Category: teaching

Interesting points:

1. lecturing very ineffective for most students [we have known this for a long time]

2. peer instruction as a form of student engagement is much more effective.

3. therefore students come to class with the information and concepts but use class time to engage the application.

4. difficulties arise with the scope of the content covered [amount – which in science is vast]

5. Q. does this matter? Can we dilute the ‘curriculum’ away from the memorization aspect [which is ineffective anyway] and move towards the big picture process parts.

6. Essentially: 1. find information 2. comprehend information 3. apply/use information

7. In other words: Learn how to Learn

Please listen to the podcast.

I just made a new list of science education, nature of science websites, that detail how science works, used in politics and misrepresented by industry. This is commonly known as FUDD.  Fear, Uncertainty, Distrust and Disinformation. It happens with any controversial scientific theorom. From effects of smoking, Erin Brokovitch, CFC’s, Bisphenol A, vaccines, evolution, and of course climate change.


This essay at the weather underground summarizes some of it.

This website also has a good amount of information and links to some book s I need to read – soon.

Below is the diigo, webslide:

science education and fudd.

Once again, very student oriented and perhaps not too techy, but important nonetheless and a very important points for science educators. If the below points are what scientists are looking for should we not be stressing them? I do. I’m not gonna link my rubric to prove it because I think most science teachers would say they do it. It is a good reminder though. Lets not loose sight of where we want them to get:

I generally agree with most of what he says, but I would raise one quibble about his list of criteria: What scientists are looking for when we evaluate a paper is whether the paper clearly addresses 3 points:
1) What is the question or issue being studied in this work?
2) What are the methods being used, and are they described in a sufficiently detailed manner so that somebody else can replicate the work? (Remember that replication is the real gold standard of scientific knowledge. Until we have independent replication of a result, it’s suspect. Hell, even after independent replication we’re still skeptical.)
3) Does the data presented support the conclusions that the author is drawing?

I think this leaves out one important question:

1.5) Is the result interesting?

Uncertain Principles: Inside Peer Review

Blogged with Flock