Difference between revisions of "EDUC 6470 Week 6"
(Crawford et al. 1999) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Readings for [[EDUC 6470]], Spring 2010. | ||
| + | |||
==Readings== | ==Readings== | ||
;French and Russell, 2002 | ;French and Russell, 2002 | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
;Crawford, Krajcik, and Marx, 1999 | ;Crawford, Krajcik, and Marx, 1999 | ||
| − | I wonder whether well-contextualized inquiries are often taught at the same conceptual level as a lessened-inquiry science course for the same age? I'm thinking about physics majors, and whether a high energy theorist could spring from a curriculum path that involved much more inquiry. Often physics professors tell me | + | I wonder whether well-contextualized inquiries are often taught at the same conceptual level as a lessened-inquiry science course for the same age? I'm thinking about physics majors, and whether a high energy theorist could spring from a curriculum path that involved much more inquiry. Often physics professors tell me they're fine with radical reforms only for their non-majors courses. |
| + | |||
| + | Does the difficulty of putting some content into an inquiry-based curriculum say something about that content, if such a difficulty exists for reasons intrinsic to the content? Should we alter our content goals just as we alter our pedagogy? | ||
Latest revision as of 17:22, 3 January 2023
Readings for EDUC 6470, Spring 2010.
Readings
- French and Russell, 2002
The authors write about how their intro biology course for mixed majors is based on scenarios, leading questions, and group work periods. Tools include concept maps and flow charts. The course tightens the circle of training the trainers by having seniors and grads interested in education be the facilitators for the freshman class. Facilitators act as a sort of super note-taker, keeping the thinking of the student body in line with expectations and directions, making explicit the links in the curriculum, for example showing a concept map from the previous lecture to emphasize/reinforce the constructivist nature of the learning. The facilitator allows the instructor not to get distracted by either the A/V equipment, paper handouts, or homework collection.
Are the facilitators getting enough credit for their work? Is the experience worth the same (or more) as the pay they deserve?
- Crawford, Krajcik, and Marx, 1999
I wonder whether well-contextualized inquiries are often taught at the same conceptual level as a lessened-inquiry science course for the same age? I'm thinking about physics majors, and whether a high energy theorist could spring from a curriculum path that involved much more inquiry. Often physics professors tell me they're fine with radical reforms only for their non-majors courses.
Does the difficulty of putting some content into an inquiry-based curriculum say something about that content, if such a difficulty exists for reasons intrinsic to the content? Should we alter our content goals just as we alter our pedagogy?
