Syllabus for Seminar in Physics Education - Fall 2008
Science Educational Theory and Practice
Class Web Site: http://www.fiu.edu/~kramerl/Teaching/3012F08/
|
Instructors: |
Eric Brewe |
ZEB 259A |
Office Hours: |
|
(305) 348-3507 |
|||
|
Eric.Brewe at fiu.edu |
|
||
Laird Kramer |
CP 211 |
Office Hours: 1:00 - 3:00 pm, TR |
|
(305) 348-6073 |
|||
Laird.Kramer at fiu.edu |
http://www.fiu.edu/~kramerl |
||
|
Jorge Gibert |
VH 166 |
Office Hours: |
(305) 348-XXXX |
|||
Jorge.Gibert at fiu.edu |
|
Course Description
The course will touch on theoretical issues such as conceptual development, conceptual change, collaborative learning, technology in education, and students’ conceptions of various topics in physics, as well as practical issues encountered in facilitating learning, managing the classroom, formative and summative assessment, and differentiating instruction in a collaborative environment. This is a seminar course where students are responsible for weekly readings (in lieu of a course textbook), in-class discussions, reflection papers and project presentations all based on the Learning Assistant placements.
COURSE ORGANIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS
Course Description
This course is a seminar, and its success will depend on the active participation of all members in helping to shape its ultimate content and relevance. Our primary activity will be in-depth discussions of course topics and readings. Requirements include the following:
Email List: A class mailing list has been established. You are required to maintain contact with the list as important announcements will be made through the list. You are encouraged to post questions, answers, jokes, etc to the list. we will monitor the list and provide guidance when appropriate. You have been subscribed to the list through your FIU email account. You should have received an email with details including the location of the list archive. You may add or change the email account by contacting your instructor. You may also forward email from your FIU account to any other account. Note that the list is a closed list; therefore, all messages must come from a currently subscribed address.
Grading:
The grading breakdown is:
Participation |
25% |
Article Reflections |
25% |
Web Reflections |
25% |
Final Project |
25% |
Course Outline / Reading List*
Week / Date |
Topic |
Reading (have read by this day) |
1: Aug 28 |
Equity, Gender and Sexual Harassment Training |
Fennema, E. (1993). Gender equity for mathematics and science. Paper presented at the conference of the Woodrow Wilson, Leadership Program for Teachers, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Princeton, NJ. |
2: Sept 4 |
Discussion Techniques and Questioning Strategies: Dialogic versus Univocal; Formative Assessment |
Knuth and Peressini (2001). Unpacking the Nature of Discourse in Mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5) pp. 320-325. |
3: Sept 11 |
Learning Theory and Cognitive Science in Mathematics and Science Education; Formative Assessment |
Redish, E. (1994), Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics; American Journal of Physics, (62) 9. |
4: Sept 18 |
Questioning and Discussion and Managing the Cooperative Classroom |
Trowbridge, Bybee, Powell (2000). Questioning and Discussion, Prentice Hall, Chapter 12. |
5: Sept 25 |
Student Epistemology its effects on learning strategies; Instructor impact on student epistemology |
Hammer, D. (1994), Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics; Cognition and Instruction, (12) 2. |
6: Oct 2 |
Learning Cycles in Mathematics and Science |
Lawson, A.E., Renner, J.W. (1975), Piagetian theory and biology teaching; American Biology Teacher, (37) 6. |
7: Oct 9 |
Metacognition and Argumentation |
Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What’s All the Fuss About Metacognition?, In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.) Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 189-215. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodrigues, A., Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in High School Genetics, Science Education, 84 757-792. |
8: Oct 16 |
Self-Explanations and Tutoring: The Collaborative Construction of Knowledge |
Chi, M.H. (1996). Constructing Self-Explanations and Scaffolded Explanations in Tutoring, Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, S33-S49. VanLehn, K., Siler, S., and Murray, C. (2003). Why Do Only Some Events Course Learning During Human Tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209-249. Chi, M.H., Siler, S. and Jeong, H. (2004). Can Tutors Monitor Students’ Understanding Accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 363-387. |
9: Oct 23 |
Multiple Intelligences, Student Differences and Differentiated Instruction |
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999), The Differentiated Classroom, Washington D.C.: ASCD. Armstrong, T. (2000). MI and Cognitive Skills. In Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom 2nd Ed. ASCD. |
10: Oct 30 |
Cooperative Learning and The Nature of Science/The Nature of Mathematics |
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. (1999), Making cooperative learning work; Theory into Practice, (38) 2. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A. (1998), Cooperative learning returns to college; Change (98) 4. Lederman, N.G. (1998), The state of science education: Subject matter without context; Electronic Journal of Science, (3) 2 |
11: Nov 6 |
Teaching with Technology; Technology and Student-Centered Instruction |
Hooper, S., Rieber, L.P. (1995), Teaching with technology. In A.C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into Practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. |
12: Nov 13 |
Recruitment Open House |
JILA 10th Floor: You will be present to speak with LA recruits about your experiences teaching. |
13: Nov 20 |
The development of student conceptions from K-12 and the NRC Standards and AAAS Benchmarks; Summative Assessment and Learning Gains |
Investigate the AAAS Project 2061 Website http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolintro. htm and the NRC National Science education standards website http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html |
14: Dec 4 |
Qualities of effective teaching |
Stronge, J.H., (2002), Qualities of Effective Teachers; Washington D.C.: ASCD. |
15: Dec 9 |
Poster Session |
Final Poster Projects |
In order to foster cooperation and collaboration among as many of you as possible, grades will based on an absolute scale. This means that helping others will not jeopardize your grades, it will, most likely, improve your grade as explaining concepts to other develops understanding for yourself. The grading scale for both lecture and lab sections is:
|
Grade: |
Minimum Average: |
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
B+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|