “watering down” that has the unfortunate effect of making the whole venture less appealing to all. The “I want entertainment crowd” will feel disappointed and the smart, potential scientist, engineer or doctor will be similarly unimpressed.

3. Related to the above, perhaps it should be kept in mind that, if the goal of a science center is to kindle interest, then it must be kept in mind that the displays and content of a substantial science center may not have great appeal to most children. After all, only a minority of kids (nowadays, a very small majority) follow science career paths. A movie theatre provides an entertainment venue, a baseball field provides and venue, and so does a science center. But each should be tailored to specific goals, not just garnering “attendance”. That is not to say that a science center can’t have more ‘popular draws” (such as the Butterfly Room in Milwaukee’s science center). But it can’t just be that.
4. As a result of these distracting concepts, not all science centers are of equal worth. The Des Moines facility is good in that it has several person-guided experiences, not just static displays that offer have defective mechanisms due to the management’s “hands off” attitude. There is nothing worse than having “self-service” displays that don’t work. That is completely avoided by having activities that are human-guided. One might wonder about the staffing costs, but I would counter by mentioning that a good science center could provide externships for college students, etc.


The Vacuum in the Iowa City / Cedar Rapids Area

5. While Des Moines, Waterloo, and the Quad Cities have science centers, our immediate area (Cedar Rapids / Iowa City) comes up short. In my mind, this is particuarly galling, given the unique resources of this region:

(a) a relatively well-off tax base

(b) the home to several colleges and the University of Iowa, which could serve as
contributors and allies, with their own vested interest in science popularization.

(c) Given the above, one might think that an inspired City Council might see a
substantial science center as a real region “draw”. The City of Iowa City once
thought that a Rain Forest was a good idea… why not something that is more
compatible with the real strengths of the area? Similarly, the University of Iowa
and the Board of Regents gave “thumbs up” to a sports “Hall of Fame” that is
poorly attended and arguably of little import. Thus, the will for outreach and
public attractions is there; unfortunately, the choices considered have not been particularly inspirational.

(d) Towns with several instiutions of higher learning offer two important
resources:

(d1) professors and students, some of whom might harbor strong
motivation to better there community. I count myself among that group.

(d2) Real achievements in science, engineering, and medicine. Dr. van Allen’s
pivtoal role in early space science is given short shrift by the University and seems
to consist only of dusty display cases. That’s a shame and hardly a way to motivate
future scientists. The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics have several areas of
expertise that could provide fascinating looks at biology, health, and the practice of
medicine. For example a display of robotic surgery, the use of deep-brain
stimulation or cochlear implants all are explored at the UI in some depth and may
be of interest to the public.


6. Personal Notes

I am working toward a relatively sophisticated device that could have signficant didactic usefulness and could be part of a "core" science facility. I am motivated to attempt to contact potential allies and partners who would see this contribution as part of a strong scienc center. My projector will likely have a monetary value of tens of thousands when complete.

Also (and this may be a somewhat odd thought), I believe there is value in a star projector that “shows its stuff”… that demonstrates, through its gears, cams, wiring, and design the ingenuity of design that can capture the imagination of potential scientists. Children like to see moving parts, mechanisms, action, particularly if it serves a purpose (such as a planetarium projector, an engine, a real operational loom, some kind of analog computer, or other mechanisms).

I recall, as a child, seeing a large, 2-ton, projector in St.Louis, marvelling at it strange beauty and complexity, and pleased (inside) how such a strange and complex device was designed and built to create complex visual space-scapes. That is part of the appeal… seeing a device that serves a science concept. That is also true of old-fashioned “ripple tanks” from old high-school physics curricula. Those sorts of “you can see it” demonstration platforms should not be buried because a slicker computer-driven software package is available, but rather brought out for it’s tactile and real appeal. When science is buried within software and intricate and facinating devices (some, the pinnacle of engineering excellence) are eliminated for flashier video displays, something is lost.

