Mae Jemison is an astronaut, a doctor, an art collector, a dancer ... Telling stories from her own education and from her time in space, she calls on educators to teach both the arts and sciences, both intuition and logic, as one -- to create bold thinkers. (Bio provided by TED)
In her lecture on the importance of teaching arts and sciences together, Dr. Jemison states: "science provides an understanding of a universal experience and arts provides a universal understanding of a personal experience" as she advocates for the integrated teaching of both.
Watch the video and answer the questions below in the comments section.
In the comments section, answer the following questions:
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
Deadline to comment is Thursday, 10/01/2009, 11:59am
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Dr.Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach for teaching different subjects. I believe that she is suggesting that at a bare minimum we TRY to integrate the arts with the sciences. This will be a daunting task to accomplish, but the outcome has potential for greatness. If a student notices that you can use one discipline to advance another, then there has been progress in that students thinking. What comes to mind for me is say in a chemistry class you decide to do an art project, the objective would be to use different substances to cause reactions and changes in appearance. That alone could prove to create some cool looking art, while expanding the students knowledge of chemical reactions. An example where I don't think it would be helpful would be integrating music into an CPR lesson. It might be helpful to make a song that could help the students remember the different steps, but I wouldn't like if the students had to sing that song to successfully resuscitate someone. As I mentioned above, I think that anytime you can integrate more than one discipline into a single lesson there is a profound potential for higher order thinking. Having students begin to think how they can use both their intuitiveness and analytic sides to accomplish a single objective is a great way to expand their cognitive potential. I personally would love to see more teachers try to teach from an interdisciplinary perspective.
ReplyDeleteDr. Jemison is making a clear push for re-thinking the 2002 concepts of liberal arts and interdisciplinary studies. She uses her own collegiate experience as an undergrad to show how spread out a person's involvement can become in a natural although choatic whirlwind. The disagreement that I have with here is how many freshman are that aware of needing to do such a thing. It prompted my own recollections of "if I had known that before" conundrums. The matter of timing is a major factor for every student of academia primary or secondary levels of education.
ReplyDeleteK-12 is rigidly set by age, and has no reliable mechanisms for allowing a child to learn at their own pace without placing additional burdens on child and family. The pace of learning is much faster in our younger years, and Dr. Jemison's words bear a dynamic message that the classroom whether collegiate or not can benefit from holistic approaches and organization. However, societal norms have placed limits easily defined as L-directed and R-directed and must be restructured.
Interdisciplinarity should be considered as early as the seventh grade with cogent and congruent areas of Mathematics, Science, History, and Art. Bringing together creative and analytic perspectives in a structured manner gives students a glimpse sooner than later to think about collegiate directions. The historical significance of medieval scientists and mathematicians working in the machines of war gives a different perspective than the 'sugar-coated' lessons presently being evoked. The day of the 'trekkian' pre-teen asking to ease up on teh Calculus homework pokes an eye on the horizon.
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
ReplyDeleteI believe Dr. Jemison ‘is’ advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content--trying to rediscover common ground between art and science. She further supported this by examples in her own educational experience. I was around during the decades Dr. Jemison referred to, i.e., 60’s, 70’s, 80’s. They were different times ideologically and sociologically where heartfelt causes and peaceful assembly to trumpet those voices--slowly died out. In the past 30+ years the Information Age has grown in exponential form and made quantum leaps in sciences (i.e. medical science, computer technology). As I’m sure Dr. Jemison was thinking in her youth and now—Why does one have to choose between art and science?
As an example, I believe healthcare is still connected, but it lost the TLC component--Tender Loving Care (Health insurance complications and medical malpractice has dramatically reduced quality of care and empathy). Specifically in Nursing, one is tested two ways: 1) Clinically, 2) Written Exams (critical thinking/licensure thinking).
1) The Clinical component [hands-on skills] puts the student with real patients in real situations [outside of classroom]--where the student could learn to “see/communicate/listen with the patient” to gain hands-on experience and problem-solve in real-time--where a piece of paper (exam) could never address…the humanity of the human anatomy...
2) The Boards [Licensure exam] are important to ensure that the Nursing student has the book[classroom] knowledge (regarding dispensing pharmaceuticals, understanding biology, protocols, orders, etc.) which delves into critical thinking and hopefully “complement” the Clinical skills.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
Interdisciplinarity should be taught as a subject of its own and part of the curriculum. Having an interdisciplinary background can help one develop an interdisciplinary perspective, which is important. It is also important for each subject to retain its distinct identity. An interdisciplinary perspective can enhance understanding relationships between distinct subjects which could lead to common ground---and this in and of itself, is a skill. With the inclusion of arts and sciences (moving out of the old paradigm that art is obsolete) interdisciplinarity can forge an intellectional and emotional alliance.
