> eric brunsell

I’m a Catholic.  I even go to Church frequently. Lately, I have started playing a little game…I try to predict how long it will take for my Priest to say secular or secularist. He has a curious obsession with “secular society,” and all the ills it brings.  Anyway, I wasn’t disappointed. This past Sunday it was the first word in his Homily, “Secular scientists…”  Woo hoo, this should be interesting!  A few sentences later, he said, ”So, if those secularists and atheiests want to pick a fight with the Church about being anti-science, they’re picking a fight with the wrong people.”

 Let me get this straight?  Secular scientists are picking a fight with the Catholic Church?  Since when? The Catholic Church has been pretty consistently pro-science over the past 30-40 years.  Now, if we are talking about Biblical Literalists, that is a different story.  Even then, I would say that it isn’t the scientists trying to pick the fight, it is the literalists.  Anyway, now I was REALLY curious to see where he was going with this.  Here are a few of the points that he made -

1. The Catholic Church did not persecute Galileo for his scientific beliefs. According to the Rev., Galileo wasnt’ the first to propose a Copernican model for the Solar System. Galileo was persecuted because he promoted the Copernican model as the truth instead of a theory…even when there was no evidence. 

He’s right there…that is why it is named after Copernicus, not Galileo! Galileo was persecuted because he referred to the Copernican model as the truth…instead of just a theory.  He was persecuted because he didn’t have enough evidence to support his claim.  I beg to differ on this point.  Galileo DID have evidence, just not the piece that the Church wanted.  They wanted proof of parallax, but technology wasn’t good enough.  However, Galileo did have proof in the form of phases of Venus.

2. If the Church was anti-science, give one other case besides Galileo.  ”You Can’t!” he challenged the congregation. 

I almost shouted back, ”Giordano Bruno.” Since Homilies are generally not participatory events, I just leaned over and whispered it to my wife…loud enough for all of our neighbors to hear.  Bruno, while obviously not right about everything, was executed in a rather gruesome way in part because of his claim that life on Earth was not unique.  We still don’t have evidence of life beyond Earth today, but to many contemporary scientistis, it wouldn’t come as a surprise.

3. Science has its roots in Christianity.  

I have not gotten my hands around this one.  Science and Christianity did both evolve out of Western civilizations, but is it fair to say that science wouldn’t have happened without Christianity?  Also, the beginnings of scientific thought did arise out of pre-Christian Greek thinking.  Eratosthenes of Cyrene designed and confirmed aa way to calculate the circumference of the Earth about 200 BC. It is quite possible that he also determined the distance between the Earth and Sun within 1%.

4.  This claim drove me crazy.  “Scientists have never created anything, they just discover the order that God put in place.” 

Let’s get this straight, scientists “discovered” the integrated circuit? On the 8th day did God create television?  Scientists apply underlying principles to create new things.

5. He concluded by saying that science without Christian belief lacks wisdom. 

 I’m sure there are scientists in many other places in the world that would disagree with this.  What is true is that society (secular, Christian, or other) determines if science is used ethically or unethically.

 I can’t figure out why he went with this Homily on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday. Any ideas?   

The Democratic leadership in the Wisconsin State Legislature is trying to pass a statewide smoking ban in restaraunts and bars. However, at least one Democrat is strongly against it.  When State Senator Roger Breske (D-Eland) was asked about Health and Human Services support of the smoking ban (based on scientific research into the dangers of second hand smoke), how do you think Breske responded?

 As an educated public servant, did he acknowledge the science and explain that policy needs to be a balance between the science, economic issues, and personal liberties?  Nope, he said this-

“…that’s hogwash. I was born and raised in a bar since I was that high, and I was tending bar since I was that high (holding hand four feet above the ground.) And there was only one light bulb in the bar. There was no fans, and everyone smoked. It was blue in there. Come on, I’m still alive, and I’m 69 years old. It’s sickening.”

So, because his single data point is still alive, the science is wrong? My hope for 2008 is that we can get some politicians that understand and respect science.

video – comments start around the 19 minute mark.

I subscribe to the social constructivist “camp” of learning theory.  Unless you are a true psychology geek, you probably could care less.  Basically this view focuses on the interaction between the social context and thinking and learning.  Socio-cultural theorists (like Vygotsky) view the learning process and knowledge construction as a result of individuals interacting in social environments (interpsychological plane) to create shared knowledge that is appropriated by the individual (intrapsychological plane).  Culture is a fabric of shared meaning and understanding.  Participants in a culture are molded by and contribute to that micro-culture.

PLN’s are a fantastic example of social constructivism in action.  These loose networks of individuals create new knowledge socially, but each individual interprets and uses it differently. Anecdotes are thrown around throughout the network about new things that were learned, reflections on applications of new ideas, and collaborations opening new paths of thinking.  It is obvious to those “inside” a network that learning is occurring and new knowledge is being created.  If you are inside a network, you understand the power that they have for professional growth.

