Reply to comment

I'd like to begin with some thoughts I have in response to our conversation on Tuesday regarding the "linear model." As a child, I was taught something in-between the linear and loopy model- I was told to have a hypothesis or educated guess- is that very different than a summary of observations? Perhaps we're arguing more over language than the meanings of science. I was also taught to have a specific methodology/procedure, but that did not mean that I could not improvise or change my original goal. The purpose of my childhood science was to have fun, think, and discover something- all of which I find perfectly appropriate. In addition, I did not ever have the sense that science only happened in some sort of sterile, artificial laboratory. I always believed that science could happen in the mud, the grocery store, my living room, etc. Am I unusual? Interestingly, science became more linear once I started college and my premed courses. In my chemistry courses here, for example, there was a clear right and wrong answer and often our experiments were not fun- they were simply to prove what we already believed to be true. If something in the results seemed to contradict "the known," we simply ignored it or explained it away with experiemental error. Thus, I'd like to pose the question of whether Bryn Mawr science courses, especially those somewhat grueling introductory labs, can become more loopy? What might be the consequences of making them loopy?

It does seem to me that often the purpose of having students do science is not to have them discover something, but to instill in them certain educational values such as  dilligance, attention to detail, patience, etc.. 

I'm also interested in the question of whether students can be assessed in a "loopy way"? I'm not sure what a loopy assessment looks like because it would require the instructor to have no expectations as to what the student should know. In addition, it seems "non-loopy" to even have an instructor assessing because it implies that there is one person who is a superior judge of intelligence/performance. Clearly, standardized tests, like the SATs, are linear tests, but what about IQ tests? Those also seem to be linear. Is there such a thing as a loopy test that allows individuals to be measured against one another? Is that a loopy concept? Can individuals' brains be compared? Are some individuals more "intelligent" than others or simply intelligent in different ways?