| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| astro300_f13:day14 [2013/11/21 01:33] – [Ignorance Discussion (rest of minutes)] f.fornasini | astro300_f13:day14 [2014/11/25 00:20] (current) – a_lee |
|---|
| ====General Takeaways==== | ====General Takeaways==== |
| |
| - aa | - The way most science classes are currently structured gives students the impression that science consists in memorizing facts and discovering new facts through a very straightforward, linear process. |
| - bb | - If we want our students to think more like scientists and to have an understanding of the scientific process that's truer to reality (its nonlinearity, the importance of developing and refining questions, etc.), we need to restructure our courses and our assessment of students. |
| | - c |
| | - v |
| | - b |
| | - f |
| | - s |
| |
| |
| Discussion questions: | Discussion questions: |
| - Firestein talks about the fact that many of the popular models/analogies of science are flawed in that they portray knowledge as finite, as something we can slowly unravel completely. What is your model/understanding of the scientific method? What would you want your students to understand about the scientific method? | - Firestein talks about the fact that many of the popular models/analogies of science are flawed in that they portray knowledge as finite, as something we can slowly unravel completely. What is your model/understanding of the scientific method? What would you want your students to understand about the scientific method? |
| - | - Do you agree with Firestein's opinion on the role ignorance plays in the teaching of science? If we are to move away from science being viewed as fact memorization and more as a investigative process, how do we do this without science being viewed as "just asking questions"? |
| | - If we don't want students to think of science as the regurgitation of facts, we need to restructure our courses, and, in particular, rethink the way we assess/evaluate our students. Firestein suggests that assessment should involve feedback and opportunities for editing (just like in science) and that we should ask questions such as "This is what we know. What's the next question?" Do you agree with his suggestions? Can you think of ways of making them more concrete? How can we evaluate our students' scientific thinking? |
| |
| Francesca's notes from the talk: | Francesca's notes from the talk: |
| Aaron's notes drawing from the talk and elsewhere: | Aaron's notes drawing from the talk and elsewhere: |
| - Staurt's talk talks about motivation and designing courses around student motivation. Educational Psychology can help us here, particularly the work of Self-Worth Theory, pioneered by UCB's own Martin Covington. [[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001615|LINK TO PAPER]] | - Staurt's talk talks about motivation and designing courses around student motivation. Educational Psychology can help us here, particularly the work of Self-Worth Theory, pioneered by UCB's own Martin Covington. [[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001615|LINK TO PAPER]] |
| - His argument, and one that is supported by the video, is that we should adopt a problem-oriented approach to teaching, all aspects of student work is coordinated around a seminal or ‘capstone’ problem which students work on for a significant amount of time, if not through an entire school term. Everything is done towards creating solutions to relevant problems. | - His argument, and one that is supported by the video, is that we should adopt a problem-oriented approach to teaching: all aspects of student work is coordinated around a seminal or ‘capstone’ problem which students work on for a significant amount of time, if not through an entire school term. Everything is done towards creating solutions to relevant problems (even if the students don't necessarily know the problems at first). |
| - How do we do this? Based on four ideas: first, insuring coherence and transparency; second, insuring grading equity; third, alliance-building and inclusion; and, fourth, providing inherently interesting tasks (interesting to both the instructor and the students). | - How do we do this? Based on four ideas: first, insuring coherence and transparency; second, insuring grading equity; third, alliance-building and inclusion; and, fourth, providing inherently interesting tasks (interesting to both the instructor and the students). |
| - Course objectives often tend to remain abstractions, with little justification for why what student must learn fits into a larger picture. Instead, with a problem motivated approach, all aspects of student work are coordinated around the steps necessary to solve a central real-world problem. | - Course objectives often tend to remain abstractions, with little justification for why what student must learn fits into a larger picture. Instead, with a problem motivated approach, all aspects of student work are coordinated around the steps necessary to solve a central real-world problem. |
