Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth Berkhouse
  • Home
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • The Seven Minute Scientist
  • About Me
  • Biology With Technology
  • Free Biology Resources for High School Teachers
  • Technology Tools for Graduate Students
  • Amy on The Web
  • Getting Organized as a Grad Student
  • Nerdy Inspiration
  • Blog
  • Five Ways to Get a Busy Professor to Answer Your Emails, That Don't Involve a Bribe
  • 3 Ways to Get or Give a Great Letter of Recommendation
  • The 13 Things That Motivated Me to Get A PhD

Top Ten Ways to Supplement Learning by Using Youtube Videos

2/26/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Teachers today have a lot to compete with, when it comes to students and their cell phones. If I were a little bird in the back of the lecture hall during my talks, I can only imagine how many students are using their phones, iPads, or laptops to view funny videos from Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. Maybe the students are present, but they sure aren't engaged. The new war in the classroom is teacher versus technology. Is zero tolerance for cell phones in the classroom realistic, or even smart? Really, the only way to beat them is to join them - and by join them, I mean give them something smart to do with that phone.


I use Youtube videos extensively in my biology lab for a multitude of different ways to supplement learning. Up until this semester, I have always projected the videos onto the big screen. When I talk about the dangers of DDT, I show videos of soldiers spraying DDT onto prisoners from Japanese internment camps to kill lice, of bald eagles sitting on their nests full of broken eggs, and how the pesticide bioaccumulates in living tissue. Just telling students about these topics is one thing - but showing them historical evidence, the way it happened in nature, and the way the chemicals interact brings the science to life.


1. Making microscopic interaction visible:


“Back in the day when I learned chemistry, there was no YouTube, no videos, and you just had to imagine molecules moving and hitting each other,” Chemistry teacher Jasen Gohn  said. “But now you can just bring up a video of, like, salt dissolving.” For my Biology students, reactions like diffusion or osmosis can be made large enough to see. I can also equate the processes to real bodily functions, like kidney dialysis, which brings the human elements to what might have been considered "boring" in the past. Showing my students pictures of DNA and Watson and Crick are one thing - showing them the actual structure of DNA and the way it functions to make life possible is much better. In Biology, much of what happens at the cellular, molecular, and chemical level is not visible to the naked eye. Videos make these interactions viewable.


2. Watching a lecture for one hour is often boring


Many college classes last between 50 and 90 minutes. One study noted that students can pay attention for between 10 and 15 minutes before they look away, stop taking notes, or look at their electronic device. Towards the end of class, note taking ceased, and students could only pay attention for 3 - 4 minutes. Youtube videos can be an engaging, good "distraction" from the traditional lecture. Videos can break up the monotony.


3. More demonstrations can happen in the classroom


Demonstrations are often used for convenience, when the entire class doing an activity would be prohibited by cost or time. When using video demonstrations, students can watch the teacher, instructor, scientist, or star doing the demo on video. Not only is this more economical, it's often more fun. If a student was not paying attention during class (as often happens in this new age of students who work full time, are parents, or who may be distracted) they still have the opportunity to to view the video later. 


4. Whether there are 20 or 200 students in the room, each student can have a front row seat.


Anyone who has taught a lab-based science course knows that you often have to go around the room, from lab bench to lab bench, repeating the technique so the students can be close enough to see. In a large lecture, an Elmo-device (basically a stereoscope that projects the demo to a big screen) might make the demo big enough, but it is often difficult to see. When I teach about gel electrophoresis, I have to walk around the room to eight lab groups, demonstrating the micropipettor eight times. If I had this technique on video, then each student could see how to perform the procedure. 


5. Anyone who knows science, knows you better have a backup plan.


If you are working with living specimen (in my lab, we work with bacteria, termites, betta fish, and crayfish), you know what happens if the organism dies. I think to all the times I've done the termite lab, and the termites just have other ideas besides doing what I want them to do. There are times of year that I've gotten a shipment of termites, and every single one of them is dead. What's the answer? Have the behavior documented on video! I order crayfish for my lab. Wild-caught crayfish. Catching things in the wild - it's a crap shoot. Do you want to take a crap shoot with your lesson for the day?


Concurrently, your plan to use videos should have a backup plan. Don't rely SOLELY on those videos, or it will burn you.  The wi-fi will go down. Youtube will screw up. You will get a laptop virus. Stuff happens, and you have to have other things to fill the time if your video fails. And NEVER EVER EVER show a video you haven't watched yourself, from beginning to end. I once showed a video to my class on flying squirrels - it was NOT a video about flying squirrels by the end. It's still traumatizing to me, and probably to those kids!


6. Videos can be a good pre-lab.


Students often "forget" to read the lab, prior to coming to class. Even if they have enough time, they often don't have the willpower to read many long, scientific paragraphs. This is where videos can come in. "Flipping the classroom" is a technique where the teacher's lecture can be filmed for the students to view at home, and the classroom time is spent actively engaging with the materials. Classroom discussion can happen in a more lively fashion, where the instructor can facilitate and aid, rather than just delivering content to passive students. Many teachers are using Khan Academy videos that are professionally produced, rather than relying on searching for the best cell or DNA video they can find.


7. Videos can provide the diversity that may be missing in your teaching.


Like it or not, I'm white and middle class. And I know, that may make some of my students tune out. They might find me annoying, boring, or lame. Much of my department is old, white men. It's just the way it is. Finding new ways to reach out to female or demographically-different students is a bonus that videos can provide. I've seen amazing science videos such as this, by Wu-Tang Clan member GZA, who talks about the scientific method. Whatever it takes to get people excited about science - I'm all for it!


