MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2036668609 · doi:10.1002/bmb.72

Commentary: Tribute to Herman T. Epstein (1920–2007)

2007· article· en· W2036668609 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harold B. White

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer and biochemical research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTributeSociologySocial studiesMentorshipMathematics educationPsychologyMedia studiesLawMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The news of Herman Epstein's death on March 25 of this year initiated a flood of memories for me. My interactions with him were brief and yet they had significant impact on my attitudes toward education and on the way I teach. I first met Herman Epstein in 1967 when he was teaching a 6-week segment of a graduate physical biochemistry course at Brandeis University. The topic was Fortran programming in the era before hand calculators and desktop computers. I never became proficient with computer punch cards or programming, but I did take morning coffee breaks in a lounge situated between the Biochemistry and Biology Departments where graduate students, postdocs, and faculty discussed science and the issues of the day. There I first learned of Herman Epstein's interest in education and his radically different approach for teaching introductory biology for first-year non-science majors. It was a time of social unrest. Those of us males in graduate school at Brandeis University, who had high draft numbers, were fairly certain we could complete our graduate work without going to Vietnam. Those with lower numbers actively sought draft deferrals or contemplated moving to Canada rather than be drafted to fight in a war few of us supported. This was also a time of the civil rights movement. This and other social issues motivated significant numbers of graduate students in the sciences at Brandeis to volunteer to tutor inner-city high school students as part of an Upward Bound project. Dissatisfaction within the scientific community led to the “Science for the People” movement that blossomed at the December 1970 AAAS meeting in Boston where sessions were disrupted and protesters demanded that science be more responsive to the needs of society [1]. It was a time when many students and faculty were dissatisfied with the way things were. I suspect the mood of activism at the time caused people to take risks and try new things. I do not recall Herman Epstein's social positions at the time, but his introductory biology course was new and involved risks. He described it as “… conducting a graduate research seminar for 17-year-old students with little background and virtually no interest in science” [2, p. 13]. He had concluded that traditional introductory biology courses only bored students and taught them very little of importance. He contended that non-science majors needed to understand what science was about and what motivated scientists to do what they did. For a research scientist, how better to do this than to give a course on what interested you most—your own research area? Thus, Epstein built his course around a progression of six to 10 seminal research articles that laid the ground work for and culminated with a recent article he had published. The focus was not on content, although students learned a lot of that in the process. Rather, he emphasized science as a human activity driven by curiosity about how the world works. Epstein's model provided a way for active research professors to teach introductory courses. Each professor could decide the content of his or her section of a course without altering the course objectives. The appeal was great, and research faculty in different disciplines at various universities adopted the approach. Epstein published a little book, A Strategy for Education [2], about his approach. He also published an article in Nature on the subject [3]. After I obtained a faculty position, I adopted Epstein's strategy in 1974 for a non-science major biochemistry course that I taught twice before reverting to traditional lectures in courses for biochemistry and science majors. A few teachers, notably at Hampshire College, continue to teach courses using Epstein's model, but others stopped after a few years when social activism and reform interests waned. Only many years later did I see how Epstein's approach could be neatly adapted to a problem-based learning context using articles as problems, involving groups, and focusing on majors rather than non-majors [4]. Much of what Epstein did would be called action research today. Basically, he tried what seemed to make sense, kept track of what he did, reflected on it, and made modifications as seemed necessary. It was not based within the framework of educational psychology or learning theory, although Epstein was quite familiar with the works of Brunner [5]. His practical approach had appeal to science faculty who were more interested in methods that worked than abstractions. However, his lack of theoretical grounding, experimental protocols, and rigorous assessment gained the ire of at least one education researcher who wrote a scathing review of his book [6]. Herman Epstein was trained as a physicist and became a biophysicist. In the 1970s, he changed his research direction completely and became fascinated with the biological basis of learning. He studied brain growth and correlated that with the cognitive development of humans, as described by Piaget [7]. Specifically, in his cognitive level matching theory [8], he argued that the human brain develops in several spurts, and that there was little point in teaching material to school children at a level which their brain was developmentally unprepared to receive. This also translated into controversial areas of the educational consequences of gender differences in brain maturation. After retirement from Brandeis University in 1989, Epstein moved to Woods Hole and continued his research at the Marine Biological Laboratory into his eighties. It was there many years after my student years that I met him again. He remained passionate about education and the importance of coupling our understanding of the brain development to optimizing student learning. As his obituary in the Boston Globe noted [9], he felt reasoning should become the fourth “R” after reading, ′riting, and ′rithmatic.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,061
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,052

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,059
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,008
Communication savante0,0080,010
Science ouverte0,0070,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0610,079
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,012

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,337
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education→Même sujetCancer and biochemical research→Travaux en français237 207→