Theory and practical experience both show that PLN’s are valid. What will it take for them to go mainstream?  We can turn again to theory here by looking at Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).  Each individual has a body of “knowledge” that they can master without help.  They also have a body of knowledge that is impossible for them to master (at least at this stage of their learning).  The zone in between those two bodies is where proximal development occurs.  It is the body of knowledge that can be learned with assistance from experts (either directly through mentoring or indirectly through well crafted text, videos, etc.)  — ie, scaffolding.  It is unlikely that many educators will jump straight from a simplistic use of e-mail and web browsing to an effective learning network without this scaffolding.

Many of these scaffolds already exist. The difficulty is that they are often scattered across multiple sites. I would suggest that we create a central (more likely, multiple centers) “hub” that can be used in traditional professional development to help introduce educators to the ideas of PLNs.  The hub would provide common tools and resources for each of three developmental stages  of creating a PLN.  It would include things like video introductions to Google Reader (or similar), del.icio.us, and other ‘must have’ personal tools, a “sandbox” blog with multiple authors that could showcase easy to use web2.0 tools (ie: flickr) with comments on application examples, a list of twitterers with “model” networks, etc.  We could also modify a good idea  and create “60 days to a PLN.” I do have an empty wiki @ http://plnmentor.wikispaces.com/  if anyone wants to collaborate!  The wiki is empty now, so please let me know if you want to help build it.

Check out this great science project from Shaun Fletcher. Students use Voice Thread to create multimedia presentations related to the diversity of animals.

I can still remember my first “professional development” session as a classroom teacher.  I was excited because the topic was technology…and then, it started.  First, we went through the phone system manual line by line (dial 77 if you want to listen to voicemail, dial 3 to delete voicemail, etc.). Next, we accessed or e-mail on our VAX mainframe terminals. Finally, we ended with a bang…we learned how to use the copy machine.  I’m still amazed that one of my veteran colleagues actually asked if the paper had to be inserted “back-to-back” in order to make a double sided copy.  Ten years later, I have participated in and led hundreds of professional development experiences.  Some good, some bad.  However, in almost every case, professional development was being done to me OR I was doing it to them. 

In 2001, Garret and his colleagues identified multiple components of effective professional development.  The two most important components are duration (60-80 hours) and collaboration.  Additionally, it was vitally important that the experience aligned with participants’ goals.  The Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 provide evidence that, in practice, professional development seldom matches these components. Rarely, is it a dynamic, collaborative experience conducted over an extended period of time.

Not too long ago I was introduced to the concept of personal learning networks.  It didn’t take me more than a day or two to realize the power of PLNs as a way for educators to take control over their own professional development.  Learning from (or more appropriately, with) my PLN is dynamic, collaborative, focused on my goals, and sustained.  Of course, if you are reading this, you get it.  I’m relatively tech savvy (aren’t we all).  Compared to you I’m probably a novice, but compared to most of my colleagues, I am an “expert.” So, what can we do to bring PLN to the masses?

(NOTE: I’m not writing this in a vacuum. This post  and those it references address this question and many others….a MUST READ!)

I think we need to take a developmental approach to PLNs. At its core, constructivist learning can be broken into three phases – engagement, building knowledge, and applying knowledge.  In the engagement phase, educators need to become comfortable with the landscape. They need to learn how to ‘organize’ the web. They should learn how to use an aggregator and social bookmarking. They need to identify a few blogs and begin reading and commenting. As they gain comfort, they should join a community (ie: classroom2.0) and eventually start following people on Twitter. 

In the building knowledge phase, educators are ready to start ‘messing about’ and contributing.  They should define a purpose for their participation in their PLN and set some goals. A manageable goal may be to try one “new” thing each month. As they mess about with new ideas, they should start a blog to make their experiences public.  Periodically, they should assess their PLN and add (and remove) new resources.

 The applying knowledge phase needs to take Scott Schwister’s  question head on. “How do we show the learning that happens through personal learning networks?” Educators need to become active inquirers as they try out new ideas.  In the building knowledge phase, educators were ‘messing about’ and making decision on reflection and gut instinct.  They were playing with new ideas.  This is a great way to explore, but it doesn’t necessarily provide evidence that the new ideas are improving teaching and learning.  In the applying knowledge phase, I would suggest that become more rigorous in how they try new things.  Ted McCain’s 4D problem solving model can provide a structure here (Define, Design, Do, Debrief). Define questions that you want to answer, design a way to collect data, do it!, and then debrief…did it work.  

Wow…this post got really long.  I would really appreciate feedback. Will you give me the nickname ‘Captain Obvious’ or is this the beginning of a solid framework?  I’ll post soon on this topic with some ideas for an infrastructure needed to help navigate this developmental approach.