New Approach To Teaching Science Classes

[menloparkmom]

<p>Colleges cope with bigger classes
By JUSTIN POPE, AP Education Writer</p>

<p>On weekday mornings, the Cristol Chemistry Building at the University of Colorado is a hive of activity. Every hour, hundreds of laptop-toting students file in and out of its theater-style lecture halls, where classes are scheduled back to back.</p>

<p>In all, there are 33 courses at Colorado with 400 students or more. Three have more than 1,200. Most are broken into sections, but even those may have hundreds of students. One chemistry course is so big that the only place on campus where everyone can take the final exam at once is the Coors Event Center, Colorado’s basketball arena.</p>

<p>Such arrangements are here to stay on U.S. campuses.</p>

<p>There already are 18 million American college students, and that number is expected to increase by 2 million over the next eight years, as the value of a college degree continues to climb.</p>

<p>To get everyone through their coursework, monstrous class sizes are unavoidable.</p>

<p>That does not have to be a bad thing. At their best, giant classes can be effective and inspiring — a way to get the best teachers in front of the most students.</p>

[kelsmom]

<p>As far as the math emporium goes, I would NOT pay to have my kid take a class like that. Where is the “education” in that set-up?</p>

<p>I have no problem with reforming science education, but I am not sure about the clicker thing. For example, my friend teaches chemistry at a community college. Many of her students come to her without the proper math background. She will NOT stop to explain concepts that they should have brought to the table when they signed up for the class. If students don’t get something because they lack fundamentals, that is different than if they don’t get something because she isn’t explaining the concept properly. In a huge class with clickers, it’s kind of tough to figure out if the problem is the fundamentals or the new concept.</p>

[doubleplay]

<p>I wondered what the clicker thing was all about. My kids talk about “clicker points”. Apparently the clicker also serves as an attendance/participation monitor. Although why someone would want to skip math or science instruction, or any kind of instruction for that matter, is beyond me.</p>

[marite]

<p>The clicker concept was pioneered by Prof. Eric Mazur of Harvard University.

In addition to his work in optical physics, Dr. Mazur is interested in education, science policy, outreach, and the public perception of science. He believes that better science education for all – not just science majors – is vital for continued scientific progress. To this end, Dr. Mazur devotes part of his research group’s effort to education research and finding verifiable ways to improve science education. In 1990 he began developing Peer Instruction a method for teaching large lecture classes interactively. Dr. Mazur’s teaching method has developed a large following, both nationally and internationally, and has been adopted across many science disciplines.

[Profile</a> on Eric Mazur](<a href=“http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/emdetails.php]Profile”>http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/emdetails.php)</p>

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>Where is the “education” in that set-up?>>
Does education mean learning or teaching? If teaching, then , yes, there is little actual teaching. But if it means learning, then, chances are students are forced to learn rather than sit passively while the instructor drones on, regardless of whether students follow or not.</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>What is the goal of an instructor? To cover the materials or to make sure that the majority of students understand the materials? If the latter, then it makes sense to: encourage students to drop down a level if they do not follow; or, having accepted them as students, slow down and make sure they do understand the materials. One cannot be a great teacher if one’s students consistently fail.</p>

[menloparkmom]

<p>This was the article in the NYTimes about Prof Mazur, and his insights into a new ways of thinking into how to teach Science classes that got my attention.
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17conv.html?pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17conv.html?pagewanted=print&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[menloparkmom]

<p>Here is the link to the original article I posted today</p>

<p>[Colleges</a> Cope With Bigger Classes](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/24/national/a085840S78.DTL&tsp=1]Colleges”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/24/national/a085840S78.DTL&tsp=1)</p>

[kelsmom]

<p>Unfortunately, Marite, my friend does encourage those not ready for her class to drop down a level — and they just won’t listen. Because her class transfers to four year colleges as a regular chem class, she MUST cover a set curriculum. If she has to teach her students basic algebra, she’ll never get close accomplishing what needs to be done. Yes, she DOES get many students who can’t do basic algebra … but then, this is Michigan, home to some of the worst math programs around. But I am getting off-topic.</p>