8. Vetting the videos is key.


There are a lot of crappy videos on youtube. Videos that make me cringe. Videos that use marketing to lure kids by product placement. Videos that are flat out providing misinformation. Your students will find these videos. Isn't it better for you to find good ones first? I know that my students may not be able to realize that they are being provided with incomplete or inaccurate information. When I teach about cells, I have to watch 10 videos to find that ONE good video to show my class. Students are searching for science topic videos. Vet the videos for them first.


In one of my FAVORITE moments of my whole career as a science educator, I was stopped by a young girl in the elevator at my university. She said, "Are you Amy Hollingsworth?" (I got a little scared, I never know where that question is going to go!) I told her yes. She said, "I am in Dr. X's class here MWF, and I just don't understand him at all. I was googling "Biology, University of Akron" and I found your whole set of teaching videos online, and I LOVE THEM! I feel like I know you! And your son is so cute!"


I had used lecture-capture for my Natural Science Biology Course, and had filmed my lectures for a whole semester. One day, we had a snow day, and so I had recorded my lecture from home. My four-year-old son had creeped into Mommy's videos, and had actually explained the distribution of fossils in Ohio (I know, I know, but he loves dinosaurs). So I guess that would be point 9. Videos allow the learning to go on, even when teacher or student can't be in class. And I connected to a student who might have not been successful in Biology. And I felt a little like a rock star, with a fan base.


If teachers don't use videos to their advantage, they are missing out on a strong pedagogical tool that can supplement learning. This semester, I am filming many of my labs, editing the video, and am going to provide the students with the videos to supplement lab. Point 10. This helps my TAs to get to spend more time helping students do the labs, instead of talking and talking and talking. More activity. Less repetition. Everyone wins!
Picture
0 Comments

The Real Damage to Real Women From The Real Housewives

2/25/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
I must admit to being "one of those women" who is addicted to the show "The Real Housewives." And it's not just New Jersey or Atlanta or Beverly Hills - it's ALL OF THEM. I watch all this drama, the fighting, the debauchery, the cattiness, and the glittery glam of it all. Just last night, Lisa Vanderpump was sobbing after being accused of purposefully trying to hurt Kyle through Brandi, by putting the tabloids that dissed Kyle's husband  in Brandi's suitcase, to use them as ammo in a fight. So underhanded! So bitchy! So genius!

One thing that all the RHW (Real Housewives) shows have in common are women with incredibly strong personalities and material wealth. They are powerful. They are driven. They are rich. They are beautiful. They are evil at times. These women are either making the money for their household, or they are the women behind very successful men. Not the typical housewife - staying home to raise the children while their husbands are off breadwinning - these women all went from wives dependent on rich men, to being rich and independent. Is this reality, though? Are the RHW actually examples of successful women that we - people like me, watching these shows - should designate as their role models?

Undoubtedly the most successful characters of all the RHW casts, NeNe Leaks from Atlanta is a women who went from being a former-stripper turned kept-wife of her real estate investor husband Greg, to a larger-than-life, successful, powerful, independent, in-charge woman. She is someone who has seized every opportunity, from acting gigs to reality shows to book deals, and makes her own money now. She is often referred to in the media as an example of a woman who is doing everything right - she struggled, she fought, and she won at life. One of NeNe's quotes from an article about female empowerment said, "I sold a fantasy, not p***y. I felt powerful. I made a ton of money and I couldn't stop. I went and bought a brand new car, I was paying for my son's tuition. I thought of the men as an ATM machine." Are the RHW shows selling another fantasy - that women can be self-serving, selfish, narcissistic, ruthless, bad-mouthing bitches, and be successful too?

Not only is Nene a "bad girl" who has a sordid past, she is also the agitator of many situations on her RHW of Atlanta show. She fights with the other women, she insults them, she speaks poorly of them behind their backs, she mocks them, she belittles them, and she has no apologies for being selfish and denigrating. That, however, is part of why the show is so popular. And part of what I realized is a major problem for women who see these types of characters as role models. How likely is it that any real real housewife could act this way, and become successful? How likely is it that ANYONE could act this way, and become successful?

All of the RHW casts from each city, New Jersey to New York, Atlanta to Beverly Hills, feeding into the negative stereotypes people have about women - that they are catty, petty, brainless, materialistic, looks-obsessed - and the programs are so successful, that these behaviors are made to seem almost normal. These women are quite possibly the worst role-models that any normal woman could have. Imitating reality housewives would arguably be a recipe for disaster. If your daughter were to imitate a reality show character - Snooki or the Jersey Shore women, the RHW, any of the Bad Girls, a Kardashian - what would your reaction to your child be?

RHW are women that may be viewed for the "I can't believe some people are this awful" factor, but if we want to teach young girls (or even old girls like me) how to act, we might use role models like Beyonce or Jennifer Hudson. What's the difference between a Vanderpump or a Leaks, and a Knowles or a Hudson? One set of women are impossible to work with, and the other set seem like genuinely nice women. If there is one thing women need to be taught about success, it's that being assertive and nice or kind to the people you work with will help you achieve, and being assertive and catty or petty will stifle your career. Think of the success of Ellen, the quirky and fun talk show host who dances with her audience, and Kris Jenner, the Kardashian mom who is shallow, materialistic, and selling her children. Who's show is still on the air?