Art, creative courses, design, communication, humanity, empathy should be inclusive of any degree and this thinking is long overdue. In this context maybe there should be creation of new subjects to help bridge relationships between arts and science courses. Maybe there needs to be another course [post-Information Age Humanity Course] created to re-teach that the Information Age in some ways denied the current younger generation experiences of humanity—with proliferation of cell phones, computers. Empathy and meaning cannot be cultivated by a telephone or computer. People can hide behind a telephone or computer like wearing sunglasses in the dark. It’s difficult to look into someone’s eyes because they are multitasking when they are “looking/talking” to you---very superficial.
An example of a subject taught from an interdisciplinary perspective would be if someone was taking a music course. The science of music is interesting, i.e. Middle C is 440 Vibrations Per Second, its mechanics, acoustics, reverberations, octaves, hammers and wire strings, the value of sound from aged wood, etc.…The Art of Music is the heartfelt expression, sound, relevance, lyrics. Music can be a hobby, healing, a profession, a teacher, food for the soul... These are some of the juxtapositions of art and science and interdisciplinary perspectives.
Lisa Beni
I think Dr. Jemison defiantly has a interdisciplinary approach to teaching. To me she appears to believe that without arts and sciences working together no great things can be achieved. This I think is always something that is useful in the classroom, there are always people that tend to think of things as one way or the other and that they can never really understand the sciences or they can never really understand the arts but when you are teaching and you can take the approach of say something like organic chemistry and explain how this works in nature and put it to use for someone who isn't very mathematical or if you are in a music class and you can explain the formula behind music notes, this is combining both worlds and showing how it can all be related.
ReplyDeleteI do think mostly for the reasons listed above that all subject should be taught in some sort of interdisciplinary way. I feel that when you do things like this it is a way of putting the things we are doing into a new light. It is a way of getting to really know all the different sides of what you are doing and when you can do that it is when you can truly utilize something to the best of its ability. For me it reminds me of what a truly good soccer player needs to do, you need to take the skills that you learn that are more mathematical and the rules that you learn to play the game but to be truly a great soccer player you also need to feel the game and play the game like it is an art because it is.
With regards to Arts and Sciences, Dr. Jemison is taking a multi-disciplinary and an interdisciplinary approach when she states that they are “…different manifestations of the same thing…” because in order to get two manifestations of the same thing, you have to look at that object in two different ways, which is exactly the definition of multi-disciplinary. She is looking for ways to integrate the different ways of viewing the “same thing”, which is interdisciplinary in nature. She is advocating returning to an interdisciplinary approach to prepare us for the future, as was done during the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. I think by being taught more in an interdisciplinary way allows a person to be more all-around versus being one-sided, as in my case, where I am strictly an L-directed thinker and doer. I believe if math was shown as both art and computation, it would probably be embraced just a little more than it is now.
ReplyDeleteI would think that an interdisciplinary approach to teaching all subjects would allow for a deeper understanding of each particular subject, because you see things from different points of views, and that expands your knowledge. I have read from Pink’s AWNM that teaching from an interdisciplinary approach is making better doctors, by combining their L-directed book learning with more R-directed empathic learning. I am struggling to find a place where an interdisciplinary approach would be detrimental.
I don't think she was necessarily advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching as much as to thinking. She wasn't saying that you need to teach them together just to not distinquish them as separate. Her interdisciplinary focus was that the two were interconnected and to open peoples eyes to the knowledge that you should not feel that you have to have one without the other or that one is better than the other, but that both are important to have a balanced knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be useful to use this as a teaching approach in a classical sense. I think that science and art need to be taught separately. I think the integration of both is a philosophy issue. I see the connection and I agree with the connection. However, to truly understand the connection you have to have a deep understanding, of say, science and art.
Further, teaching everything with an interdisciplinary approach would skim the surface of too many subjects trying to find the meaning between the two. Take cooking soup. When you have an end result of soup, you see the interdisciplinary connection. All these separate ingredients turned out soup. But you can't take all the ingredients and throw them in a pot to make soup. There are steps. There are some ingredients that need to be mixed together first before you add others. Some need to be hot, some need to be cold and some need to wait until the boiling is finished. Just as teaching someone something new. You have to have a solid base understanding of a subject in it's own merit before you throw something else on top. In cooking, you teach a new student about measurements and chemistry before they get to create their art.
