Like Sarah, my favorite high school class was also Chem 2, and one particular unit will stick with me forever for a bunch of different reasons. During the Redox reaction unit, our teacher had us all pair up and recreate our choice of redox reactions in lab. The catch was that this was the first time we would receive no direct instruction aside from a pretty rigorous safety plan on what to do. Basically, we picked a reaction and our teacher said “go”. My partner and I picked Tannerite, a dangerous explosive (like this if you are unfamiliar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XW2A0BLUN4). We had to figure out the chemical reaction, figure out which parts oxidize and reduce and all the paper work Chem stuff, but we also had to be scientists to figure all of it out. We had to make prototype mixes and revisions not because we had to for the grade, but because we had to make it work, and knowing the kind of teacher he was, it was entirely intentional. Within this short memory I see a ton of learning theory working in this classroom. We as students had to engage in authentic science activity; we researched a phenomenon that we thought was cool and executed it. At the end of the unit each group presented their work, and looking back, it resembled a jigsaw method. However, the best part about that class was the community by far. Most of us would hang out in the chem lab during lunch or free time and many of those times pushed me to want to be a scientist in some capacity, but my teacher facilitated all of it. A couple of class communities brought benefits to me as a student, and I want to extend that as a teacher.
Now that I have seen behind the learning theory curtain I have been able to kind of assess what the teacher/prof had in mind when designing the lesson. Its no secret that Scott runs on a sociocultural mindset, and he conducts his classes accordingly. I’ve started to see the connection between Scott’s class methods and theory, but I can’t really understand why the schooling I have been through justified the way they taught. Specifically, why throw 300 students in a quantum physics lecture when 1.) the likelihood of using this information across most MechEng jobs is rather low, and 2.) the method of delivery makes learning mildly interesting at best and downright discouraging at worst? I understand that finances are at play and likely have something to do with it which complicates things, but is it the view of a cognitivist to stand and deliver style lecture all the time? With the complexity of things I doubt the answer is a yes or no, but I wish I had a better understanding of cognitivists and their justification of their class procedures.
Finally, I want to show my appreciation for this class and everyone in it. I have taken my fair share of very hard classes in the engineering school world, but the content and delivery of this class really challenged my thinking about plenty of things aside from learning theory. The more time I spend in an AST style classroom the more I begin to understand it and appreciate the benefits of it. Thank you all.
Hey Mitch, I really enjoyed reading your final blog post. The example you provided from your chem class was quite interesting and was a good example of an activity that utilized authentic science practices. I too also struggled to understand how or why large lecture classes justify that style of education, and would like to understand it better from a cognitivist perspective. I enjoyed having this class with you and look forward to working together again in the future.