It may be true that the old adage "Garbage in, garbage out" is not just something my mother chided me with while growing up (I think she used to say that about MTV...). If you put reality shows into your brain, how likely is it for success to come out? If you view Lisa Vanderpump and NeNe Leaks for entertainment, how likely are you to end up uber wealthy and happy? Maybe there is a reason women on reality shows are always fighting or crying? Tonight, I'll read Sheryl Sandburg's book "Lean In" and try to keep the garbage out.




Picture
0 Comments

Chance To Change

2/21/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
I have an amazing opportunity to change the world I live in. To right some wrongs. To impact some students' dreams. Do I play all day, doing nothing importance? Or do I dive, head first, into challenge, opportunity, hard work, and my own dreams? Go get it, girl!
Picture
2 Comments

You Are What You Read

2/18/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
I'm not sure how many people have as extensive a bookshelf as mine. This is actually after a huge book purge. And I certainly have more ebooks and books that I've given away or sold or checked out of the library. If I had to think back to how many books I've read over my lifetime, the number is probably in the tens of thousands.


These books have made me into the person I am. I started thinking about this, after I read an article this morning called "What Did Charles Darwin Read? See His Handwritten Reading List & Read Books from His Library Online." Can you even imagine? What if you had read all the books Charles Darwin had read? This article essentially gives you a brief glance at what was in his head. It leads you on the journey of what it's like to come up with the greatest theory in all of science.


So I started thinking about what I've read, and what would someone come back and say about me, from the books/evidence I leave behind. I've had that joke with my girlfriends "If I die, the first thing someone should do is erase my browser history." 
Picture
A lot of my books are about working with people. I've needed to work with people in many ways, as an employee, as a boss, as an entrepreneur, a friend, a child, a girlfriend, and a scientist. There's a lot of reading that involves learning how to cope with dealing with people, and I love self-help books. Part of me is never willing to settle for a situation to remain uncomfortable, so I'm always looking for tips on how to make things better. When I've been unhappy as a girlfriend, I've read to learn how to be better. When I've been unhappy with my job, I've read to learn how to assert myself. When I've been unhappy with relationships with my family, I've read to help make the relationships better. Some of these books have been read once, some 20 times, and some have just been poorly written, and I've skimmed them or tossed them on the shelf unread. 
Picture
I've kept a large number of textbooks around. Maybe it's to remind myself of the thousands of dollars I've spent on my college education for my undergrad, master's, and doctorate, or maybe it's because I just really like knowing that I know some of this stuff. Who is enamored with Financial Accounting?
Picture
Picture
Maybe some day, someone will analyze my library, and see it as a window into my brain. It's quite an extensive window.
0 Comments

Guppy's Very Awesome Ninja Turtle #TMNT 6th Birthday Party

2/17/2014

1 Comment

 
My very gorgeous son is SIX! Below are some photos from his photo shoot, when his dad was here, and his sixth birthday party. This is just one good looking kid! And we had a great party with Aunt Ryan and the green apple TMNTs. Guppy ate one of the apples, though, which was supposed to be him, so we replaced him with a green pepper! It was hilarious!
1 Comment

Weighing the Costs of a "Free" Community College Education

2/17/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
"Net cost to the state, zero. Net impact on our future? Priceless." 


There was an article on NPR about Tennessee offering a "free" community college education to its residents. This is one of those articles that makes me ask way more questions then it answers. Made the wheels spin. Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't see this program as the magical "free education" that it's being described as. When something seems too good to be true, you should stop and ask questions. These are just some I had, off the top of my head.


1. "Pretty soon, going to community college in Tennessee may become absolutely free. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam unveiled the proposal in his annual State of the State address this week." OK, so why would a Republican offer something like this, that is usually a Democrat issue? The fact that NPR called out that the governor is a Republican was one of the first things I noticed.


2. "Haslam is trying to lift Tennessee's ranking as one of the least-educated states." What kinds of implications does "least-educated" bring with it? That the residents are dumb? That they take low-paying jobs, and do not have the workforce they need to compete on a global scale? That because the residents can't take high-paying jobs, the tax base is low?


3. "Haslam told state lawmakers he'll tap into a mound of excess cash generated by the state's lottery. Roughly $300 million would go into an endowment.." So, is there a larger amount of lottery revenues in TN because of the lesser education levels? Lottery tends to follow low income, from what I'm aware. People who are well-educated don't waste their money on the lottery like less-educated people do. So, as the education increases, does the lottery revenues decrease? Does this plan take that into account?


4. "Net cost to the state, zero. Net impact on our future? Priceless," So, where had that lottery money been going prior to this plan? Who is that money being taken from, and who is it being given to? How does this huge sum of money follow the governor, the Republicans, or benefit the players involved? Or hurt the people who it's being taken from. I refuse to believe that there isn't an agenda behind all this money shifting. Someone is benefiting, and someone is being hurt. I want to know who. I know this is political, I just don't know how it's being played out.


5. So if the students who were previously going to public or private universities now go to community colleges, are they going to be better prepared to move into their colleges after two years in community college? How many new community colleges are going to be created? Who creates them? Who is profiting? By "stealing" the students away from public and private universities, and funneling them into community colleges, are the students really being educated "better?" Where are the professors who will teach in community colleges coming from? Are new jobs being created for professors? Or are jobs just shifting from one higher ed institution to another?


6. Is this proposal just essentially creating a 13th and 14th grade for students? Will students be failed from these programs if they really can't keep up with the work? Will there be standardized tests for these students so that we know if there is value being added to them getting this "free education?" How do we monitor quality? Students now essentially go to community colleges to "breeze through" their gen ed classes, and keep their GPA up. They transfer in, and are unprepared for academically rigorous programs. So, are we keeping the kids dumber, longer? We are just extending high schools, which aren't even doing their jobs currently. We are rewarding the dumbing down of education with more dumbed down education.


7. How does this impact jobs? Now that the students who graduate from high school and immediately enter the workforce are now being taken out of the workforce, does this provide more jobs in TN that weren't there before? So it frees up the jobs these kids would have taken, so that unemployment will decrease? Does this make the numbers for TN look better? Scores political points? Or are we trying to employ more community college people, tech support people, librarians, janitors, building maintenance, etc? Is this just a shifting of people, so that we can get better jobs numbers in TN?


8. What if the public and private colleges and universities find that students go to these two year programs, and then transfer into university less prepared than if the students had been in the four-year college or university all along? What if TN is creating LESS well-educated juniors in college? I can see the scenario play out like this: Previously, a kid goes to University of Tennessee right out of high school to become an engineer. They go through U of TN intro English, Math, Science, and gen ed classes. As they persist through each level - freshman, sophomore, junior, senior - they are immersed in the program, and know what the expectations of the program are. They are advised well by the department, and someone is keeping track of how well the student is doing. The student is in one place, that university, so the continuity and flow is monitored. In four years, that student graduates with an engineering degree, and the hiring firm knows what they have when they hire an engineer from the U of TN.


The new way, the student graduates from high school, and lives at home while going to free community college. The student is surrounded by his high school friends, and takes gen ed courses with his buddies. All these kids have different things they want to major in, besides engineering, when they get to "real college" in two years. No one is really advising the student on how to become an engineer, because most students won't go on to "real college" when they get their two year, gen ed associates degree. The student finishes two years, and goes to transfer to U of TN, and is now expected to take engineering specific courses, all of them, in his junior and senior years. He isn't academically prepared, and flunks out after one year. Now, we have lots of kids who can't do real college courses, because they haven't been academically prepared.


I can see how this LOOKS positive, from everyone's perspective. It seems like free college. It seems like better preparation. To me, I don't think so. I think this gives TN essentially a "holding pattern" for students, to keep them out of the minimum wage job market, and then dumps them into university, where they will either fail, or need four MORE years of school, to actually get them up to par with prepared students. What about students who don't want to go to community college, and want to spend all four years at U of TN? Will U of TN create a new pseudo community college to collect the lottery funds, and keep the students on their campus? I can't see how the U of TN would just give up EVERY student to a community college, and be ONLY a "last two years of college" program.


It seems this person agrees with me:


"Catherine Leisek of the National Council for Higher Education says that money could make all the difference. "Students who are scholastically prepared for university will be pushed into a two-year system possibly, because of the money," Leisek says."


This article created so many more questions for me, and obviously for the people who read the article, so I'd like to ask, "What is the agenda here?"
0 Comments

Mythical Beasts, a Six-Year-Old, and Bill Nye – Why Are We Still Debating Evolution vs Creation?

2/8/2014

1 Comment

 
Anyone on social media in the last week has been inundated with articles about evolution versus creation. One very famous scientist, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, debated the founder of “The Creation Museum,” Ken Ham. Nye defended the science perspective, that the Earth is billions of years old and life evolved very slowly via evolution, while Ham described a Young Earth perspective, that the Earth and everything living on it was created by God in 6, 24-hour days and is 6000 years old. In the course of the debate, Ken Ham first claimed that the word “science” has been hijacked, and that things that are now observed in the natural world could have been different in the past, because none of us were there to see God creating everything. Ham says that since the Bible says Earth was created, we should accept that as historical fact. Bill Nye was very detailed in giving evidence for science’s version of events, that every living creature is a descendant of a previous ancestor, and that the fossil records corroborate this. Nye also described how evidence of the biblical flood is not present in the way animals and plants are dispersed throughout the globe, and that a ship the size the arc would have been an engineering marvel, or scientists who described the conditions that would have been necessary for an arc to hold and feed animals for that length of time would have made the voyage impossible.

Whether you believe in the creation story, or you understand the scientific theory of evolution – your mind was probably not going to be changed by the debate. If you are pro-science (and I am very pro-science, as a Biologist at a large, research university) then the words of Ken Ham were probably maddening – every point Ham made came back to “You don’t know that. You weren’t there. But God was there. We have the Bible.” Ham made assertions, not based on evidence, and made them sound like any reasonable person should just get it. Don't understand something? God did it. Can't explain that? God did it. Every possible question, Ham had an answer for, and started with that answer in mind. He looked cool, calm, and confident, with his one answer that explains everything. Nye used scientific evidence like a pro, discussing ice cores, radio-dating, trees older than Ham thinks the Earth is, Neanderthal skulls, and the fossil record. Listening to Ham explain it all away – complete rejection of the data, explaining that historical science is different than observational science because God says so – was enough to make you throw the screen across the room. How can someone like Ham get it so wrong, we scientists wonder?

Picture
My son Matthew, who is almost six years old, has a book at home that we sometimes read at night, called “Mythical Beasts.” Described in the pages of this book are creatures like the kraken, a beast so large that 14th century Vikings mistook its tentacles for small islands. These fishermen were known to search for whirlpools left by the kraken to fish over, where the catch would be plentiful. It has been suggested that giant squid, octopus, or whales may have been what were mistaken for kraken, or the water activity may have been over undersea volcanic activity. The legend of the kraken persists today, not just in pop culture and depicted in movies like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, but in Norwegian and Greenland culture. How could people believe in such a creature, which has been easily explained by the filming of the giant squid in its natural habitat? The kraken is one of my favorite mythical beasts.
Picture
My son enjoys the chupacabra, which was a beast I heard a lot about while I lived on the Mexican border. This creature is said to be like a vampire, sucking all the blood out of its victims. The name literally means “goat sucker” in Spanish. I always pictured a rabid, hairless dog – but in some pictures it looks like an alien or deformed rat. Biologist Barry Connor examined the chupacabra carcasses, and found that they were actually coyotes with an extreme case of mange. As late as last week, chupacabra carcasses were examined in Houston Texas, and were determined to be a hybrid species of coyote, wolf, and domesticated dog. But just uttering the word chupacabra can instill fear in people, especially children who might be taunted by a babysitter or sibling, “If you don’t go to bed, a chupacabra might get you!”