1.I think Dr. Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach to education. She provides examples throughout her speech that science and the arts would be more balanced if they combined some of the opposing techniques. I think it is naive to think that scientists are not creative. If they were not creative would they keep trying new experiments to find the perfect outcome? Or would they even start an experiment at all without having a creative intuition about what they want to achieve or outcome they want to create? And artists absolutely are analytical. In elementary school students are challenged to use both sides of their brain. As the children grow and mature they become good at one or two subjects and those subjects guide there forward progress in school. Many middle and high schools are focusing in on what the student is good at and shaping their schedules to cater to those skills. This is good to focus on their strengths, but what about their weaknesses? Should we just stop trying? I don’t like the idea that my child may not be good at math and science, but she’s a genus when it comes to production and music and that schools are going to put her on a track for the arts. How far will that get her if she cannot add or has no understanding of the sciences surrounding her? I think middle and high school should still be about a well rounded education. I do not think students should be focusing on one area or discipline until they have learned enough to make their own educated decision.
ReplyDelete2.No, not all subjects should be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective. We do not need surgeons focusing on being creative in class. Nor do we need dancers thinking of equations to describe the angles that their bodies are making. I think core subjects at a university level should not be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective. I do think that majors should require a cross discipline course to expand the thinking and applying aptitudes. I think this message should be conveyed to more disciplines across the board. I would also hope that by the collegiate level students would understand how learning through different subjects can ultimately help your core focus. I would hope that being able to learn in different styles and use different methods of thinking can only open more doors to the best possible solution.
Dr Jemison is absolutely advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content. She is talking about art vs science through out the whole lecture. I thought it was cool that she integrated all of her liking into everything that she did. She was talking about going into space and some of the objects that she brought with her. She brought a poster of a dance routine from one of her favorite dancers. She respects the time and effort that went into the choreography is the dance, and related that to everything else, using art and science. She states, “ The differences between science and art is that they are manifestations of the same thing.” This makes perfect sense when it comes to interdisciplinarity. She also states “ Science provides a universal understanding of an experience. And art provides a universal understanding of a personal experience” This is saying that the universal is all of us, and the personal understanding is inside all of us. This is very true and relates to our major spot on. Last week in class we did the word equations about UCF and our Future, she used on in her lecture that I liked. She used “Understanding + Resources + will = Outcome” Meaning you ideas you have and your understanding of the idea + money + how hard you are willing to work on achieving you goal = the outcome you will achieve. I thought this lecture was very good, and true to IDS. I personally think that all subjects that are taught should be taught from an interdisciplinary prospective. It could not hurt, it could only help students achieve greatness. It will gives all students not only an understanding of the subject but an understanding of how the subject works in a real life situation. That is why our major is so great. A good example would be an art class, bring out ones creativity when they are young in a piece of artwork. Then when its all done ask the students how they can relate the same creativity they used in there pieces to real life experiences. This would be a good way to introduce the concept and also to get them to think outside the box.
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. Jemison believes an interdisciplinary approach to our learning would strengthen our understanding of the world we live in. Nothing in this world is done using only one skill set. It requires a complex mixing of skills and ideas from a large range of disciplines to make great things happen. Without a new outlook on our learning strategy we will never move forward be it ourselves or the world as a whole. I feel that this new way of learning would have many positives for classroom education. If students were taught to think more outside the box and incorporate different disciplines of knowledge when completing their work it may spark a new interest in a field they knew very little about.
ReplyDeleteI think the integration of interdisciplinary thought would be a great idea but may not fit for all combinations of subjects. Learning the properties and theories in physics and then applying them to real world engineering problems is a great way to establish a bit of interdisciplinarity for students, however neither physics or engineering would mesh too well with a subject like elementary education or creative writing. The thinking processes required for engineering are much too high for young children to comprehend and published documents in the field of physics are very fact based and not story or opinion driven as in a personal creative writing.
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
ReplyDeleteI believe Dr. Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content, because she is taking two or more potentially unrelated subjects and merging them. These subjects actually are related and the entire reason she gave her speech was to explain the necessary breaking of the boundaries between them. This approach can be very useful in classroom instruction because it will allow teachers to eliminate the line between science and art. Many students tell themselves that they are either good at one or good at the other, and I believe that teaching each subject intertwined will make it easier for them to be better at both. In the future, their minds will work equally well on both the right and left sides.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
I think all subjects should be taught interdisciplinarily because it allows students to practice using each part of their brain at the same time. Instead of only thinking about math and then only thinking about English, they can combine the two using the “new math” we learned about earlier in this course and use both right and left hemispheres simultaneously. By using the entire brain at once, it opens all kinds of doors for careers and areas of study in the future these students had not thought of before. New thinking and new ideas are always a plus.
