Monday, March 23, 2015
What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?
Some blog followers might be interested in the following two articles on the possibility of psychology education researchers learning from physics education researchers [If clicking on any of the URLs below results in code the click on "View"/"Reload Page"]:
Hake, R.R. 2015a. “What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?” online as a 246 KB pdf at http://bit.ly/19MnIta ; accepted for publication in the March 2015 issue of the Journal of Teaching and Learning in Psychology http://bit.ly/18RMcA7 . This is a weak version of my article that's been eviscerated by being forced into conformity with the overly prescriptive APA style.
Hake, R.R. 2015b. “What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?” online as a 393 KB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/pa2yltu; submitted on 18 Feb 2015 to the Journal of Teaching and Learning in Psychology http://bit.ly/18RMcA7. This is a strong version of my article that was rejected because (a) the editors thought that it was too long, and (b) it failed to adhere to the overly prescriptive dictates of APA Style.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: EvalTalk’s David Colton wrote at http://bit.ly/1vuEiDu (my inserts at “. . . . . . .[[insert]] . . . . . . . . . ”:
“A decade ago, the ‘American Evaluation Association’ . . . . . [[http://bit.ly/1s1m5Mb]]. . . . issued a position paper . . . . . .[[(AEA, 2003) at http://bit.ly/1tgrYsI, highly critical of ]]. . . . . . . . the U.S. Dept. of Education’s (USDE’s) decision to award research grants based on methodology, with experimental and quasi experimental designs given funding prior over other approaches . . . . . . .[[“experimental” is RCT enthusiasts’ code for methodology utilizing “Randomized Control Trails” (RCTs)]]. . . . So I was very interested in an article in this month’s Scientific American which describes the results of this process ten years out: ‘The Science of Learning’ . . . . . . .[[Kantrowitz (2014), re-titled in the online version “Scientists Bring New Rigor to Education Research” and online at http://bit.ly/1v23502]]. . . . . . . . .”
In the present post I excerpt and annotate 8 noteworthy passages from Kantrowitz’s article dealing with e.g., the RCT debate http://bit.ly/1vV222A; the “What Works Clearing House” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/; the “Institute of Education Sciences” (IES) http://ies.ed.gov/; Paulo Blikstein's “FabLab” at Stanford http://bit.ly/1yIcekw; teacher evaluation http://bit.ly/1xm6R6b, class size http://bit.ly/1naRX27; student engagement http://bit.ly/9484DG, discovery learning http://bit.ly/1snHAK3, Grover Whitehurst http://bit.ly/RIcEz4, “Finnish Lessons” http://bit.ly/JpU9fD; and “Finnishing Touches” http://bit.ly/Ixkqa7.
**********************************
To access the complete 131 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1smsIKA.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 10 Oct 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014, “Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1smsIKA. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
********************************************
ABSTRACT: EvalTalk’s David Colton wrote at http://bit.ly/1vuEiDu (my inserts at “. . . . . . .[[insert]] . . . . . . . . . ”:
“A decade ago, the ‘American Evaluation Association’ . . . . . [[http://bit.ly/1s1m5Mb]]. . . . issued a position paper . . . . . .[[(AEA, 2003) at http://bit.ly/1tgrYsI, highly critical of ]]. . . . . . . . the U.S. Dept. of Education’s (USDE’s) decision to award research grants based on methodology, with experimental and quasi experimental designs given funding prior over other approaches . . . . . . .[[“experimental” is RCT enthusiasts’ code for methodology utilizing “Randomized Control Trails” (RCTs)]]. . . . So I was very interested in an article in this month’s Scientific American which describes the results of this process ten years out: ‘The Science of Learning’ . . . . . . .[[Kantrowitz (2014), re-titled in the online version “Scientists Bring New Rigor to Education Research” and online at http://bit.ly/1v23502]]. . . . . . . . .”
In the present post I excerpt and annotate 8 noteworthy passages from Kantrowitz’s article dealing with e.g., the RCT debate http://bit.ly/1vV222A; the “What Works Clearing House” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/; the “Institute of Education Sciences” (IES) http://ies.ed.gov/; Paulo Blikstein's “FabLab” at Stanford http://bit.ly/1yIcekw; teacher evaluation http://bit.ly/1xm6R6b, class size http://bit.ly/1naRX27; student engagement http://bit.ly/9484DG, discovery learning http://bit.ly/1snHAK3, Grover Whitehurst http://bit.ly/RIcEz4, “Finnish Lessons” http://bit.ly/JpU9fD; and “Finnishing Touches” http://bit.ly/Ixkqa7.
**********************************
To access the complete 131 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1smsIKA.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 10 Oct 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014, “Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1smsIKA. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Re: Teaching and Learning
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: Teaching and Learning” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy (2014) in his Math-Teach post titled “Re: Khan Academy 2.0” at http://bit.ly/1tGPvAN wrote: “At its core, teaching has to be about helping the student to learn.”
To which math education guru Robert Hansen responded at http://bit.ly/YYpwJJ: “teaching is about teaching things. That is pedagogy. In an ideal world, every student would be able to learn every thing the teacher teaches. It is only (relatively) recently that teaching took on the role of learning, or better known as remediation, and quite frankly, not only does it suck at it, the more you make teaching about learning, the less you make it about teaching, until such point, it isn't about teaching at all. Or learning.”
For a more informed view of the relationship of teaching to learning see “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” [Barr & Tagg (1995)] at http://bit.ly/8XGJPc. They wrote: “A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted.”
************************************
To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VQx4MP.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
Boy #1: "I taught my dog to whistle."
Boy #2: "I don't hear him whistling."
Boy #1: "I said I taught him. I didn't say he learned it."
- Cartoon at http://bit.ly/1rCyR71
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Re: Teaching and Learning" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VQx4MP. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy (2014) in his Math-Teach post titled “Re: Khan Academy 2.0” at http://bit.ly/1tGPvAN wrote: “At its core, teaching has to be about helping the student to learn.”
To which math education guru Robert Hansen responded at http://bit.ly/YYpwJJ: “teaching is about teaching things. That is pedagogy. In an ideal world, every student would be able to learn every thing the teacher teaches. It is only (relatively) recently that teaching took on the role of learning, or better known as remediation, and quite frankly, not only does it suck at it, the more you make teaching about learning, the less you make it about teaching, until such point, it isn't about teaching at all. Or learning.”
For a more informed view of the relationship of teaching to learning see “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” [Barr & Tagg (1995)] at http://bit.ly/8XGJPc. They wrote: “A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted.”
************************************
To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VQx4MP.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
Boy #1: "I taught my dog to whistle."
Boy #2: "I don't hear him whistling."
Boy #1: "I said I taught him. I didn't say he learned it."
- Cartoon at http://bit.ly/1rCyR71
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Re: Teaching and Learning" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VQx4MP. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Piaget’s Stages? #2
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Piaget's Stages? #2” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Eric Nelson’s (2014a) post “Piaget's Stages?” of 7 August 2014 on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/1orXcKo initiated a thread which on 12 August 07:36-0700 had grown to 23 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/nG318r .
[NOTE: To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://bit.ly/nG318r and then clicking on “Subscribe or Unsubscribe.” If you're busy, then subscribe using the “NOMAIL” option under “Miscellaneous.” Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!]
In one of the 23 posts, now updated and placed online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Y8ZumO, I point to generally laudatory opinions on Piaget's work by experts Philip Adey, John Anderson, Howard Gardner, Alan Kay, Anton Lawson, Robert Sternberg, Ernst von Glasersfeld, and David Klahr.
In addition, aside from his initializing post, Nelson (2014b,c) made two other contributions at http://bit.ly/1ouGsSQ and http://bit.ly/1uP1Zp7 in which he pointed to the work of Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC) as the definitive word from cognitive science on pedagogical methods. However, not everyone would agree with Nelson’s tribute to KSC, as I indicated in “Vague Labels for Pedagogical Methods Should Be Supplemented with Operational Definitions and Detailed Descriptions” [Hake (2014b)] at http://bit.ly/1jPnKxo .
