Reply to comment

Participants:

Paul Grobstein, BMC faculty, biology; Alice Lesnick, Bi-Co Ed Program faculty; Shankia Bridges BMC undergrad; Anne Dalke, BMC faculty, english; Elizabeth Catenese, BMC alum, teacher; Ashley Dawkins, BMC undergrad, physics; Betsey Reese, BMC Information Services; Darla Attardin, BMC alum, Information Services, Alison Cook-Sather, Bi-Co Ed Program faculty; Chris Massey, UPenn faculty, Lansdowne Friends; Blythe Hoyle, BMC faculty, geology, csem; Peter Brodfuehrer, BMC faculty, biology; Glenn Heck, Delaware Valley Friends, teacher; Luisana Taveras, BMC undegrad; Evan Stiegel, HC undergrad, biology, education; Astra Byrant, BMC undergrad, biology; Sheena Reed BMC undergrad, english/sociology

Proceedings:

A rich conversation, in two parts. In the first undergraduates who have experiences in both "open-ended transactional inquiry" and more traditional science courses described their experiences in the two. Several students reported disliking science until encountering o-e.t.i. courses, and then becoming "open to what science might be" as a creative, empowering activity. Others who had liked/been good at earlier, more traditional science courses, acknowledged that they included a lot of memorization, "facts" coming at me, but liked "challenge" and "knowing how things worked." Overall, there was an interest in having courses be imore nteresting, engaging of student activity/creativity, and designed to facilitate students acquiring enhanced thinking/problem-solving skills.

The second part of the conversation focused on reactions to a set of comments by undergraduates taking a non-traditional introductory biology course. Break out groups were asked to read the coments and reply to a set of three questions. Questions and responses were as follows ...

What do the comments suggest is not working in introductory science education?

• Boring, rote memorization, fixed/final explanations, no sense of discovery/intepretation, WASPY, too ritualistic
• No balance between the traditional knowledge presentation and inquiry
• Courses are textbook-centered, too detail-centered ad disconnected from students' lives

What works better

• Introductory courses should be more process-oriented, e.g., students could practice skills such as skeptical analysis; intro courses at all educational levels should challenge students to THINK; educators should do the unexpected to challenge students; students should do more analysis of information themselves.
• Make a place foruncertainty in the process and content of science. Present concepts both as general concepts and specific examples from the students
• More perspectives/points of view; knowing students - styles/histories; meaningful - contextualize, listening process, connect to world; controversy; failure useful

How relevant are the "canary in the mine shaft" voices for other students/contexts?

• Relevant, but problem of access
• Some share similar experiences, some do not. Don't know.
• We had vague intuitions that they might be relevant, but we don't have enough data to say whether or not they are.

Among the issues that arose from these discussions are how much variation there is at different educational levels and in different subjects, and how to provide support for teachers interesting in moving in more inquiry-based directions