I was concerned as the writing stage of this assignment drew to a close that I had not closely followed my learning contract enough. However, upon further consideration I think this is actually to be expected, as learning takes one down new and different paths, and as I read more and learned more I found my learning journey took me in a slightly different direction to the one I had first proposed. Despite this, I still feel that ultimately I have answered the original question – how is science taught traditionally and online? – as well as many more questions which arose during the process of the assignment. To close, I found the research I conducted in the process of this assignment of great value to me; I feel it has given me a much better background knowledge with regard to educational theories and frameworks and a general background in science education, as well as how technology can be applied to science education. As someone from a highly technical background but little educational background, this was an important task to add to my knowledge and understanding in this field.

I’m also reading about Bloom’s Taxonomy and to be honest finding it less interesting than I’m finding the other frameworks, but I can still see it definitely has its place in education, in particular with regard to curriculum and assessment design, and I found it interesting to consider when reflecting on my own experiences in science.

It’s clear the discussion board can work effectively though, as indicated in a study that compared online delivery with face to face delivery of a histology course. In this study, the majority of work performed by the online students occured over a discussion board and in live chats with the lecturer. The lecturer was thus involved in the online learning process and the students reported that they felt a closer bond with their lecturer than they felt they would have developed in a face to face course. Given that my science course was technically blended, it still felt very much like an entirely face to face course, which I found disappointing at the time, but I didn’t realise how much so until begun reading for this assignment.

References

Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., McConnell, S., Graham, M. 2001. Do No Harm – A Comparison of the Effects of On-Line vs. Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 257-265.

Hoadley, C. M. & Linn, M. C. (2000) Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment, International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), p. 839-857.

Summary:

I undertook a bachelor of science on campus from 2004-2006. The methods of teaching utilised were lectures, tutorials and laboratory sessions, with some subjects offering additional museum research components. I took subjects from a range of faculties – biology, biochemistry, immunology and infectious diseases, medicine, and pathology. The teaching style across these faculties was consistent. Each subject generally had 2-3 50 minute lectures a week and one laboratory session which ranged between 3 and 5 hours long. Not all subjects had tutorials, but those that did involved going through the answers of a tutorial worksheet which was assigned the week before.

In lectures, the format involved the lecturer standing at the podium and displaying visual content using powerpoint slides on a projector. The lecturer would speak for the entire 50 minute duration and students would take notes, generally as annotations on the print outs of the lecture. While the lecturers generally did not mind being interrupted for questions, it was very rare that a student would do so, with students preferring to see the lecturer one on one after class at the front of the lecture hall.

Laboratory sessions were usually run by a demonstrator. The amount of instruction received dependended on the subject. For example, in biology classes, there was one demonstrator per approximately fifteen students, so students received a lot of guidance and support from their demonstrators, in addition to the practical manual, which had a great deal of background information on the topic to be examined, as well as detailed, step by step instructions on how to perform the experiment at hand. Students did not often collaborate with each other as the demonstrators tended to give the answers to the students if they asked. In contrast, laboratory sessions run by the biochemistry faculty generally had two demonstrators to a group of a approximately two hundred students. Therefore, their purpose was to give a short, introductory lecture, and then oversee safety in the lab for the duration of the session. Given the large number of students, they were rarely available for assistance if required. The lab manuals in these classes did not provide as much background information as those in biology, with students expected to research and prepare before the lab. However, they still included detailed, step by step instructions of how to perform the experiments. Due to the lack of available demonstrators in these classes, students often formed their own small groups and collaborated with each other to perform the experiments successfully.

Tutorials generally did not involve a great deal of collaboration between students. Students were expected to come to class with a completed tutorial worksheet or exercise and then the tutor would ask if anyone had difficulty. Students were generally reluctant to admit in front of a class group that they had had difficulty and as such no one would speak up. Consequently, the tutorial would evolve into a lecture style, with the tutor standing at the board, going through all the problems to the class.

Museum sessions were available in subjects like pathology and anatomy to allow students to examine gross specimens and slides. These sessions usually involved following a worksheet which guided the students in making observations of a particular sample.  The students were then expected to research the observations and compare them with the textbook descriptions of similar samples. These sessions were not compulsory and as such were not facilitated by a faculty member. Like the biochemistry laboratory sessions, the students often formed small groups and collaborated in these sessions, comparing and discussing their observations.

Personally, the classes that I learnt the most from in the course of my entire degree were the biochemistry lab sessions and the museum sessions. The lack of faculty member forced us as students to think independently. It gave us the motivation to do our own research and consider a range of ideas, without being told which ideas we should place particular focus on. The disadvantage, I found, of the lecturing style of teaching, was that as a student we were told exactly what was important to learn. “This will be in the exam.” And thus the particular piece of information is committed to memory above all others. There is no opportunity or motivation to explore other ideas or concepts outside those that we knew would be assessable.

