Keeping current and valuable to your clients or employer

For any professional his/her knowledge, skills, aptitudes, and attitudes are his/her assets. It is important therefore to be current adapting to newer information, knowledge, technologies, and methodologies. As the value of our services depend on how well adapted to the present moment. As with any asset knowledge is time related, and as many things knowledge can get old as groceries in the supermarket or outdated as a ball game ticket of the previous season.
Currently I am reading a book published in 2000 by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas titled "Pragmatic Programmer" (ISBN 0-201-61622-X) and even though it has been several years since the book first appear some of the basic ideas as all good basic ideas have not been outdated. I have to admit that some of the websites, programs, and social media have indeed advanced and other not mentioned in the book have been created. but overall is a great book that I highly recommend even to those not interested in computer programming.
The main argument of Hunt and Thomas is based on the market for stock, where diversification, managing actualization, balancing high-risk-high-gain stock with low-risk-low-gain, and building your portfolio are used to help the reader find how to grow and manage risk at the same time that s/he builds a "personal" portfolio. The book is full of good advise like read a good book every month, a non technical, not related to his/her field so s/he can understand human nature better in order to better satisfy the needs of his/her clients or employer. As one thing is for sure, once one is outdated one will not longer serve the needs of clients or employers.
One aspect of building yourself as a portfolio is the need to network, getting wired the authors say! By this one can understand that belonging to professional networks, one will be able to see what are the current trends, one will be able to explore new and exciting ideas that might be the foundation of new skills. Think of those who learned "Java" when it was in its infancy and was easy to learn and to get onboard. Even though learning it was a high-risk endeavor some did get onboard and now they are at the top of this widely use technology.
So two question I ask now: one, how am I keeping current and valuable to my clients and employer?
two, How can I teach my science students skills that help them to keep current?

A Crisis in Science Education?

This month's issue of Scientific American has the front-page: A Crisis In Physics? with a featured article by Joseph Lykken and Maria Spiropulu titled Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics. Reading the article reminds us that science is continuously advancing and new ideas are always replacing old ones, even in the case that the old ones are not that old at all! This situation is one to take into account when teaching science. One has to be able to transmit to the learner that ideas, methods, and processes in general can be improved and that even basic knowledge (things thought to be true in the absolute) are in fact ideas that can be improved and in some cases replaced by better models of reality.
The fact that we have now so many of these hypothesis that have been proven to exhaustion and that are the subject of most content in science education makes it difficult to instigate in the student a sense of healthy skepticism. It is almost impossible to provoke the need for inquiry of things that the teacher is showing as tried and true and based on solid evidence without falling off the cliff of complete ignorance and denial. One doesn't want to teach that the theories of gravitation, evolution, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, etc. are false, but that they have many details unanswered and more research has to be done. Some of these "details" can be huge concepts of deep intrinsic interpretation that could at a point change the way we understand the reality of our world. No better example than "String Theory" that is trying to explain what is that we are made of.
My question now is how can I teach basic "principles" that have been proven to work so far and at the same time create a safe environment for my students to ask anything?

Old-school Teaching

Reading this blog  http://classteaching.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/learning-with-mr-clarke-circa-1985/ reminded me of when I went to school. Those days seem to be simple and not many "politically correct" rules were used. For example if a teacher thought that one student was saying or doing a "dumb" thing, the teacher was free to say so. Now of course you can't say to a student in front of the class: "that is a dumb thing!" We are now using the so called Pygmalion or Rosenthal effect where greater expectations are supposed to enhance the behavior and performance of the student. So instead of saying "that is a dumb thing to say"; we say "that is a great idea but have you consider ....this or that".. It looks like greater expectations are in some way paradoxically working against improved performance because we are not emphasizing "hard work" as a necessary investment in improving oneself. The need to have a "carrot and a stick", a pull and a push, incentives and coercion in order to balance the needs with the outcomes in the educational process.
Do you think that in some ways we should have some punitive measures along the way during the course, so we don't have to wait until the failing grade is given?
Like in the days when a list of the top and bottom students was posted in the classroom?

Richard P. Feynman

It sure is hard to know, but I think that Richard Feynman is the most brilliant U.S. born scientist of all times. As far as I know Feynman (Nobel Prize in Physics 1965) is not the one with the most honors, or prizes but I have the feeling that he is the one with the most interesting life. For one, he's the one with a great sense of humor that can be sampled reading his book: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". This autobiography written only a few years before his death in 1988 is an invaluable - priceless account of what an "extraordinary and ordinary" his life was. Paradoxical as it sounds his life is a reminder that all our lives are extraordinary and ordinary at the same time. Ordinary and common as we all do the same things and extraordinary and particular as we all do our own things.
So, teaching (in particular teaching sciences) is an art where the teacher has to find the balance between the ordinary and extraordinary in each student. The extraordinary and the ordinary in each element of knowledge being transmitted and developed in the classroom. The extraordinary and ordinary of each moment in time spent with the students, both in the classroom and outside of the classroom.
I know that in most cases we act intuitively and don't pay much attention to these apparent contradictions between the ordinary and the extraordinary but it looks like to me that we have to be more intentional looking for this paradox. It seems to me that one way to be intentional about this is to have the students be aware of what you are looking for and to make them take ownership of this process; or at least partners. Richard Feynman was an genius that knew that he was just like anybody else, that may be the source of his genius and, important for me, the source of his good humor and great personality.
Now I have to find a way to learn about the extraordinary and ordinary of each of my students! Do you have an idea how to do that?