Comment by Charles Miller on December 3, 2008 at 1:14pm

Hello, folks.

I'd be highly appreciative of tips/experience reports regardging the successful implementation of either a planetarium facility (getting bricks-and-mortar, or at least room space) or curricula. There are some useful previous reports about melding student activities with the in-the-dome presentations that I appreciated reading.

I'd like to get something going in my community, but there is the first big hurdle of getting a group of influential people "on board" to the extent that they take possession of the idea (i.e. "what a great idea we've just thought of").

So, if anyone has ideas about hooks and successful pitch lines, I would love to hear about it.

Thanks.

c.m.

Comment by Charles Miller on November 20, 2008 at 12:54am

I see strong values in basic astronomy education and the teaching of (1) scientific observational skills, (2) hypothesis testing, and (3) a highly accessible story of how the march of science helps humans's understanding of their nature and place in the universe. Very basic conceptions such as mass, gravity, distance, attractive (gravitational) forces leading to orbits are given strong examples that can have high impact through visual demonstrations within a "domed classroom". The value of plain-old careful observation (think Tycho and Kepler) come to mind, as does the inexorable power of good application of the scientific method and the concept of "parsimony" (I'm thinking of the ancient "epicycle" concept involved in an attempt to cling to the geocentric cosmology.

Also, a domed room provides a compelling audio-visual environment, sort-of a "total immersion" experience.

I am new to this group, but mention these things because I think that there are some currents (among those trying to remedy our nation's failing science-education program) that too often look toward "high-tech" computer-program based educational gimmicks over the more classical demonstration of science concepts that can be so effectively demonstrated and shared under a planetarium dome. In short, the historical nature of the discovery of modern cosmology and the several basic physics and science-observation skills involved can be well met by the planetarium environment -- coupled by video clips and animations that don't talk down to the student. I'm hoping that I've made my intended point here.

Comment by Alan Gould on October 24, 2008 at 7:14am

I think the #1 thing we have to consider is individual state standards (where they exist). Teachers/schools very often design their curriculum around the standards. The Interact Planetarium Activities for Student Success series (PASS; http://lhs.berkeley.edu/pass) which is all hands-on, audience participation programs, also has suggested activities for classroom use, pre or post visit. [shameless promotion; no apologies though] Some of the activities are posted for free on our website.

Comment by Gary Purinton on October 23, 2008 at 9:38pm

When I was teaching in Fairfax County, Virginia, we did pre-visits for all our fourth, fifth, and sixth grade programs, and those programs were in the county program of studies, so almost every class at those grade levels was included. We used the pre-visits for several reasons. First, it allowed us to cover prerequisite concepts in the classroom and allowing us to concentrate on the concepts best presented in the planetarium there. Second, we used a hands-on approach in the planetarium, and we used the previsit to construct materials (like star charts) in the classroom and then learn the basic method of using them. Third, the previsit emphasized that the astronomy concepts were a unit, and not just a single lesson. We tried to encourage teachers to do additional activities in the classroom to reinforce and extend the concepts presented in the planetarium. Four, the previsit allowed us to size up the group and tailor the planetarium presentation to their particular ability level and attention span. The planetarium time is limited, and we tried to do everything we could to maximize the effectiveness of what we did there.

Comment by Sharon Shanks on June 4, 2008 at 9:09pm

Woo-hoo! Good group!

So - first question. How *do* we extend the classroom to the planetarium? I had a nice talk today with a colleague who was working with an 8th grade teacher who requested a specific topic. She presented the program, then the teacher suggested changes and the changed show is doing the trick. I'm guessing the teacher does pre-visit activities and lessons, and follows up after the visit.

Nice, for a small facility. A potential for a LOT of different programs, however, and I don't have the time to customize a lot of programs.

I'd love to hear about anyone who provides pre- and post-visit activities/suggestions, and especially to share those activities.

Sharon