II. Nina Greenwald

III. Peter Taylor

IV Steve Fifield

Instructions to students: Write out a neatly synthetic statement (1 paragraph) evaluating this course. (You might build on/build in your comments from the other side.) Please make comments both to help us develop the course in the future and to enable some third party to appreciate the course’s strengths and weaknesses. (Imagine a reader who may not be willing to wade through the other side, but is willing to do more than look at numerical averages.) Among other things you might comment on the overall content, specific activities, and progression of the workshops.

This course provided a structured arena for the exploration of effective teaching methods, theories, and skills. Strengths lie in the theoretical knowledge of the professors and the practical techniques and interpretations of the teachers taking the course. Weaknesses were centered around the lack of K-12 teachers in the facilitator’s chair.

I think cohesive outcomes/final activities to conclude or work towards would be an effective method of quick reference and recall to help maintain the wholeness of the course.

Overall content was great--more examples and exercises would be helpful. Steve’s rubric-generation activity was very helpful; Peter’s freewriting exercises were absolutely vital; the heuristic concept was eye-opening. Philip’s theories, however abstract all together, gave great weight to our teaching methods.

Great class!

***

I enjoyed the flow of the course from underlying philosophies, to instruction, to. assessment. I found the teaching methods (II and III) to be constructively innovative, particularly the idea of using problems or context to drive the teaching of content and process. The Assessment Strategies (concept maps, portfolio assessment) were well presented with ample opportunity for dialogue and synthesis of ideas (IV).

***

The biggest strength of the workshop was the variety of instructors that guided us through the different activities. One weakness was a lack of practical teaching strategies or methods. I feel the workshop would be enhanced if there was more of a focus on teaching fundamental science concepts. In other words, what is working right now in our schools.

More videos.

***

The most relevant were parts of the PBL and assessment workshops. It is important to be able to convince yourself that you will have time in the summer and in the fall to try these fresh approaches or modify your existing new ideas in the classroom and be able to share them with colleagues.

You need to have teachers in this course with experience that want to share, take risks, and be amenable to change. These are good teachers, and these are teachers willing to put their students first.

I think the focus or underlying motif of the sessions is just that above. Understand what the student knows and guide them to learn more by allowing them to ask their own questions and discover more about others and themselves.

Thanks.

***

I enjoyed these workshops and learned a lot of relevant information. I did not come into this workshop looking to take home things that I could use personally, but a lot of the things that we covered I can use, which is surprising. I liked working with other students in group projects and teaching up to get a better understanding of what was being taught. I think everyone participated and expressed their opinions and shared their experiences which was very useful as well as interesting. I wish we related real life situations to the different tools that were provided. Overall, I enjoyed these workshops and learned a lot of relevant, useful information. I would definitely recommend this class to other students, but I think they should be interested in science.

***

As for the workshop’s strength, it really does provide avenues for engaging and learning how to create an environment for critical thinking within the classroom.

Another strength is that since different workshops were available, although most of the original group remained constant which was great in and of itself, it was also nice that new people were able to come in and join as well.

A final strength was that all four (although I could only participate in three) were led by different individuals who might not have had the same teaching styles, thus allowing us an opportunity to experience different viewpoints when teaching and reflecting.

The weakness would lie in that most of the discussions were primarily focused on the older students’ learning which meant that I had to find ways of incorporating similar ideas into a more primary (elementary) level for use in an upper elementary setting.

***

I am constantly trying to find ways to A) excite students about science and B)access their thinking skills and C) deepen the thinking skills they already have.

PBL, concept mapping (w/Steve), and all of the practical and paper methods for research and developing problems have given me new ways to achieve all three of the above. I am now looking at all my materials currently used as well as materials being developed through these lenses and am working hard to incorporate the spirit as well as the methods to improve my teaching of inquiry.

All three fit together well (as demonstrated through Steve’s concept map) and provided a better understanding of what it means to teach science.

***

The objective of this workshop was to learn how to think about science creatively and critically. The course involved students working in groups and sharing ideas. Students looked at new ways to use science and issues relating science to their students. It let the participants develop their lessons using the introduced practices. Participants were all to gain new insights into science and teaching and practice their "new philosophies."

***

Self-evaluation: My revised goals were met. Initially, I thought that the course/seminars were going to be more content based, but I was remarkably surprised at how these theoretical topics were useful to me personally

Advice to prospective students: Workshop format classes are very productive and stimulatiing, I feel. It provides an opportunity to share and learn not only from professors, but from each other as well. I would advise preospective students to come prepared to actively participateand reflect on the topics can or do impact you or your stiuation. Be open!

General evaluation: I really had no prior expectations. My attitude changed regarding the class when I felt or understood the relevence of the topics were meeting my needs and expectations. I think that having different instructors was an extremely positive aspect of the workshop. I loved the layout/overall attitude and freedom to accept or reject ideas.

***

Self-evaluation: For the most part I did achieve my goals, which were realistic about getting a "start" on the project. I was aware that it was generally geared to middle and secondary levels and was looking for a valid perspective on the science aspects of my lessons.

Advice to prospective students: Topics must be engaging and apply to varying individual interests. It is better not top present a pre-set agenda. Sitting too long dulls the thinking process.

General evaluation: Probablyy because of the limited 2-day format, I didn’t get as many plans for instruction under control as I had hoped. As always, the diversity of the group is a strong positive.

Commentary on goals met from course description: The course accompllished its intent to shift the method of instruction in Science Ed. and (re)awaken the relationship between science and society.