Picture
Despite the evidence scientists have been able to offer, often proving that these stories have logical explanations, there are people who will continue to believe the story, because of its implications. In the case of the biblical flood – the soul is at stake. If presented with two options – either “believe” science, OR believe in God – which has the biggest implications to the average person? Yeah, it’s that heaven or hell thing. The debate is often phrased so that if you believe the science story, you are damned to burn an eternity in hell. If you were that child, sitting in a classroom, and you were told that if you didn't believe in the biblical flood, you would go to hell, you’d be scared to death! And since we begin telling these biblical stories from a very young, Sunday School age, you can guess which story sits in a person’s mind. Who is this science teacher to come along and say the Earth is billions of years old, when what you've been told from the moment you can remember is that the Earth was created by God in six days, 6000 years ago?

So, as a Biology teacher, I've run into the student who has told me, “I don’t believe anything you say. I’m only in this class because I have to be. I believe in God, end of story.” Even answering all their questions cannot get them to “change their minds.” (This is one of the best articles I’ve read about challenging creationists’ questions, but the title is a bit inflammatory) Over the years, I’ve run into probably a hundred versions of this very statement, even from fellow science teachers! I’ve had moments when I’ve seen fellow scientists call Christians flat-out stupid. I’ve seen scientists' exasperation when “no, 6000 years. Bible says so.” is repeated as “proof.” And in all of my readings on how to make people understand evolution as “very gradual change over time,” I know that all the evidence I provide will not FORCE a person to give up their SOUL – so I’ve had to become an ally, instead of the enemy. I am a scientist who believes you can both be a faithful Christian, and an educated scientist, because religion and science are two different, but not incompatible, ways of knowing about our world. I would like to implore to scientists that they understand the worldview of Christians, and stop giving them such a hard time. Keep calm, science on.

I am upfront with my students that I believe in God. I am also upfront that I believe that science is the way we know about the natural world around us. And then, I go on to teach about the nature of science. I discuss how the Galapagos and Hawaiian island chains were formed. I describe how scientists have studied DNA and genome sequencing, what homologous structures are, how fossils form, how we know how old fossils are, and the science of embryology. I also describe how science works – that we take all the evidence, and use it to formulate an understanding of how the world works. Religion is an entirely separate way of knowing – it starts with an end in mind, an all-powerful God – and works back from that. I personally have had moments in my life that make me “know that God exists.” I have no doubt in my mind. I have faith. My faith does not interfere with my science, and my science doesn't interfere with my faith. In fact, I think one compliments the other. When scientists freak out (which was something that Bill Nye did not do, which is impressive) we alienate Biblical believers from ever understanding science, which hurts science. By making creation the forbidden fruit, we make it something to cling to, and reject science over.

What is the harm in believing in God? What is the harm in believing in the kraken or the chupacabra? There is none. Believing in God gives spiritual guidance to Christians’ lives, and the teachings of Jesus are a moral guidance. Believing in the kraken reminds Norwegians of the power of the ocean, and to be responsible fisherman. Believing in the chupacabra keeps little children in line, listening to their parents. Religions have been used throughout the history of man to guide the actions, both good and bad, explain the soul, describe where we go after we die, and explain how we should act towards our fellow man. Whatever your religion, I, as your teacher, should respect it. And you, as my student, should give me the respect to understand how the discipline of science explains the natural world. So, why should science be taught in schools, and religion be taught outside of school?

There are a multitude of religions. There are even variations of major religions – some Christians say you can be pro-choice, some take objection to homosexuality, Young Earth creationists say the Earth is only 6000 years old – and I’m sure the same is true for Muslims, Jewish people, Buddhists, Native Americans, etc. Religions vary by region, by denomination, and by culture. Scientists would never openly attack a Native American in the classroom - so why do we do it to Christians?  Pick up an intro to Biology textbook. There are virtually no introductory Biology texts that give any credence to creationism, because creationism is not science. Even though university research scientists may believe in God, they are not teaching God as science, because that is not how science works. The fact that there are middle school science teachers and high school Biology teachers – like Ken Ham, who was a high school science teacher – that are teaching creation as science, indicates an alarming problem in education. There is an entire group of science teachers who cannot differentiate science from religion. How can a science teacher not understand enough about the natural world and how science works, to give supernatural phenomenon credence in a science class? That would be analogous to your Biology teacher warning you not to cheat on your test, or a chupacabra would suck out all your blood in the middle of the night. Mythical beasts do not lend themselves to sound science. If you teach one supernatural story to your students, then you have to teach them all. And imagine what a nightmare that would be. How would you feel if public tax dollars were spent to introduce your child to Pagan, Wiccan, or Heathen creation stories, or to the Greek creation myths (think Zues, Gaia, and Choas) as scientific fact?

