Update on reflective assessment of learning in ED 589

My field work in Integrated Science under the direction of Dr. Bob Kearney has taken a very fortunate turn for enhancing my own understanding of how students perceive science. The course is being guided in a „constructivist¾ manner with much hands-on and discussion of topics.

One of the most interesting aspects of the course from the standpoint of a participant/observer is the "power issues". These were not immediately evident to me at first. I had assumed that the instructor had power to deliver content, and with an alternative approach this power issues would be subdued. What I found was to set me aback in my thinking.

As Dr. Kearney and I gave up some power in the learning process by guiding students to their own knowledge building, we in fact were just replacing a traditionally perceived (accepted) for of influence/power, with a more subtle form. It may even be argued that the subtle guidance offered in a so called constructivist course is actualy more insideously manipulative in that while students are led to believe that they are building their own knowledge, we, the instructors, are indeed still very much involved in guiding the outcome, in pointing the "way" to the understanding that we want them to come away with.

All this has led me to re-evaluate power issues in the classroom and to more critically reflect on my own stance during instruction. How am I conveying my pleasure or displeasure with student progress through an issue? How am I manipulating the discussion to keep it on track? And if I am consciously letting it go afield, what am I hoping students will find out there?

Ever present now in my thinking about the guidance offered during the learning process, is the issue of my own perspective, my own way of building knowledge that I might be unconsciously putting forth. And perhaps as importantly, what issues am I focussing on as a "male" scientist/educator, that may be uniquely flavoring both my perspective on the student¼s learning and my expectations of them?

These power issues are really important and ones I feel must be addresses if I am to get really trustworthy data from the participants in this pilot study. The question is, or one of many questions I need to broach with my focus group is: How does the fact that I may represent the "typical" figure of a scientist/educator effect your attitudes and bekiefs about the nature of science inquiry?

How can I get the students to recognize the lens for their learning as being one that I and others have helped them shape and tint?

All of these new and important questions are leading me into a deeper appreciation for the richness of "qualitative data" and the importance of clearly understanding my methodology (framework) and methods!

Now for the content of the course under study. It has been through this process of exploring alternatives to integrating themes of the physical sciences that has led Dr. Kearney and myself (in collaboration) to outline the course as an exploration of the "spheres" and allow/facilitate the "construction" of student knowledge in each of the disciplines of chemistry, physics, geology and biology by situating our discussions in terms of real, observable everyday processes taking place in the "atmosphere", the "hydrosphere", the "geosphere" and "biosphere".

I refer back to our first exploration and class activity which was very revealing and has already affected the direction of my study. The visualization, conceptualization of "your favorite view of earth" as a starting point in building student understanding of the nature of science inquiry and the importance of natural history and earth systems science education as a part of everyone¼s basic knowledge base. I keep coming back to this because the students keep refering to it. Even though we have gone on to investigate (in detail) some of the more mundane aspects of physics and chemistry principles, the students repeatedly refer to the spheres in their connecting of the meaning of each lesson.

I guess what I need to get at is whether their use of the spheres theme is really a coomon ground for their construction and interconnection of tpoics covered, or whether they are doing so to placate the instructors?

Again it seems to come down to power and trustworthiness issues. I¼m not sure I can gain full confidence in my interpretations of the students responses simply by being a participant observer. So I am beginning to look more deeply into their journal/lab write-ups. Fortunately they have expressed their trust that what they say in their labs with regard to opinion/attitude will not influence their grades. They have been remarkably honest and insightful (I think?).

All of these recent insights are in actuality important issues that I may not be able to get beyond in the course of this pilot study. They are however, very much influencing the direction and focus of my ideas.

Research beyond this simple pilot study will be greatly informed by all the documentation and ongoing analysis I am currently involved in.

This reflection is very much a work in progress and the focus of discussion has been of importnace to my current understanding..... no doubt clarity is always forthcoming. At least I¼ve identified some really important issues that I must really take into account in a more detailed study.