*********************************************
To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.” - Henri Poincaré (1905)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Piaget's Stages? #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Poincaré, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis, Walter Scott Publishing; online at http://bit.ly/9hVfA8 thanks to the “Mead Project.” A Wikipedia entry on Poincaré is at http://bit.ly/b4jGVS.
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Eric Nelson’s (2014a) post “Piaget's Stages?” of 7 August 2014 on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/1orXcKo initiated a thread which on 12 August 07:36-0700 had grown to 23 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/nG318r .
[NOTE: To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://bit.ly/nG318r and then clicking on “Subscribe or Unsubscribe.” If you're busy, then subscribe using the “NOMAIL” option under “Miscellaneous.” Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!]
In one of the 23 posts, now updated and placed online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Y8ZumO, I point to generally laudatory opinions on Piaget's work by experts Philip Adey, John Anderson, Howard Gardner, Alan Kay, Anton Lawson, Robert Sternberg, Ernst von Glasersfeld, and David Klahr.
In addition, aside from his initializing post, Nelson (2014b,c) made two other contributions at http://bit.ly/1ouGsSQ and http://bit.ly/1uP1Zp7 in which he pointed to the work of Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC) as the definitive word from cognitive science on pedagogical methods. However, not everyone would agree with Nelson’s tribute to KSC, as I indicated in “Vague Labels for Pedagogical Methods Should Be Supplemented with Operational Definitions and Detailed Descriptions” [Hake (2014b)] at http://bit.ly/1jPnKxo .
*********************************************
To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.” - Henri Poincaré (1905)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Piaget's Stages? #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Poincaré, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis, Walter Scott Publishing; online at http://bit.ly/9hVfA8 thanks to the “Mead Project.” A Wikipedia entry on Poincaré is at http://bit.ly/b4jGVS.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014
Some blog followers might be interested an essay “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014 from a Talk at USC on 24 April 2012” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: I discuss the cognitive impact of introductory calculus courses after the initiation of the NSF's calculus reform program in 1987. Topics discussed are:
A. What’s calculus?
B. Calculus, language of nature and gateway to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
C. A typical calculus-course problem (even dogs can solve it).
D. NSF’s calculus reform effort, initiated in 1987.
E. Assessments bemoan the lack of evidence of improved student learning.
F. A glimmer of hope – the Calculus Concept Inventory (CCI).
G. Typical question of the CCI type (dogs score at the random guessing level).
H. Impact of the CCI on calculus education – early trials.
I. Conclusion.
J. Appendix #1: The Lagrange Approach to Calculus.
K. Appendix #2: Math Education Bibliography.
I conclude that Epstein’s CCI may stimulate reform in calculus education, but, judging from the physics education reform effort, it may take several decades before widespread improvement occurs - see the review “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011c)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB).
With over 500 references and over 600 hot links this report can serve as a window into the vast literature relevant to calculus reform.
***************************************************
To access the complete 2.8 MB essay please click on http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD.
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). LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 11 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014 from a Talk at USC on 24 April 2012,” online at http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
“Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy.” - Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) http://bit.ly/dzjbWv
“To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.” - Richard Feynman (1965, 1994) in The Character of Physical Law
http://amzn.to/19vE4AO
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: I discuss the cognitive impact of introductory calculus courses after the initiation of the NSF's calculus reform program in 1987. Topics discussed are:
A. What’s calculus?
B. Calculus, language of nature and gateway to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
C. A typical calculus-course problem (even dogs can solve it).
D. NSF’s calculus reform effort, initiated in 1987.
E. Assessments bemoan the lack of evidence of improved student learning.
F. A glimmer of hope – the Calculus Concept Inventory (CCI).
G. Typical question of the CCI type (dogs score at the random guessing level).
H. Impact of the CCI on calculus education – early trials.
I. Conclusion.
J. Appendix #1: The Lagrange Approach to Calculus.
K. Appendix #2: Math Education Bibliography.
I conclude that Epstein’s CCI may stimulate reform in calculus education, but, judging from the physics education reform effort, it may take several decades before widespread improvement occurs - see the review “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011c)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB).
With over 500 references and over 600 hot links this report can serve as a window into the vast literature relevant to calculus reform.
***************************************************
To access the complete 2.8 MB essay please click on http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD.
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). LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 11 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014 from a Talk at USC on 24 April 2012,” online at http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
“Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy.” - Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) http://bit.ly/dzjbWv
“To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.” - Richard Feynman (1965, 1994) in The Character of Physical Law
http://amzn.to/19vE4AO
Friday, July 25, 2014
Elizabeth Green’s “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?”
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Elizabeth Green’s ‘Why Do Americans Stink at Math?’ ” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Elizabeth Green, in a NYT Magazine article titled “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?” at http://nyti.ms/1o02vui wrote: “With the Common Core . . . . . .[[ http://www.corestandards.org/, compatible with the reform math education methods]]. . . . teachers are once more being asked to unlearn an old approach and learn an entirely new one, essentially on their own. Training is still weak and infrequent, and principals - who are no more skilled at math than their teachers - remain unprepared to offer support. Textbooks, once again, have received only surface adjustments, despite the shiny Common Core labels that decorate their covers. . . . . Left to their own devices, teachers are once again trying to incorporate new ideas into old scripts, often botching them in the process. . . . . . . No wonder parents and some mathematicians denigrate the reforms as ‘fuzzy math.’ In the warped way untrained teachers interpret them, they are fuzzy.”
Green's article has prompted at least two threads on discussion lists. One initiated by Wayne Bishop on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/eOTrs1. Bishop at http://bit.ly/1Agrtzv wrote: “Other than ‘Americans Stink at Math’, almost everything [Green] says is wrong. Decades-old (century?) math ed mythology.”
Another initiated by John Clement on the CLOSED! July PhysLrnR archives http://bit.ly/WQjkCL. Clement at http://bit.ly/1onL1Nr wrote: (paraphrasing): “Green's very good article is about how the Japanese reformed their math teaching and are now beating us. Their method resembles ‘Interactive Engagement’ methods in Physics Education Research.”
***************************************************
To access the complete 57 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lERqiv.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 July 2014.]
Hake, R.R. “Elizabeth Green’s ‘Why Do Americans Stink at Math?’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lERqiv. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Elizabeth Green, in a NYT Magazine article titled “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?” at http://nyti.ms/1o02vui wrote: “With the Common Core . . . . . .[[ http://www.corestandards.org/, compatible with the reform math education methods]]. . . . teachers are once more being asked to unlearn an old approach and learn an entirely new one, essentially on their own. Training is still weak and infrequent, and principals - who are no more skilled at math than their teachers - remain unprepared to offer support. Textbooks, once again, have received only surface adjustments, despite the shiny Common Core labels that decorate their covers. . . . . Left to their own devices, teachers are once again trying to incorporate new ideas into old scripts, often botching them in the process. . . . . . . No wonder parents and some mathematicians denigrate the reforms as ‘fuzzy math.’ In the warped way untrained teachers interpret them, they are fuzzy.”
Green's article has prompted at least two threads on discussion lists. One initiated by Wayne Bishop on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/eOTrs1. Bishop at http://bit.ly/1Agrtzv wrote: “Other than ‘Americans Stink at Math’, almost everything [Green] says is wrong. Decades-old (century?) math ed mythology.”
Another initiated by John Clement on the CLOSED! July PhysLrnR archives http://bit.ly/WQjkCL. Clement at http://bit.ly/1onL1Nr wrote: (paraphrasing): “Green's very good article is about how the Japanese reformed their math teaching and are now beating us. Their method resembles ‘Interactive Engagement’ methods in Physics Education Research.”
