EDCI 670: Research on Learning and Teaching in the Sciences  (Formally titled "Trends in School Curriculum: Science")
Mondays 4:15 - 7:00 PM, Room 0207 Tawes

Instructor:  David Hammer
Offices:  1310 Physics and 2226 Benjamin
Contact:  301 405-8188; davidham@umd.edu
Office hours:  12-1 Mondays in the food coop!  Or by appointment.

This is the entry-level graduate course for students interested in research on learning and teaching in science.  This year, for all sorts of reasons, is a tough year, and among other things that has us trying to limit enrollment in this course.  That’s the reason for the departmental permission in the registration process.  Speak to me if you need permission.  
    Planning the course, I’ve had several interwoven goals in mind.  The first, and probably foremost, is to introduce you to research on learning in the sciences. This goal has lots of sub-parts; I think of it as divided roughly into research on knowledge, on reasoning, on epistemologies (which we’ll define), and on participation  (for that one I’m having trouble picking the best word for now, but you’ll see.)  A second, pretty closely related goal is that you get some practice at recognizing and interpreting the substance of student thinking, as evident in what students say and do.  
    We’ll pursue those goals through readings from the literature, through your own investigations into student thinking, in what we’ll call “interviews” as well as in some analyses of videos I’ll present in class, and finally through a course project due at the end of the semester.     
    But I’ve also got a goal of our rethinking what it means to understand and reason in science.  What is “science,” that we hope students to learn?  If you’re in this course, the assumption is that you have some expertise in some area of science — what does that mean?  The in-practice answer in much of education is that “science” is the body of knowledge scientists have produced — the stuff of the table of contents in textbooks — and that’s what you “have” as experts.  I hope to challenge that answer.  The readings will speak to this, in various ways, but I’d like to bring some first-hand experience into the matter.  So we’re going to spend time over the semester talking about questions in science, batting around ideas, much like we’ll be asking students to do. That will be fodder for us to think about what it means to know and do science.     
    And finally I have a goal of our rethinking what it means to teach.  Notice the emphasis in this course is mainly learning, but we can’t separate that topic from teaching.   In 770, the sequel, it will be the other way around.  This course is “learning and teaching” and that one’s “teaching and learning.”  
    That’s all in planning, but teaching in this or other contexts doesn't typically go as planned.  Teachers find out new things along the way — at least if we’re paying attention! — and as we do, our goals can shift.  

In sum, you’ll be required to do the following:

• Read one or two articles per week from research in science and math education;
• Participate regularly in discussions;
• Come up with some questions in your discipline and conduct interviews about them;
• Write up analyses of the subjects' understanding and reasoning in three of these interviews (roughly 5 pages each), and present these results in class;
• Read and assess other students' interview analyses;
• Prepare a final project, to include a paper and presentation.

Grades:  Grades will be based on written work and on participation in discussions.  It’s subjective, no question, which is no doubt something we’ll discuss at some point.  I’m supposed to have a little table of percentages summarizing numerically how much each part of the course is worth, I guess thinking that I’m going to give points for different parts and then add them up…  It’s misleading and, I think, deeply wrong, in the illusion it creates of objectivity.  (Or, in the very worst cases, it all is objective, which requires that it’s superficial.)   The truth is that we don’t know how to quantify quality in a substantive, meaningful way for a course like this, and I don’t think we should pretend that we do.  When I teach large lecture courses, I base grades on points and a spreadsheet calculating course totals, because I can’t think of any other way to manage.  But in a course this size, I get to have my own direct experience of you.  I’ll base grades on my subjective, professional judgment of your work, and you’ll get plenty of feedback from me reflecting that judgment!  

Special accommodations:  If at any time you feel that it would be more beneficial to your education to do something differently in the course, please say something!  This, of course, includes appropriate accommodations for disabilities as well as religious holidays.
 
Course wiki and files:  Go to courses.umd.edu and log in.  That’s going to be the main way I distribute readings for the course, where you'll post assignments, our main place outside of class for communication.  There won’t be a textbook.