"Problem- and case-based learning
about biology-in-society"
New England Workshop on Science and
Social Change, April 22-25, 2010
INSTRUCTIONS for written
evaluation
Reread the NewSSC objectives
and the specific workshop description at http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc10b.html
At the end, compose five
statements, questions, and/or reservations that are important to you concerning
any items.
---------------
Chris
Young
1. We
certainly went beyond disciplinary boundaries in considering the
activities. To an extent, these
all involved some awareness of science in social contexts, although this was
not always highlighted. Thinking
back, I am very comfortable seeing the science, but did not feel as if I was
directed to think very much about science, and so, was not considering
boundaries as we worked through activities.
2. The
range of activities proved valuable, and the ability to adapt and present
material rather spontaneously made the material well-suited to the
context. There is considerable
need, however, to balance that flexibility with planning that might minimize
problems associated with technology and lapses in communication.
3. Based
on previous experience of evaluating these workshops, I suggest that this
workshop "delivered" on the promise of being innovative and engaging
participants beyond the realm of academic or professional development. It was an intense process, and it
reveals the complexity of human experience and interaction.
4. The
interplay between science education and the examination of boundaries of
scientific knowledge was a meaningful context for the workshop. My personal feeling is that science
education is at the heart of our work in science studies, even if we typically
focus on history, philosophy, sociology, or other areas. It challenges me to emphasize this
centrality to colleagues in science studies and my own science department.
5. I
am not clear about how I will be able to continue collaboration. While personal connections were formed
in the process of this workshop, I do not feel I have much to offer most of the
participants. I know that I have
much to gain from particular individuals, but I will be curious to see what
form future collaboration takes.
---------------------
Participant
2.
1.
In general,
I feel we were able to achieve objective #2 fairly well. However, I don't feel
we addressed/tackled each of the problems fully, especially for me. I don't
feel we covered much, if any theory, hence this will be a point for future
inquiry for me.
2.
Ad a novice
scholar, I do feel that I have learned a great deal & will be able to take
fresh ideas about PBL/cases home to influence my teaching, research and
writing.
3.
I do think
we had some skeptics (or skepticism) about extending PBL beyond the formal
classroom setting. I would have liked to explore these further.
4.
I would
have liked some background/theory/concept work before (or maybe between) some
of the activities to inform what I was experiencing.
5.
I think it
might have been nice to have some ground rules or a full values contract
between the group (decided upon with full consensus) just after the
autobiographical intros. For me this might aid the potential future
capacity-building with others that may come out of this workshop.
---------------------
Participant
2.
1.
I do
believe I've taken away a great deal that I'll be able to use in future
teaching & reform & reflection (on my teaching).
2.
I do not
know if I have made long-term collaborations that will extend (continue) after
the workshop. I had not really expected to (prior to coming) & I'm a bit
surprised [that] I am disappointed not to have made this.
3.
Objeective
#2: Maybe in part my reflection as a tired body! Intend to work to correct that
(#2).
4.
Really
interesting range of approaches to PBL & I appreciate the time and effort
& creativity of participants.
5.
Really look
forward to reading more on deeper theory and pedagogy on PBL. Maybe one day
write up my own contributions to that body of literature.
---------------------
Pam
1.
We got away
from the focus on skeptics in a literal sense, but as the final dialogue
illustrated, we still took ideas, etc. away.
2.
The
opportunity to look at PBL from multiple perspectives—novice to
expert—was key to the workshop's success for me.
3.
I'm I
inspired by the format of the workshop—participants bringing activities
to the table—and will seek ways to incorporate it into my own events.
4.
We should
all be grownups about this.
5.
Prior
investment by participants is difficult to gain, in terms of contributions and
digestion of those by others—if there's a way to encourage that (I'll
ponder it some more) that would be great.
---------------------
Participant
5.
1.
I have a
deeper understanding about what is PBL and how to use it. I think the next step
for me is using it in my field.
2.
I was
inspired from others in this group. Hearing others' work and experience helped
me to figure out my own plan in the future.
3.
How to
engage other educators into PBL still is a question for me. I am going to think
about that. But I think the more important thing is to at least keep trying.
4.
Learned about
how to run a workshop?
5.
Finding out
how important critical and creative thinking is.
---------------------
Ethel
1.
Interdisciplinary
focus was a recurring theme in the workshop, but inclusivity was not shared in
participant interaction. This may actually have had an illuminating impact
despite some discomfort.