Some people said it was a bad idea for Nye to debate Ham – it makes it look like there are two equal sides debating – and there aren’t. Just because Ham found five “creation scientists” to make youtube videos, doesn’t mean there are an equal number of evolutionists versus creationists. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God – some of the most faithful people, like myself, believe in God – but who also understand that the Bible is not a science book. Chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, medicine, and biology all work together as disciplines to explain the natural world. Though scientists may debate the exact mechanisms for evolution, almost no scientist doubts there has been very gradual change in organisms over a very long period of time, billions of years.

Does this really come down to a “teaching religion in the science classroom” agenda? 92 percent say Bill Nye won the debate in Christian Today poll. Because I believe that most Americans understand that the people who wrote the Bible, inspired by God, also were not scientists. They described the world around them with the best understanding of how things worked that they had, at that point in time. Fishermen described the kraken, as a way of understanding the ocean. Latin Americans used the chupacabra as a way of understanding unknown phenomenon. And my son and I settle in to read about mythical beasts, and he understands that these people weren’t stupid – they were using stories to explain the natural world. Many years later, science has helped us understand the Earth in new ways. Just as DNA fingerprinting has allowed over 312 convicted criminals to be exonerated based on the evidence, we learn that eye witness claims cannot always be trusted. The people who were eye witnesses to the Biblical tales did the best they could, but now new evidence has arisen. Evidence, at the end of the day, is what science is all about.

1 Comment

Unfairness in Income? Adjuncting Was Never Meant to be a Full Time Job

2/4/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Income Inequality seems to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue lately. President Obama spoke about it in his State of The Union Address on January 28th. He described how the middle and lower classes have stalled in their wage potential, and the possibility of getting by, much less getting ahead, seems to have lessened. Also in the news is the plight of adjuncts – those part-time college instructors who teach one or two classes at a university for a small sum and no benefits. This morning, adjuncts at my university were described in an NPR story, “Part-time Professors Demand Higher Pay; Will Colleges Listen?” The story goes on to describe how “professional adjuncts” – those workers who hold a graduate degree in their field, and who teach as needed at one or several higher education institutions, as their full time job – are essentially making minimum wage, or less. The plight of professional adjuncts is often a sad tale – often we read about how they struggle to make ends meet, selling plasma on the side to supplement their income, Margaret Mary Vojtko who died destitute at the age of 83 as she taught French for 25 years as an adjunct at Duquesne University, to this self-proclaimed “adjunct whore” who describes herself as doing tricks each semester to make ends meet. The horror stories abound. But how did these horror stories come to fruition?

I must first divulge my own experiences as an adjunct. I enjoyed my position as a non-major, adjunct biology instructor for 6 semesters at my university. I taught large, stadium-style lectures for classes of 100 to over 300 students each semester. I enjoyed working with these students, even though there were a lot of them, as they worked through the general education requirements of their degree plan. I spent three contact hours a week – either two classes of an hour and a half every Tue/Thur, or three classes of one hour every Mon/Wed/Fri – lecturing, using classroom technology, answering questions, helping the students find videos of concepts they didn’t understand, helping students with campus problems, or just counseling students on problems I could help with, be it personal or academic. Outside of class, I had to order textbooks, sit on review committees, collaborate with other lecture professors, do grades, answer emails (and with 300 students, that’s a TON of email) and make copies. I earned less than $1000 per credit hour for the course. After taxes, for one semester, I would see $399 deposited once a month, five times, into my direct deposit bank account. Take home for one semester of work - $2000.

Now here is where I differ from the adjuncts that are often described in the depressing stories you hear about these people with advanced degrees living on welfare and food stamps – I have a full time job. I work at the university already, as a Biology lab Coordinator. 40 hours a week, I work with teaching assistants, supervise 640 lab students a semester, order supplies, write curriculum, do learning management software for the course, and keep a bustling Biology lab exciting and fun. In between writing curriculum and being a single mom who just earned a doctorate, I love to teach a class or two. Most of the classes that are offered to adjuncts are the general education, lower level courses in the 100 or 200 range. I taught the lowest level of Biology course there is offered at this university – the one taught to general education, non-majors students. I know people who adjunct who teach the freshman English classes, the non-major History courses, even Physics! I also have my name and resume in the pool at six other universities/colleges for these types of adjunct positions. I think adjuncting is fun! It allows me to do something I find enjoyable – teaching. But, there’s been no adjunct teaching positions available in my department for the last three semesters, because of grant fluctuations and course load changes for professors. Thank god for my full time job.

Adjuncting was NEVER meant to be a full time job. That is the exact reason adjuncts, who are “professional adjuncts,” are in the position they are today. Adjuncting is a part time type of position, meant for people who are professionals in other full time jobs, who essentially “pick up a shift” here or there. They are like substitutes, who are called to fill in when a full time, tenure tract faculty gets a huge grant and the department needs someone to fill in. The people who wish adjuncting was a full time profession are sadly mistaken, and I believe will continue to suffer if they keep trying to push to make adjuncting a full time job with benefits and security. Just as I feel the minimum wage employee at Walmart or McDonalds is futile in fighting for this type of job to support them and their families (these fast food jobs were meant for teenagers who needed part time work, not for someone needing to support a family) – I feel the plight of the adjunct is useless. Someone who has the basic skills to man the fryer, stock the shelves, or teach the most basic of college courses will continue to earn part time employee pay, for low-level, part-time created jobs. Adjuncting is not a career, adjuncting is the burger flipping of higher education.


