This one is offered by the American Museum of Natural History in New York and advertises as a course for educators. Compared to University of Illinois' Planet Earth... And You! it's a lot lighter on the time commitment needed to watch videos. I assume this is part of the appeal for educators. It's Term 2 in Australia and Term 4 in America - both very busy times in the school year.
The topics so far have been about Geologic Time and Earth's Early Atmosphere. I'm constantly struck by questions which, coming from a chemistry background, I'm surprised that I've never thought to consider. For example, when was oxygen created? And what caused it to build up in Earth's atmosphere? I knew what banded iron formations were, but had no idea they could be used as evidence that early Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere... In fact, that seemed contradictory!
Not being particularly experienced in Earth Science, hence one of the reasons to take the course, the language is new to me. The facilitators mention Archean and Proterozoic Eons which have no meaning for someone interested in industrial chemistry - a long time for a reaction might be several hours. I find myself trawling Google to work out just how long ago these eons occurred. This isn't a criticism for the course, in fact, as an adult I feel a great sense of success when I can work it out. Let's teach our students about struggling to succeed.
The course facilitators not only provide interesting material about Earth Science but also link it to the American Next Generation Science Standards, giving me a professional learning opportunity which speaks to pedagogy. I find myself considering the Science strands for the National Curriculum in Australia while learning more about the American system. Of particular interest are 2 points from the 8 important practices for students outlined in these standards:
- Engaging in argument from evidence
- Using mathematics and computational thinking
I don't think it's a stretch to say that expert teachers agree these practices are essential, but from my experience, these 2 points are often tacit and perhaps not brought to the forefront when engaging students in Science.
When visiting any Science class, there is always the student who occasionally laments 'Why are we doing Math now?' Let's pause and have a discussion about mathematics being the grammar of the language of Science. Similarly, you might hear students query about why we are taking measurements and others' responding 'To make a graph!' But, what do those graphs and other forms of data organisation tell us? How are we able to better contribute to society when we can form arguments from evidence? These are the conversations that need to happen in Science classrooms.
Finally, as a researcher, I find myself wondering what the best way is to pitch geological concepts. I've been reading a PhD thesis completed in 2010 in which different forms of thinking about Geoscience are highlighted in the lit review. On the one hand, there is a school of thought that believes a focus on the physical aspects are the most important. For example, rocks and minerals, plate tectonics and the structure of the Earth. On the other hand there is Earth Systems Science, of importance is understanding the interlinked processes related to Earth and surrounding atmosphere. Planet Earth...And You! fell into the former category whereas Dynamic Earth addresses the latter. Although learning about systems apparently requires cognitive stretches beyond those of studying physical structures, I find myself at a cross roads to deciding which I would rather study as part of my own research...
In conclusion, and a weak one at that - it is very late, it seems that although not all MOOCs are created equally, there is still much for the engaged student to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment