Scholarly Engagement & Seminar Norms

ASTR 201 — Astronomy for Science Majors

Artifact Header (for course materials)
Course: ASTR 201
Module: [TBD] (used throughout the semester)
Learning Objectives: Practice scientific reasoning and evidence-based discussion (supports course learning outcomes).
Concept Throughline: Observables → models → inference, with uncertainty as normal.
Math level: Astro 201 (equations are allowed, but we always interpret symbols physically).
Mode: Draft

What is “Scholarly Engagement” (10%)?

In this course, your engagement grade measures something real: whether you are practicing the skills scientists use to build understanding together.

You earn Scholarly Engagement credit through: - iClicker participation during in-class questions (often think–pair–share). - In-class group inquiry activities (from Learning Astronomy by Doing Astronomy). - Socratic Seminars (a structured discussion where we interpret a shared “text,” often a figure, spectrum, short excerpt, or dataset).

This is not “points for talking.” It’s credit for doing the intellectual work of astronomy in community.

What “good engagement” looks like (examples)

During discussion, lab-style activities, or seminar, strong engagement sounds like:

  • “My claim is , because the plot shows .”
  • “I’m not fully sure, but I think ___ under the assumption that ___.”
  • “Can we check the axis / units / trend again? If that’s true, then ___.”
  • “An alternative explanation could be ___. What observation would separate them?”

You do not need to be loud to be engaged. You do need to be evidence-based and constructive.

Socratic Seminar norms (how we talk like scientists)

In seminar, our goal is shared inquiry, not performance.

1) Anchor claims in evidence.
If you make a claim, point to something specific: a line in the text, a feature in the figure, an axis label, a trend, a number.

2) Name assumptions out loud.
Astronomy is inference under constraints. Assumptions are part of the job, not something to hide.

3) Disagree with ideas, not people.
Use: “I interpret it differently because…” not “That’s wrong.”

4) Share the airtime.
If you’ve spoken a lot, practice listening. If you’ve been quiet, try one contribution: a question, a clarification, or one evidence-based claim.

5) Let uncertainty be normal (but not vague).
Uncertainty is fine. Vague claims are not. Try: “I’m ~70% confident because…”

Practical seminar roles (so everyone can contribute)

Depending on the day, you may be in an inner circle (speaking) or outer circle (observing + supporting).

Outer circle contributions that count as full engagement: - Track where the group used evidence well (and where we didn’t). - Notice assumptions that were stated (or missing). - Identify a moment when someone revised their thinking. - Offer one “what would we measure next?” question during the debrief.

What hurts your Scholarly Engagement grade

  • Side conversations during class or seminar.
  • Phone use that distracts you or others.
  • Excessive tardiness and/or absences.
  • Dismissing classmates instead of engaging their reasoning.
  • Speaking without evidence (repeatedly) after redirection.

Academic integrity and AI tools

Your thinking matters here. Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude) are prohibited for course-related assessments.
That includes any for-credit written seminar prep/reflections, if assigned. If you’re unsure whether something counts, ask before submitting.