Diversity, Ways of Thinking, and Geology
At CIRTL we contend that diversity leads to improved learning experiences and better products. Part of this argument rests on the belief that by embracing a diversity of life experiences and perspectives we also embrace different ways of thinking and paths of synthesis. And those different ways of thinking can increase the possibility of new insights and understandings.
While this sounds plausible, the argument is strengthened by concrete examples. What are some “different ways of thinking” that are not often represented and are useful in the STEM disciplines?
Sara Titus and Eric Horsman, alumni CIRTL students from UW Madison (currently at Carleton College and East Carolina University, respectively), have given us a concrete example in their recent paper, Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills (Titus & Horsman, 2009). They argue that spatial visualization is important in many STEM fields and is rarely taught or tested for in the K-16 curricula. Titus and Horsmen provide examples within geology where this spatial visualization is critical to understanding of geological phenomena. They have documented a wide range of student abilities in spatial visualization in their geology classes. And they have documented that this skill can be taught. Right there, we have a powerful story: a kind of thinking, not generally taught or valued, necessary to understanding in geology, represented by a wide range of natural abilities, with the potential to be learned. While Titus and Horsman were not addressing issues of diversity in their paper, it seems to me to provide a strong example of why we embrace the idea that diversity of life experiences and perspectives can lead to different ways of thinking. And thus a more diverse classroom is going to offer more and fresher learning experiences for the students.
To explore the assertion that this type of spatial thinking can be taught, Titus and Horsman developed and tested classroom tools that can aid in the acquisition of spatial visualization skills within their home discipline of geology. So in addition to providing a better understanding of student learning, this classroom research is resulting in development of valuable tools for the geology classroom.
On a different tact, it is great to see a Teaching as Research project that started as a CIRTL graduate project in UW’s Delta program expand to a quantitative study in a peer reviewed journal. The authors’ discussion of the two studies makes clear the intellectual arc that started with graduate students exploring a question and developing materials, to further study honing in on the questions with the freedom of experimental design more available to a faculty (testing it in multiple sections of classes, ranging from introductory to advanced levels, over three years). The arc seems to elegantly connect the opportunity to ask the initial questions and see Teaching as Research as a relevant scholarly pursuit, to the confidence and interest to continue the TAR approach later when one’s career has shifted from graduate student to faculty.
Reference
Titus, S., and Horsman, E., 2009, Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 57, n. 4, p. 242-254.
While this sounds plausible, the argument is strengthened by concrete examples. What are some “different ways of thinking” that are not often represented and are useful in the STEM disciplines?
Sara Titus and Eric Horsman, alumni CIRTL students from UW Madison (currently at Carleton College and East Carolina University, respectively), have given us a concrete example in their recent paper, Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills (Titus & Horsman, 2009). They argue that spatial visualization is important in many STEM fields and is rarely taught or tested for in the K-16 curricula. Titus and Horsmen provide examples within geology where this spatial visualization is critical to understanding of geological phenomena. They have documented a wide range of student abilities in spatial visualization in their geology classes. And they have documented that this skill can be taught. Right there, we have a powerful story: a kind of thinking, not generally taught or valued, necessary to understanding in geology, represented by a wide range of natural abilities, with the potential to be learned. While Titus and Horsman were not addressing issues of diversity in their paper, it seems to me to provide a strong example of why we embrace the idea that diversity of life experiences and perspectives can lead to different ways of thinking. And thus a more diverse classroom is going to offer more and fresher learning experiences for the students.
To explore the assertion that this type of spatial thinking can be taught, Titus and Horsman developed and tested classroom tools that can aid in the acquisition of spatial visualization skills within their home discipline of geology. So in addition to providing a better understanding of student learning, this classroom research is resulting in development of valuable tools for the geology classroom.
On a different tact, it is great to see a Teaching as Research project that started as a CIRTL graduate project in UW’s Delta program expand to a quantitative study in a peer reviewed journal. The authors’ discussion of the two studies makes clear the intellectual arc that started with graduate students exploring a question and developing materials, to further study honing in on the questions with the freedom of experimental design more available to a faculty (testing it in multiple sections of classes, ranging from introductory to advanced levels, over three years). The arc seems to elegantly connect the opportunity to ask the initial questions and see Teaching as Research as a relevant scholarly pursuit, to the confidence and interest to continue the TAR approach later when one’s career has shifted from graduate student to faculty.
Reference
Titus, S., and Horsman, E., 2009, Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 57, n. 4, p. 242-254.
Printer-friendly version
