[Petwksp] M&Ms, poker chips, and reality

[Cathy Manduca]

Hi-
You can also check out the Teaching with Models section of the
Starting Point site:  serc.carleton.edu/introgeo.
I would be pleased to have some feedback on the site and the discussion of 
models.

Cathy

--On Friday, October 3, 2003 4:02 PM -0600 David Mogk <mogk at montana.edu> 
wrote:

>
> Hi Folks,
>
> For a somewhat more comprehensive discussion of the use of models in
> teaching, see the report that Cathy and I wrote on Using Data in the
> Classroom
>
> http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/usingdata/index.html
>
> There is a discussion throughout this document about the use of models
> in science  instruction, how it is effectively used in some disciplines
> (e.g. physics), whether or not model output is "data", etc.
>
> Bill Locke and I also put together a Powerpoint discussion of the use of
> models in Earth System Education. Although most of the examples are from
> surficial geology, there is some underlying philosophy presented of why
> we use models in geoscience instruction. Find this at:
> http://www.dlese.org/annualmtg/AnnualMtg2000/index.html
> and scroll down to:
>
>
>
> EARTH SYSTEM EDUCATION IN A DIGITAL WORLD
>  Modeling Earth Processes using Spreadsheets and V-ModFlow
>
>
> My personal view about models in general is that we have to be very
> careful in how we frame their use in our class activities--let the
> students know what the assumptions and limitations are, that the models
> and their results attempt to simulate natural outcomes, but these are not
> necessarily "the answer".
> Now really, go out and have some fun...
> cheers,
> Dave Mogk
>
>
>
>
> edwardsb at alpha.dickinson.edu wrote:
>
>
> Petros,
>
> At the risk of creating an argument not appropriate for this venue (Dave
> please let me know if this is tiresome and should be banished to
> individual email exchanges), I feel that I should respond to Alan's
> comments, not so much about Bowen (I've never really thought of myself as
> "Bowenist" or as an "anti-Bowenist) but about Alan's assertions on using
> models for teaching. This seems like a point that needs a bit of
> discussion.
>
> ALL MODELS ARE "THEORETICAL" in that no models I have yet seen include
> the complex physics of fluid flow, heat transfer and chemical
> disequilibrium that must exist in many or most natural magmatic systems.
> SIMPLIFIED THEORETICAL MODELS are useful teaching tools, as long as the
> STUDENTS UNDERSTAND that the model is not designed to REPLICATE nature
> exactly, but to explore the possible consequences of natural processes
> (like crystal-liquid separation). Hugh Greenwood wrote a great paper
> about the use of models in science in Canadian Mineralogist that has well
> thought out ideas...(possibly unlike my zoned pluton example???!!??).
>
> Is the model of in situ differentiation to form a zoned igneous body too
> simplified to be useful? Maybe so...Alan and Walt may have a great story
> about the Tuolumne suite not representing a zoned "in situ" magma
> chamber. Does that mean that they (zoned plutons not Alan and his
> student!) don't exist in nature, or just not in the "classic" suite? I
> haven't seen any papers yet documenting absolute physical barriers to
> some amount of "classic" in situ differentiation in magma bodies...if
> they exist I'd appreciate knowing...I don't want to propagate out-of-date
> information!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
>
> _____________________________
> Ben Edwards, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor (Min/Pet/Volc)
> Department of Geology
> Dickinson College
> P.O. Box 1773
> Carlisle, PA 17013-2896
> Ph: 717-254-8934
> Fax: 717-245-1971
> e-mail: edwardsb at dickinson.edu
> website: http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/geol/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Petwksp mailing list
> Petwksp at serc.carleton.edu
> http://serc.carleton.edu/mailman/listinfo/petwksp
>
>
>



Cathryn A. Manduca
Director, Science Education Resource Center
Carleton College
Northfield, MN  55057
507 646-7096
cmanduca at carleton.edu
serc.carleton.edu