Sooo... what's your opinion? Have we re-thought teaching in the sciences?
In the BC public postsecondary system, we are "putting our money where our mouth is" & attempting to offer a high-quality, scientifically-rigorous Associate of Science program online. The first 2 courses (Physics & Geology) for this program will be available online in the coming academic year. This project has received funding from both BCcampus's Online Program Development Fund & the Inukshuk Wireless Fund.
The project is led by Ron Evans of North Island College. Ron has been offering a first-year Astronomy course online for several years. College of the Rockies (surprise, surprise - MY institution!!!) is a partner in the project.
I've learned a lot from my involvement in this project. It's been most interesting to explore the topic of learning science at a distance with my colleagues. We all agree that education needs to be more accessible but we also agree that the quality of that education should not be compromised. Science learning includes both theoretical & practical/technical aspects; & the exercise & practice of the scientific method has traditionally been done face-to-face, supervised in a lab.
But what else is possible? How far can we go with the concept of an Associate of Science (or a B.Sc.?) online?
Gina Bennett
Discussions started by Gina Bennett
While exploring the great collection of links from last week (each link led to many more!) my mind wandered from the teaching of science to the actual practice of science. I don't think this is really 'off-topic': certainly we need to be aware of how science is practised in the 21st century so that we can prepare our students accordingly.
Two areas that are have made interesting (to me) use of the internet are data gathering and results publication.
When you stop & think about it, an awful lot of data acquisition obtained during scientific inquiry is mediated by technology. While googling around I came across a number of examples of remote science conducted using telescopes, microscopes, etc. but what fascinated me most was the rather understated use of the lowly webcam for data gathering & collaboration. These UBC Pharmacy students, for example, were able to access some sophisticated special equipment at Western Washington University to conduct experiments; webcams provided interaction with the technicians at WWU. Grade 7 students at Branksome School used a webcam to gather round-the-clock data about some fish they were studying. And webcams are routinely used for telemedicine & to gather data in severe environments.
Has anyone out there in SCoPE used a webcam for a scientific activity of any kind? or do you know of anyone who has?
This post is already too long --I'll leave the topic of technology-mediated results publication to a later post.
Two areas that are have made interesting (to me) use of the internet are data gathering and results publication.
When you stop & think about it, an awful lot of data acquisition obtained during scientific inquiry is mediated by technology. While googling around I came across a number of examples of remote science conducted using telescopes, microscopes, etc. but what fascinated me most was the rather understated use of the lowly webcam for data gathering & collaboration. These UBC Pharmacy students, for example, were able to access some sophisticated special equipment at Western Washington University to conduct experiments; webcams provided interaction with the technicians at WWU. Grade 7 students at Branksome School used a webcam to gather round-the-clock data about some fish they were studying. And webcams are routinely used for telemedicine & to gather data in severe environments.
Has anyone out there in SCoPE used a webcam for a scientific activity of any kind? or do you know of anyone who has?
This post is already too long --I'll leave the topic of technology-mediated results publication to a later post.
Thanks to everybody who jumped in & got their feet wet in our first week of 'Rethinking Teaching in the Sciences'. While re-reading the posts from last week, I couldn't help but be impressed by all the great links to online science resources & I thought I might summarize these in a list:
- thanks to Marsha West for this link to secondary school math resources: http://seeingmath.concord.org/sms_interactives.html
- also to Marsha for these science & math interactives: http://www.concord.org/resources/browse/251/
- thanks to Rob Johnson for science teaching utilizing ICT's: http://ict-in-science-education.wikispaces.com/
- thanks again to Rob for links to Newton's Laws of Motion and also to An incredible five minute tour of underwater creatures
- thanks to Estrella Gancedo for the great link to PHET (Physics Education Project of Colorado University) with its free Physics simulations
- also thanks to Estrella for her link to Hooke´s Law
- thanks to Nalin Abeysekera for his link to this definition of science: Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
A research paper titled Technology in Schools: What the Research Says (Cisco, 2006) found that "the use of simulations and modeling in the natural sciences resulted in increased learning and retention by students." In fact, when a frog dissection simulation was used, Grade 7 "students learned significantly more when only a dissection simulation was used, or when the simulation was used immediately prior to the actual dissection exercises in comparison to dissection only or dissection immediately followed by the simulation." (emphasis added)
The researchers suggest "The power behind the use of simulations in the life sciences is in the opportunity for students to explore “what-ifs” in ways that
enable the student to build schemas of understanding. The visualization of processes and structures reduces the cognitive load, enabling even novice learners to understand academic complexities."
This is a very bold statement: that using a simulation alone can result in a stronger learning experience than the 'real thing'. However, in an earlier post, Estrella pointed out that "simulations or virtual environments just recreate reality following the laws of physics but we should not forget they are NOT reality. They can take into account as much (variables) as the programmer knowledge allows."
So here is the $1000000 questions: At what point does 'real' data become essential to the learning of science?
The researchers suggest "The power behind the use of simulations in the life sciences is in the opportunity for students to explore “what-ifs” in ways that
enable the student to build schemas of understanding. The visualization of processes and structures reduces the cognitive load, enabling even novice learners to understand academic complexities."
This is a very bold statement: that using a simulation alone can result in a stronger learning experience than the 'real thing'. However, in an earlier post, Estrella pointed out that "simulations or virtual environments just recreate reality following the laws of physics but we should not forget they are NOT reality. They can take into account as much (variables) as the programmer knowledge allows."
So here is the $1000000 questions: At what point does 'real' data become essential to the learning of science?
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science] states that science "refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."
Wikipedia makes it sound like there are 2 parts to science: the acquisition of knowledge (experimental practice) as well as the body of knowledge itself (theory). What do you think? Is it possible to "learn science" without both involving both types of learning?
Wikipedia makes it sound like there are 2 parts to science: the acquisition of knowledge (experimental practice) as well as the body of knowledge itself (theory). What do you think? Is it possible to "learn science" without both involving both types of learning?