Critique

Situated learning theory is particularly applicable to the laboratory and museum sessions, especially those where students were generally left to their own devices and collaborated on results and ideas with other students. This is consistent with my (post-degree) experiences of working as a research scientist. The learning that occured in the undergraduate laboratories was engrained in the environment and culture in which it would later occur in research. Furthermore, these undergraduate laboratories helped students to develop the attitude and behaviour of research scientists, which is also applicable in later research. Furthermore, the work of Lave and Wenger and Vygotsky are also particularly applicable here – the social nature of the museum and laboratory sessions meant that learning did not occur in isolation and in many cases students formed small communities of practice.

Constructivism is harder to apply. Despite many articles to the contrary discussed in the literature review, I found it hard to find evidence of constructivism in my own science experiences, aside from, to some extent, that which went hand in hand with the situated learning which occured in the labs and museum. In lectures, students were told exactly which knowledge was important. The student’s background and previous experiences were rarely considered, to the point that if the student entered a subject without the appropriate background in relation to subject matter, they were expected to catch up in their own time – that this lack in background might affect the way they construct and understand the new knowledge they were meant to take in in the lecture was not considered.

Similarly, scaffolded knowledge integration was also difficult to apply to lectures, though with regard to the tennant of this framework which states that knowledge should be made visible, this did occur in some instances in the laboratory and museum, with students thinking aloud, or explaining their thought processes to other students to explain why they reached particular conclusions. As a student exposed to this, I found it a particularly useful method of learning from other students.

When considering Bloom’s Taxonomy it was also interesting to consider my experiences in a laboratory vs. a lecture. When it came to exams, there were usually theory and practical exams. Theory exams consisted of multipe choice and short answer questions. When I worked at the university as a demonstrator, I had to mark exams as part of my job. It was then that I learned that the exams were marked based on a particular series of keywords that need to be in the answer. Even if the answer was correct or partially correct, if the keywords were not present, the student would receive less or in some cases no marks. This sort of assessment style encourages rote-learning of content, and with regard to Bloom’s Taxonomy, does not allow the student to pass the knowledge or comprehension stages of the taxonomy. From this, it could be said that the lecture style of teaching science does not encourage higher level thinking. In contrast, students in a laboratory session are expected to take the knowledge they’ve gained in the lectures and from their own reading and apply it to the laboratory context. Furthermore, the laboratory also encourages higher levels of thinking, indicated by the final three levels of the taxonomy – analysis, synthesis and evaluation. In experimental science, students are expected to analyse their results, synthesise them into meaningful data, and evaluate the accurateness and relevance of this data, depending on the experimental context.

From the above application of theories, it appears evident that laboratory and independent research sessions such as museums are far more effective at encouraging higher level thinking and independent learning by allowing students to work collaboratively, in a situated environment. Furthermore, these environments encourage discussion, visibile thinking, in contrast to lectures, which appear to encourage lower level thinking and rote-learning of content.

I’m also changing my working style a little for this project. I normally read extensively, write notes as I go and then try and pull it all together at the end but I’m finding myself becoming far too bogged down in the notes at the moment so I think I’m just going to start writing. It will give the project some focus and it will also make it easier to highlight gaps in my knowledge. Therefore, onto the writing!

“There is an insepararable link betewen theory and experiment (observation and experiment) – science is knowledge that comes from connecting theory and experience. ” pvii. (Cromer, 1997)

Discusses a constructivist view of science education based on the work of Piaget (p10), that the learner will determine what knowledge is viable and true, based on the extent of their experience within their own traditions, culture and life experience. p 11. This viewpoint concerns me, as it opens what I feel is a very objective and logical field of knowledge and way of thinking, to a completely subjective and ever changing way of thinking. The author (Cromer, 1997) discusses the extent to which this theory has been applied to current science education. He gives the example of new zealand, in which lecture demonstration tables have been removed so the teacher cannot claim to have more knowledge than the student, thus preventing them from influencing the way the student may construct knowledge (p11.) Not only does this sound anti-scientific to me, but I think it raises some significant questions with regard to standardising content across a larger body of students such as state-wide.

Cromer (1997) also argues that a constructivist view of science education devalues science knowledge – this would allow an educator of science with no science background to be of equal footing to a science trained science educator – and in my opinion this could be deterimental to the students (p11).

