EDUC 6470 Week 5 - Revision history

Shawn: Themes

2010-02-22T22:50:08Z

Themes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 22 February 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:


	Crawford (2000)<bibref>Crawford:2000</bibref>		;Crawford (2000)<bibref>Crawford:2000</bibref>

			==Themes==
			Themes this week include:
			*It's up to the teacher to devise specific inquiry activities. (Pestel and Keys/Bryan)
			*We use special methods to get students to digest the textbooks we made them buy. (Pestel and Druger)

	==References==		==References==
	<bibreferences />		<bibreferences />

Shawn: more on Pestel

2010-02-22T22:44:30Z

Shawn: Pestel's basic information

2010-02-22T19:39:41Z

Pestel's basic information

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:39, 22 February 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:

	;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>		;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>
			Like Druger, Pestel believes that students need to read before a discussion to get "basic information" to inform the discussion. Her reason is time restraints. What amount of time would change this?

Shawn: Druger's goals not much on biology or content

2010-02-22T16:46:06Z

Druger's goals not much on biology or content

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 22 February 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I do like Druger's second goal, to expose students to the vastness of what is unknown. The earlier, the better, so that students know they can enter a field fertile for inquiry. In his last goal, he seems to be wavering on the importance to him of engendering self-motivated learners. Early, he says it's the most important, later, one of the most important, and his first goal, learning vocabulary, seems to trump this one in his telling.		I do like Druger's second goal, to expose students to the vastness of what is unknown. The earlier, the better, so that students know they can enter a field fertile for inquiry. In his last goal, he seems to be wavering on the importance to him of engendering self-motivated learners. Early, he says it's the most important, later, one of the most important, and his first goal, learning vocabulary, seems to trump this one in his telling.

			Druger warns "Elements that are transferable and generalizable for other introductory science courses will be emphasized." (p. 37) What part of Druger's paper lists a pedagogical method that is unique to the content, biology? Alternatives to dissection is one. Maybe the emphasis on vocabulary?

	;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>		;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>

Shawn: Druger's goals

2010-02-22T16:32:08Z

Druger's goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:32, 22 February 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Druger lists vocabulary as the base of subject matter competency. That there is such a base for learning is questionable, learning, to me, being a complex network of experiences and interpretations and expressions. That vocabulary must come first is also questionable, because it demotes experience to something that can't be learnable without a vocabulary for expression. Such a view of the basis of learning is prevalent perhaps because it is reinforced by our methods of assessing learning, through vocabulary-based checks on expression, rather than evaluating experience or performance.		Druger lists vocabulary as the base of subject matter competency. That there is such a base for learning is questionable, learning, to me, being a complex network of experiences and interpretations and expressions. That vocabulary must come first is also questionable, because it demotes experience to something that can't be learnable without a vocabulary for expression. Such a view of the basis of learning is prevalent perhaps because it is reinforced by our methods of assessing learning, through vocabulary-based checks on expression, rather than evaluating experience or performance.

			I do like Druger's second goal, to expose students to the vastness of what is unknown. The earlier, the better, so that students know they can enter a field fertile for inquiry. In his last goal, he seems to be wavering on the importance to him of engendering self-motivated learners. Early, he says it's the most important, later, one of the most important, and his first goal, learning vocabulary, seems to trump this one in his telling.
	;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>		;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>

Shawn: Druger:vocab as a base

2010-02-22T16:24:54Z

Druger:vocab as a base

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 22 February 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:

	How can I possibly read this without bias against the author after having read his diatribe against students from 2002?<bibref>Druger:2002</bibref>		How can I possibly read this without bias against the author after having read his diatribe against students from 2002?<bibref>Druger:2002</bibref>

			Druger lists vocabulary as the base of subject matter competency. That there is such a base for learning is questionable, learning, to me, being a complex network of experiences and interpretations and expressions. That vocabulary must come first is also questionable, because it demotes experience to something that can't be learnable without a vocabulary for expression. Such a view of the basis of learning is prevalent perhaps because it is reinforced by our methods of assessing learning, through vocabulary-based checks on expression, rather than evaluating experience or performance.

	;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>		;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>

Shawn at 03:12, 22 February 2010

2010-02-22T03:12:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 21 February 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:

	How can I possibly read this without bias against the author after having read his diatribe against students from 2002?<bibref>Druger:2002</bibref>		How can I possibly read this without bias against the author after having read his diatribe against students from 2002?<bibref>Druger:2002</bibref>

			;Pestel (2002)<bibref>Pestel:2002</bibref>



			;Keys & Bryan (2001)<bibref>Keys:2001</bibref>


			Crawford (2000)<bibref>Crawford:2000</bibref>

			==References==
			<bibreferences />

Shawn: questioning Druger

2010-02-22T03:02:17Z

questioning Druger

New page

From our syllabus: "What is the teacher's role in an inquiry-based classroom? What are the challenges?"

==Readings==
;Druger (2006)<bibref>Druger:2006</bibref>

How can I possibly read this without bias against the author after having read his diatribe against students from 2002?<bibref>Druger:2002</bibref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 22 February 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Like Druger, Pestel believes that students need to read before a discussion to get "basic information" to inform the discussion. Her reason is time restraints. What amount of time would change this?		Like Druger, Pestel believes that students need to read before a discussion to get "basic information" to inform the discussion. Her reason is time restraints. What amount of time would change this?

			At the end of her article, Pestel asks "Where do I draw the line between allowing students to talk and making sure that the correct ideas are communicated clearly to all students?" The key phrase here is "correct ideas." If students are reasoning, then their ideas are more correct than if they are guessing or rehearsing. She could tell the students that they haven't learned something well if they aren't using reasoning and the knowledge-bases available to them.

	;Keys & Bryan (2001)<bibref>Keys:2001</bibref>		;Keys & Bryan (2001)<bibref>Keys:2001</bibref>