1) Dr. Jemison is very much advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching. She stresses the importance of integrating the arts and the sciences together and, like Pink, stresses the importance of using the brain as a whole and not just one side of the brain at any one time. By linking arts and sciences together we can start using our entire brain instead of predominately one side.
ReplyDelete2) I do think all subjects should be taught with an interdisciplinary approach, some more than others. Dr. Jemison had mentioned in her speech the fact that in high school kids think "When am I ever going to use this?" in some classes such as algebra. I feel that if subjects such as math are looked at from a more interdisciplinary point of view kids won't feel that what they are learning is so pointless. They will also learn that many things actually go together in a variety of ways and the fact that all jobs out there today are very interdisciplinary.
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how heavily she was actively advocating interdisciplinary education, but I feel she was definitely encouraging people to respect other fields and not reject them out of hand. I guess if recognizing the value and understanding the basic concepts of another field is kind of a shallow form of interdisciplinarity, then yes, I guess she was encouraging interdisciplinarity. I think this kind of interdisciplinarity could be useful to many teachers. I've had a number of teachers, particularly ones I had in high school, who taught math/science and didn't respect art, or vice versa. (I remember a couple math teachers in particular who spoke dismissively of our art program; this made me feel pretty bad as I was taking calculus in high school but I was also heavily involved in the art program.) I think some teachers who focus on their own field's perspective to the exclusion of others would do well to change their ways, particularly when adopting another perspective might help them teach students who have different learning styles.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
I think all subjects should utilize interdisciplinarity, but certainly not at every level. (I think Rhonda expressed this very well with her cooking metaphor.) I think it's more important to make sure students understand the basics of a subject before showing how to integrate it with another. For example, I'm now learning all kinds of interdisciplinarity with my computer science studies, but it was important for me to get the basics of coding, machine logic, etc. before I got into the heavier stuff.
Teaching art and sciences together is obviously interdisciplinary. I believe it goes side by side because they are both, at their root about discovery. Sciences are applied to discover that which surrounds and the arts are more about discovering your self.
ReplyDeleteAll subjects should be approached in a interdisciplinary fashion even at an early age. This provides various outlooks into different settings. However I feel that certain classes like just would not work too well together like theology and science where the principles of each differ.
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Jemison believes a interdisciplinary approach to learning is a complete necessity. She calls for our generation to recognize its mission of doing what it can lessen the divide between art and science. Jemison goes on to explains that future generations will build upon our knowledge and abstract ideas. By assigning greater importance to one, say science, you thereby cheapen the value of the other. In doing so the individual, or society demonstrates their failure to recognize the importance of both analytical and abstract thought. One can not thrive without the other. Abstract ideas need hard science to implement them. Furthering scientific knowledge and advancing technology require creative new approaches to go beyond what is possible. Where would the space program be without science fiction?
ReplyDeleteAll educational material should be treated with an interdisciplinary approach. Every class should be taught in such a fashion for the reasons mentioned above and in Dr. Jemison's talk. No one is advocating teaching dance and geology in the same class. The point being made is we need to combine analytical (scientific) and abstract (artistic) thought into the way messages are conveyed in the classroom. Imagine how engaging a class like chemistry would be in it were taught in a creative way. Picture how rewarding it would be to apply what you have learned in math class to a creative project rather than a test. Proof of the success from this style of teaching is evident in the prestige awarded to many private schools across the nation who have adopted such techniques.
1) Yes, I think that Dr. Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach to learning. She embraces the idea that sciences can be creative. The idea that sciences should be limited is absurd. Therefore, in the classroom, teaching math or sciences can become more creative by making students use their imagination to express different concepts. Having them create diagrams or models from unique materials. Students can benefit from this by having a hands on approach and at the same time looking at concepts from a different perspective.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that most subjects should be taught from an interdisciplinary approach when possible. To look at a subject from one perspective can be narrow minded. I think when you give students a way to express themselves in a unique way, they can absorb the information in a way that connects with them best. For example, there are may people talented in music. These student have the creative ability to write catchy lyrics, put it to music and retain it. So, for them making a song to remember states, elements of the periodic table, math equations would be extremely beneficial and a fun project. Others like to express things visually. No one likes all subjects equally so I believe that it is easier learn by incorporate as many perspectives as possible.