***************************************************
To access the complete 57 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lERqiv.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 July 2014.]
Hake, R.R. “Elizabeth Green’s ‘Why Do Americans Stink at Math?’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lERqiv. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************************
ABSTRACT: Norman Stahl (2014) of the LrnAsst list has called attention to the AAC&U (2014) report “68 Institutions in Nine States to Pilot New Approach to Learning Outcomes Assessment” at http://bit.ly/1o6Xfsn. The report states (slightly edited):
“ ‘The calls are mounting daily for higher education to be able to show what students can successfully do with their learning,’ said AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider. ‘The Multi-State Collaborative is a very important step toward focusing assessment on the best evidence of all: the work students produce in the course of their college studies.’. . . . . . . . . . For more information, see ‘VALUE: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education’ (AAC&U, 2014b) at http://bit.ly/1pn6s3u; and ‘MSC: A Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Learning Outcomes Assessment’ (SHEEO, 2014) at http://bit.ly/1mhWSXv. . . . . .”
This response with its over 50 references and over 80 hot links can serve as a window into the literature of undergraduate learning assessment. It consists of two parts:
PART I: An expurgated and annotated version of a letter in support of the AAC&U’s assessment of undergraduate learning titled “It's Time to Get Serious About the Right Kind of Assessment” by Daniel F. Sullivan (2014) at http://bit.ly/1mg77Rn. Sullivan is President Emeritus of St. Lawrence University, Senior Advisor to the AAC&U President; and Chair, AAC&U Presidents’ Trust.
PART II: A review of assessments of undergraduate learning prior to the AAC&U effort. Updated and revised from “The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?” (Hake, 2006a) at http://bit.ly/9aicfh.
********************************************************
To access the complete 115 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess, and if we don’t assess it, we won't get it.” - Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]
“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)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 July 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning,” post of 16 Jul 2014 16:40:53-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wiggins, G. 1990. “The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts,” AAHE Assessment Forum: 17-31; online as a 61 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/1ySgrzV.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 209 kB pdf http://bit.ly/1spTOkx, thanks to Bioquest.
********************************************************
ABSTRACT: Norman Stahl (2014) of the LrnAsst list has called attention to the AAC&U (2014) report “68 Institutions in Nine States to Pilot New Approach to Learning Outcomes Assessment” at http://bit.ly/1o6Xfsn. The report states (slightly edited):
“ ‘The calls are mounting daily for higher education to be able to show what students can successfully do with their learning,’ said AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider. ‘The Multi-State Collaborative is a very important step toward focusing assessment on the best evidence of all: the work students produce in the course of their college studies.’. . . . . . . . . . For more information, see ‘VALUE: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education’ (AAC&U, 2014b) at http://bit.ly/1pn6s3u; and ‘MSC: A Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Learning Outcomes Assessment’ (SHEEO, 2014) at http://bit.ly/1mhWSXv. . . . . .”
This response with its over 50 references and over 80 hot links can serve as a window into the literature of undergraduate learning assessment. It consists of two parts:
PART I: An expurgated and annotated version of a letter in support of the AAC&U’s assessment of undergraduate learning titled “It's Time to Get Serious About the Right Kind of Assessment” by Daniel F. Sullivan (2014) at http://bit.ly/1mg77Rn. Sullivan is President Emeritus of St. Lawrence University, Senior Advisor to the AAC&U President; and Chair, AAC&U Presidents’ Trust.
PART II: A review of assessments of undergraduate learning prior to the AAC&U effort. Updated and revised from “The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?” (Hake, 2006a) at http://bit.ly/9aicfh.
