3 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2019
  2. inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net
    1. alid or invalid on a priori ground*y Thus, de-pending on the problem, the laboratory may bean altogether appropriate setting for an investiga-tion and certain real-life environments may behighly inappropriate. Suppose, for example, oneis interested in studying the interaction betweenmother and child when the child is placed in astrange and unfamiliar situation. Clearly the lab-oratory approximates this condition far better thanthe home. Conversely, if the focus of inquiry isthe modal pattern of parent-child activity pre-vailing in the family, observations confined to thelaboratory can be misleading. As I have docu-mented elsewhere in greater detail (Bronfenbren-ner, in press), patterns of parent-child interactionin the laboratory are substantially and systemati-cally different than those in the home. Specifi-cally, so far as young children are concerned, theresults indicate that the strangeness of the labora-tory situation tends to increase anxiety and othernegative feeling states and to decrease manifesta-tions of social competence (Lamb, 1976b; Ross,Kagan, Zelazo, & Kotelchuck, 1975; Lamb, Note3). Possibly in response to this reaction of thechild, parents tend to exhibit more positive inter-i actions toward their children in the laboratory' than in the home (Schlieper, 1975; Shalock, 1956;Belsky, Note 4). In addition, Lamb (1976b;Note 3) reported that the tendency of the infantat home to display more affiliative behaviors (e.g.,looking, smiling, reaching, vocalizing) toward thefather than the mother was reversed in the labora-tory. Moreover, consistent with the arguments ofSroufe (1970) and Tulkin (1972) that the lab-oratory is especially likely to be an anxiety-arous-ing situation for lower-class families, Lamb foundsocioeconomic differences in father-infant inter-action favoring the middle class in the laboratory,'whereas such differences had not been present inI the h o m e.Again, the fact that

      Since my Action Research is based on building relationships with the families from Room 3, I was interested to see the impact of laboratory research vs. home environment research. According to this paragraph, it is hard to get a clear picture of parent-child relationship in either setting due to a number of factors. If I understand it correctly, however the laboratory environment is less optimal to infants, young children and families of lower socio-economic status. Increased anxiety was cited as a contributing factor. I believe that the Hawthorne Effect could contribute to the difference is how parents responded positively to their children in the laboratory versus at home. So far, of the homes I have visited this semester, there is not a significant amount of difference between how the children are interacted with at school, compared to how they are interacted with at home. It will be interesting to see, based on what I've read in this paper, if what I have experienced recently will be evident with all of the families. I also wonder, if age and familiarity are factors? I work with one-year-olds and they have all developed a secure relationship, over time, with me, unlike the people who conducted this research. Any thoughts from others, is greatly appreciated, regarding whether or not you too experience what the article says or what I have experienced.

  3. Mar 2019
    1. Laboratory activities and constructivism are two notions that have been playing significant roles in science education. Despite common beliefs about the importance of laboratory activities, reviews reported inconsistent results about the effectiveness of laboratory activities. Since laboratory activities can be expensive and take more time, there is an effort to introduce virtual laboratory activities. This study aims at exploring the learning environment created by a virtual laboratory and a real laboratory. A quasi experimental study was conducted at two grade ten classes at a state high school in Bandung, Indonesia. Data were collected using a questionnaire called Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) before and after the laboratory activities. The results show that both types of laboratories can create constructivist learning environments. Each type of laboratory activity, however, may be stronger in improving certain aspects compared to the other. While a virtual laboratory is stronger in improving critical voice and personal relevance, real laboratory activities promote aspects of personal relevance, uncertainty and student negotiation. This study suggests that instead of setting one type of laboratory against the other, lessons and follow up studies should focus on how to combine both types of laboratories to support better learning.

      In this peer-reviewed study, two tenth-grade classes were analyzed as they used either a virtual or a real laboratory to accomplish learning tasks. The question raised was whether a real or a virtual laboratory was more conducive to constructivist learning. The study concluded that a real lab is better than a virtual one to trigger constructivist learning. This is of importance to me because I teach adults about software in both virtual and real laboratories, and when I develop content, I try to use the constructivist theory as much as possible as I find it works best for my audience, in addition to making novel content more relatable. Please note: I could not put the annotation on the text because the paper opened in a popup page that does not work with Hypothes.is. 7/10

  4. Jun 2016
    1. Title: The dying breed of craftsmen behind the tools that make scientific research possible - LA Times

      Keywords: government-funded research opened, snake glass coils, fuse glass beakers, organic chemistry, research hubs, world war, experienced glassblowers, glassblowers remain, church laboratory, befallen glassblowing, glass manufacturer, glass technicians, cost-cutting world, jobs tend, entry-level jobs

      Summary: Hunkered down in the sub-basement of the Norman W. Church Laboratory for Chemical Biology, underneath a campus humming with quantum teleportation devices, gravity wave detectors and neural prosthetics, Rick Gerhart chipped away at a broken flask.<br>Peering into the dancing flames, he examined his work for wrinkles — imperfections invisible to the untrained eye.<br>“It not only should be functional,” he said, smoothing the rim with a carbon rod, “it has to look good.”<br>Here in Caltech’s one-man glass shop, where Gerhart transforms a researcher’s doodles into intricate laboratory equipment, craftsmanship is king.<br>In a cost-cutting world of machines and assembly plants, few glassblowers remain with the level of mastery needed at research hubs like Caltech.<br>“He’s a somewhat dying breed,” said Sarah Reisman, who relied on Gerhart to create 20 maze-like contraptions for her synthetic organic chemistry lab.<br>Rick Gerhart, scientific glass blower at Caltech, has been helping to make scientific research possible at the campus since 1992.<br>(Dillon Deaton/Los Angeles Times)<br>Similar fates have befallen glassblowing at UCLA and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.<br>Across the U.S., those who land such jobs tend to stay until retirement.<br>He chuckled: “Looks like we have to steal somebody.”<br>To master scientific glassblowing, proper training and apprenticeships are key.<br>In addition to the hands-on training, which requires a knack for precision as well as coordination, students must take courses in organic chemistry, math and computer drawing.<br>So it really takes a long time to get to a position like Rick’s.”<br>Gerhart enrolled in the Salem program in 1965, after dropping out of college to give his father’s profession a try.<br>The craft, which dates back to alchemy in the 2nd century, took hold in America by the 1930s and 1940s, after World War I cut off glassware supply from Germany.<br>The profession peaked after World War II, when booms in oil and government-funded research opened up numerous glassblowing jobs in many a lab.<br>At first, Gerhart hopped around a number of firms and worked alongside more experienced glassblowers at TRW Inc. and UCLA.<br>When he settled at Caltech in 1992, the glassblower before him handed over the key to the shop and said, “Good luck.” On his own, Gerhart pieced together his patchwork of experience to twist and fuse glass beakers and snake glass coils over vacuum chambers.<br>“That’s when I really started learning.”<br>Social media videos have sparked new interest in the craft, Briening said.<br>But while his students have no trouble getting entry-level jobs at companies like Chemglass Life Sciences, a glass manufacturer, and General Electric Global Research, rarely are universities willing to budget the overhead costs for more than one glassblower, if any.<br>“Years ago, all the universities had two or three people,” Briening said.<br>One of the few resources left for the next generation is the American Scientific Glassblowers Society, a close-knit group that hosts national workshops and swaps ideas when a researcher’s custom order stumps one of its members.<br>Its members also serve as Caltech’s best — and possibly only — options once Gerhart leaves.<br>“Rick’s one of those glass technicians that I put in the top 5%,” Ponton said.<br>