1) Dr. Jemison is promoting an interdisciplinary approach. Throughout the entire lecture she talks about the separation of the Arts and Sciences. She makes a case that neither can really exist without the other. therefore they should be somewhat integrated. In example, advance math courses are somewhat frustrating from a student's point of view. student's have trouble seeing the need for or value of math classes such as algebra, trigonometry, calculus or geometry. But if the teacher puts the math to work the students can see the value and free their minds to the concepts. My daughters geometry teacher integrates geometry with building a functional model of a rollercoaster in throughout the class. by the end of the semester the students have applied the math they've learned and see the physical results of their work.
ReplyDelete2) I have always believed that all subjects should be taught from an interdisciplinary point of view. Different people learn in different ways. Today we take a child who is full of energy and sedate him so that he can sit through 7-8 hours of boring lectures five days a week. 100 years ago that same child in a farm environment would have been a blessing. If we could teach these children in ways that would capture and hold their attention, whether the child learns best through the use of books or the use of their hands, I believe we would unleash many hidden talents that until now have been overlooked.
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
ReplyDeleteDr. Jemison is pushing for a critical change to integrate arts and sciences, that it is very important to understand both. One example she says is that people think that artists are not analytical, which she believes that talent needs to be creative and logical at the same time.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
All subjects should be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective. Because in todays world we need both. We need human creativity, imagination and analysis. Arts and sciences need to work hand in hand. She gives one example of music being analytical and creative. When we hear music, yes there is an analytical method to the madness that we need to know and understand. With this understanding we need it to be pleasing and creatively appealing to the emotions. Let's put our minds to work Imagine, Create, Appeal!
The Dr. is definitely speaking from an interdisciplinary perspective. She described how she was interested in arts and dance but also excelling in the science courses. On a side note, I loved how she said she was trying to decide to go to performing arts school or medical school and that her mother helped her decide which way to go.
ReplyDeleteI agree that science and art both spring from creativity and curiousity. The difference is not intiuitive vs. analytical. I think the scientific community and the art community are nearly blind to the fact that each has elements of the other.
I do believe that if our educational system became more interdisciplinary we would reach out to more students. We seem to compartmentalize people. You are either a math / science wiz or an art / language guru. If we reached out to the different perspectives and aimed to bring them together and approach them from one another we would become more inclusive. Students would be able to learn other subjects but relating them to the strengths they possess. I am stronger in language than math. Had I had the ability to learn math from a language perspective I feel I would have excelled. Also with an interdisciplinary, we would help show the more practical, real world use of the skills that we acquire in school.
Dr. Jemison is very much so advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content. In the lecture she stresses the importance or re integrating the arts and sciences. This could be useful in a dance class like Dr. Jemison speaks of where you have to analyze every dance move and almost calculate how to convey an emotion. This is also important the other way around for instance a mechanical engineer may be building an engine for a specific piece of equipment. The engineer may need to think about the overall size and function of the engine and if it will be aesthetically appealing or if it will drive away customers.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it would hurt if all subjects were taught from an interdisciplinary perspective. If this were the case, I believe we would all be better at applying what we learn. We would see things as actually being connected for instance algebra. When we are learning this subject, we are taught the basic laws of algebra while rarely ever applying it. We are often left asking “Why do I need to know this? It won’t help me in the real world.” Then by the time we get to Chemistry or to Business Calculus we realize the importance of algebra and stuck trying to relearn the basic laws.
Dr. Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach in the areas of art and science. She discusses how we stereotype scientists as uncreative and artists as illogical. She goes on to talk about how there is creativity in both processes. The ingenuity to create the idea of "E=mc^2" and the analysis that must have followed. This approach is useful in classrooms because it helps students approach subjects from many different view points. Like using a debate approach to learn facts in history, having the students have to defend their issue with supporting facts.
ReplyDeleteI think there are classes that could benefit from being interdisciplinary. Classes like physics and algebra having a hands on component would be helpful in testing and applying knowledge. For my physics final I had to employ my knowledge of simple machines by building a better mouse trap, and yes we used real mice. The point being it forced us to be analytical, as Dr. Jemison mentioned, but we also had to be creative in the materials and machines we used.
