8 resultados para Debates and Debating--Students
em Digital Commons - Michigan Tech
Resumo:
There is ample evidence of a longstanding and pervasive discourse positioning students, and engineering students in particular, as “bad writers.” This is a discourse perpetuated within the academy, the workplace, and society at large. But what are the effects of this discourse? Are students aware faculty harbor the belief students can’t write? Is student writing or confidence in their writing influenced by the negative tone of the discourse? This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that a discourse disparaging student writing exists among faculty, across disciplines, but particularly within the engineering disciplines, as well as to identify the reach of that discourse through the deployment of two attitudinal surveys—one for students, across disciplines, at Michigan Technological University and one for faculty, across disciplines at universities and colleges both within the United States and internationally. This project seeks to contribute to a more accurate and productive discourse about engineering students, and more broadly, all students, as writers—one that focuses on competencies rather than incompetence, one that encourages faculty to find new ways to characterize students as writers, and encourages faculty to recognize the limits of the utility of practitioner lore.
Resumo:
Writing centers work with writers; traditionally services have been focused on undergraduates taking composition classes. More recently, centers have started to attract a wider client base including: students taking labs that require writing; graduate students; and ESL students learning the conventions of U.S. communication. There are very few centers, however, which identify themselves as open to working with all members of the campus-community. Michigan Technological University has one such center. In the Michigan Tech writing center, doors are open to “all students, faculty and staff.” While graduate students, post docs, and professors preparing articles for publication have used the center, for the first time in the collective memory of the center UAW staff members requested center appointments in the summer of 2008. These working class employees were in the process of filling out a work related document, the UAW Position Audit, an approximately seven-page form. This form was their one avenue for requesting a review of the job they were doing; the review was the first step in requesting a raise in job level and pay. This study grew out of the realization that implicit literacy expectations between working class United Auto Workers (UAW) staff and professional class staff were complicating the filling out and filing of the position audit form. Professional class supervisors had designed the form as a measure of fairness, in that each UAW employee on campus was responding to the same set of questions about their work. However, the implicit literacy expectations of supervisors were different from those of many of the employees who were to fill out the form. As a result, questions that were meant to be straightforward to answer were in the eyes of the employees filling out the form, complex. Before coming to the writing center UAW staff had spent months writing out responses to the form; they expressed concerns that their responses still would not meet audience expectations. These writers recognized that they did not yet know exactly what the audience was expecting. The results of this study include a framework for planning writing center sessions that facilitate the acquisition of literacy practices which are new to the user. One important realization from this dissertation is that the social nature of literacy must be kept in the forefront when both planning sessions and when educating tutors to lead these sessions. Literacy scholars such as James Paul Gee, Brian Street, and Shirley Brice Heath are used to show that a person can only know those literacy practices that they have previously acquired. In order to acquire new literacy practices, a person must have social opportunities for hands-on practice and mentoring from someone with experience. The writing center can adapt theory and practices from this dissertation that will facilitate sessions for a range of writers wishing to learn “new” literacy practices. This study also calls for specific changes to writing center tutor education.
Resumo:
The Modeling method of teaching has demonstrated well--‐documented success in the improvement of student learning. The teacher/researcher in this study was introduced to Modeling through the use of a technique called White Boarding. Without formal training, the researcher began using the White Boarding technique for a limited number of laboratory experiences with his high school physics classes. The question that arose and was investigated in this study is “What specific aspects of the White Boarding process support student understanding?” For the purposes of this study, the White Boarding process was broken down into three aspects – the Analysis of data through the use of Logger Pro software, the Preparation of White Boards, and the Presentations each group gave about their specific lab data. The lab used in this study, an Acceleration of Gravity Lab, was chosen because of the documented difficulties students experience in the graphing of motion. In the lab, students filmed a given motion, utilized Logger Pro software to analyze the motion, prepared a White Board that described the motion with position--‐time and velocity--‐time graphs, and then presented their findings to the rest of the class. The Presentation included a class discussion with minimal contribution from the teacher. The three different aspects of the White Boarding experience – Analysis, Preparation, and Presentation – were compared through the use of student learning logs, video analysis of the Presentations, and follow--‐up interviews with participants. The information and observations gathered were used to determine the level of understanding of each participant during each phase of the lab. The researcher then looked for improvement in the level of student understanding, the number of “aha” moments students had, and the students’ perceptions about which phase was most important to their learning. The results suggest that while all three phases of the White Boarding experience play a part in the learning process for students, the Presentations provided the most significant changes. The implications for instruction are discussed.
