Connecting Concepts #2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Mandatory assignment ...

Description

Connecting Concepts #2 A. In the statement “divorced from understanding,” Grinnell means that individuals who are taught science, whether it is in an elementary school classroom or college classroom, students never fully understand the things they are taught. Because science is composed of layers and layers of information, students are taught only the facts and not the deeper significance behind the facts. This then results in a lack of true understanding. B. In my high school biology class, we conducted many experiments to demonstrate the different concepts that were taught in class. I remember investigating the structures of plant and animal cells and distinguishing the differences in detail. My class was put into different groups in which one side of the room looked at animal cells under a microscope and the other looked at plant cells. As we looked we had to label the different structures on a diagram and describe their functions. I never fully understood the different functions of each structure and why certain things where in a plant cell instead of in an animal cell, but I did know the basic structures and differences. This fits into Grinnell’s description of how science is often taught because my teacher never taught us the information in a deeper sense to make any of the students and I fully understand the chapter. Instead, she taught us the facts of what the textbook said and the basics of what was needed to know. C. In a scientific argument, you are describing what you know after the investigation and how you know it. What you know after the investigation is gained through conducting an experiment and reviewing the scientific method. All the information gathered after the investigation then leads to how you know it. How you know it is proof of the claim you are stating through evidence gathered in the investigation. D. My major is psychology with a minor in criminology. In both these fields, the method of constructing an argument is extremely similar to a scientific argument. In psychology, the research investigations follow the scientific method just like in a scientific argument. A claim is needed to first start an argument, then a hypothesis should be constructed to show reasoning for your claim, then a procedure, methods, and results is created to support your claim which helps the argument presented. E. The characteristics of the unknown prehistoric animal in Lab #1 were that it had a sharp teeth, big jaws, long arms, wings, and small hands. The sharp teeth and big jaws are evidence of the animal’s defense mechanism for fighting when needed but also a survival mechanism for catching prey. The long arms extended into wings is evidence of the way that this animal traveled. The small hands attached to the animal’s wings are evidence that the animal did not really use its hands often. Overall, my reasoning for my claims are that the unknown animal could be a bird like or a bat like dinosaur. I think my evidence is appropriate and sufficient to support my claims because I stated reasonings behind every single one of my claims....