For listening pleasure and huge concert productions, I prefer Jean-Michel Jarre. But for home-made, geeky "wow factor," the concept of Tesla coil music is hard to beat. Here's one video showing a rudimentary setup.
But there are many, many more vids to be had.
Brownie Point to 1st period physics student Joseph C. for the tip!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The new STAR Physics RTQs are up!
The new Physics Released Test Question set was posted yesterday on CDE's STAR resources page.
The typographical issues (mentioned in the previous post) have been repaired.
Each year's RTQ set includes the previous year's set with 15 new items blended in. The new items come from the previous year's test (administered the previous Spring). The 15 new items are located as follows:
Investigation and Experimentation: 8
Motion and Forces: 14, 20, 25
Conservation of Energy and Momentum: 29, 35, 41, 44
Heat and Thermodynamics: 47, 53, 56
Waves: 63, 71
Electric and Magnetic Phenomena: 81, 87
The total item count in the Physics RTQs now stands at 89. It should be 90, but one RTQ was removed from the set in 2008. The removed item was authored in the very early days of the CST and was not up to today's standard of item quality. So it was discarded.
I wouldn't be a proper curmudgeon if I didn't have at least a minor quibble. While RTQs have been released each year for several years now, it seems each new year brings a new file organization structure at cde.ca.gov. That is, one cannot hope that this year's RTQs will have the same URL as last year's. The new document is intended to replace the old document, yet a new file path is created each year. It could very well be that I am the solitary Californian whose style is cramped by this annual reorganization.
As always, let me know what you think.
The typographical issues (mentioned in the previous post) have been repaired.
Each year's RTQ set includes the previous year's set with 15 new items blended in. The new items come from the previous year's test (administered the previous Spring). The 15 new items are located as follows:
Investigation and Experimentation: 8
Motion and Forces: 14, 20, 25
Conservation of Energy and Momentum: 29, 35, 41, 44
Heat and Thermodynamics: 47, 53, 56
Waves: 63, 71
Electric and Magnetic Phenomena: 81, 87
The total item count in the Physics RTQs now stands at 89. It should be 90, but one RTQ was removed from the set in 2008. The removed item was authored in the very early days of the CST and was not up to today's standard of item quality. So it was discarded.
I wouldn't be a proper curmudgeon if I didn't have at least a minor quibble. While RTQs have been released each year for several years now, it seems each new year brings a new file organization structure at cde.ca.gov. That is, one cannot hope that this year's RTQs will have the same URL as last year's. The new document is intended to replace the old document, yet a new file path is created each year. It could very well be that I am the solitary Californian whose style is cramped by this annual reorganization.
As always, let me know what you think.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Disappointing trend in RTQ release dates
One element of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program is the publication of a sample of the test questions that have been used on previous administrations of each test. The published items are called "Released Test Questions" (RTQs).
Twenty-five percent of the operational form from the previous year must be sent out into the world as RTQs. Those questions will never again be used on the operational forms.
The Physics CST is a 60-item test, so 15 questions are released each year. Classroom teachers always like to see actual items from previous tests to get a sense of the depth and scope of the assessment tool. The sooner the RTQs are released, the sooner teachers can use them with students.
The publication date (the day when the new RTQs are posted to CDE's web site) varies from year to year. In recent years, CDE/ETS appear to have been taking their cues from Steve Miller's "Fly Like an Eagle." The RTQ release date has been "slipping, slipping, slipping... into the future."
2006 RTQs were released 1/9/06 (As I recall, they were originally released 11/28/05, but there were some significant typographical errors in the initial release. The 1/9/06 update fixed the bugs.)
2007 RTQs were released 2/1/07
2008 RTQs were released 2/8/08
2009 RTQs have yet to be released as of 2/25/09
Why the date slips further each year remains a mystery.
ETA: I just noticed another disappointment: item 10 (on the 2008 Physics RTQs) continues to be missing axis labels in choices B, C, and D. Worse, one of the resistors in item 64 is not labeled, making the item unsolvable. These errors were pointed out to CDE on 2/8/08. Here's hoping the 2009 RTQs will correct this item.
Twenty-five percent of the operational form from the previous year must be sent out into the world as RTQs. Those questions will never again be used on the operational forms.
The Physics CST is a 60-item test, so 15 questions are released each year. Classroom teachers always like to see actual items from previous tests to get a sense of the depth and scope of the assessment tool. The sooner the RTQs are released, the sooner teachers can use them with students.
The publication date (the day when the new RTQs are posted to CDE's web site) varies from year to year. In recent years, CDE/ETS appear to have been taking their cues from Steve Miller's "Fly Like an Eagle." The RTQ release date has been "slipping, slipping, slipping... into the future."
2006 RTQs were released 1/9/06 (As I recall, they were originally released 11/28/05, but there were some significant typographical errors in the initial release. The 1/9/06 update fixed the bugs.)
2007 RTQs were released 2/1/07
2008 RTQs were released 2/8/08
2009 RTQs have yet to be released as of 2/25/09
Why the date slips further each year remains a mystery.
