Science education

Internationally much attention is being paid to which of a seemingly endless list of scientific concepts should be taught to schoolchildren to enable them to best participate in the global economy of the 21st Century. In regards to science education, the concepts framing the subject of geology holds exalted status as core scientific principles in the Earth and space sciences domain across the globe. Economic geology plays a critical role in the global economy, historical geology guides research into predictions related by global climate change, and environmental geology helps policy makers understand the impact of human enterprises on the land, among many other geological sciences-laden domains. Such a situation begs the question of which geology concepts are being advocated in schools. Within the U.S. where there is no nationally adopted curriculum, careful comparative analysis reveals surprisingly little consensus among policy makers and education reform advocates about which geology concepts, if any, should be included in the curriculum. This lack of consensus manifests itself in few traditional or modern geology concepts being taught to U.S. school children.

The authors use an action research (AR) approach in a collegiate studio physics class to investigate the power of partnerships via conferences as they relate to issues of establishing a student/mentor rapport, empowering students to reduce inequity, and the successes and barriers to hearing students’ voices. The graduate teaching assistant (TA, Author 1) conducted one-on-one conferences with 29 students, elicited student opinions about the progress of the course, and talked with faculty, TAs, and an undergraduate supplemental instructor for other sections of the course. At the end of the semester, the students reported increased knowledge of the TA as a person and as an instructor, and vice versa. Sixty-five percent of students reported no interest in changing circumstances to make it easier to talk about personal concerns with the TA. College students reluctantly voiced their opinions about the course, possibly due to the power structure of the classroom. Other TAs in the department expressed mostly disinterest in the project, while faculty members were interested in student learning but skeptical of student empowerment. A case study of one student is presented, wherein his attendance improved in the course and he received additional help outside class, both possibly as a result of the student/TA conferences. Students in this studio physics section were more likely to interact directly with faculty or TAs during lectures, but less likely to do so during lab sessions, than were students in a non-studio physics section.

[Final abstract above; file is pre-print]