1. What are the three dimensions of the framework and explain them in your own words.
The first is Science and Engineering practices. I would define them pretty much the way the frame work does. Science is about knowledge/discovery of the "universe" around us and coming up with a systematic way to investigate it and tell others. Engineering takes that knowledge and finds some useful application. These are just two poles and whole continuum in-between.
"Cross Cutting" concepts that unify science and engineering. This is probably that is the most fuzzy to me. Is it how each uses a given topic say electricity or given the scientific study of these concepts engineers used this concept to make something?
The third section is the major core ares of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Earth and Space, and Engineering/Technological Applications. This is more the nuts and bolts part that says theory of the atom here, the fluid mosaic model of the cell, solar radiation, and so on and what generalities can be made. It is than up to whomever develops the curriculum to aim it at appropriate levels of instruction.
2. What do you take away as the major goals?
The major goal was to update something that is as old as my high school diploma. The second goal was to put something out that is in line with the standards that are being written primarily in math and English language arts for the "Common Core".
3. Which "Principles" (from pages 24 - 28) are most relevant to you and why?
Science and Engineering require both practice and knowledge. Through the practice one gains knowledge. To further the practice one must apply the knowledge. This also was my past adult life up until this point. Its a tightly wound paradox that you have to know some of the rules, and then begin. Once you begin, you find there is plenty of help to get you to increase your level of competency in both.
4. Other questions, interests, notes, etc...
When I first heard about this last fall I was at the Iowa Science Teacher's Conference in Ames. The faculty from the other regents universities were freaking out. They were taking away science to teach engineering. We/I aren't engineers. I understand how engineers take what I did as a scientist and apply it (same with doctors, dentists, pharmacists etc). And I'm not saying I wouldn't have mentioned the relationship on my own, but it all comes at a cost. If you put something in, you have to take something out. The resource in this case is limited and it can't all be crammed in. This troubles me despite the frame work saying it's only the relationship.
The other thing is that while I'm for a literate society that appreciates all aspects of a culture from science to art/music, history etc, a goal shouldn't be to produce more of some occupation X to fulfill some jobs. I can honestly say that I have heard all my life that we need more scientists and engineers. If we were so desperate for them as workers I would not be in this program.
No comments:
Post a Comment