Ready to Learn

Scientific ideas have been evolving since the beginning when humans started to make sense of the realities that surround us. Along the way there have been times when a dramatic and revolutionary shift on paradigm occurred. For westerners the Greek philosophers were the starting stone for their use of logic and reason as a means to know. Then in the middle ages several geniuses became the stepping stones helping us cross to modernity by their use of measurement and experimentation; the scientific method was developed. Finally as we reach the shores of post-modernism more genius minds have become the cap-stone for inquiry with a touch of irony. These cap-stones are not to cap or stop knowledge from advancing but to give support for a much deeper understanding of reality.
So how can we teach science today based on the history and complexity of our understanding of the world? In fact even the word "world" is inadequate as today we know that our "world" -our planet is just a very small, insignificant dust in the vast -immense universe of ours. So the one thing I want to use from the introduction to the way we teach science (it may apply to the way we teach anything) is the following: Knowledge is interconnected! Ideas cannot be learned if there is no foundation -previously developed- and there is no reference or context for this new concept or idea. Giving the limitation of time students must bring some understanding of the subject that allows them to learn more about the subject, of course this doesn't apply to introductory courses which by definition assume that the student has no previous knowledge of the subject.
Should entrance examinations be applied to every single course that is not introductory?

The Chemistry of Teaching Chemistry

The word "chemistry" has been used as defined by dictionaries as "the emotional or psychological interaction between two people, especially when experienced as a powerful mutual attraction: as in their affair was triggered by intense sexual chemistry" Or "interaction between people working together; specifically: such interaction when harmonious or effective chemistry
> (Merriam-Webster) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chemistry retrieved 3/25/2014.This interpretation of the word has been so useful that even some dating services use it as a advertising tool. One even use it a the name for their dating agency. Why they use the name chemistry? Why is that they want to show some kind of scientific foundation? Why would clients rely on a (pseudo-) scientific explanation of how the dating system works?
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind! Science gives confidence! One might think that because something is scientific it will be supported by factual observation of reality. When one expresses the opinion that there is some chemical interaction in the brain that makes one like someone is because there is ample evidence that there are bio-chemical reaction in the brain as the mind is elucidating.
So the question is how do we develop a chemistry in class? How can a professor instigate and encourage an emotional/psychological interaction between the students and between the students and the professor? The answer is not simple or direct. There must be hundreds of didactic techniques and teaching tricks. I will share here in this space some of the ones that I have used in recent years, such as POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) developed by chemists and Flipping that has become wide spread and multidisciplinary.
Chemistry has been known to be the weed-out tool in the liberal arts, as a winnow tool to show students what their true calling is, as many come to the hard sciences without the preparation, talent, or true desire for these disciplines. They come because they are told "is the right thing to do" and parents want their children to go to medical school so they can make money. Of course all of these reasons are the wrong reasons to go to college.
Once the student realizes that his/her calling is not in the hard sciences they will be free to choose among a myriad of options within the liberal arts or business. These hard sciences are in many ways magnets that bring students to college and help admission number to go up.
So thinking about chemistry, the science; how do we use the chemistry of the classroom, the emotional relationship created and developed by the professor to enhance learning and enjoyment of the science? Can one enhance a "chemistry" of support of learning difficult subjects? If so how can we do it?

Anti-science in higher ed

Within some religious organizations an anti-science sentiment has been dominating for many years; scientist and the public at large have in general been aware of this and to a certain extend ignoring it as something unimportant and in many ways insignificant due to the small impact that this marginal groups have in our society. But as time has passed more and more people (many completely unaware) are siding with this anti-science movement. It seems that this assertion is unfounded as one sees continuous references by important people in government and in business that supporting science or as it is now called STEM (for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is a matter of "National Security" but in fact there is more (much more) talk than walk.
We at Warner Pacific College are trying to support students to be able to engage in a constantly changing world, as declared in our mission statement. This means that we have to be scientific both in the way we teach as in the subjects we teach. But, what do one means when saying "scientific"? This is indeed a tricky question. Can one say that history can be taught scientifically? One may argue that: No, history can't be taught scientifically. Scientifically means that one follow the scientific method which among other characteristics has the ability to predict phenomena based on the observation of facts and the establishment of hypothesis. It would be a stretch to say that you could do that in historical events. But I am open to be taught and corrected!
As financial resources become more and more scarce the push to minimize the investment in science is taking hold in higher education. With the excuse that STEM is financed by outside sources the push to minimize internal support is gaining momentum in many colleges and universities. This is more evident in smaller institutions that do not have a trajectory and prestige within the scientific endeavor, and thus are more in danger of succumbing to this kind of pressures.
Is there any hope that this trend will change?