Science: Power-Knowledge is an upper division cluster course within University Studies at Portland State University. As part of the course in spring term 2005, several students utilized a weblog to portray their final assignment: the integrative representation of a contemporary politicoscientific controversy. Given University Studies' focus on extending the use of the electronic portfolio as a repository for selected student work and integrative, reflective essays, experimentation with weblogs as a framework for student inquiry is particularly apt.
The approach described below is integrative in a number of ways.
•First, the "object" of student inquiry is a politicoscientific controversy (such as debates about the relative usefulness of adult- vs. human embryo-derived stem cells). Of necessity the student faces a relational mix of scientific, political, economic, cultural and moral considerations and must find a way to configure a composite rendering of this mix.
•Second, the featured theoretical account in the course (the so-called "actor-network theory" of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law) provides a way to think about the relationality and gives the student the opportunity to "try out" the theory as a working tool for integrating their understanding.
•Third, the tool used, the weblog, allows integration because students can link outward to a range of contending portrayals of the chosen controversy.
•Fourth, the tool entails a sequence of blog posts that provide opportunity for a line of inquiry to unfold, exhibiting changing notions of what an integrated understanding and portrayal of a controversy consists of.
•Fifth, the tool makes it possible for students to link back to any of their earlier entries, allowing them and their readers to track changes in integrative understanding.
•Sixth, weblogs are potentially open (as they typically are) to the comments of others and thus external prompts to reintegrate in particular ways.
•Seventh, although it might be a rare event, students could return to such an assignment at a much later time and add to the work done earlier.
•Finally, the weblog is easily made part of an e-portfolio.
The weblog as a tool for integrative learning
Science: Power-Knowledge is a junior/senior level course within University Studies. It is interdisciplinary in content and design and thus a good candidate for looking at integrative learning. Indeed, the nature and aims of the course are such that it is appropriate to use the resources and representational possibilities of the web. Additionally, such an assignment results in a product that is especially apt for display as part of a student's electronic portfolio of work--and extending the use of the electronic portfolio is central to Portland State University's participation in the Integrated Learning Project.
How the assignment is used: The final course assignment asks that students bring the term's readings and discussions to bear in one of two ways. Either they advance a line of inquiry that ties together the term's work (it is a rare student that attempts this) or they subject a contemporary politicoscientific controversy (global warming, human embryonic stem cell research, or disagreements as to the safety of genetically modified foodstuffs, for example) to an analysis using the tools and models developed during the term.
The context of the assignment: The term's work is aimed at developing an alternative way of understanding the relationship of the natural sciences and their practices to the influence of political, economic, social, cultural and ethical forces. Thus, it's important that there be an assignment for which this new relationship is a key concern.
The purpose of the assignment: Given that the alternative understanding of science and politics at the heart of this course is largely dependent on an unconventional theoretical framework (called "actor-network theory"), a practical demonstration of student understanding can best be achieved if real controversies are the object of inquiry. The course explores the "movement" of an inquiry from the early stages of "science-in-the-making" to the tentative closures of debate that constitute "science made." The process of scientific practice is understood as the imbrication of things/persons/texts in open-ended arrays that undergo stepwise transformations. Hence, the purpose of the assignment--especially in its web-based options--is to allow students a real opportunity to "try out" their new understanding by tackling controversies that are richly documented and contested, and (for some) to display their understanding using the medium of the web.
Questions for exploration: Does such an assignment actually provide students the "best" opportunity to integrate their learning? What amongst the elements of the completed assignment helped assess student learning--the way they framed their approach? the course of their argument from entry to entry? their final reflection? And finally, given this first experience with weblogs as a framework for student inquiry, what modifications are suggested?
The assignment in question
What follows is the actual final assignment for the Science: Power-Knowledge course. The Integrative Learning assignment under discussion as part of the Carnegie and AAC&U project is a variant of Option 3 below.
'The final paper for Science: Power-Knowledge is to be roughly 10-12 pages in length and should, like the earlier essay, be formal in its presentation (see the comments describing the earlier assignment). You may pursue one of three options for the final paper.
