4/11 Connections

It was certainly an interesting read.  While I can certainly understand some of the sentiments the undergraduate students had (and, to some extent, I still have as well), there were just as many I disagreed with.  I think our own experience in the class reflects a certain attitude towards how to implement modeling logistically and the concepts that go into that.  This reading focused more on some of the philosophy of modeling that I certainly appreciated.

Of course, at its heart, this article was about how to properly educate children in science.  But I think what was particularly interesting was seeing the clash between more traditional values of science education versus the ideals of modeling.  Perhaps it needs more thought from me, but it seems that these traditional sentiments (i.e. the supremacy of the teacher, strict and structured lectures, and a focus on "fact") are incompatible with modeling in the classroom.  I think it was painfully clear that the students were stuck in a very traditional view of science education (and certainly understandable, as they presumably "turned out alright").  A focus on providing "right answers" and on "correct terminology", while to at least extent important, seemed to dominate their perspectives.

I think it's more apt to allow modeling in the classroom because, as we've discussed, science is more a state of mind than anything else.  Surely, there are tools we use to engage in science more effectively and skills that aid us in our understanding of the universe (such as the epistemic games we've discussed and knowledge of statistics), but these things represent refinements to the essential concept of science.  That is, to engage in science is to make connections, investigate and evaluate, and to look at the world in a critical way.  To learn, then, is to engage in science.  Because of this, it is an important use of class time to get students involved in the actual process of independent learning to improve the methods in which they look at the world and to motivate students to evaluate the world in the first place.

Worrying about whether or not students get the "right answer" out of class is certainly a valid concern, and the one I stuck to most.  Certainly as we've discussed in class, there is a value in being "correct" so to speak, or perhaps it would be more apt to say "accurate" or "useful in approximating a system".  Letting students take more control of a classroom, then, could represent a departure from truth or the use of significant amounts of class time to clear up misconceptions.  At the same time, I think the students bring up a valid point that letting teachers lead students too much defeats the purpose of modeling.  The question then is how to balance modeling with ensuring that students have accurate understandings of certain phenomena.  I think this primarily goes back to how teachers frame and support their student inquiry and how much time is devoted to allowing students to make their investigations.  Of course, I also have reservations about modeling in the classroom because of this, but I think even at my most critical moments I can accept modeling as a valuable way for students to "do" science in a system of education where it is not (or at least has not) been truly valued.