Language, Data, & Evidence:

Language, Data, & Evidence:

(Are They Same Thing and Can Teaching Be Accomplished Without in Form of Language)

        Even though we as a society use the words data and evidence as if they were somehow interchangeable, they are very different from one another. Evidence is used to support a claim. However, in science, things can never be proven. They can only be supported. Therefore evidence is used to either valid or support a particular claim. Data, on the other hand, is used as evidence (calculations, numbers, etc.) in order to support various claims.

        Since any form of communication is considered to be a form of language, teaching could be accomplished without its use. Even amongst bees and other insects, language is used to convey important bits of information and teach various members inside their societies, the rules and regulations that each member must abide by. With this in mine, things like dance, art, plays, staring long fully at an object also conveys different  information and is there for language. Thus language is not something that is only unique to humans.  

What is Teaching and Learning

What is Teaching and Learning

        If someone would have asked me this question before I took Biology Application, I would have quickly stated that teaching is providing individuals (students and non-students) with necessary information that allows them to interact more effectively with their environments (social, cultural, political, etc.). I would have also just as quickly replied that learning is utilizing information that you are taught in ways that allow you to both enhance and supplement previous bits of information is ways that were not previous available or known to an individual. However, both of these definitions make teaching and learning seem like they are an exact science and that if the above listed guidelines are strictly followed that teaching and learning can and will take place simultaneously, and this is surely not the case. Therefore, I also believe that along with the above definitions about teaching and learning, both are also impacted by social, cultural and political interactions  as well, and that both teaching and learning must have elements in them that (1) tries to understand an individual’s basis needs and desires for acquiring knowledge (useful or not), (2) that are flexible, (3) challenging and (4) demonstrate a profound respect for diverse backgrounds, (5) has cultural relevancy, and (6) is usable on a daily basis.

       With the above factors in mind, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that teaching has to be done with not only a great deal of knowledge, but compassion as well. That is in order to teach effectively, teachers cannot simply just go through the motion of pretending to teach and expect their students to learn or want to learn. Different types of strategies must be utilized such as scaffolding and creative ways to teach information must be continually sought out in an effort to make lessons that are already good that much better and lessons that are not good at all more relatable to each student. Thus teaching is more than just passing down information that has been passed down for generation after generation and learning is also more than simply trying to cram information into disinterested students’ heads. However, I do not feel that subject matter has to be so challenging that it is also frustrating.

Although many may believe that if a student does not struggle with things they are challenged with and some type of frustration does not occur during this process that real learning does not occur and the information is not long lasting, I am not a follower of this type of philosophy or dogma. I have learned from numerous situations that I have not found to be neither challenging nor frustrating. I instead, my interest was piqued and I wanted to learn as much as I could about the subject matter. Yet at the same time, I am not saying that a subject should not be challenging. In some cases it should be challenging. But it also must be truly beneficial to a student’s daily life. Otherwise, it is just annoying and something that will be quickly forgot, which is not really learning.

The Theory of Constructivism

When I became reading Henriques’ article about Constructivism, the words assimilation, and accommodation, for some reason rubbed me the wrong way. Throughout history, different groups have been forced to assimilate and make accommodations for conquering groups. Even the word disequilibrium made me feel a little uncomfortable in spite of the fact that I realize in order for students’ misconceptions to be truly challenged, their minds must be continually brought to different levels of disequilibrium in order to better facilitate change. However, I am still not sure how a feel about using assimilation and accommodation in order to get my students to learn, since in my mind, assimilation and accommodation are analogous with creating students who do not truly know how to think for themselves, and, therefore, do not regularly question the status quo even when they know it is wrong or is faulty in nature.

