[A note to the folks running the NSTA — please don’t make conference attendees pay for wireless. We’re already spending $220 to attend the conference.]

So, one of the first workshops I went to today was being run by the folks from the Chemical Heritage Foundation They are, interestingly, based in Philadelphia (nothing like travelling 3,000 miles to meet folks who are a mile and a half away) and one of their classroom projects is to put a human face on the scientists who furthered chemical and chemistry knowledge through their Chemical Achievers project. Here are my quickly jotted down notes from session:

[Their presentation is] Very much a case-study about how the history of scientists into the chemistry we teach. This is a powerful notion of creating our stories. With all the conversations going on about telling the "New Story," is this moving into the idea of telling the "story" of science?

What would it do for students to learn about the people involved in these discoveries? Does it make a difference if we see these "facts" as discovered? If we see science as ever-evolving, does it help us to help our kids see their own role as scientists themselves? When these ideas are shown as discoveries (sometimes even accidental discoveries) how does it change the way we look at science, scientific discovery… our own learning, notions of discovery.

[real time again] I really think that we’ll find a way to work with these folks. I like the idea of telling the story of scientific learning. The more I step away from this, the more I think that the notion of letting kids see how innovation, invention and discovery evolves by the work of real people to further the body of knowlege at our disposal, the more I think that could have a really powerful effect on how our kids see their role as change-agents in our world.