Jean Rene

May 1, 2007

I. "MY SYNTHESIS PRODUCT SHOWS THAT..."

A. I can convey who I want to influence/affect concerning what (Subject, Audience, Purpose).

I convey to science teachers, scientists, and philosophers of science the idea that philosophy of science can beneficially inform the teaching of science in ways that rid learners of overarching misconceptions about sciences. Moreover, in conjunction with creative thinking notions, dialectical outlooks help students do and think science authentically.


B. I know what others have done before, either in the form of writing or action, that informs and connects with my project, and I know what others are doing now.

B. I know that scientists like A. Miller, S.J.Goulds, Levins, and Lewontin, among many others, have attempted to interpret/explain scientific phenomenon through the lenses of dialectical materialism with considerable degree of success. Those scientists inform and connect with my bid to use dialectical materialism as a cognitive scaffolding tool.


C. I have teased out my vision, so as to expand my view of issues associated with the project, expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope within the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction.

C. I have pointed to potential scientific areas that may help improve dialectical materialism, into which my pedagogical framework is grounded. In particular, the new sciences of quantum nechanics and chaos, that seem to be pretty compatible with the dialectical materialist outlook, can readily shape and enhance dialectical materialism view and clout. I understand that my own journey can extend through greater exploration of complexity reading P. Taylor’s book titled Unruly Complexity and Wolfram’s book titled A New Kind of Science.


D. I have identified the premises and propositions that my project depends on, and can state counter-propositions. I have taken stock of the thinking and research I need to do to counter those counter-propositions or to revise my own propositions.

D. I’ve identified that my synthesis rests on the following premises: 1. strategic questioning can engage learners in critical thinking, helping them to expose their misconceptions; 2) dialectical materialism provides cognitive foundations for the interpretation of scientific phenomenon. Counter-proposition to dialectical materialism is strongly manufactured by K. Popper. Research along the arguments crafted by Cornforth seems to be apt at debunking Popper’s critical stance and refute it.

E. I have clear objectives with respect to product, both written and practice, and process, including personal development as a reflective practitioner. I have arranged my work in a sequence (with realistic deadlines) to realize these objectives.

E. I have developed detailed lesson plans, including strategic probing activities, experiments, and research along with timing and context that can lead to an implementation of my pedagogical framework. The intent is to use the framework in an elective high school multidisciplinary science class in a bid to do and reflect on science authentically and tackle overarching misconceptions.


F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.

F. I have tried the strategic probing component and creative part of my model in classroom situation to good degree of success. Experience gained from a CCT Seminar on Creativity, involving actual creation has also inspired my teaching, as it embeds elements of creativity. Those experiential situations have been invaluable as I’ve mustered necessary confidence to pursue my dialectical and creative itineraries.


G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.

G. The formal presentation of my synthesis at UMass-Boston/CCT and subsequent conversations with friends about my synthesis have provided me with plenty of opportunities to clarify the overall progression and/or arguments underlying my research and my synthesis.


H. My writing and other products Grab the attention of the readers/audience, Orient them, move them along in Steps, so they appreciate the Position I've led them to.

H. Thanks to thoughtful conversations I had with Professor A. Millman, I’ve embedded a good deal of empirical evidence from my personal teaching experience in the introduction of the synthesis. That contributes greatly to grab the attention of the readers/audience. Professor Taylor’s comments, following readings of various versions of work-in-progress, have compelled me to be more deliberate about specific including specific sentences and paragraphs in an effort to orient readers through the text. Consequently, they are able to better capture my arguments and appreciate the position I’ve led them to.


I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.

I. By proposing an alternative pedagogical framework that revolves around strategic questioning, dialectical examinations and creative endeavors, my model is bound to generate high level of students’ participation. The model opens up new avenues for public participation for it urges students to interact with scientists and members of their communities in their quest for knowledge.


J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.

J. In my conclusion, I’ve taken stock of my journey that seems to set the stage for a life-long exploration and hopefully discovery. As I put some closure to the synthesis, I feel that I’ve covered a significant amount of intellectual ground and advanced daring proposition that could reinvent some aspects of science teaching. Yet, at this juncture more investigations await me for I’ve realized that opportunities for improvements may surface from strategic exploration in the area of chaos and quantum mechanics. .

II. DEVELOPING AS A REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER, INCLUDING TAKING INITIATIVE IN AND THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

1. I have integrated knowledge and perspectives from CCT and other courses into my own inquiry and engagement in social and/or educational change.

1. As a teacher, I have been attempting to elicit students’ creativity through problem based learning. In addition, using strategic questioning, I have engaged my students in conversations that help them confront some misconceptions, sharpen their critical thinking skills, and involve them in mathematical and science reflections after studying particular content areas.

2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.