1) Is Dr. Jemison advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content? Why or why not? Provide examples where this approach may or may not be useful in classroom instruction.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dr. Jemison is advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching. Dr. Jemison is focusing on Arts and Sciences mostly with her approach. In my opinion I think that she is trying to get students to start using their critical thinking skills more by using both sides of the brain to think. Arts and Sciences are two very important subjects in todays society and having knowledge in these two areas can really help you later in life. The Interdisciplinary approach is definitely the approach that she is taking and trying to get us to learn as well.
2) Should all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Why or why not? Provide examples where this may be helpful or detrimental.
I dont think that all subjects should be taught from an interdisciplinary prospective but I do believe that most of them should. I think that the interdisciplinary approach is very good when teaching students and will not only make us more knowledgeable but it will get us to think allot more then we usually do. Having this taught to us will help us be more creative as well as better critical thinking. Arts and sciences today require lots of creativity and thinking and this well go well with that. Overall I like the idea of this and feel it should be taught in more subjects then it is.
Dr. Jemison is definitely advocating an interdisciplinary method. The entire video is she is pushing the combination of the arts and sciences. She goes as far as using the example of artists not being analytical, and scientists not being creative. She is using these extremes to show that they should not be isolated to one subject or the other rather the two should be intertwined like the fax machines. I think overall Dr. Jemison does not feel like our education system can continue to move forward without this integration. An great example of how this would work is music. Music can be explained through a set of mathmatical formulas. In the same notion a math problem could easily be drawn out to bring a meaning to numbers. The combination of the two skills in this way allows students who lack one or the other to benefit.
ReplyDeleteI think all subjects should be taught in an interdisciplinary manner. All of the fields in education interelate whether you believe it or not. When you are learning the locations of planets and a teacher assigns a drawing, or 3d project you never forget the order of the planets. This combination of the sciences and astronomy is a strong tool. For every subject there is a way to tie in another subject. You utilizze these skills on a daily basis so why not in our education system.
Dr. Jemison is definitely advocating an interdisciplinary approach to teaching content. This is because she expresses how and what to do in order to improve our "mission" and to reconcile our science and the arts into the classrooms. She expresses how making decisions is vital because it connects to the outside word. This shows us that as long as being creative will benefit us later on in the future.
ReplyDeleteShould all subjects be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective? Yes, and this is because participation of two or more fields will only make the student well rounded. I feel that not just one subject should be focus on... Alot of things in the world relate to other things. That's what makes up a complete subject... for example, I want to teach in the near future and with my IDS degree i have experience and the knowledge in psychology and humanities... and knowing that will only make me a better teacher. Being a teacher is more than just knowing how to teach, but it's also knowing how to relate to your students. So yes, i think it would be helpful to teach all subjects in a interdisciplinary perspective!
I have mixed feelings about implementing art/science interdisciplinarity into coursework. I'm a proponent of the integration of practical application and the "big picture" approach to the sciences; it keeps you centered on why you're learning the material in the first place. For me, I guess, what's important is the line between too little and too much. I hardly want to write a paper for my chemistry class outlining the implications that chemical reactions have on what it means to be human. For the most part, I will do that kind of thinking on my own time. I am studying to learn the facts and how things work. I'm trying to acquire technical skills the will enable to accomplish specific tasks. I'm not looking for my college to help me develop as a person. I'm looking for it to train me. The reading between the lines? That's my responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWhen Doctor Jemison’s lecture was recorded in 2002, she was clearly worried about the direction of our learning. Her purpose was to get us thinking about the importance of teaching arts and sciences together, which makes her a definite advocate of the interdisciplinary approach.
ReplyDeleteIntegration of one or more subjects during classroom instructions is a proven way to make subjects understandable and practical. Astronomy features scientific data like temperature and measurements. Could astronomy be discussed in an art class? Should students be educated interdisciplinarily? The answer is YES. The universe has a many ascetic features, which could be discussed in an art class OR a science class.
Dr. Jemison wants to see courses like the Ascetics of Astrology available. In that course (or similar courses), both L-directed and R-directed thinking would be taking place. Integrated courses would allow for an incredibly more enriching experience.
I believe she is advocating that art and science should be taught together. She gives this example when she talks about the way people are being told about science and arts and they can not be combined. And when she gives her past experience she uses star trek and how it has shaped what is happening now. It is useful because when you can make science into a visual component it helps people understand. you can show them a picture of the sun and tell them it is big, or you can tell them. The picture shows it better.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think almost everything should be taught with this out look. It helps people find different ideas to understand and problem solve that was not there at all. It will help people gain that L and R brain thinking and help them enter the conceptual age.