May 8 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/07/biggest-ice-island-greenland Very very unusual to have that much ice break off. It happens, but not often.
May 7 2012: I know what you mean. I would love to set up lectures for online learning that students can do at home. I'm not as concerned with that as with inspiration. If we inspire a love for a subject, the rest falls into place. Some of my students have no love for science. We think that is a failure, but it isn't. I can use English loving students to help write articles for publishing. I can use business students to help get materials and donations. I can use social students to help network laboratories in the area for support. I can use graphic design students to update my website. I can use artistic students to create illustrations, movies, and pop up books. My class is more like a 3 month long science fair project where the state curriculum is taught as applying directly to that project. Students don't have to understand the science, necessarily, but they do have to understand the potential role they want to take in relation to science.
May 4 2012: I wish we could model it more after Norway. You would think that we would try to learn something from the country that has consistently tested in the top 5 countries in the world. They gave up a significant amount of structure. Grades are fairly irrelevant and students are free to find, work on, and learn about things that interest them. They don't have tests constantly. They don't go home with mounds of homework. They work on long range and sustained projects that teach the aspects of the lessons they need to learn. Personally, I think that students just need to solve real world problems. There are students finding the cure for certain cancers, others that build nuclear reactors in their garages, and still others that program applications. Our kids can change the world if we would just let them loose.
May 4 2012: My personal approach is to give them real tasks. I try to have my students find problems that are relevant to them, and sometimes they take me in directions I didn't know were on the map. Communications interests, viral studies on marine life, and a few other things. I think real life engineering will help to show students how the principles in a text book can be applied. This application will help them to remember the lesson far into the future. More importantly, it will show them where to go to get the answers to problems that don't necessarily have solutions.
May 4 2012: We don't ignore the main concept of ID, we can't test it and therefor can not lend it any credence. You believe that a god/s set this all into motion. I can't tell you that you are wrong without knowing which deity you are referring to. It is possible that there is a god, but there is no evidence for one. We can say for certain that it is not the God of the Bible as the evidence against the Bible is overwhelming. You can believe in ID, but you can not bring it up in an academic discussion because it holds no weight without some shred of evidence. Emotions are a result of neural pattern firings and chemicals, beauty is an interpretation of data by our minds, ethics are a product of evolution of societies for optimal survival of the species. There are mounds of evidence in support of all of this. We can test natural explanations, but we can not test the influence of a god. This is the problem that you will run into, and why the scientific community can not take someone seriously when they say evolution isn't a sound scientific theory. You are looking at the evidence and dismissing it because of a preconceived notion. That is not science and not the way to find truth.
May 4 2012: Oh believe me, we don't need to attack ID. ID is not a credible or testable theory. It is a random guess based on tales that were handed down by shepherds for generations before being written down in the 11th century BCE.
May 3 2012: Gravity, acceleration, time, and mass are all related. As you accelerate, time will slow down. This is observed relative to our position when we put a clock on a space shuttle. Satellites, as well, lose time as they are away from the gravity of the Earth and are in accelerated movements. Your theory has merit based on these facts alone. Einstein also postulated that as an object increases in relative speed, it gains more mass, and therefor more gravity. This increase in mass is why it takes more energy to accelerate the object to faster and faster speeds making the speed of light the galactic speed limit. The problem with suggesting that acceleration is the sole cause of gravity, however, is that black holes, that are super massive, do not necessarily move quickly. We can observe and document their relative speed. This is only relative speed, so it is possible that we are not able to accurately measure their true speed relative to the center of the Universe, but it is unlikely that we are very far off. Most likely, it is a collection of mass displacing space/time relative to the speed of the object and relation to other objects.
May 3 2012: Don't you find that many teachers get burned out? We get in such a rut where we adhere to our lesson plans year after year. I don't see very many teachers changing it up year after year. Not that I'm any better about it. But do you think there is a way that we can keep our professionals from getting stuck in that job routine rut?
May 3 2012: My first thought was, "OF COURSE!", but I do have to say, after reading some of the comments, I can agree that some subjects require an analytical teacher. I'm a teacher of Science, and creativity, I think, is mandatory. The science teachers that lecture don't get through to students about the important stuff. Question Everything! Research is really fun... for the first 5 min. Experiments are really really short compared to the prep time. Sometimes you can make things implode with nothing more than heat and cool. I'm hoping to integrate specific engineering issues into my class next year, such as building a lunar lander. I want to give my students real life application and show them what Science is really capable of. On the other hand, what about the basics? Elementary teachers (I take them for granted) need to find creative ways to give kids the building blocks. Not only do they have to engage their students, but they need to have a pretty extensive knowledge of several subjects. Due to the nature and level of these subjects, students will need to develop logical systems of learning. I think that we need more creativity on the High School level, however. We are trying to develop the geniuses of tomorrow after all.
TEDCred score: +3.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Justin Hall-Tipping: Freeing energy from the grid
A reply on Conversation: Do artistic/creative individuals' make better teachers?
A reply on Conversation: Do artistic/creative individuals' make better teachers?
A reply on Conversation: Do artistic/creative individuals' make better teachers?
A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?
A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?
A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?
A comment on Conversation: Movement causes gravity.
A reply on Conversation: Do artistic/creative individuals' make better teachers?
A comment on Conversation: Do artistic/creative individuals' make better teachers?