Nature of Science FPLC 2005-6

From CTLpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
What is the Nature of Science and How Should We Teach It? Brad Kincaid (Biology) Facilitator, Original Members: Kaatje Kraft (Geology), Paul Nunez (Math), Adam Avilez (Math), Liz Dorland (Chemistry), Mangala Joshua (Physics), Peter Brown (Biology), Shereen Lerner (Anthropology), Madeleine Chowdhury (Math), Derek Borman (Psychology), Ly Tran-Nguyen (Psychology) Dave Nachman (Chemistry), Niccole Cerveny (Geography)


Contents

Nature of Science FPLC Members

Nature of Science FPLC Members
Nature of Science FPLC Members

Kaatje Kraft (Geology), Paul Nunez (Math), Adam Avilez (Math), Liz Dorland (Chemistry), Mangala Joshua (Physics), Brad Kincaid (Biology), Peter Brown (Biology), Shereen Lerner (Anthropology), Madeleine Chowdhury (Math), Derek Borman (Psychology), Ly Tran-Nguyen (Psychology). Not shown: Dave Nachman (Chemistry), Niccole Cerveny (Geography)

Interdisciplinary Faculty Learning Community

  1. We are a Project Kaleidoscope Leadership Institution team dedicated to achieving sustainable transformation of our undergraduate STEM learning environment.
  2. We have adopted the faculty learning community model developed by Miami University Ohio.
  3. Our common goal is key to our success.
  4. We have selected faculty participants who are already recognized as leaders in their disciplines.
  5. Our interdisciplinary team includes members from Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Physics and Psychology.
  6. We expect that the FLC model will increase the impact of the group and our ability to transform STEM education across our institution.

Problem

  1. MCC has established scientific inquiry as one of our expected student outcomes.
  2. As is generally the case nationwide, MCC students have fallen short of our expectations in this area of our outcomes assessments.
  3. There is both a need and an opportunity to transform science education at MCC.


Project Goal

The goal of our Nature of Science Faculty Learning Community is to promote the understanding and appreciation of the nature of science, technology, engineering and math by all students to enable them to be informed and productive citizens, professionals, and scientists of tomorrow.


Institution Profile

  1. MCC is the largest of 10 colleges in the Maricopa Community College District.
  2. We served nearly 28,000 students in the fall of 2004 on two campuses and via distance learning.
  3. Sixty-two percent of MCC students intend to transfer to university (mostly Arizona State University, which is within 6 miles).
  4. 64of ASU upper division students transfer credits from one of our colleges.
  5. Hispanics are currently 16of our enrollment, but projections indicate that we will soon be a significant Hispanic serving institution.


Strategies

  1. Our strategy will be to form a respected interdisciplinary group of STEM educators who will evaluate and revise our learning outcomes regarding the nature of science.
  2. We will develop curriculum frameworks for achieving those learning outcomes.
  3. We will then implement, assess and disseminate these frameworks across disciplines.
  4. We will collaborate with ASU and Project Kaleidoscope to transform STEM education at MCC.
  5. We will evaluate our strategy and contribute our model for empowering community college faculty to Project Kaleidoscope in Two-Year Colleges (PKALTYC).

What should students know about the Nature of Science?

Science is a process involving:

  1. Logical reasoning, especially hypothetico-deductive.
  2. Evidence-based conclusions that support or reject hypotheses or theories.
  3. Social influences that can introduce or correct biases.

Science is accumulated knowledge about nature including:

  1. Descriptions of nature.
  2. Explanations of natural phenomena that are stable and durable, yet always uncertain and subject to rejection.
  3. Predictions of natural phenomena.

Science has assumptions and limitations including:

  1. Phenomena have natural causes.
  2. Inability to explain supernatural phenomena.


How should we teach the Nature of Science?

Whenever possible, we should:

  1. Promote deeper understanding of the nature, philosophy and history of science by faculty.
  2. Use consistent, appropriate language to describe science concepts in our classes.
  3. Engage students in authentic scientific investigations.
  4. Employ specific nature of science activities.
  5. Address student preconceptions about the nature of science and scientists.
  6. Promote connections among science concepts.
  7. Distinguish science and technology.
  8. Match classroom assessments to learning outcomes.


How should we assess student understanding of the Nature of Science?

  1. Pilot instruments in individual courses recognizing that we have program-level goals for learning outcomes.
  2. Use common assessments across disciplines such as the ASU CRESMET Nature of Science Instrument and the Nature of Science Assessment based on Benchmarks and Standards.
  3. Employ a common pre- and post-test design across classes.
  4. Collect student classification and background data.
  5. Compare data pre- and post-instruction, among interventions in different classes/disciplines, and with external data.
  6. Comply with IRB guidelines regarding informed consent and confidentiality.


Evaluation Results

Our FPLC pilot was evaluated using a modified version of a survey provided by Milt Cox from Miami University Ohio. Cox is considered the guru of FPLCs since he originated the concept in higher education. The survey included a number of Likkert scaled questions on components of the FPLC program, specific outcomes related to the Nature of Science FPLC, professional development outcomes, faculty assessments of the impact of the FPLC on their students' learning and opportunities for open-ended comments about each of the above topics. The survey was administered using an online survey tool during the summer of 2006 after one year of experience with our FPLC.

FLC Component Evaluations (n=9)

Comments:

    • “This was truly a learning experience for me. The readings and meetings were very helpful.”
    • “Regular seminars were great. Best when we had specific activities to do or discussions to prepare for with readings.”
    • “The conference was more helpful in that it provided an opportunity for me to bond with my fellow FLC'rs and less due to the content covered during the conference itself.”

Comments:

    • “We had lofty goals that may have been too much for us to achieve at least given that we started out slowly.”
    • “I think many of these items we've started to think about, but we haven't actually accomplished most of them.”

Comments:

    • “I enjoyed most the intellectual exchanges with other faculty.”
    • “… meeting people from different disciplines and sharing ideas.”
    • “… the interdisciplinary nature of the FLC and what I learned with that interaction.”

What aspects of this faculty learning community could be changed…

    • “I'd like to do more readings…”
    • “… perhaps more hands-on; how to apply what we are learning.”
    • “The time issue was a major hindrance for me… had little time to delve deeply into it because of other MCC-related activities.”
    • “The facilitator needs to be very well prepared and skilled in motivating faculty and leading discussion, etc.”

Project Conclusions and Recommendations

In progress...

Retrieved from "http://ctl.mc.maricopa.edu/wiki/index.php/Nature_of_Science_FPLC_2005-6"
Personal tools