Resumo:
The purpose of this project was to investigate the effect of using of data collection technology on student attitudes towards science instruction. The study was conducted over the course of two years at Madison High School in Adrian, Michigan, primarily in college preparatory physics classes, but also in one college preparatory chemistry class and one environmental science class. A preliminary study was conducted at a Lenawee County Intermediate Schools student summer environmental science day camp. The data collection technology used was a combination of Texas Instruments TI-84 Silver Plus graphing calculators and Vernier LabPro data collection sleds with various probeware attachments, including motion sensors, pH probes and accelerometers. Students were given written procedures for most laboratory activities and were provided with data tables and analysis questions to answer about the activities. The first year of the study included a pretest and posttest measuring student attitudes towards the class they were enrolled in. Pre-test and post-test data were analyzed to determine effect size, which was found to be very small (Coe, 2002). The second year of the study focused only on a physics class and used Keller’s ARCS model for measuring student motivation based on the four aspects of motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction (Keller, 2010). According to this model, it was found that there were two distinct groups in the class, one of which was motivated to learn and the other that was not. The data suggest that the use of data collection technology in science classes should be started early in a student’s career, possibly in early middle school or late elementary. This would build familiarity with the equipment and allow for greater exploration by the student as they progress through high school and into upper level science courses.
Resumo:
This research project measured the effects of real-world content in a science classroom by determining change (deep knowledge of life science content, including ecosystems from MDE – Grade Level Content Expectations) in a subset of students (6th Grade Science) that may result from the addition of curriculum (real-world content of rearing trout in the classroom). Data showed large gains from the pre-test to post-test in students from both the experimental and control groups. The ecology unit with the implementation of real-world content [trout] was even more successful, and improved students’ deep knowledge of ecosystem content from Michigan’s Department of Education Grade Level Content Expectations. The gains by the experimental group on the constructed response section of the test, which included higher cognitive level items, were significant. Clinical interviews after the post-test confirmed increases in deep knowledge of ecosystem concepts in the experimental group, by revealing that a sample of experimental group students had a better grasp of important ecology concepts as compared to a sample of control group students.
Resumo:
The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher. Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse.
Resumo:
The purpose of the study was to design, implement, and assess the effects of a teaching unit about fuel sources and chemical energy on students’ learning. The unit was designed to incorporate students’ experiences in a way that was aligned with the Michigan High School Content Expectations. The study was completed with all of the students taking General Chemistry in a rural Michigan high school in the 2010-11 school year. There were 138 participants total. The participants were mostly Caucasian and the majority were in the 11th grade. Of these, 77 constituted the experimental group and were taught the unit. The additional 61 participants in the control group were given the posttest only. Data was derived from the results of pre/post tests, final assessment projects, and the researcher’s observations. A pretest that contained questions about the fuel sources was administered at the beginning of the unit. An identical posttest was administered at the completion of the unit. A final assessment project required students to choose the best fuel source for the area, and support their opinion with facts and data from their research or the learning activities and labs performed in class. The results of the study revealed that the teaching unit did produce significant learning gains in the experimental group. The results also indicated that the teaching unit added value to the current General Chemistry curriculum by expanding what students were learning. The instructional goals of the unit were aligned with the Michigan High School Content Expectations. The results also revealed that the students were able to learn to support their thinking and decisions with explanations based on the data and labs. These are essential science literacy skills. The study supported the view that connecting the required curriculum with students’ experiences and interests was effective, and that students can learn important science literacy skills, such as providing support for arguments and communicating scientific explanations, when given adequate teacher support.
Resumo:
An international graduate teaching assistant‘s way of speaking may pose a challenge for college students enrolled in STEM courses at American universities. Students commonly complain that unfamiliar accents interfere with their ability to comprehend the IGTA or that they have difficulty making sense of the IGTA‘s use of words or phrasing. These frustrations are echoed by parents who pay tuition bills. The issue has provoked state and national legislative debates over universities‘ use of IGTAs. However, potentially productive debates and interventions have been stalemated due to the failure to confront deeply embedded myths and cultural models that devalue otherness and privilege dominant peoples, processes, and knowledge. My research implements a method of inquiry designed to identify and challenge these cultural frameworks in order to create an ideological/cultural context that will facilitate rather than impede the valuable efforts that are already in place. Discourse theorist Paul Gee‘s concepts of master myth, cultural models, and meta-knowledge offer analytical tools that I have adapted in a unique research approach emphasizing triangulation of both analytic methods and data sites. I examine debates over IGTA‘s use of language in the classroom among policy-makers, parents of college students, and scholars and teachers. First, the article "Teach Impediment" provides a particularly lucid account of the public debate over IGTAs. My analysis evidences the cultural hold of the master myth of monolingualism in public policy-making. Second, Michigan Technological University‘s email listserve Parentnet is analyzed to identify cultural models supporting monolingualism implicit in everyday conversation. Third, a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy forum is analyzed to explore whether scholars and teachers who draw on communication and linguistic research overcome the ideological biases identified in earlier chapters. My analysis indicates that a persistent ideological bias plays out in these data sites, despite explicit claims by invested speakers to the contrary. This bias is a key reason why monolingualism remains so tenaciously a part of educational practice. Because irrational expectations and derogatory assumptions have gone unchallenged, little progress has been made despite decades of earnest work and good intentions. Therefore, my recommendations focus on what we say not what we intend.