The October 2009 issue of Physics Today has an informative and worthwhile summary of efforts to replicate Hake-style physics-education research within the Astro 101 domain.
I really this webspace has turned into an abandonblog, but I'll try to be better about updating.
Physics Today, the trade magazine/journal for physicists has an October feature on astronomy education. Ed Prather and Gina Brissenden, of the Center for Astronomy Education, along with Alexander Rudolph, are the authors of "Teaching and learning astronomy in the 21st century:"
Teaching and learning astronomy in the 21st century
Phys. Today 62, 41 (2009)
http://link.aip.org/link/?PHTOAD/62/41/1
You'll need a subscription, or institutional access, to Physics Today in order to read the article. Like articles that have come before, this one provides motivation and rationale for the current arguments of using active-engagement methods in the classroom, and also for the climate of Astro 101 researchers and general community.
-Paul
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Astro Ed article in Physics Today
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Are you on the astrolrner listserve?
Astronomy educators have an email community, the astrolrner listserve, with whom they can discuss the teaching and learning issues of Astronomy 101. If you are an astronomy teacher, you should join!
At the risk of repeating information that many readers may know about, I wanted to make quick post about the astrolrner listserve, the email discussion group for astronomy teachers, hosted by the Center for Astronomy Education. It is a moderated listserve (full disclosure: currently guest moderated by myself), so all messages are on-topic and members never receive spam or unrelated email by subscribing. Like most listserves, you can opt for individual emails and receive each post as they come in, or you can receive a daily digest of messages.
Astrolrner has over seven-hundred members, and it goes through flurries of activity every couple weeks or so. I have found it to be a valuable resource, because it allows me to see what other teachers are doing in their classrooms. Other members often request help with a particular assignment, generally finding that someone has developed a similar activity. The discussion can be quite lively, and, since it is moderated, they remain civil and on-topic.
If you are an astronomy teacher, then you should join astrolrner.
Ethics in Astro Ed Research
Brogt, et al, have completed a series of articles for Astronomy Education Review on ethical considerations while conducting astronomy education research. The articles help researchers become familiar with IRB processes, and the legalese behind researching students. The final article proposes a set of guidelines for our own field of astro ed.
Erik Brogt and his collaborators have written a series of three articles in Astronomy Education Review that not only detail the research ethics of studying students, but also present guidelines for the astronomy education research community. I think any researcher studying student learning of astronomy can benefit from reading these articles, regardless of whether or not there is intent to publish.
Regulations and Ethical Considerations for Astronomy Education Research, from July 2007, provides an overview of human subject research. The article applies this overview to astro ed research.
Regulations and Ethical Considerations for Astronomy Education Research II: Resources and Worked Examples, from January 2008, details the processes of an Institutional Research Board (IRB), and gives ethics considerations for several example astro ed research studies.
Regulations and Ethical Considerations for Astronomy Education Research III: A Suggested Code of Ethics, from November 2008, completes the series, giving a proposed set of ethical guidelines that astronomy education researchers should follow.
The guidelines are not dissimilar from other fields, but since our field is relatively young, I think having them specifically listed provides a good example for future research.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Physics (and Astronomy) by Inquiry
This summer, I experienced first-hand the Physics by Inquiry (PbI) curriculum. Here, I give my thoughts on it, and describe a plan to use the PbI astronomy modules in my Astro 101 course.
This summer, I began work in the Master of Science in Science Education (MSSE) program at Montana State University. Two of my on-campus summer courses were out of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum. One course focused on electric circuits, and the other focused on light, color, and geometric optics. Even with my background in physics and astronomy, I learned a great deal of physics in these courses.
Physics by Inquiry (PbI) is the product of decades of research by Lillian McDermott and the Physics Education Group (PEG) at the University of Washington. The curriculum is completely learner-centered, in that there is essentially no lecturing at all. Students work in collaborative groups on observations, experiments and exercises. The activities were designed to help students confront common misconceptions and see that other, more accurate explanations are needed. The activities lead the students to develop accurate and mature scientific models of the phenomenon being studied. For example, in my four-week course, I think I learned more about basic circuits than I did with the more abstract and mathematical approach I had as an undergraduate physics major. The circuits module breaks the topic into two models: current and voltage. By the end of the module, students have two models they can use to analyze any basic situation with circuits (pre-RC circuits).
By the end of the two courses, I had become enamored of the curriculum. I started to wonder why all introductory physics courses aren't using it. The answer, without getting into other, more historical and political, reasons, is logistics. McDermott and the PEG recommend a student-to-teacher ratio of 7:1, so a course with 200 students becomes too unwieldy even for a teacher with two or three TAs. My own courses have no more than 36 students in them, and I would still need a TA or two to help answer student questions and check on groups so that incorrect models and misconceptions don't form.
