Edited by Kate Blackham, Friday, 8 Nov 2024, 11:42
I love my job. I love interacting with students.
I'm not so keen on the way TMA questions are phrased.
It's something I've come up against time after time. I've mentioned this before here I'm sure, those of us with a more literal way of thinking interpret questions very differently from the more big-picture woolly thinking neurotypicals who are reading between gaps we didn't even know were there.
[Tangent going off on - yes it has a point]
There is a classic defence of cultural astronomy and the study of ancient sciences in a paper called (as ever link to the OU library) The Study of Wretched Subjects.by Otto Neugebauer.
Neugebauer was a fascinating man: originally trained as a mathematician who got into the history of mathematics (and hence astronomy), learnt Babylonian so he could read clay tablets. It's because of him that we now know that the ancient Babylonians were incredibly skilled mathematicians and astronomers.
Now Professor Sarton was a chemist turned historian who was editor of Isis (the journal in which Neugebauer's paper appears).
I've seen fellow astrophysicists, with our more literal bent, badly misinterpret this paper, especially since Neugebauer constantly refers to astrology as a 'wretched subject'. Neugebauer wasn't in fact agreeing with Sarton - he was burning his face off with his own words - and pointing out that the study of the history of astrology was in fact the study of the history of astronomy. If the study of ancient astrology is wretched, then so too is the study of ancient astronomy - because you cannot divide them - they have the same rootstock. George Sarton, to give him his due, was humble enough to publish this reply in his own journal.
Learning how to think like a cultural astronomer has been hard for me - the humanities have a very different way of thinking, more nuance, more gaps to read between. And I clearly am not the only one.
Coming back to my students. I noticed something weird happening with the way they were answering one of their questions so I go back to the course materials. One of the parts that forms the answer to a question in this TMA literally tells students to do a reflection - except I'm in no way able to mark it as a reflection. I have students going off on tangents all over the place. The module team were supoosed to be clearing up some of the confusing TMA questions that misled neurodivergent students and it looks like they've created a new one.
Anyway I was thinking I'd at least attempt to cheer my students up with the story of the ongoing debacle of my FHEA application and how I didn't put the right words in the right box and hence didn't get it. Because I literally don't have a brain that's wired up in the same way as the people who decide these things. And failing to read between the lines that I didn't know were there is always going to be an issue for me too.
Excuse me while I facepalm
I love my job. I love interacting with students.
I'm not so keen on the way TMA questions are phrased.
It's something I've come up against time after time. I've mentioned this before here I'm sure, those of us with a more literal way of thinking interpret questions very differently from the more big-picture woolly thinking neurotypicals who are reading between gaps we didn't even know were there.
[Tangent going off on - yes it has a point]
There is a classic defence of cultural astronomy and the study of ancient sciences in a paper called (as ever link to the OU library) The Study of Wretched Subjects.by Otto Neugebauer.
Neugebauer was a fascinating man: originally trained as a mathematician who got into the history of mathematics (and hence astronomy), learnt Babylonian so he could read clay tablets. It's because of him that we now know that the ancient Babylonians were incredibly skilled mathematicians and astronomers.
Now Professor Sarton was a chemist turned historian who was editor of Isis (the journal in which Neugebauer's paper appears).
I've seen fellow astrophysicists, with our more literal bent, badly misinterpret this paper, especially since Neugebauer constantly refers to astrology as a 'wretched subject'. Neugebauer wasn't in fact agreeing with Sarton - he was burning his face off with his own words - and pointing out that the study of the history of astrology was in fact the study of the history of astronomy. If the study of ancient astrology is wretched, then so too is the study of ancient astronomy - because you cannot divide them - they have the same rootstock. George Sarton, to give him his due, was humble enough to publish this reply in his own journal.
Learning how to think like a cultural astronomer has been hard for me - the humanities have a very different way of thinking, more nuance, more gaps to read between. And I clearly am not the only one.
Coming back to my students. I noticed something weird happening with the way they were answering one of their questions so I go back to the course materials. One of the parts that forms the answer to a question in this TMA literally tells students to do a reflection - except I'm in no way able to mark it as a reflection. I have students going off on tangents all over the place. The module team were supoosed to be clearing up some of the confusing TMA questions that misled neurodivergent students and it looks like they've created a new one.
Anyway I was thinking I'd at least attempt to cheer my students up with the story of the ongoing debacle of my FHEA application and how I didn't put the right words in the right box and hence didn't get it. Because I literally don't have a brain that's wired up in the same way as the people who decide these things. And failing to read between the lines that I didn't know were there is always going to be an issue for me too.