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
Posts made by Gina Bennett
Hi Paul, thanks for the link. I had never heard of the Public Knowledge Project & I was amazed to find out that over 1400 journals (not just in scientific fields) are using their Open Journal Systems. Clearly, a LOT of academics agree that scholarly publishing should be open! A good indicator of the vitality of an online community is how frequently & how recently people post to the forums & it's obvious that PKP is active indeed.
Harvard University is taking this one step further by making open access publication a REQUIREMENT. While surfing around I stumbled upon this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here are some snippets:
For anybody with an interest in the repercussions of open publishing, it's especially interesting to read the comments which follow the article!
Harvard University is taking this one step further by making open access publication a REQUIREMENT. While surfing around I stumbled upon this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here are some snippets:
Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy this evening that requires faculty members to allow the university to make their scholarly articles available free online.
... the new policy makes Harvard the first university in the United States to mandate open access to its faculty members’ research publications.
...The new policy will allow faculty members to request a waiver, but otherwise they must provide an electronic form of each article to the provost’s office, which will place it in an online repository.
The policy will allow Harvard authors to publish in any journal that permits posting online after publication.
For anybody with an interest in the repercussions of open publishing, it's especially interesting to read the comments which follow the article!
I suggested earlier this week that the publication of scientific results was an area in which the internet is changing things. Every science student learns early that research is the foundation of science; & that in order for research to have any value, it must be shared. The traditional way of sharing is through publication in exclusive, expensive, small-circulation scientific journals.
Research in the field of medicine -- a specialized field of science -- is affected in the same way. The online journal Open Medicine, points out some serious implications of this approach:
The Public Library of Science (PLoS) takes advantage of the unique affordances of the internet and Creative Commons licencing (which Paul has referred to in the discussion about science learning objects and copyright issues). It enables scientists to share their research more quickly, at less expense, and to a much wider, more international audience than ever before.
Do you think that the open sharing of research is an ethic that our science students should be learning? (my view on this topic is obvious!)
Research in the field of medicine -- a specialized field of science -- is affected in the same way. The online journal Open Medicine, points out some serious implications of this approach:
...subscription-based health journals tend to neglect the problems of the developing world. One recent study found that a mere 3% of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine address the health problems of the developing world,problems that constitute 90% of the world's disease burden. This neglect is no surprise, given the business model of subscription-based journals: in order to remain profitable, they must publish materials that will appeal to readers in the rich world who can purchase the content (typically US$30 for a single article or several hundred US dollars for an annual subscription).
The Public Library of Science (PLoS) takes advantage of the unique affordances of the internet and Creative Commons licencing (which Paul has referred to in the discussion about science learning objects and copyright issues). It enables scientists to share their research more quickly, at less expense, and to a much wider, more international audience than ever before.
Do you think that the open sharing of research is an ethic that our science students should be learning? (my view on this topic is obvious!)
Wow, there is an incredible amount of data here, Paul! I can see that the VENUS website could provide plenty of information for a student project at the undergrad level (or maybe even Grade 12). I think it's a great example of the variety & richness of data collection possible, as well as an example of how science can be made more 'open'.
Chris, I did a quick search for information about the ELMO camera but wasn't able to find much. I'm just guessing... is it a camera that responds differently to varying touch-sensitive inputs? Can you recommend a link?