 |
 |
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