********************************************************
To access the complete 115 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess, and if we don’t assess it, we won't get it.” - Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]
“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)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 July 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning,” post of 16 Jul 2014 16:40:53-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wiggins, G. 1990. “The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts,” AAHE Assessment Forum: 17-31; online as a 61 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/1ySgrzV.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 209 kB pdf http://bit.ly/1spTOkx, thanks to Bioquest.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’ ” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: Climate scientist James Hansen (2014) http://bit.ly/omiMY3, in his report “Too Little, Too Late? Oops??” at http://bit.ly/1m15lmz wrote (paraphrasing):
“Many queries received: is Obama's climate effort ‘too little, too late?’ Closely related query: are we at an ‘oops’ moment, a realization that we have pushed the climate system too far, so consequences such as ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise are now out of our control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The answer re ‘too little?’ is obvious from the fact that governments, ours included, are allowing and encouraging industry to go after every fossil fuel that can be found. Rather than dwelling on that fact, let's consider the action needed to avoid ‘too late’.
Citizens Climate Lobby http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ just released a study ‘The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.’ A 3-page summary by Danny Richter is at http://bit.ly/1ypEENy.
According to their comprehensive analysis of the impacts of a carbon fee-and-dividend (CF&D) in the United States, with 100% revenue distribution of the money to the public in equal shares as direct payments: the fee would start at $10/ton of CO2 and increase $10/ton each year; 100% of the revenue is returned to households, equal amounts to all legal residents. This approach spurs the economy, increasing the number of jobs by 2.1 million in 10 years. Emissions decrease 33% in 10 years, 52% in 20 years.
Contrary to the wails of fossil-fuel-industry kingpins, the fossil fuel CF&D stimulates the economy, modernizes infrastructure and saves 13,000 lives per year via improved air quality. GDP increases, with fee-and-dividend causing a cumulative GDP increase of $1.375 trillion.
Why do these results differ from previous studies concluding that a carbon tax would be costly? The main reason is that other studies do not have 100% recycling of funds to the public; instead part of the money is taken as a tax, to increase the size of government.”
**************************************
To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 20 June 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’ ” Post of 20 Jun 2014 09:08:40 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: Climate scientist James Hansen (2014) http://bit.ly/omiMY3, in his report “Too Little, Too Late? Oops??” at http://bit.ly/1m15lmz wrote (paraphrasing):
“Many queries received: is Obama's climate effort ‘too little, too late?’ Closely related query: are we at an ‘oops’ moment, a realization that we have pushed the climate system too far, so consequences such as ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise are now out of our control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The answer re ‘too little?’ is obvious from the fact that governments, ours included, are allowing and encouraging industry to go after every fossil fuel that can be found. Rather than dwelling on that fact, let's consider the action needed to avoid ‘too late’.
Citizens Climate Lobby http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ just released a study ‘The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.’ A 3-page summary by Danny Richter is at http://bit.ly/1ypEENy.
According to their comprehensive analysis of the impacts of a carbon fee-and-dividend (CF&D) in the United States, with 100% revenue distribution of the money to the public in equal shares as direct payments: the fee would start at $10/ton of CO2 and increase $10/ton each year; 100% of the revenue is returned to households, equal amounts to all legal residents. This approach spurs the economy, increasing the number of jobs by 2.1 million in 10 years. Emissions decrease 33% in 10 years, 52% in 20 years.
Contrary to the wails of fossil-fuel-industry kingpins, the fossil fuel CF&D stimulates the economy, modernizes infrastructure and saves 13,000 lives per year via improved air quality. GDP increases, with fee-and-dividend causing a cumulative GDP increase of $1.375 trillion.
Why do these results differ from previous studies concluding that a carbon tax would be costly? The main reason is that other studies do not have 100% recycling of funds to the public; instead part of the money is taken as a tax, to increase the size of government.”
**************************************
To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 20 June 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’ ” Post of 20 Jun 2014 09:08:40 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Threats to At-Risk Students: Stereotype & The Belief in Fixed Intelligence
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Threats to At-Risk Students: Stereotype & The Belief in Fixed Intelligence” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
On 30 May 2014, there were:
(1) three threads containing 33 posts on the POD archives at http://bit.ly/SjUBE9 concerning Leonard Geddes’ Learnwell Projects piece “Why Good Students Do ‘Bad’ in College” http://wp.me/p3GGxn-t; and
(2) one thread containing 15 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/SkeKKo concerning Paul Tough’s NYT piece “Who Gets to Graduate” http://nyti.ms/1nD3Z1E.
