Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the fixing-the-teachers-should-help dept.

Active problem-solving confers a deeper understanding of science than does a standard lecture. But some university lecturers are reluctant to change tack.

Outbreak alert: six students at the Chicago State Polytechnic University in Illinois have been hospitalized with severe vomiting, diarrhea and stomach pain, as well as wheezing and difficulty in breathing. Some are in a critical condition. And the university's health centre is fielding dozens of calls from students with similar symptoms.

This was the scenario that 17 third- and fourth-year undergraduates dealt with as part of an innovative virology course led by biologist Tammy Tobin at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. The students took on the role of federal public-health officials, and were tasked with identifying the pathogen, tracking how it spreads and figuring out how to contain and treat it — all by the end of the semester.

In the end, the students pinpointed the virus, but they also made mistakes: six people died, for example, in part because the students did not pay enough attention to treatment. However, says Tobin, "that doesn't affect their grade so long as they present what they did, how it worked or didn't work, and how they'd do it differently". What matters is that the students got totally wrapped up in the problem, remembered what they learned and got a handle on a range of disciplines. "We looked at the intersection of politics, sociology, biology, even some economics," she says.

Tobin's approach is just one of a diverse range of methods that have been sweeping through the world's undergraduate science classes. Some are complex, immersive exercises similar to Tobin's. But there are also team-based exercises on smaller problems, as well as simple, carefully tailored questions that students in a crowded lecture hall might respond to through hand-held 'clicker' devices. What the methods share is an outcome confirmed in hundreds of empirical studies: students gain a much deeper understanding of science when they actively grapple with questions than when they passively listen to answers.

http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-teaching-science-wrong-and-how-to-make-it-right-1.17963


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:08PM (#210188)

    The sorts of people that go for science undergrads are not anywhere near as insightful or creative to complete that task. The vast majority of them have a fixed viewpoint of low flexibility.

    I'd need to see better evidence of this to believe it. However, in your favor, as an undergrad I noticed I was one of few who asked questions. It was probably to the point that it annoyed other students. I am sure some of those questions were really dumb. Anyway, if students choosing science undergrad degrees are as you say then that is all the more reason to challenge them. For example, I didn't write coherently until my third year of high school when a teacher finally gave me an F for writing like crap. After that I quickly learned how to communicate via the written word.