Comments for > eric brunsell http://brunsell.edublogs.org Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:30:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Chuck Norris Gives Science the Smackdown by Kate Olson http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/04/22/chuck-norris-gives-science-the-smackdown/#comment-24 Kate Olson Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:19:57 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/04/22/chuck-norris-gives-science-the-smackdown/#comment-24 Although I'm not a science (or Chuck Norris) expert, I have to say that you very thoroughly refuted all of his arguments - I find it really interesting that there is an attitude of hero-worship from my 6th grade boy students toward Chuck Norris. I'm wondering whether this goes all the way as deep as his scientific/religious beliefs or if it's just a middle school boy humor appreciation of the facts such as the site Damian listed above. I hope it's the latter! Although I’m not a science (or Chuck Norris) expert, I have to say that you very thoroughly refuted all of his arguments - I find it really interesting that there is an attitude of hero-worship from my 6th grade boy students toward Chuck Norris. I’m wondering whether this goes all the way as deep as his scientific/religious beliefs or if it’s just a middle school boy humor appreciation of the facts such as the site Damian listed above. I hope it’s the latter!

]]> Comment on Chuck Norris Gives Science the Smackdown by Damian http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/04/22/chuck-norris-gives-science-the-smackdown/#comment-23 Damian Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:10:41 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/04/22/chuck-norris-gives-science-the-smackdown/#comment-23 Oh, man. Haven't you heard? <a href="http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com" rel="nofollow">There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.</a> Oh, man. Haven’t you heard? There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

]]> Comment on Only in Florida by Shaun Fletcher http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/20/only-in-florida/#comment-21 Shaun Fletcher Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:44:47 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/20/only-in-florida/#comment-21 Hi Eric, I found this debate quite interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww It's a little long though. Hi Eric,
I found this debate quite interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww
It’s a little long though.

]]> Comment on Buzzword vs. Substance by Amber Redemann http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-20 Amber Redemann Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:39:55 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-20 The 19th century curriculum focused on creating a unified America. Different perspectives were not given any consideration; either you were white or you acted white. We have gone beyond that in education and encourage people to learn about and value other cultures. Teachnology has influenced this idea greatly and like Sheena and Katelyn already commented, it's about being connected. We are allowed to be connected to people across the globe, and we should be using this to increase learning. No longer do we belive we can only learn from books; we can learn from each other and work toward a common goal. Maybe the 21st century curriculum should focus on figuring out what this collective consciousness, this goal, is and how we can work together to deal with so many issues at a global level. Authentic tasks, discussions, group work, and technology are all ways of creating a community where students can address global issues, but that does not necessarily mean these are the best ways. I am not dedicated to this statement, but perhaps the research we are teaching by is outdated. It is not impossible to imagine a poular method being torn apart and proven detrimental. Although I am sure every generation says this, we are in a time of monumental change, globally, socially, and technologically. If we think about children today; they are maturing more rapidly than in the past, are exposed to different substances in their environemts, and are persuaded by an increasing number of images in the media. As things around us change, we have to take that into consideration and reevalute what we are trying to achieve in education and the best way to do that. My interpretation of the article is to be critical and never stop looking for something better, because we can always do better. The 19th century curriculum focused on creating a unified America. Different perspectives were not given any consideration; either you were white or you acted white. We have gone beyond that in education and encourage people to learn about and value other cultures. Teachnology has influenced this idea greatly and like Sheena and Katelyn already commented, it’s about being connected. We are allowed to be connected to people across the globe, and we should be using this to increase learning. No longer do we belive we can only learn from books; we can learn from each other and work toward a common goal. Maybe the 21st century curriculum should focus on figuring out what this collective consciousness, this goal, is and how we can work together to deal with so many issues at a global level. Authentic tasks, discussions, group work, and technology are all ways of creating a community where students can address global issues, but that does not necessarily mean these are the best ways.

I am not dedicated to this statement, but perhaps the research we are teaching by is outdated. It is not impossible to imagine a poular method being torn apart and proven detrimental. Although I am sure every generation says this, we are in a time of monumental change, globally, socially, and technologically. If we think about children today; they are maturing more rapidly than in the past, are exposed to different substances in their environemts, and are persuaded by an increasing number of images in the media. As things around us change, we have to take that into consideration and reevalute what we are trying to achieve in education and the best way to do that. My interpretation of the article is to be critical and never stop looking for something better, because we can always do better.