PbI has two astronomy modules. Astronomy by Sight: The Sun, Moon, and Stars builds models for the path of the Sun (Daily motion, with some seasonal change), phases of the Moon, and daily motion of the stars. Astronomy by Sight: The Earth and Solar System leads into yearly variation of the Sun and stars on the celestial sphere. What I love about the modules is that they are completely based on long-term observations that students make themselves.
Because of the long-term nature of the modules, and the fact that I have no teaching assistants, there is no easy way for me to implement the astronomy curriculum in the lecture sections of my Astro 101 courses. However, my Astro 101 course has a weekly lab associated with it. Because the labs are significantly smaller than the lecture sections, the students/teacher ratio is improved. Lab would be an appropriate venue for the inquiry approach. This fall, I think I am going to experiment with the modules and see how they work with my community college students. My suspicion is that the activities will blend well into the course. With this radical departure from my traditional lab format, I will also change the order of topics in my lectures. Historically, I had always started with naked-eye astronomy, with students doing the lecture tutorials on the celestial sphere first in the semester. With the inquiry modules being worked in lab, I think it will be beneficial to move the celestial sphere discussion to last in the semester, so that students approach the abstract tutorials with models they have built themselves over the course of many weeks.
If any Teaching Astronomy readers have experience with the PbI astronomy modules, please comment here with your insights.
Paul Robinson
Westchester Community College
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Textbook or No Textbook
Textbook or No Textbook
The question of if and which textbook often comes up among astronomy teachers and the opinions range pretty widely – when opinions range widely, I love to get into the frey, so here goes my $0.02.
Most folks who have moved away from textbooks entirely face a pretty serious problem in that the professor and the professor’s notes become the sole source of knowledge and expertise in the class. Sure students CAN go look up stuff and get another perspective, but my sense is that they don’t. So, the result is an implicit and sizeable pressure for students to memorize what professors say (or type) and that is what they are able to answer on exams: professors feel a sizeable pressure to only ask questions about what they specifically talk about in class. For my money, this is a lose – lose bet. Seems to me that the professor’s job should be about linking students’ thinking to the ideas of astronomy, not about delivering the ideas in their entirety.
Some folks have tried using trade books or coffee table books or extensive fact-based web sites. Although these are attractive, particularly in how they are illustrated, they lack the tried-and-true pedagogical tools that many, many students, publishers, and authors have worked through and tried to perfect over the years – explicitly stated learning goals, headings to structure student thinking, end of chapter summaries with review questions, and, gasp, even bold faced words to help focus student attention. I’m not saying that these things are perfect and are not often overused, BUT, what I would say is that these pedagogical clues are important enough to student readers that having them in a textbook is more important than the pretty pictures and pedagogy-less writing of coffee table books.
So, for my money, I think using a textbook is an important part of the introductory science survey course. Yes, they are expensive, but in the grand scheme of things that go into a college education, they really aren’t. My most convincing evidence is that the $35 that students pay for the Lecture-Tutorials seems outrageous for a “works book” BUT, students rarely complain because they really, really use the book as part of their learning and they find it valuable. If students felt that the astronomy textbook helped them learn the material and they found it valuable, they wouldn’t care if it cost $200 (of course, if you haven’t looked at the half priced e-books for students as an option, you should – they are getting really good!). I think the problem that most astronomy faculty face related to textbooks is simply OPERATOR ERROR. If professors never ask students to be responsible for learning from the textbook without the instructor repeating or, even worse, and I’ve seen it, reading from the textbook during lecture, then why would students ever think a textbook is valuable. This problem is much more well documented in physics than astronomy, where many physics professors don’t’ use the textbook for anything other than problems at the end of the chapter. Eric Mazur says that, even at Harvard, students won’t read unless you require it of them. I think this applies no matter what your student demographic is (I say this for those who are about to say, “but my community college students couldn’t possibly read the book” – I don’t see any truly convincing evidence of this – readability on astronomy books show that many are at pre-high school level nowadays)
Now, my opinion is that students should be required to learn from the textbook and that portions of exams should be allocated to material from the textbook that is NOT covered in lecture. I don’t want to spend my valuable class time telling them facts they can read in a much more precise and attractive language than I can “say” during class time.
