Entrance Slip: Janet Bavelas (Due Nov 13 8PM)
1. Questions about the author's perspective
Although I think the author's message was well intended, I need not fully agree with her insight on the marginalization of creativity in the science. To me, this read came off as a advice for scientists to continue as they have been doing already. I think it would have come across more effectively if it was written as a call to action instead of its more advisoral approach. For example, much of scientific/math research is based off of hunches already and the idea that the scientific community is dismissive of their hunches is absurd to me.
2. Analogical articulation
However, despite disagreeing with the writing, I found that the section "Articulate by Analogues" to be very much in line with my own way of communicating. Much of how I communicate my math knowledge to students is through the use of analogy. When I explain algebraic concepts, such as collecting like terms, I try to take a language based approach and link these ideas to simple addition with objects. I also find that by being able to communicate my ideas analogically, I have a better understanding of the core of the concept. I think this approach is what makes scientists such as Richard Feynman so well renowned.
3. "Most students survive this apparently aimless phase and burst into an experiment at the other end."
Sure... but I think this is in reference to experimentation and not actual scientific research. Students in a science classroom are traditionally presented with experiments/labs which are reasonable for them to approach and so they burst into the experiment. In scientific research, inquiry lies at the foundations and scientists will ask questions, follow hunches, and carry about experimentation afterwards. I think the author's message was diluted by her writing and I believe they intended the message to be more "call-to-actiony" and if so, yes, I agree that students should be taught about inquiry. Students should be at the forefront of asking questions and following their hunches in scientific exploration instead of being presented labs to work on.
Although I think the author's message was well intended, I need not fully agree with her insight on the marginalization of creativity in the science. To me, this read came off as a advice for scientists to continue as they have been doing already. I think it would have come across more effectively if it was written as a call to action instead of its more advisoral approach. For example, much of scientific/math research is based off of hunches already and the idea that the scientific community is dismissive of their hunches is absurd to me.
2. Analogical articulation
However, despite disagreeing with the writing, I found that the section "Articulate by Analogues" to be very much in line with my own way of communicating. Much of how I communicate my math knowledge to students is through the use of analogy. When I explain algebraic concepts, such as collecting like terms, I try to take a language based approach and link these ideas to simple addition with objects. I also find that by being able to communicate my ideas analogically, I have a better understanding of the core of the concept. I think this approach is what makes scientists such as Richard Feynman so well renowned.
3. "Most students survive this apparently aimless phase and burst into an experiment at the other end."
Sure... but I think this is in reference to experimentation and not actual scientific research. Students in a science classroom are traditionally presented with experiments/labs which are reasonable for them to approach and so they burst into the experiment. In scientific research, inquiry lies at the foundations and scientists will ask questions, follow hunches, and carry about experimentation afterwards. I think the author's message was diluted by her writing and I believe they intended the message to be more "call-to-actiony" and if so, yes, I agree that students should be taught about inquiry. Students should be at the forefront of asking questions and following their hunches in scientific exploration instead of being presented labs to work on.
Thanks for this very thoughtful and in depth response, Vincent! I have a feeling that Bavelas was thinking less about a call to action and more about mentoring new grad students into the complexity of scientific inquiry and its non- routine nature (which you have discussed here too). I’m with you on analogies and language-based approaches!
ReplyDelete