In general, Cromer’s (1997) critique of constructivism is very harsh and pretty clearly contains a fair bit of personal bias, given his continual referencing of his own work to enhance teacher knowledge through experimentation and demonstration, which is a much stricter and less subjective method of approaching science. Out of curiosity I was interested in finding a less anti-constructionist view of science teaching and this website’s summary of constructivism and science has been useful as a comparison point.

Cromer (1997) suggests a systematic and structured way to building scientific knowledge, which he calls SEED (Science Education thorugh Experiments and Demonstrations). The program assumes that both student and teacher are concrete thinkers, (p15) though I can see that this would be problematic for any student who tends to think more towards the abstract.

On p22 he calls for science education to focus on the development of objective thinking and skepticism with a respect for the opinion of others. He contrasts this again to a contructivist view of science (p38) in which he likens science to a series of weakly interconnected blocks, connected for empiricism’s sake. However his own views of objective scientific thinking (p39) see science as a series of blocks which are strongly interconnected, each supporting the one above it, and if one were removed, the whole thing would collapse.

Ultimately, on p 182, Cromer claims that a universal education framework is necessary for the formation of consistent, coherant basic knowledge that the majority of individuals will have, but attacks of this frameowkr (such as constructivism in his view) have resulted in students needing to create their own frameworks, which he quotes could lead to “outlandish and dangerous interpretations of events.”

Overall I find this view very concerning. Perhaps I’m misinterpretting his cycnism for something else but to instill a framework as strict as the one he promotes is to remove all independent thought and learning and to disregard learning styles, in my opinion.

Reference:

Cromer, A. 1997. Connected Knowledge: Science, Philosophy and Education. Oxford University Press. New York.

This paper proposes a curriculum model for science education which focuses on content, subject matter and assessment, all leading to teaching and learning. They define assessment as the student’s ability to reach the highest level of bloom’s taxonomy and it is good at determining links between these four elements, but at no point in time does it mention the learner, which is troubling. Thankfully the article later redeems itself by asking to what degree can content, subject matter and assessment be determined by the learner.

Something particularly relevant to my learning contract is the question “how much learner independence does the traditional science course allow?” What’s discussed on pages 5-6 is very consistent with my own experiences in traditional science education. The only real independence you have is in choosing the broad subject area, e.g. biology. After that you’re restricted my the course outline – you have no choice in which modules or subject areas within the broader area you can study. Another problem is that topic areas within the course are not given equal priority, therefore if something is particularly relevant to your interest or intended career area, you may not spend as much time on it as you like and there’s no real say in this. Assessments are the same – you have no say in what form they will take.

The article also raises an interesting point about objectives (p6). As I also found in my own experiences, these are very conflicting. The university places a large focus on independent learning and wants you to go out and read and explore areas that interest you. However, if you stray from the assigned topic areas, you will do poorly or even fail the allocated assessments and exams. There is no room in the assessment areas for any sort of incorporation of independent learning.

Page 8 discusses inherant problems with the way science tutorials are conducted which I also encountered at uni. The tutor goes through the exercise and set readings to detect whatever problems the student might be having with an exercise, and will then go through the problem. This is all well and good, but there is  a difference between seeing where a problem is and identifying exactly what it is – i.e. figuring out what it is that the student finds difficult about the area.

The author suggests on page 11 a range of features that characterise independent learners and these include self-motivation, self-evalulation, ability to learn from others, problem solving and independent thought. He suggests that these need to be greater supported in science education. From a theoretical perspective, this suggestion smacks of incorporating collaborative, situated, constructivist leanings of learning into science education. And also these features are features often found in mature adult learners.

Why does a science degree impose such structure on a student? p12

• lectures avoid the teacher repeating themselves
• structure is concerned with cognitive psychology and the speed with which the learner can access knowledge – knowledge is obtained faster if it is structured. (I don’t like this reason – a part of independent learning should be the ability to structure ones own knowledge – therefore taking greater control over one’s own learning – though this is prevented by the degree structure in science).
• however, structures are of importance for those who CAN’T structure their own learning
• knowledge is structured in order to control knowledge and transmit our own values
• the curriculum exists to socialise students into the discipline at hand

The author (p15) suggests some interesting changes to the current curriculum theory employed by universities to greater encourage independent learning, which I would personally have loved to experience in my own studies:

• short foundation course, introduction to disciplines relevant to you
• series of theme centred enquiries in small groups
• core courses offered as late options if you didn’t master concepts in the first two stages, taught by final year research students, to whom the subject matter is particularly relevant

This would encourage a higher level of independent learning, team work and communication, as well as, which is the main goal for most universities, a mastery of the core content.

Beard, R. M. Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning. in Independent Learning in Tertiary Science Education, ed. Furniss, B. S. and Parsonage, J. R. Educational Techniques Group. Ch. 2.

