Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

We should be very careful in thinking about whether we’re working on the right problems. If we don’t, that ties into the problem that we don’t have experimental evidence that could move us forward. We're trying to develop theories that we use to find out which are good experiments to make, and these are the experiments that we build.   We build particle detectors and try to find dark matter; we build larger colliders in the hope of producing new particles; we shoot satellites into orbit and try to look back into the early universe, and we do that because we hope there’s something new to find there. We think there is because we have some idea from the theories that we’ve been working on that this would be something good to probe. If we are working with the wrong theories, we are making the wrong extrapolations, we have the wrong expectations, we make the wrong experiments, and then we don’t get any new data. We have no guidance to develop these theories. So, it’s a chicken and egg problem. We have to break the cycle. I don’t have a miracle cure to these problems. These are hard problems. It’s not clear what a good theory is to develop. I’m not any wiser than all the other 20,000 people in the field.

I’m still asking myself the same question that I asked myself ten years ago: "What is going on in my community?" I work in the foundations of physics, and I see a lot of strange things happening there. When I look at the papers that are being published, many of them seem to be produced simply because papers have to be produced. They don’t move us forward in any significant way. I get the impression that people are working on them not so much because it’s what they’re interested in but because they have to produce outcomes in a short amount of time. They sit on short-term positions and have short-term contracts, and papers must be produced.

The field that I mostly work in is the foundations of physics, which is, roughly speaking, composed of cosmology, the foundations of quantum mechanics, high-energy particle physics, and quantum gravity. It’s a peculiar field because there hasn’t been new data for almost four decades, since we established the Standard Model of particle physics. There has been, of course, the Higgs particle that was discovered at the LHC in 2012, and there have been some additions to the Standard Model, but there has not been a great new paradigm change, as Kuhn would have put it. We’re still using the same techniques, and we’re still working with the same theories as we did in the 1970s.

One idea brought up by several speakers this year is a hybrid grades-free way of evaluating students. In each case, it included a high-bar pass/fail approach to class assignments, with a final, more regular grade for the entire semester. One of the speakers who presented what he called a “Not Yet” grade was “digital ethnographer” Michael Wesch, a professor at Kansas State University. That’s his photo at the top. He told the crowd that they had to inspire “wonder” in their students in order to get them to learn as much as possible. Some key quotes from him: “Low standards/high stakes are the opposite of what you want.”

Keynote speaker George Couros is a what’s called a “division principal” back home in Canada. He’s a blogger and author who is all about encouraging creativity and change in public education with an emphasis on taking advantage of digital tools. He told the conference that that it’s foolish to deny students use of their smartphones and other digital tools in the classroom — and even on exams. In 2015, being able to figure out what information is relevant is more important than memorization when most facts are a click away, he said.

Begin by examining your curriculum and identifying a topic that you think will be interesting to students.