Hi all,
Please send your responses to the whole list, or directly to Kim Kastens ([log in to unmask]). Thanks!
***************
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I'm looking for research-based evidence that there is (or is not)
>value in having
>students understand the methods by which data were gathered or insights were
>generated, for kinds of data gathering which they cannot do in a
>hands-on lab or
>field activity.
>
>For example, many HS and intro college earth science courses have
>students work with global maps
>of bathymetry and topography maps, as part of the process of learning about
>seafloor spreading, subduction, isotasy, etc.
>
>If the students understand the techniques (echo-sounding, etc) by
>which scientists learn and have
>learned about the shape of the seafloor and the heights of
>mountains, does that:
>
>(a) improve their UNDERSTANDING of concepts (such as seafloor
>spreading or isostasy)
>that have topography/bathymetry as a fundamental observational constraint?
>
>(b) increase their BELIEF that the data and/or the concepts derived
>from the data are
>correct?
>
>and/or
>
>(c) increase their INTEREST in the topic?
>
>You could ask the same question about other types of data or
>insights.... Does learning about
>how scientists locate earthquakes improve students' ability to
>reason about earth processes
>from a map of earthquake locations? Does learning how radiometric
>dating works
>change students' beliefs about the age of the earth?
>
>I understand that there is value in having students understand
>about the process
>of science, and that historical examples help in that regard. But I'm asking
>what evidence we have that understanding how specific scientific
>data or ideas were
>acquired or developed improves students' grasp of those specific
>data or ideas.
>
>Taking the devil's advocate position, thinking back on my own
>history as a learner, I recall math
>classes over the years in which the teacher or professor or textbook
>would do proofs
>of various theorems. At the time, I never could see why they
>wasted time on this.
>From my current perspective, I imagine that the proofs were supposed
>to increase my level of insight
>into the theorems and persuade me to believe that the theorems were
>solidly-grounded
>and correct and legit to use for calculations or problem-solving.
>The proofs did none of these
>things for me. The fact that the theorem appeared in the textbook
>and on the blackboard
>in the teacher's/professor's handwriting got me as persuaded as I
>was going to get. Seeing the
>proof, i.e. seeing where the theorem came from, had no discernable
>added value for me.
>
>Looking forward to any insights you might have to share on this.
>
>Regards,
>Kim
>
>--
>Dr. Kim Anne Kastens
>Doherty Senior Research Scientist
>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
>61 Route 9W
>Palisades, NY 10964
>
>Earth & Environmental Science Journalism Program: www.ldeo.columbia.edu/eesj/
>voice: 845-365-8836 fax: 845-365-8179
>email: [log in to unmask]
>Alternative contact: Margie Turrin, 845-365-8494, [log in to unmask]
>
--
Heather L. Petcovic
Assistant Professor
Geosciences/Science Education
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
[log in to unmask]
(269) 387-5488 Geosciences
(269) 387-5380 MISE
|