Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?” at http://bit.ly/yrvMaM, Steve Ehrmann (2012) http://bit.ly/ADjG1f of the ASSESS list wrote that he doubted that Eric Mazur’s method (Peer Instruction (PI) http://bit.ly/xd2sSe) was an example of operant conditioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning because PI did not require many trials.

But in my post I quoted Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner, to the effect she thought that some aspects of Mazur’s method were “behavioral,” not that his method was an example of “operant conditioning.” The title of my post “Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?” was in response to the statement “Physics Education Research Can Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning” by PhysLrnR’s Diana Kronbrot (2012b) - erroneously attributed by myself to Bud Nye in my post at http://bit.ly/yrvMaM.

Steve then went on to state that he thought Ron Thornton’s microcomputer-based labs http://bit.ly/wecznc might be examples of operant conditioning because they featured “repeating trials to internalize difficult ideas such as acceleration.”

But I think Thornton’s microcomputer-based labs are more than just “repeating trials. . .. [[with motion detectors]]. . . . to internalize difficult ideas.” In addition, they are good examples of “interactive engagement? methods, operationally defined in Hake (1998a) http://bit.ly/9484DG as those “designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.”

Therefore I don't think microcomputer - based labs can be accurately characterized as either (a) “Skinnerian” or (b) examples of “operant conditioning.”

I give some examples of “interactive engagement” Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs designed to promote students’ operational understanding of the terms “operational,” “position,” “vectors,” “velocity,” and “acceleration.”
**************************************************

To access the complete 20 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/wL6lYu.

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
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake

“If people don’t realize they’re using the same word or phrase to mean different things, the result can be an unnecessary argument. Our term for such linguistic traps is ‘confusors.’ ”
Steve Ehrmann (undated)


REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 March 2012.]
Ehrmann, S. undated. “Confusors - Separated by a Common Language,” TLT Group, online at http://bit.ly/wAB27a.

Ehrmann, S. 2012. “Re: Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?” on the OPEN ACCESS archives at http://bit.ly/zi060m. Post of 12 Mar 2012 11:01:0-0400 to ACCESS.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/wL6lYu. Post of 13 Mar 2012 16:07:03-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.