Synopsis / Review of "Improving How Universities Teach Science" by Carl Wieman

[Factotumjack]

This is a pair of posts of mine that seemed to fit well here, and I didn't see the boon reviewed in other posts. The book itself is a reflection on setting up novel science education systems in two North American Universities.

 

Part 1: Synopsis of the content

 

Part 2: Criticism, and comparison to another local program

Edited April 9, 2019 by Strange
Links deleted

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

This is a discussion forum. Not a place to advertise your blog. If you want to discuss the book, then do it here.

 

[DrP]

8 minutes ago, Factotumjack said:

Review of "Improving How Universities Teach Science" by Carl Wieman

Although this is clearly not the same... I always cringe a little at titles like this due to some guy I know at college years back.  He was disgruntled that his supervisor did not, in his opinion, give him enough guidance and support and help during his Masters/PhD research program. (imo - part of learning how to research ids going off and finding things out for yourself...  it's kind of the point).  Disgruntled by his perceived 'lack of support' from his supervisor he changed the title of his Ph.D. thesis to ' The failings of the supervisor in the staff student relationship during post graduate studies and further education'... or something like that. Needless to say his supervisor wasn't impressed and refused to help him with the that study at all. He failed his Viva and got an M.Phil for his troubles. I tried telling him that he wouldn't get any help with it as it was a clear dig at his supervisor, but he was only interested in complaining about her rather than listening to her.  He was the type that, although from a very privileged background, felt that absolutely everyone owed him some kind of effort to help him through his problems... which he kinda made for himself more often than not. Any attempt at constructive criticism was met with fierce objection and argument to the contrary. It was never his fault in his own mind... although to others the causes were clear as day.  I know this sounds horrible, but I am glad he didn't get a Ph.D. for his drivel.   

@ the OP:  How do you think science teaching should be changed at uni's then and why? What are the problems with the traditional ways that have seemed to work so well so far?

I think that some of the problems are due to the number of intakes now into unis (in the uk anyway).  It used to be that the top performing 2 to 5% went on to further education at degree level. Now the target is around 50%. I am not being mean, but how do expect the people in the 50- to 95% range to be able to keep up with the top performing 2 to 5%? If you change the teaching methods and dumb them down for the majority to follow then what do you do with the top 2 to 5 % that the institutions were meant to nurture in the first place?

 

 

[Strange]

Information about the book in question here: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674972070

Quote

Improving How Universities Teach Science draws on Wieman’s unparalleled experience to provide a blueprint for educators seeking sustainable improvements in science teaching. Wieman created the Science Education Initiative (SEI), a program implemented across thirteen science departments at the universities of Colorado and British Columbia, to support the widespread adoption of the best research-based approaches to science teaching. The program’s data show that in the most successful departments 90 percent of faculty adopted better methods. Wieman identifies what factors helped and hindered the adoption of good teaching methods. He also gives detailed, effective, and tested strategies for departments and institutions to measure and improve the quality of their teaching while limiting the demands on faculty time.

 

[Intrigued]

45 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think that some of the problems are due to the number of intakes now into unis (in the uk anyway).  It used to be that the top performing 2 to 5% went on to further education at degree level. Now the target is around 50%. I am not being mean, but how do expect the people in the 50- to 95% range to be able to keep up with the top performing 2 to 5%? If you change the teaching methods and dumb them down for the majority to follow then what do you do with the top 2 to 5 % that the institutions were meant to nurture in the first place?

This seems to me to be elitist and politically incorrect  . . . . . . and absolutely accurate.

Further, while teaching methods of the staff are important, of vastly greater importance are the learning methods of the students. Self motivation, commitment and persistence are major contributors to academic success. The reason the 2%-5% are at the top is that they have one or more of these attributes in abundance and have worked out how to learn. If we focused on developing those skills in all, then the teaching style of staff would be of even less importance.

Note: these are opinions and as such I can offer no research to justify them, though they are based not only on personal observation, but many opportunities to absorb conclusions of studies in the education field.