Entrance Slip: Renert
I believe our role as teachers in regards to climate change and sustainability is clear, regardless of subject. We talk about school as a way to prepare students for life and the world. This 'purpose' of school may shift depending on philosophy; some people believe the focus should be just about academics, some believe it should be about responsible citizenship, some believe it should be on socialising into society, and some have different beliefs. Regardless of the point of school, all philosophies at their core are about preparing students for existence in a particular context. Now, given the reality of the planet and the future of life itself, all contexts are affected by climate change. Whether a student is being prepared for academics, citizenship, cultural society, or whatever, that context is altered by the realities of climate change. Therefore, as a teacher, regardless of philosophy, climate change and sustainability are critical parts of preparing students. Thus, it must be integrated into all subjects, as it effects all areas. Renert echoes this idea in his introduction when talking about his original motivations for beginning his process of incorporating ecology into math. I was encouraged to see that my perspectives were mirrored, not just for the sake of feeling 'supported', but also for the sake of urgency and responsibility in the task. I appreciated that Renert was approaching this not as something optional or interesting or purely for enrichment, but as something critical that is a fundamental part of students' futures and education.
Specifically in math, I think incorporating climate change and sustainability is incredibly natural and, to a certain extent, easy. I think the connections and opportunities are quite seamless, specifically for inquiry. We can examine, graph, and extrapolate data on coastal erosion, sea levels, ice levels in the Arctic, car emissions as Renert mentions, and so many more data sets. As Renert mentions, the large scale numbers and sheer magnitude of these issues is often very disconnected from students. Conceptualizing such massive things, numbers, and even geographical features can be difficult and thus can lead to reduced empathy and understanding of long term effects. I like the idea of scaling back the size while still addressing the issue. Perhaps, instead of having inquiry about car emissions in New York or tracking icebergs in Greenland or measuring sea levels in the Mediterranean, we can scale it down to looking at our local communities. Maybe students can graph the car emissions of their school, or the levels of rain and snow in their farming community, or the severity of flooding of the local river. Renert has a good reminder to make sure that these large scale numbers and issues still retain their relatability and sense of 'realness'.
As a last point, I really liked Renert's point about positivity vs negativity. Lots of ecological sustainability rhetoric is negative. We talk about how the world is 'falling apart' and how we're essentially killing the planet. While this is all true and definitely something students need to be aware of, without an inclusion of "so what do we do with this?", students are left with a cause that they don't know how to care about. I think including this into inquiry not only can boost student's understanding of the ecology and the issue, but can immensely raise the empathy and desire to act. On the front of math, I think by including inquiry into the effects of climate action can also boost student's understanding of the math, both how it works and why it matters. If students can concretely see how they can use math to understand, work with, and help the planet, then it gives meaning and purpose and value to the math. I can imagine projects in sustainability around graphing how much emissions are reduced by them carpooling, or how many plastic bags get used in their community per year, or how much food waste happens in their cafeteria. These inquiry projects are small scale and personal, and can be focused not on the negative, but on the positive, with the questions focused on how small efforts can make large effects. This empowers students not only to use math to understand climate change, but to also use it in a practical manner where they can literally math out the effects their actions have and their own ability to make real change.
Specifically in math, I think incorporating climate change and sustainability is incredibly natural and, to a certain extent, easy. I think the connections and opportunities are quite seamless, specifically for inquiry. We can examine, graph, and extrapolate data on coastal erosion, sea levels, ice levels in the Arctic, car emissions as Renert mentions, and so many more data sets. As Renert mentions, the large scale numbers and sheer magnitude of these issues is often very disconnected from students. Conceptualizing such massive things, numbers, and even geographical features can be difficult and thus can lead to reduced empathy and understanding of long term effects. I like the idea of scaling back the size while still addressing the issue. Perhaps, instead of having inquiry about car emissions in New York or tracking icebergs in Greenland or measuring sea levels in the Mediterranean, we can scale it down to looking at our local communities. Maybe students can graph the car emissions of their school, or the levels of rain and snow in their farming community, or the severity of flooding of the local river. Renert has a good reminder to make sure that these large scale numbers and issues still retain their relatability and sense of 'realness'.
As a last point, I really liked Renert's point about positivity vs negativity. Lots of ecological sustainability rhetoric is negative. We talk about how the world is 'falling apart' and how we're essentially killing the planet. While this is all true and definitely something students need to be aware of, without an inclusion of "so what do we do with this?", students are left with a cause that they don't know how to care about. I think including this into inquiry not only can boost student's understanding of the ecology and the issue, but can immensely raise the empathy and desire to act. On the front of math, I think by including inquiry into the effects of climate action can also boost student's understanding of the math, both how it works and why it matters. If students can concretely see how they can use math to understand, work with, and help the planet, then it gives meaning and purpose and value to the math. I can imagine projects in sustainability around graphing how much emissions are reduced by them carpooling, or how many plastic bags get used in their community per year, or how much food waste happens in their cafeteria. These inquiry projects are small scale and personal, and can be focused not on the negative, but on the positive, with the questions focused on how small efforts can make large effects. This empowers students not only to use math to understand climate change, but to also use it in a practical manner where they can literally math out the effects their actions have and their own ability to make real change.
Comments
Post a Comment