2.
"We have
met the enemy and he is us..." This is a positive reflection by me on my own
communication in the process. I'd like to link my experiences more fully with
others. I need to be a better skeptic.
3.
Activity
centered is truth in advertising here. (Please keep this in further workshop
design.)
4.
Social
contextualization was embraced by participants and heralded by the organizers...
5.
Why do I
want to leave for a day and come back for more group work? Why do I feel I'm
leaving so much unfinished? Why doesn't this upset me? (I trust the group? You
bet!)
---------------------
Sandra
1.
I'm not
sure we got much into finding ways to address skeptics.
2.
This was a
"training" process for me (#3). I fell that I have learned a great deal about
PBL and its different applications which I did not know before.
3.
I think for
the workshop to be more "constructive" (#2) perhaps as Cara (?) mentioned,
ground rules on respecting others thoughts and refraining from judgments need to
be set before the workshop begins in order to alleviate potential tension.
4.
Although I
am not an educator I feel a lot was shared and I learned to take back to
classrooms, workplaces, etc., to foster growth and new ways of looking at PBL.
5.
The design
of this workshop is repeatable in that people would come prepared to present
participate and reflect, but of course the outcome will always be different as
to how people may interact with one another.
---------------------
Peter
1.
PBL
requires participants to enter into a "container," i.e. into agreeing to a set
of ground rules. These ground rules need to be made explicit for each session.
2.
Retreat (to
gather one's thoughts) and retreat (stepping/running away from facing more
powerful forces) can merge into one another (e.g., needing to do more of the
first can be an excuse for not trying to avoid the second). The
distinctions need to be kept in mind/discussion/sight.
3.
PBL about
the life sciences in society builds an interest in the life sciences and
interest in society. We need to remind ourselves of these interests and not
subordinate them to the PBL process.
4.
Working
cooperatively in groups requires facilitator(s) to be reminded by their
assistants of support the facilitator can depend on as facilitator makes mistakes,
learns, improves...(this of course, requires the facilitator to arrange an
assistant.)
5.
A workshop
like this might begin and end with the question: What current boundaries are we
prepared to move beyond?
---------------------
Margaret
1.
Goal 2 was
the most well fleshed out of the four goals, from my perspective, and for me
the most valuable to my practice as a teacher.
2.
The methods
of PBL/case study (Douglas/Ethel/Margaret cases, and the paper as a case, Pam's
network formation case) illustrated some of the range of these approaches for
different audiences.
Delta: I would have
liked to hear more and say more about the technique of leading cases
themselves.
3.
Goal 2: how
human we are and imperfect. So glad the conflict w/JoAnn, Tom, Douglas, Pam got
aired just a bit at the last discussion. I tried to use the conflict and the
feelings I produced about it as a positive for my own awareness of conflict
with others.
4.
Re: Goal 4-
I don't feel ready at all to use many of these tools- haven't had the chance to
practice as a leader. Haven't heard, except from Tom, things the facilitattor
can do to make his approach work in diverse groups.
5.
I got much
more out of this workshop than I expected; a set of teaching approaches for
critical & creative thinking to explore, a heightened awareness of group
dynamics, great discussion of types of PBL w/Douglas, meeting the incredible
FangFang Wen (and Pam & Cara) and being in my favorite environment- at the
New England shore.
---------------------
Participant
10.
1.
Recruitment
of individual participants led to a constellation of interests not really
expressed in the workshop statement or "mission." Such is the process,
and how can the workshop unfolding accommodate this shifting cope/focus most
optimally?
2.
Cooperativity
is about cooperation, not assigning or distributing credit. Collaboration &
exchange fruitful without cooperation or uniform engagement.
3.
(minor) One
presentation per person [from someone who had two, and did not experience the
gender bias comment for the first time]
4.
Seeking
more rhythm between clustering & distributing, collective & individual,
activity & individual or pair wise reflection?
5.
Collecting
"interesting" people w/ intersecting (not necessarily common) interests is key,
to fruitful, "self-organizing" [workshops]?
---------------------
TF
1.
Expectations
should be clarified with respect to what presenters think they will accomplish
with their session.
2.
Content diversity
was distracting, not enriching––while process/approach was
powerful.
3.
Introductions
should feature a response to a prompt "I am interdisciplinarian because..."
4.
"My
experience /anticipated experience in speaking with skeptics is..."
5.
A walk
through for scoring maps need to be developed for a future
session–– (?)