Even though I have great reservations about designing lesson plans that are designed to cause students to think and act in a particular way, I nevertheless, like the Interactive-Constructivist approach to learning over Information Processing, Social Constructivist and Radical Constructivist. The main reason why I prefer Interactive approach over the other types of constructivist approaches is because it incorporates both public and private components that are designed to allow students to interact and reflect on what they learned need rather than having them come to the same type of understanding in spite of the fact that many of them come from diversely different backgrounds within our society. Plus I prefer Interactive-Constructivist because it does not rule out direct instruction embedded in a natural context which in turn allows students to reconcile their previous ideas with their new experiences thus creating conceptual changes. Just as importantly, I do not think that all ideas carry equal values as put forth in the Radical Constructivist interpretation.

"Energy Flows, Nutrients Cycle

1) Describe what is meant by "Energy Flows, Nutrients Cycle". Be specific in terms of ecosystems and explicitly explaining why they are different.

Energy or Energy Flows describes the amount of energy in the form of light. During the process of Energy Flow, chemical energy in organic and inorganic molecules are transformed and used by cellular processes (photosynthesis and respiration). However, ultimately this energy is converted into to heat energy. Also the energy that is supplied by the Sun in the form of light never makes it back to the sun and therefore is said to flow through ecosystems along the many steps in the food chain (trophic levels). Nutrients Cycle, on the other hand, is recycled within an ecosystem.

Nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc, limit biological activity according to their availability, rates of excretion or decomposition. However, unlike Energy Flow which travels in one direction inside ecosystems, Nutrients eventual return back into the soil where they are once again used in cellular processes (photosynthesis and respiration).

2) What are the similarities and differences between the presented ecosystems? Please don't simply look at the surface level similarities and differences. This question isn't about "there are monkeys here and bears here" unless you can explain why that matters.

The similarities between each presented ecosystems had to do with Energy Flows and Nutrients Cycles. In each, except for the cave ecosystems, Apex and Keystone species were present and controlled (trophic levels) both Energy Flows and Nutrients Cycles. However, the main difference between each ecosystem presentation had to do with the availability of light (Energy Flow). For example as mentioned earlier, the presentation on the cave ecosystem demonstrated that although light is an very important ingredient to its ecological make up, there were areas (zones) within the cave where very little light to no light was noted. Yet the cave’s ecosystem and its inhabitants were also depended on Energy Flows and Nutrients Cycles for their survival.

3) How do the presentations speak to the Big Idea? How do they help us further understand the Big Idea?

They help point out the interdependence between Energy Flows and Nutrients Cycles that occurs in each type of ecosystem. They also point their various relationships and importance with different types of ecosystems. The presentations also make sure that the information inside the big picture (Big Idea) is continually being focused upon and reinforced instead being lost because other topics that do not necessarily relate to it to steer what needs to be taught and understood into an unintended direction(s).

4) What were the strengths of this approach to Ecosystems from a teacher's perspective? From a student's perspective?

From a teacher’s perspective, the strengths of this approach to Ecosystems will help students to understand the interdependence between Energy Flows and Nutrients Cycles that occurs in each type of ecosystem. Through the process of understanding these interrelationships, students (a student's perspective) are better able to see and understand how their own ecosystems are affected (positively or adversely) when a disturbance in either the Energy Flows or Nutrients Cycles or both occurs. This in turn will hopefully allow students to better understand topics such as Global Warming, Species Extinction, etc.

5) What were the weaknesses of this approach to Ecosystems from a teacher's perspective? From a student's perspective?

From a teacher’s perspective the weaknesses of this approach to Ecosystems is that some students will not put in a much work as others and, therefore, will not make the necessary connections as to how this information relates to their own ecosystems.

From a student’s perspective the weaknesses of this approach to Ecosystems is as above. Some of the group members will not take an active part in the presentation and depend upon others to do most if not all of the work. Also more dominant students will take over the whole project and delegate meaningless activities to students who they dislike. Plus some students do not like to have to stand in front of their peers and give presentations.

6) What changes do you think would improve this unit?

To be honest, I am not sure. With each learning technique that a teacher employs, there is and will be resistance to it from the students. If somehow the idea of this type of presentation is one that comes from the students, it will be more effective. But how one influences his or her students toward this direction may be extremely difficult at times, however, not impossible.