Each student on a team writes a question and the team agrees on the correct response. All questions are compiled and sent to another team.
Using the RealTime Board as a team collection system for this type of activity would be efficient in putting this game together. Especially with two teams competing
Cooperative learning consists of patterns for student interaction called structures. To qualify as a cooperative learning structure the organizational pattern or instructional techniques must require positive interdependence between learners in order for learning to occur.
Some popular structures include The Three Step Interview, Constructive Controversy, Pairs Check, Think-Pair-Share, fand Pairs Check.
The author’s thesis seems strong and unique, with valid arguments and an alternative perspective that contains many truths. At the very least, this is an interesting read, due to the author’s take on a complementary perspective to the typical adoration of successes in science and technology by the public. It celebrates the attempts which failed, yet still advanced progress toward success. Success is the tip of the iceberg and failure is what lies beneath success, hidden away, thus far, in the library of that which did NOT work. At first, and through half of the book, the content seemed like a pep talk for the drudgery of science, yet when this perspective is applied, seems to make that drudgery disappear, or at least morph into something more positive, about which the scientist can feel true progress, and bring light to the darkness which is often associated with failure. Let there be failure, and let there be light. I had not considered the dichotomy between monism vs. pluralism in the past, except when I had first heard the terms in a political science course during my general studies. The author makes a case for pluralism as a source for creativity which emerges from a rich source of messiness, and many different models that work together and in different ways. In cinematic terms, I would call his philosophy an extreme wide-angle, establishing shot, because it provides ‘the big picture’: All systems interacting. I would recommend this book to anyone with an elementary knowledge of the way science works, as most of the content seems to focus on the scientific method and there is also a good deal of philosophy of science to deal with. That aside, I would also recommend it for artists, as it directly addresses the nature of creativity.
I think that failure in science can be likened to practice of music. Failure is the practice of science.
“When failure is not possible, neither is discovery.” --Firestein, Pg.107.
Firestein mentions that there was accelerated progress in science and technology, made within the last 400 years, (page 50 and 93) but does not indicate that (at least not that I have noticed) the fact that the age of enlightenment was 400 years ago. I think this is particularly significant in terms of the context of rapid advancement as we moved from the dogma of the church to the illuminating torch of science as a better way to arrive at truths. In terms of scientific knowledge, moving out of the dark ages and away from the church has energized the advancement of science. The author alludes to the negative influence of the church in the dark ages, and tends to skirt around the issue of how the church held science back. I suspect this was a way for the author to not offend those who are faithful to the church. I suspect he is an atheist or agnostic, as many scientists, and rational thinkers are. Yet still there are some scientists which try to reconcile faith vs. reason. It baffles me as to how they can do that. When I speak of the church I am referring to all of the major religions of the world. Of course the Catholic church probably had the most oppressive influence against the efforts of science, even in the beginning of the age of enlightenment, do to the efforts of the Roman Empire in spreading Christianity across Europe and ultimately to the United States of America, but we still see, even in modern times, religious dogma and faith overruling reason, as is the case with the Religious Right’s infiltration into the Republican party, and their collective stances on climate change denial, as well as intelligent design/creationism vs. evolution theory, and their incessant attempts to dismantle the first amendment’s establishment clause, which protects freedom of religion in the United States of America, as well as the right to NOT be religious. 57% of Republicans are in favor of installing Christianity as a national religion, which is in opposition to the tenets of the establishment clause. They want to create a theocratic government, which would be a disaster not only to science but to the very freedoms we enjoy in this nation. Their constituents believe, erroneously, that the nation was founded as a Christian nation, which is patently misinformed. This type of belief system moves many away from reason and rational inquiry, which is the very foundation of science. This may seem to be a political rant, and to some degree it is, on my part, but the frequency of which the author refers to 400 year progress, directly coincides with the transition from the dark ages to the age of enlightenment, which was the historical period when people began to move away from the dogma of the church and embrace rational inquiry, critical observation as a better way to arrive at truths, and so I would be remiss if I didn’t point this out, since the author seems to avoid actually stating that the church has been and remains oppressive to science. (Terry Hale)