I will take this opportunity of a bully pulpit to comment on students using Wikipedia (since you’ve read this far). Numerous studies have been done on the likes of Wikipedia which almost always come to the same conclusion--the community checking nature of it results in a higher accuracy rate than even the most traditionally respected of resources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica or even your astronomy textbook. Therefore, I’m perfectly comfortable allowing students to use Wikipedia as a resource – the research clearly shows that it is as accurate as their textbook, if not more so. However, I recognize that some faculty are loathe to allow students to use Wikipedia, partially because they hate to deal with the click copy paste approach many students use and partially because it seems too convenient and students should have to go to the library to do research. (Of course, I’m trying to remember the last time I had to leave my computer to go to the library to look up something – them days are over methinks.) I am more inclined to give students creative writing assignments that click-copy-paste won’t work for.
Enjoying Laramie, Tim
Tim Slater, University of Wyoming Excellence in Higher Education Endowed Professor of Science Education, timslaterwyo@gmail.com
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Job Announcement: Editor, Astronomy Education Review
Job Announcement: Editor, Astronomy Education Review
2000 Florida Avenue, NWSuite 400
Washington, DC 20009
Email Submission Address: timslaterwyo@gmail.com
(subject line: AER Editor Search)
Applications will be reviewed starting June 15 and will continue until position is filled.
Attention: Tim Slater, Chair, AER Editor Search Committee
The American Astronomical Society is soliciting applications and nominations of candidates for the position of Editor of the Astronomy Education Review (AER). This person will replace the current Editor, Sidney Wolff, who is stepping down at the end of 2008. The AER is internationally known as the pre-eminent scholarly journal in astronomy education and research, and the new Editor will be responsible for enhancing the excellence of the Journal. The AAS Council has selected a Search Committee to fill this position, chaired by its Education Officer, Tim Slater.
The Search Committee has identified the following qualifications that must be satisfied by the successful applicant:
1. Recognized stature and achievement in astronomy and/or science education.
2. Experience with diplomatic management of peers, staff, or students.
3. A clear vision for the future of the AER.
4. Familiarity with budgets.
5. Experience as a referee.
6. Previous editorial experience would be useful but is not required.
The Editor is responsible for building and maintaining a cadre of referees and assigns most manuscripts submitted to the referees, assesses the referee's reports and recommends the papers for publication. The Editor is responsible for maintaining the efficient and timely flow of manuscripts.
As part of this process, this person will also:
1. Actively recruit authors and referees.
2. Interface with the AAS Journals Manager.
3. Participate in the establishment and management of the Journal Budget.
4. Report to the Publications Board and the AAS Council on the status of the AER.
The Society expects to compensate the Editor at roughly $10,000 per year paid as a stipend (or other arrangements as negotiated) and performance will be reviewed annually by the publications board. No additional infrastructure will be provided. Specific questions about the historical operations of the journal to date can be addressed to Sidney Wolff, swolff@noao.edu .
Candidates for this position should submit a cover letter, CV, bibliography, and names and contact information of three references to Tim Slater, Chair of the AER Editor Search Committee, at the above address. Email submission of PDF files is encouraged to timslaterwyo@gmail.com using AER Editor Search as subject line.
Nominations for the position may also be sent to the same address.
Selected candidates will be asked to provide evidence of institutional support for their assuming the above editorial duties.
The cover letter should address the candidate's qualifications, reason for interest in the position, and ideas for the operation, management, and future of the AER. In accordance with the Bylaws of the Society,the Search Committee will make its recommendations to the AAS Publications Board and AAS Council. The final selection is made by the Council. Applications and nominations received by 15 June 2008 will be givenfull consideration. AAE/EOE.
The current website of the Astronomy Education Review is http://aer.noao.edu/.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Galaxy Collisions in the Classroom
The internet not only lets you show your students images of galaxy collisions, but it also let you simulate the events.
Around this time of the semester, I am covering galaxies, large-scale structure, and cosmology. The other day, the folks at the HST released a wonderful webpage filled with the best Hubble images of galaxy collisions I have ever seen. Scroll to the bottom of that page to see links to the individual images.
Showing pretty pictures in class is one way to interest students. When it comes to colliding galaxies, you don't have to just show the static pictures though. Some astronomers at CWRU and the University of Oregon have developed a web-based applet, called GalCrash, that simulates the dynamics of colliding galaxies. You can choose many different parameters for the simulation, including number of stars and mass, etc.
What I like about this applet is that you can run a simulation and achieve a result that is similar to the morphology shown in the actual images of galaxy collisions. Just pause the applet and show the comparison to students! I think it's a neat way to connect physical theory with observations.
~Paul Robinson