• Compares the Keller plan – a highly structured course based on specified objectives and graded activities – with the Dalton Plan – a framework that involved teaching students how to learn. p19
• Suggests that students are told too much (spoonfeeding) and therefore are actually prevented from practicing how to think and how to learn. I would agree with this statement from my own experiences. As an undergraduate we were told in such detail which readings to do right down to which lines on the page. I don’t think it would have killed any of us to learn to use the index – and about half the students didn’t actually know how. p20
• Group discussions and open-ended experimental work go beyond structured experimental work and are ideal to allow students to develop their thinking skills p21.

Manwaring, G. 1975. Running A Self-Teaching Laboratory in Biology. in Independent Learning in Tertiary Science Education, ed. Furniss, B. S. and Parsonage, J. R. Educational Techniques Group. Ch. 5.

• discusses the use of audio-visual aids and programmed learning techniques in a self-teaching biology lab.
• this was necessitated as a crash course in biology as a large number of first year students taking biology had not taken it in highschool.p45
• the crash course materials were placed in a room that students could access, though interestingly over time this grew and evolved and more learning media was purchased and added- the intention was then to provide a different way of study for those students who would benefit from it.p46
• this incorporates a range of different learning styles with different media available for a particular content area.p46
• the self teaching laboratory also includes microscopes, mounted displays. This is similar to the pathology museum that was available to myself as an undergrad at usyd. Here the students were able to access, in their own time, all the mounted museum samples, slides and accompanying explanations to each sample, as a way of explaining what the student was seeing. This was complemented by the traditional lectures and readings in the textbook. What was lacking, however, was any sort of sound-related media. All was textual or visual. p47
• The advantages to this sort of program are: p50-51

1. learner controlled
2. relevant – the learner can choose what to study
3. involves many kinds of media to support multiple learning styles
4. easy to run and cheap
5. flexible
6. contains groups of mixed ability and diversity.

This sort of program would be a good example of something to which frameworks such as social constructivism and bloom’s taxonomy could be applied.

Why are there not more of these sorts of independent learning environments available to university students? As with any innovative resource there would be implementation problems – acquiring the resources – getting the learning materials produced – maintaining the library of resources – having enough resources for the number of students – deciding how much or little direction to give the students – deciding the roles of the teaching staff, etc etc. p53-54

O’Connell, S. and Penton, S. J. 1975. Independent Learning in the Laboratory, in Independent Learning in Tertiary Science Education, ed. Furniss, B. S. and Parsonage, J. R. Educational Techniques Group. Ch. 8.

• describes the “traditional experiment” (p61) in which the student is given a set of instructions, the required equipment and set lose – argues that these do not teach independence as a student will learn a technique because they’re told it’s relevant, not because they’ve realised they need said technique to finish the experiment. p 61
• a project based approach is also criticised because the procedures and projects themselves are usually so strictly determined that there is little room for independent though and learning. p62. This is something I definitely came across in my own science projects and laboratory experiences.

The report also makes a good point that facilities already exist for those wanting a high level scientific and technological level of training but nothing exists for adults wanting basic science skills, enough to give them a greater understanding of science’s place in society. Moreover, a place has not been made in the humanities sector to train educators to fill this need. Ultimately the report doesn’t suggest more ways that science could be incorporated into the standard education system but how it can be made more available to adults in general.

A trend has been found that colleges offering further education courses will take an active role in science education for adults, but in local education authorities where adult education is organised through a separate body, adult science education is limited, possibly due to the lack of available educators. The report has also found that there is little basic science literature available in public libraries for the general public, though museums are a good contributor to science education through their interactive exhibitions, purchase of scientific and technological artefacts and public lectures.

Reference

Basic Science Education for Adults: a report on the issues affecting the provision of adult general education in science and technology. 1981. Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education.

When I enrolled in EMT1 I also enrolled in 2 other e-learning subjects, e-learning design and e-learning technologies. At that point in time I just needed subjects to fill places (because UTS wants you to enrol for the whole year at the start) and I thought I’d see how EMT1 went and if I enjoyed it I’d keep the 2 e-learning ones, if I didn’t I’d find somewhere else but I have to say I can’t wait for next semseter and to do the other 2 subjects. I’m really interested to see how they move on from EMT1 and the sorts of things that are covered.

I’d like to wish everyone in EMT1 the best of luck and hope to see a few of you in some of the other e-learning subjects next semester. Thanks to everyone for a really amazing 13 weeks, it’s been great fun, and I’ve learnt loads. I’d especially like to thank Anne for being an inspiring, supportive and just plain awesome lecturer – you’ve made the subject what it is and it really is true what they say about the teacher being what makes the subject great.