Picture
Now please, don’t think I’m dissing on adjuncts. I know how hard, stressful, and overwhelming adjuncting can be as a job. When you have students taking intro courses, they can be the most needy students – the ones who may be taking your course while also taking basic math because they can’t do math, taking basic reading, because they can’t read, or just aren’t cut out for college. You may pour 30 hours a week into one course, to do the justice to your students that you feel, and I felt, they deserve. But the honest truth about adjuncting is that there is no security to it as a profession, it’s low paid work meant for people who have other full time jobs, and it’s something that I would advise ANY person who is getting a graduate degree and plans to go teach “because they love it” to stay away from. Go into secondary education and teach high school students. Find a job at a company that you can do professional development or job training. But if you get your grad degree and plan to “just go teach” instead of having a research agenda that is good enough to get you a tenure track position (and I almost guarantee you are not in that top 5% in your field who will be offered a tenure track job), then you are going to find yourself unhappy, unemployed on a whim of the finances of higher ed institutions, or forced to move somewhere you don’t want to live, working at a university no one has ever heard of. The truth of the matter is that a $80,000 a year job that you don’t have to move for, that allows you to teach a subject you love, with benefits and security, is a fantasy. 

And as long as “professional adjuncts” are offering themselves on the altar of higher education in hordes, the market for them is not going to change. Only when ALL adjuncts decide to pursue other job opportunities, that are full time, with benefits, and security, and no one wants those adjunct positions anymore, will higher ed pay more for them. Supply and demand. The brutal truth of education as a business.
Picture
0 Comments

The Grad School Game, and Playing Through the Pain

2/2/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
This post is inspired by a sermon from Joel Osteen called “Stay in the Game.” You might not be in grad school, but I think this applies to life as a game, as well. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to stay in the game when things are going our way. Many times along the way, I considered grad school (and life) as a game. Completing my dissertation, and getting a PhD was a win/lose type of situation, or at least it was for me. If I had given up, I would have lost at the game. Looking back, if I had effortlessly completed the classes and the dissertation, with no bumps, bruises, or challenges, that prize, being Dr. Hollingsworth, wouldn’t mean as much to me. If the grad school game were easy, it certainly would not have taught me all the lessons it did.

It’s easy to lose our passion when we’re hurt – our advisor is critical, a colleague does us wrong, an experiment doesn’t work, our families aren’t understanding of the pressure, the program changes to become harder, the environment on campus becomes negative or nasty, or we flat out feel the pain of stress pressing down on our lives. It’s easy to begin the negative talk. “This program is stacked against women. This research doesn’t mean anything. My experiments don’t matter. My advisor is a jerk. My committee has it out for me. They don’t like me. I chose a bad advisor. This program is doomed.” This negative talk is making excuses for why we MIGHT fail, and prepares us to shield our emotions, in case we do fail.  Shake off the pity, and get back in the game.

Some students make excuses to sit on the sidelines. You can still play, even in pain. “I’d rather be in the game in pain, than sitting on the sidelines watching.”

This is where the game became personal for me. Through my entire grad school career, I was having massive surgeries. Any one of them would have been reason to give up. In February of 2008, both of my retinas blew out. I had over 20 eye surgeries, the last two of which they removed my eyeballs, and scraped them out, and filled them with fake fluid. One of these surgeries was right before I was supposed to take a final. The other kept me from starting class for three weeks. Throughout all of these surgeries, I never once thought of quitting my program. I always was thinking “How can I get back to school, so I can get on with my life?” There were days I couldn’t see well, and my father drove me to work. There were other days where I laid face down on the floor in my office, waiting for my pain meds to kick in, so I could get back to writing. The last of my eye surgeries was January 11th, 2011.

Almost a year went by of me feeling horrible physically. I didn’t move a lot, because I was scared to hurt my eyeballs. I was depressed, I felt awful, but I stayed in grad school. It was the one thing that gave me solace from the pain. I loved the group of women I worked with, and was in class with, and they provided me with so much support. Reading and writing were two things I could do, despite my physical maladies. I bandaged up what was hurting, and I stayed in the game. I said, “I may be hurting, but I’m still here. I may have been knocked down, over and over, but I’m in this to win this, and I won’t quit.” In December of 2011, I had a massive abdominal surgery that left me in chronic pain, pain that persists until today. I’ve had surgery many times since that first one, for kidney stones, for a bowel obstruction, and for the wound that refused to heal.

At this point, it would have been easy to become bitter. I could have blamed my failures on my pain, my body, or other people. I didn’t. I let people know when I was hurting so bad I couldn’t complete assignments, but I never asked to not do the assignment. Sometimes I needed a week extension, sometimes I was past the due date, but I made up my mind to never quit. I saw some people in my program that were so sour, who wanted other people to be unhappy with them. They tried to bring others down. The ladies I surrounded myself with, however, were my rock. I could have hung out with the complainers and joined their pity party. There were definitely always people around me who were quick to grumble, whine, and nit-pick, to say why they couldn’t do this, to make excuses. I will admit – I did let these negative folks into my head a few times. And after I would talk to them, I would feel like I was run over by a bus. I had to actively choose to smile at these people, offer them a word of encouragement, and then go back to my group of girls who cheered me on. If you surround yourself with criticism, self-pity, bitterness, anger, hatred, and discontentment, don’t be surprised when that weighs down your soul. Get back in the game, and find your cheerleaders.

The best thing to do when you hurt is to go help someone else in need. You sow the seed to change your own situation. This is why I love to teach. No one would have faulted me if I had given up. I was injured, but I never left the game. When times were tough, and nothing was going my way, I was still good to the people around me. Even when my eyeballs or my guts hurt, I still treated my students well. And they knew that I loved what I was doing, and many approached me and told me that they were inspired by the fact I never gave up. This world has a great reward for people who are faithful in the tough times. My graduate school experience resulted in me winning the game, because I never gave up, even when it was rough. Because I have paid it forward, by helping students be successful, by cheering on my group of girls, and by giving my work my all, I won that game. Now, I’m on to the next game, The Superbowl that is my life.