]]> Comment on Buzzword vs. Substance by Sheena Scannell http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-18 Sheena Scannell Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:08:34 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-18 I agree that we need to start doing. All of this re-_____ might be necessary at this time, but not to the extent that hands-on work and class discussions are. Hands-on activities and issues that are real to students will naturally spark interest. Katelyn had a very good point in saying that we should teach how we are connected to the world and have students bring real world issues into the classroom. Children, especially very young ones, think about a subject in relationship to themselves. You can't start to teach children from the great lakes region about ocean life and salt water marine life until after they know what some different bodies of water are near them, like a river or lake. Connections are made egocentrically, depending on a person's age. In my past experiences with science classes, I felt like teachers dove right into the hardcore subject, which is why I often found myself lost in a nonsense mixture of words within textbooks and worksheets. Sure, we occasionally discussed things, but hardly ever related them to our own lives. That would have taken time away from learning about more "new" topics, but at least I would have understood more about what I was just taught. I feel like that relates a little to the "19th century shackles" in the fact that topics are skimmed on the surface, but teachers rarely take their students for a deeper dive. How often do students get to interact with their classmates and promote class discussion? Why are teachers still using textbooks as their bible instead of a guide? Creativity plays a big role in the development of strong lessons, but if we pay attention to students' interests with the world and each other, we might learn from them and gain new ideas. I agree that we need to start doing. All of this re-_____ might be necessary at this time, but not to the extent that hands-on work and class discussions are. Hands-on activities and issues that are real to students will naturally spark interest. Katelyn had a very good point in saying that we should teach how we are connected to the world and have students bring real world issues into the classroom. Children, especially very young ones, think about a subject in relationship to themselves. You can’t start to teach children from the great lakes region about ocean life and salt water marine life until after they know what some different bodies of water are near them, like a river or lake. Connections are made egocentrically, depending on a person’s age. In my past experiences with science classes, I felt like teachers dove right into the hardcore subject, which is why I often found myself lost in a nonsense mixture of words within textbooks and worksheets. Sure, we occasionally discussed things, but hardly ever related them to our own lives. That would have taken time away from learning about more “new” topics, but at least I would have understood more about what I was just taught.

I feel like that relates a little to the “19th century shackles” in the fact that topics are skimmed on the surface, but teachers rarely take their students for a deeper dive. How often do students get to interact with their classmates and promote class discussion? Why are teachers still using textbooks as their bible instead of a guide? Creativity plays a big role in the development of strong lessons, but if we pay attention to students’ interests with the world and each other, we might learn from them and gain new ideas.

]]> Comment on Buzzword vs. Substance by Katelyn Carlson http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-17 Katelyn Carlson Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:50:08 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/11/buzzword-vs-substance/#comment-17 I think that the "shackles of 19th century" could refer to teaching core subjects, mainly the 3 R's. Perhaps what they are trying to say through all of the mumble jumble is that we need to start to teach students about the world more, how we are all interconnected. Perhaps a push needs to made toward a more progressive view in preparing students for the real world, bringing real world issues and problems into the classroom so students can become prepared. I believe the 21st century curriculum needs to focus on problem solving, mainly real world problems. Students should be given the opportunity to find out some issues, bring them to school and have meaningful discussions with classmates. I think that the “shackles of 19th century” could refer to teaching core subjects, mainly the 3 R’s. Perhaps what they are trying to say through all of the mumble jumble is that we need to start to teach students about the world more, how we are all interconnected. Perhaps a push needs to made toward a more progressive view in preparing students for the real world, bringing real world issues and problems into the classroom so students can become prepared. I believe the 21st century curriculum needs to focus on problem solving, mainly real world problems. Students should be given the opportunity to find out some issues, bring them to school and have meaningful discussions with classmates.

]]> Comment on A Designer Universe? by Dale Basler http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/05/a-designer-universe/#comment-15 Dale Basler Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:21:12 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/05/a-designer-universe/#comment-15 Great post. Do you listen to Point of Inquiry? www.pointofinquiry.org Great post.

Do you listen to Point of Inquiry?
http://www.pointofinquiry.org

]]> Comment on The Church was nice to Galileo? by ehoffman http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/the-church-was-nice-to-galileo/#comment-13 ehoffman Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:23:39 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/the-church-was-nice-to-galileo/#comment-13 I'm thinking he maybe went with it on this particular Sunday as a response to Evolution Sunday. Could be wrong though. Had I been there, I would've gone ape re: #4. (Not that his other claims are better; that one's just the most egregious to me personally.) That's possibly the worst argument I've ever heard. I think he may be heading toward Paley's watchmaker idea but he's doing an incredibly poor job of it. I’m thinking he maybe went with it on this particular Sunday as a response to Evolution Sunday. Could be wrong though.

Had I been there, I would’ve gone ape re: #4. (Not that his other claims are better; that one’s just the most egregious to me personally.) That’s possibly the worst argument I’ve ever heard. I think he may be heading toward Paley’s watchmaker idea but he’s doing an incredibly poor job of it.

]]> Comment on The Church was nice to Galileo? by Dale Basler http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/the-church-was-nice-to-galileo/#comment-12 Dale Basler Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:24:12 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/the-church-was-nice-to-galileo/#comment-12 Why do the faithful even bother to talk about science? So often they try to look for flaws in science so that their faith can remain strong. This makes faith look weak. It is like they have to stick up for their belief because science is picking on it. I always thought that faith was strong enough and it didn’t need evidence. Some churches go to such great lengths to suppress and muddle science so its faithful aren’t led astray. Perhaps they should spend more time on faith and just leave science along. Well be in the back of the church making sure the wireless microphones are working. Why do the faithful even bother to talk about science? So often they try to look for flaws in science so that their faith can remain strong. This makes faith look weak. It is like they have to stick up for their belief because science is picking on it.

I always thought that faith was strong enough and it didn’t need evidence.

Some churches go to such great lengths to suppress and muddle science so its faithful aren’t led astray. Perhaps they should spend more time on faith and just leave science along.

Well be in the back of the church making sure the wireless microphones are working.

]]> Comment on Science, politics and smoking. by brunsell http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/02/science-politics-and-smoking/#comment-11 brunsell Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:37:27 +0000 http://brunsell.edublogs.org/2008/02/02/science-politics-and-smoking/#comment-11 Joey, A data point of one isn't science. It's an anecdote. Joey, A data point of one isn’t science. It’s an anecdote.

]]>