Week 2 Readings

The following are the summaries for Week 2 reading selections:

Galileo: Two New Sciences: pg. 153-175

• ·      This reading was a conversation between three different men, who each represented a different viewpoint on Galileo’s work.
•  
• ·      Salviati was in an agreement with Galileo. He really wanted to make the other two men understand why (in his opinion) Galileo was correct in his concept for motion, both uniform and accelerated.
•  
• ·      Sagredo was a friend of Galileo, but was still open minded and wanted answers to these various newfound concepts of motion.
•  
• ·      Simplicio was considered a ‘straw man’ but others classified as a follower of Aristole who believed in practicality. Both his and Sagredo contradicted Salviati.
•  
• ·      The article deals with Galileo’s definition of uniform and accelerated motion, which Salviati believes, but Sagredo and Simplicio have reservations about.

Lehrer: Designing to Develop Disciplinary Dispositions

• ·      In this reading, Richard Leher is giving a new approach to teaching discipline specific concepts in the same practice as the professionals in the field.
• 
  
•  ·      Leher gives a “generic toolbox” that can be used to achieve this.

o   Tasks: give a task that will allow students to think in terms to given knowledge.
o   Inscriptions: recording information in regards to tasks
o   Material Means: Insuring that materials are available for given tasks
o   Modes and Means of Argument: How does one approach the problem or argument?
o   Identity: What part of the subject does this task relate to?

• ·      He explains how this toolbox can be useful for teachers in incorporating knowledge into practical application, which is the same concept that professionals in the field.
• 
  
• ·      He also gives an example of this with designing a science education.

Hazen and Trefil: Science Matters

• ·      In this reading, Robert Hazen and James Trefil speak about the history of science, which included scientists such as Newton, Galileo, and Kepler.
•  
• ·      They also spoke on the concept and simplicity of why science is science and why it is so interdisciplinary.

These three readings each show that the conversations that arise are relevant to each other. In the Galileo reading, the conversation was one of learning and trying to explain the knowledge that was understood by one, but not by the other two. Also, two of the men did not just accept Galileo’s explanations as fact, but decided to question in order to gain further knowledge. This concept supports Hazen and Trefil’s concept of science being so interdisciplinary and Leher’s concept of having a disciplinary education in the school system.

Questions that arose for me were:

1.     For Leher, if the generic toolbox is used, how can the interdisciplinary aspect of science be incorportated?

2.     Can the Galileo conversation model be used in Leher’s generic toolbox in order to engage the “Science of Practice”?