ETA: I just noticed another disappointment: item 10 (on the 2008 Physics RTQs) continues to be missing axis labels in choices B, C, and D. Worse, one of the resistors in item 64 is not labeled, making the item unsolvable. These errors were pointed out to CDE on 2/8/08. Here's hoping the 2009 RTQs will correct this item.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Who has better science standards than California?
As it turns out, no one.
At least according to a comprehensive evaluation made by the Fordham Institute.
The study was published in 2005, but it was news to me. Thanks to SCAAPT President, Bill Layton, for pointing out this report to me. I freely admit you could fill the Grand Canyon with the things I don't know. And I'm embarrassed by how much of that is stuff I should know.
The upside is that--according to the study--California has the best science standards in the nation. The downside is that if you ever hoped (as I often do) that the standards might be open for amendment, the State Board of Education will cite this study (among other things) to prevent any such attempt.
ETA: Here are a few more teasers regarding the study.
Top Five States
1. California (97%)
2. Virginia (96%)
3. Massachusetts (94%)
4. South Carolina (93%)
5. Indiana (91%)
Bottom Five States
47. New Hampshire (36%)
48. Texas (34%)
49. Idaho (34%)
50. Wisconsin (29%)
51. Alaska (19%)
Note that there is one red state in the top five and two blue states in the bottom five. But the biggest blue state is number 1 and the biggest red state is number 48. Make of that what you will.
At least according to a comprehensive evaluation made by the Fordham Institute.
The study was published in 2005, but it was news to me. Thanks to SCAAPT President, Bill Layton, for pointing out this report to me. I freely admit you could fill the Grand Canyon with the things I don't know. And I'm embarrassed by how much of that is stuff I should know.
The upside is that--according to the study--California has the best science standards in the nation. The downside is that if you ever hoped (as I often do) that the standards might be open for amendment, the State Board of Education will cite this study (among other things) to prevent any such attempt.
ETA: Here are a few more teasers regarding the study.
Top Five States
1. California (97%)
2. Virginia (96%)
3. Massachusetts (94%)
4. South Carolina (93%)
5. Indiana (91%)
Bottom Five States
47. New Hampshire (36%)
48. Texas (34%)
49. Idaho (34%)
50. Wisconsin (29%)
51. Alaska (19%)
Note that there is one red state in the top five and two blue states in the bottom five. But the biggest blue state is number 1 and the biggest red state is number 48. Make of that what you will.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Interrogative websites?
A couple of nice "meta" websites for scientists and skeptics.
Why is Science Important?
It features a variety of scientists answering the question. Kind of a scientists' "This I believe."
What's the Harm?
Skeptics are often waved off with this question. Badmouth astrology, homeopathy, etc., by citing their lack of evidence, and adherents and sympathizers will say, "Well, what's the harm? Belief X doesn't hurt anybody!" Turns out, it actually does. This website provides the often-sad details.
Why is Science Important?
It features a variety of scientists answering the question. Kind of a scientists' "This I believe."
What's the Harm?
Skeptics are often waved off with this question. Badmouth astrology, homeopathy, etc., by citing their lack of evidence, and adherents and sympathizers will say, "Well, what's the harm? Belief X doesn't hurt anybody!" Turns out, it actually does. This website provides the often-sad details.
Solid-liquid duality?
I miss more than I get when it comes to groovy science stuff jetting out on teh innertoobs. So when I catch something nice, I do try to post it here before I forget.
Here's a relative recent gem from NPR's Science Friday. It calls into question the distinction between solids and liquids. And it does so with some very groovy high-speed video.
Afterthoughts:
1. I like Flora Lichtman's sneaky sense of humor and effective production sensibilities.
2. I didn't know that aluminum contamination was a problem for baking soda.
3. If you're keen to embed a SciFri vid, their embed code end of "/)" must be replaced with ")(/embed)".
Here's a relative recent gem from NPR's Science Friday. It calls into question the distinction between solids and liquids. And it does so with some very groovy high-speed video.
Afterthoughts:
1. I like Flora Lichtman's sneaky sense of humor and effective production sensibilities.
2. I didn't know that aluminum contamination was a problem for baking soda.
3. If you're keen to embed a SciFri vid, their embed code end of "/)" must be replaced with ")(/embed)".
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Eclipses as you don't usually see them
First up: planet Earth slips between the moon and the sun. The Bad Astronomer has the story of what that looks like as seen from the moon!Last up: the moon slips between Earth and the sun. Here's what Earth looks like as seen from space.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
PTSOS photos from Sacramento
A few shots from the 2008-09 New Teacher Workshops 1 and 2 at Rio Americano High School. Click the pic to see the album.Find older shots of San Mateo PTSOS workshops from 2004-05 here, and from 2005-06 here.
They're never too young to train
Target: doing what they can to encourage girls to study math and science. (This page was taken from a slick Target catalog/ad mailed out during the holiday season.) Thankfully, gender stereotypes in popular culture died out in the 1960s.ETA: The versions of this ad in order of probability that you'll see them
1. Mom vacuums with daughter
2. Dad vacuums with daughter
3. Mom vacuums with son
4. Dad vacuums with son
(I might have 2 and 3 in the wrong order.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)