Update:
The NWS at Norman made an awesome illustration from the radar of all the bugs and birds who took flight during/after the earthquake. With the new dual polarization upgrade to the radar, now we can "see" the echo and know they are non-meteorological scatterers.
I love having new experiences like this one. My perception of the world has changed, and that experience is now filed under "surreal".
******
Well, scratch 1 item off my bucket list. A record 5.6 magnitude earthquake struck about 40-50 miles away. Had some real good noise, shaking (P waves), and rolling action (S waves) for about 20 seconds. It seemed longer than that since really my concerns were focused on "will this apartment collapse" when the first rolling wave went by. It took me nearly half the quake to realize what was happening (when the first rolling motion hit), because really I was wondering why the train didn't blow his horn when it was going by. Then I realized there was no train. When it was over I filed my USGS shake report. Made for an interesting evening. I now am well versed in earthquake preparedness. Probably will print off a copy of the Red Cross earthquake preparedness plan for future reference. I did not expect to ever need earthquake knowledge in Oklahoma. Hoping this is not a precursor for Mondays potential severe weather event. But you have to pay attention to the signs after a crazy year like this one ... even if it is just superstition.
A weather, education, and science blog run amok. Brought to you by James Correia, Jr., PhD. I have a BS from SUNYA in Atmospheric Sciences, MS from FSU in Meteorology, and a PhD from ISU in Agricultural Meteorology. I specialize in mesoscale numerical weather prediction on scales larger than 4km for both forecasting and regional climate. The views expressed here do not reflect those of NOAA, the NWS, or the University of Oklahoma.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
eductional ramblings
I was reading the NYT article on STEM education and the attrition rates associated with them. I guess they got a hold of engineering students to discuss this. They said things like classes were hard, theory driven, not practical, and wasn't until senior year when things got made or designed. Good news, folks. Such is the state in most fields where math is applied. The problem for students is that they have to do the hard work before they can get to the fun stuff.
In a disappointing turn of education, some educators try to only have fun by teaching kids cool stuff, then afterwards explaining what it means and why it works. This type of education is what you do in high school. Its called the "make it fun" principle. It is a functional distraction. It serves a purpose but is not in and of itself a framework for education. It may be considered a tool.
But the goal of education is not to make learning fun. The goal is to enhance curiosity. By making it fun we hope to get kids passionate, a level of built in motivation, to learn about what they are interested in. The other goal is to help students teach themselves. When they are motivated and passionate they will be curious.
Benefit of practicality
The other issue is how "slow" professors in college are adapting to these quickly bored/discouraged students. I find it great that professors are incorporating more application into their classes. It is always important to stop and smell the roses, evaluate where you are, what you have learned, how it applies, and build.
This is actually my talking point in atmospheric sciences at least as far as it concerns forecasting (the practical application). if you will ever be involved in forecasting, you should probably be doing that activity on a rigorous schedule both in and out of class. Paging the 10,000 hours concept. If you want to get good, you need to have experience with the real weather to compare with theory. Without this background, then all of the conceptual models remain exactly that...idealized reconstructions that you will never observe in isolation. It is why meteorology textbooks have lots of maps and examples in them!
And yet the folks who write the great books with maps and examples, don't actually teach forecasting. They leave it for the students to learn on their own...a legacy of the boomer generation. It is how they learned. A educational generational divide. And it needs to be overcome.
More More More
Another aspect the article touched on was the production rate of scientists and engineers saying it would not meet some random number. better look around for all the scientists and engineers that are out there in other fields because when they graduated there were no jobs. Move on and adapt. Think its a mystery why they do that? Engineers get a hard lesson in economics (a necessary skill in engineering) in their senior year. After all, you can't make stuff that loses money. So is it any wonder that engineers go into finance where the math is essentially simpler and they can make more money instead of being unemployed?
In a disappointing turn of education, some educators try to only have fun by teaching kids cool stuff, then afterwards explaining what it means and why it works. This type of education is what you do in high school. Its called the "make it fun" principle. It is a functional distraction. It serves a purpose but is not in and of itself a framework for education. It may be considered a tool.
But the goal of education is not to make learning fun. The goal is to enhance curiosity. By making it fun we hope to get kids passionate, a level of built in motivation, to learn about what they are interested in. The other goal is to help students teach themselves. When they are motivated and passionate they will be curious.
Benefit of practicality
The other issue is how "slow" professors in college are adapting to these quickly bored/discouraged students. I find it great that professors are incorporating more application into their classes. It is always important to stop and smell the roses, evaluate where you are, what you have learned, how it applies, and build.
This is actually my talking point in atmospheric sciences at least as far as it concerns forecasting (the practical application). if you will ever be involved in forecasting, you should probably be doing that activity on a rigorous schedule both in and out of class. Paging the 10,000 hours concept. If you want to get good, you need to have experience with the real weather to compare with theory. Without this background, then all of the conceptual models remain exactly that...idealized reconstructions that you will never observe in isolation. It is why meteorology textbooks have lots of maps and examples in them!
And yet the folks who write the great books with maps and examples, don't actually teach forecasting. They leave it for the students to learn on their own...a legacy of the boomer generation. It is how they learned. A educational generational divide. And it needs to be overcome.
More More More
Another aspect the article touched on was the production rate of scientists and engineers saying it would not meet some random number. better look around for all the scientists and engineers that are out there in other fields because when they graduated there were no jobs. Move on and adapt. Think its a mystery why they do that? Engineers get a hard lesson in economics (a necessary skill in engineering) in their senior year. After all, you can't make stuff that loses money. So is it any wonder that engineers go into finance where the math is essentially simpler and they can make more money instead of being unemployed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)