I refuse to just exist. I will live. If I had quit, what would I have done? Become disabled? Planned my funeral? That wasn’t even an option. Even when I couldn’t do all the things I wanted to do on my own, I could still offer friendship, hard work, and dedication to the people around me. When you put yourself in the right position, when you coordinate your game plan so that you are in success’s path, that’s when the universe pays you back. You position yourself for good karma. I never stopped searching out new friends, looking for new opportunities, and searching for ways to get past my pain. Grad school was never meant to end a person, even though it may feel that way. It’s meant to be a beginning. An awakening of your spirit, a challenge to your mind, the seed of your dreams. It allows you to have double what you had before.


Nobody knows the battles you fight when you take on this program. When you defy the odds, when you play despite the pain, the most powerful force in the universe breathes in your direction. You may not be able to do what you used to, but the wind fills your sails, and you stay in the game. Just being here, that took an act of faith. Part of the game of academia is its critical nature. It will crush you, if you let it. It’s easy when people are criticizing your ideas to feel as if you are the one who has it all wrong. Eyes on the prize, stay in the game. Keep the game ball moving forward, run with your ideas, allow them to blossom, and take on that fight. No one knows your battles, but everyone knows that you can’t win the battle if you don’t show up in the first place.


My biggest and best quality is the fight I have in me. I never give up. I keep on going, because I love what I do. I allow others to achieve their dreams, and I can’t do that from my bed. I need to be in that game. I need to be a positive role model for my son. I needed to fight.


People can’t look at me and know that I’m in pain. I don’t look sick, even though I’ve been diabetic 30 years and have had all those surgeries. I’ve had people tell me “You don’t look sick. I had no idea,” or “You seem so happy! I had no idea you were in pain!” It’s one thing to go through a struggle that everyone knows about, or can view you going through. But my struggle is all inside me. I struggle with my feelings, with my body, and with figuring out who I am. Despite my pain, I persist. I go to work, I’m kind, friendly and compassionate, I help everyone I can, and I never give up. There is no way I could sit back, nursing my wounds. I’m hurting, but I’m still here. I can still smile, and be kind, even if no one knows what kind of horrible pain my body is in. If I can do this, I have no doubt that other women can get through the game of grad school, too. Play on, despite the pain.

Picture
0 Comments
    Picture
    Dr. Amy B. Hollingsworth

    Author

    Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth has worked in education for over 20 years. Most recently, she was a Learning Coach at the NIHF STEM School in Akron. She served as the Executive Director of Massillon Digital Academy. She was the District Technology Specialist at Massillon. She also was the Natural Science Biology Lab Coordinator at The University of Akron. She specializes in Biology Curriculum and Instruction, STEM education, and technology integration. She has written six lab manuals, and an interactive biology ebook. She has dedicated her life to teaching and learning, her children - Matthew, Lilly, and Joey, her husband Ryan, and her NewfiePoo Bailey.

    What's Amy Reading?

    • College Insurrection
    • The Chronicle of Higher Education
    • Digital Learning in Higher Ed
    • HuffPo College
    • Girls in STEM
    • The Simple Dollar
    • Tim Ferriss
    • Edudemic
    • Mashable
    • Inside Higher Ed
    • Gawker
    • io9

    Archives

    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Academia
    Adjuncting
    Adjuncts
    AIDS
    Animal Research
    Animal Testing
    Being In Pain
    Best Ideas
    Big Data
    Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation
    Bill Gates
    Biology
    Blogging
    Brainstorming
    Budgets
    Bullying
    Career Paths
    Challenges
    Charter Schools
    Choices
    Civilization
    College Ready
    Common Core
    Community Colleges
    Creation
    Creativity
    Critics
    Cruelty
    Culture
    Debt
    Degrees
    Democracy
    Discipline
    Discrimination
    Diversity
    Dream Big
    Easy Courses
    Ed Tech
    Education
    Engaged
    Engineering
    Evaluation
    Evolution
    Experiments
    Facebook
    Facebook Memes
    Faculty
    Failure
    Finance
    First Generation
    Flexibility
    Flipping Classes
    Fluff Majors
    For-profit Institutions
    Free Apps
    Gender
    Global Education
    Goals
    Good Habits
    Google Docs
    Google Scholar
    Government
    Grad School
    Guppy
    Hard Courses
    Higher Ed
    Humble
    Inequality
    Inside Higher Education
    Inspiration
    Low Income
    Majors
    Minorities
    Money
    Motivation
    My Faith
    Natural Sciences
    NCLB
    Negative Talk
    Pedagogy
    PhDs
    Politics
    Positive Attitudes
    Poverty
    Professional Development
    Professionals
    Professional Teaching Model
    Psychology
    Q Methodology
    Racism
    Religion
    Rigor
    Rules
    Science
    Scientists
    Social Media
    Social Sciences
    Society
    STEM
    Strength
    Stress
    Students
    Student Success
    Success
    Support
    Syllabi
    Teaching
    Technology
    TED Talks
    Tenure-Track
    Test Bashing
    Testing
    The Game
    The Humanities
    Time Management
    Universities
    U Of Akron
    Vaccines
    Value
    Videos
    Vocational Classes
    Web 2.0
    What Is Education Worth?
    Women
    Writing
    Youtube

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.