Hey guys! Rani and I have been talking a lot about perspective for this week’s blog. First, I wanted to think about the place historical context holds in a STEM course similar to this one.
Dr. G mentioned last Tuesday that our lecture about historic science (Copernicus, Tycho, Gallileo, etc.) would likely be the last we’d see. We already touched on this in seminar, but does anyone want to expand on the benefits of looking at science through the lenses of history? I think it’s a great way to establish a broad mindset—one with which you can question new material as you learn it. Can a science major or scientist survive without paying attention to historical advances in their field? Will their work really be affected if they just memorized famous names as an undergraduate and now focus their active attention on the future (on progress in their field)?
With more regard to the context of our course, I’ve been thinking about the value of teaching this kind of historical science to a very diverse group of kids. Some students are hard science majors. Others might just be taking the class because they’re interested in the material or they think it’ll be an easy 2000-level class. Either way, is it worth bothering communication majors with a historical perspective on astronomy? Do science majors really need it? – K
In keeping with this theme, we wanted to explore a little more fully the different approaches to assessment that Dr. G demonstrates. Professor Johnson talked a little bit about different assessment styles and their efficacy and place in a STEM course in general, and a more broad introductory course like this in particular. From https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-summative.html we see that the goals of formative and summative assessments are varied in scope, with the former being “monitoring student performance to provide ongoing feedback” and the latter “evaluating student learning at the end of an instructional unit.” Clearly the multitude of assignments and assessment opportunities that Dr. G peppers along our learning experience has differing learning and assessment outcomes, but Kelsey and I wondered why specific things are set up the way they are – why, for example, are the lecture tutorials, which centrally influence student learning and constitute a model for test-taking, optional, whereas the more freeform blogging assignments are mandatory? What is the import given to each type of learning experience – be it direct question-and-answer problem solving and concept intake and retaining (as in the L-T) or a more creative, less confining arena like blogging? And more importantly I guess for the scope of this blog post, what is the import given to the assessments associated to each learning experience? Do you want more assignments with summative assessment? More formative assessment? How do these questions fit into the broader question of centralizing learning? What are y’all’s thoughts? – R
