Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4” [Hake (2011c)].
The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” http://bit.ly/eh6sge, I suggested over 30 references that might have helped to alleviate his near zero knowledge of physics education research. In his response http://bit.ly/fjJAdl Hansen demonstrated that he had either not bothered to read or had not understood the recommended references. In this post I give six excerpts quoted from Hansen's (2011) reply, along with my responses to the nonsensical assertions Hansen makes in each of those excerpts.
*********************************************
To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/hBhrJw.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
“If you try to introduce people. . . . .[[such as Hansen]]. . . to a paradigm shift, they will hear what you have to say and then interpret your words in terms of their old paradigm. What does not fit, they will not hear.”
Myron Tribus (2001)
“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”
Wood & Gentile (2003)
“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”
Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 April 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.
Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ifvkSz, with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/efQg1g, with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2011c. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hBhrJw. Post of 22 Apr 2011 14:11:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Hansen, R. 2011. “Re: ‘The 'Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/fjJAdl. Post of April 17 to Math-Teach & Math-Learn.
Tribus, M. 2001. “Quality in Education According to the Teachings of Deming and Feuerstein,” online as a 78 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/hwcbjn. A Wikipedia entry on Myron Tribus is athttp://bit.ly/g5uGEk.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.
2 comments:
The Tribus quote is most relevant to really grasp what you are saying, but until a person gets past that blockage all of the rest of the information you present is hard to conceptually integrate. I just took Vosniadou's course in concept learning (she was an invited scholar here at Carnegie Mellon) and it was a real eye opener about how complex learning occurs and does not. Richard, do I assume correctly that you think confrontation is the best approach to achieving conceptual change?
Dear "Imrryr",
Thanks for your comment. Two points:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. You wrote: "I just took Vosniadou's course in concept learning. . . . . and it was a real eye opener about how complex learning occurs and does not."
Thanks for reminding me of Stella Vosniadou's research on conceptual change. Her webpage http://bit.ly/hygR8m features some downloadable papers, a few of which I’ve scanned.
Vosniadou & Vamvakowssi (2005) in "Examining mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of view: Implications for the design of learning environments," wrote: "Most educational researchers seem to agree that mathematics learning does not consist of the passive absorption of certain abstract, de-contextualized concepts and procedural skills to be acquired by individuals through transmission teaching methods. . . . ."
So I think Vosniadou and most educational researchers would agree with the general tenor of my post "The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #4" [Hake (2011)].
222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. You wrote: ". . . .do I assume correctly that you think confrontation is the best approach to achieving conceptual change?"
NO!! My post "The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #4" may have seemed to you "confrontational" toward Hansen. But its purpose was not to produce any conceptual change in Hansen. Judging from his Math-Teach posts at http://bit.ly/i97kYY, Hansen is so firmly committed to the direct-instruction paradigm that, as Tribus observed, he will interpret my words in terms of his old paradigm.
Rather I wished to bring the interactive-engagement paradigm to the attention of discussion-list subscribers by contrasting it with Hansen's direct-instruction paradigm.
Insofar as promoting conceptual change among introductory physics students, I've been reasonably successful in using Socratic dialogue – see e.g., The Socratic Method of the Historical Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and the Law School's Socrates" [Hake (2007)]. That often involves inducing Pigetian "disequilibration" but never "confrontation."
Regards,
Richard Hake
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2007. "The Socratic Method of the Historical Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and the Law School's Socrates," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fiHh4G. Post of 21 Jun 2007 13:43:0 -0700 to AERA-J, AERA-L, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and POD.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #4," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hBhrJw. Post of 22 Apr 2011 14:11:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at http://bit.ly/f2wH9v.
Vosniadou, S. & X. Vamvakowssi. 2005. "Examining mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of view: Implications for the design of learning environments," in L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts and S.Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends - Fifteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series, Elsevier; online as a 274 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/eX2d3S.
Post a Comment