'Option 1 asks that you “tie everything together”, that you produce an account of how all those we have read fit together (that is, are coherent) with respect to two or three ideas that you see are key to establishing that coherence. The idea is NOT to produce an author by author summary that simply repeats what we read and discussed (NOT “First, we read Latour… Then we turned to Goodfield… Next we…”), rather the challenge is to identify two or three concepts that allow you to thread the authors together. As you can see, this is much like the 5-6 page essay except that it’s twice as long and requires you to pull together the thoughts of many more authors. While it appears to be the most straightforward of the options and requires no additional reading or research, the pulling of the authors together in an interesting and fruitful way is not an easy task.
'Option 2 asks that you analyze a controversy that I identify. There are two that I have located that are “doable.” By “doable” I mean that the documents you will utilize to carry out the assignment are not overwhelming in number or complexity. The science is understandable and the controversies interesting. They will provide you an opportunity to show that you understand how to apply the ideas we have explored this term. I will post more about this option soon.
'Option 3 can be dealt with in three ways. For this option YOU pick the controversy you wish to explore using the concepts and modes of inquiry we have developed this term. The controversy must be within the natural sciences (e.g., some aspect of global warming, the use of embryonic vs. adult stem cells in research, the claimed safety of genetically-modified foods, and the like). The most interesting choices are those that are sufficiently controversial that you will have no difficulty in locating articles written about the controversy from several points of view.
'Having chosen a controversy you can either (1) write a conventional term paper about it, (2) put together a website or (3) a weblog that “represents” the nature and complexity of the controversy. The second approach should be attempted only if you are reasonably proficient at website construction. That is, you do not want inexperience with website construction to “get in the way” of demonstrating that you understand the controversy well enough to “show” how it is “structured” by identifying and actually linking the various key ideas and players in the controversy. You may find the weblog a friendlier alternative. You can set up a free weblog using Blogger. The second and third approaches not only require the “showing” of the controversy but a narrative (as part of the website) that allows a site visitor to gain some understanding of the controversy as well as understand your website portrayal of it.
'Finally, the web page or weblog alternatives require a reflective entry; as an prominent entry on your website or as the "final" entry of your weblog, please provide a brief summary reflection on (1) what your investigation uncovered, (2) what strategies and approaches led you to identify the many elements of the controversy as you came to see them, and (3) how you decided what to portray in your effort to display for others the nature of the controversy at hand.'
Samples of student integrative learning weblogs
Thirteen of thirty-five students in the class chose to utilize a web site or weblog as the medium for their final assignment. Of the thirteen, two produced web sites, ten created weblogs, and one student (majoring in computer science) utilized a "wiki" framework. Here are examples of the best weblogs. Ben McInnis (a finance major and the student who first suggested the use of a weblog as an alternative to the construction of a web site ) looked at the dispute about the Plan B emergency contraceptive and the resistance of some pharmacists to dispensing it (NOTE: Ben has removed his blog site from the web). Virginia Berube (a chemistry major) explored a largely scientific question having to do with the mechanism of protein synthesis. Arthur Nersesian (majoring in economics)took up the growing controversy about "intelligent design" as an alternative to conventional evolutionary theory. Finally, Nathan Hodges (a major in environmental studies) explored the still-open question as to the effects of benzene on human health.
Evaluating weblogs as a medium for integrative learning
In evaluating the weblog as a framework by which students portrayed a contemporary politicoscientific controversy I was interested in seeing several things. While I have no formal rubric for evaluating student work, I am clear as to what I was looking for. First, did students take advantage of the fact that they had roughly three weeks to develop their approach. This would be evidenced by entries made over that extended period of time. Second, did their successive entries evidence an increasingly rich portrayal. Did their entry commentaries evidence increasing sophistication? Did the web links they included evidence a range of positions on the controversy in question and did those links (and the student's commentary) evidence the several aspects of the controversy: scientific, political, economic and the like? Finally, I was interested in whether their final reflections evidenced comment on the integrative nature of their work. I think you will find it interesting to see what three of the students said by way of summary reflection (the reflections are the final [top] entries in their blogs--return to the links above).