2. CCT has awakened in me a sense of “question posing” even on issues that a priori appear to be simple. Quite often, probing from different angles would reveal deep level of complexity underneath apparent simplicity. I’ve learned to let my interlocutor’s thinking play out and be less judgmental until my interlocutor laid all evidence of a case. Then, if I deem it necessary to articulate any critics, I seem to be more convincing and effective at bringing in change in others’ thinking.


3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.

3. Finding efficient ways to organize my time remain a challenge for me; even more so with the fact that I have a propensity to get involve in so many different endeavors that all seem to be of great importance ….. Regardless, my research skills has considerably improved: I have a better sense of what matters and is more appropriate to my quest, I have better command of computer search, and I have evolved with greater writing proficiency ability

4. I have experimented with new tools and experiences, even if not every one became part of my toolkit as a learner, teacher/facilitator of others, and reflective practitioner.

4. I’ve delve into philosophy of science and theories of creativity to a great extent. I’ve identified methodologies that I have been able to put to some use. As a reflective practitioner, I have assessed potential limits and craft potential new avenues of investigation.


5. I have paid attention to the emotional dimensions of undertaking my own project but have found ways to clear away distractions from other sources (present & past) and not get blocked, turning apparent obstacles into opportunities to move into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory.

5. Emotional dimensions have arisen from time to time during the progression of my synthesis. They start developing from the moment I had to assess my views about students’ learning sciences and unnecessary stumbling blocs hampering creativity. My frustration stems from the strict accountability strategies shaping education nowadays, and other systemic issues that leave little room for involving students into daring experimentations. Moreover, having been critical of my own science education and my own set of beliefs about science and philosophy, I felt torn to be critical but also to be fair to my teachers who were devoted educators who taught me significant helpful notions, regardless of my independent reassessment years later. To me, those were teaching moments that compelled me to learn how to nuance critical points of view and still stay true to my wishes that science pedagogy could change for the better.


6. I have developed peer and other horizontal relationships. I have sought support and advice from peers, and have given support and advice to them when asked for.

6. Throughout the development of my synthesis, I had buddies who commented on my thinking and encourage me to pursue my ideas. I’ve also dialogue with my peers in relation to their work in progress. Moreover, I was fortunate to benefit from extensive comments of a CCT friend that read the three first chapters of my synthesis in progress. Those comments later triggered significant research into areas that I might have overlooked and that proved to be substantive for the coherence of my text.


7. I have taken the lead, not dragged my feet, in dialogue with my advisor and other readers. I didn't wait for the them to tell me how to solve an expository problem, what must be read and covered in a literature review, or what was meant by some comment I didn't understand. I didn't put off giving my writing to my advisor and other readers or avoid talking to them because I thought that they didn't see things the same way as I do.

7. I was very engaged in reading what matters for the synthesis and in crafting literature review that molded the developing of my framework. I’ve been very open and responsive insofar my advisors’ and friends’ comments were concerned. Usually, I managed to integrate adaptively many of the ideas that they have conveyed to me in order to make my synthesis clearer and more coherent. I just wish I could have been more efficient at generating my final product much quicker.


8. I have revised seriously, which involved responding to the comments of others. I came to see this not as bowing down to the views of others, but taking them in and working them into my own reflective inquiry until I could convey more powerfully to others what I'm about (which may have changed as a result of the reflective inquiry).

8. I made it a point to evaluate and somehow respond to most comments. Most of the time, in the process, I’ve extended my ideas and revising my text way beyond an interlocutor’s comments. I’ve explored thus unforeseen avenues that eventually have strengthened my synthesis as a result. At times, I’ve ended up dropping lines of ideas that were difficult to clarify, or substantiate, or integrate smoothly.


9. I have inquired and negotiated about formal standards, but gone on to develop and internalize my own criteria for doing work—criteria other than jumping through hoops set by the professor so I get a good grade.

9. I’ve taken ownership of my synthesis throughout the research and writing processes. The project has been a personal exploratory journey from the get go. I’ve always found it a bit difficult despite some initial understanding of most of the pieces that I’ve planned to connect. In reality, I’ve understood the project as a daring one, for most science teachers, and scientists that I’ve known have expressed little interest, if any, in philosophy of science; let alone integrating some philosophical brands as pedagogical frameworks. Grades have some value, since they serve some promotional purposes in societies; however, my synthesis and most other CCT projects have been more knowledge and learning-driven mechanism then anything else.


10. I have approached the CCT synthesis course and the CCT program as works-in-progress, which means that, instead of harboring criticisms to submit after the fact, I have found opportunities to affirm what is working well and to suggest directions for further development.

10. I’ve always understood intellectual pursuits as open-ended commitments that may only have temporary closures for pragmatic purposes. In the same vein, I’ve fundamentally experienced my CCT journey as processes of ever-ending explorations “punctuated” by practical products that take stock of insightful and well documented points but also that opened up new areas for deeper inquiries into seemingly more adventurous and arduous complexities, with various messy angles.