The above posts primarily concern two threats to at-risk students: (a) the “Stereotype Threat” – see Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do [Steele (2011)] http://amzn.to/1hhk1yc; and (b) what might be called “The Belief in Fixed Intelligence Threat” – see Mindset: The New Psychology of Success [Dweck (2007)] at http://amzn.to/1wzVqZA.
These two threats have been recently discussed in a Physics Today article “Psychological insights for improved physics teaching” [Aguilar, Walton, & Wieman (2014)] at http://stanford.io/1tXfxPc.
*********************************************
To access the complete 49 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1pFKkO6.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Threats to At-Risk Students: Stereotype & The Belief in Fixed Intelligence.” Post of 30 May 2014 20:13:16-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1pFKkO6. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************
On 30 May 2014, there were:
(1) three threads containing 33 posts on the POD archives at http://bit.ly/SjUBE9 concerning Leonard Geddes’ Learnwell Projects piece “Why Good Students Do ‘Bad’ in College” http://wp.me/p3GGxn-t; and
(2) one thread containing 15 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/SkeKKo concerning Paul Tough’s NYT piece “Who Gets to Graduate” http://nyti.ms/1nD3Z1E.
The above posts primarily concern two threats to at-risk students: (a) the “Stereotype Threat” – see Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do [Steele (2011)] http://amzn.to/1hhk1yc; and (b) what might be called “The Belief in Fixed Intelligence Threat” – see Mindset: The New Psychology of Success [Dweck (2007)] at http://amzn.to/1wzVqZA.
These two threats have been recently discussed in a Physics Today article “Psychological insights for improved physics teaching” [Aguilar, Walton, & Wieman (2014)] at http://stanford.io/1tXfxPc.
*********************************************
To access the complete 49 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1pFKkO6.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Threats to At-Risk Students: Stereotype & The Belief in Fixed Intelligence.” Post of 30 May 2014 20:13:16-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1pFKkO6. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Re: The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: Corrado Agnes, in his PhysLrnR post "The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society" http://bit.ly/S6AKbt, wrote (paraphrasing): “Bad News for Physics Education Research and Teaching. I want to inform you of an amazing and almost unbelievable attack made by the German Physical Society (GPS) against a group of teachers and researchers in physics education, whose only guilt is to teach physics according to the approach of the Karlsruhe Physics Course (KPC). . . . . The basic ideas of the course were explained in 'An up-to-date approach to physics' [Schmid (1984)] http://bit.ly/1w5fGSG and 'The Karlsruhe Physics Course' [Herrmann (2000)] at http://bit.ly/RpLeSz .”
Herrmann pointed out that KPC mechanics is based on the interpretation of forces as momentum currents as made by Max Planck (1908) http://bit.ly/1ihA2yy and Andrea diSessa (1980) http://bit.ly/1oj8MqY . KPC documents are at KPC (2014) http://bit.ly/1kfI5AA .
*******************************************
To access the complete 45 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lMjeRu .
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society,” post of 25 May 2014 19:58:29-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lMjeRu . The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: Corrado Agnes, in his PhysLrnR post "The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society" http://bit.ly/S6AKbt, wrote (paraphrasing): “Bad News for Physics Education Research and Teaching. I want to inform you of an amazing and almost unbelievable attack made by the German Physical Society (GPS) against a group of teachers and researchers in physics education, whose only guilt is to teach physics according to the approach of the Karlsruhe Physics Course (KPC). . . . . The basic ideas of the course were explained in 'An up-to-date approach to physics' [Schmid (1984)] http://bit.ly/1w5fGSG and 'The Karlsruhe Physics Course' [Herrmann (2000)] at http://bit.ly/RpLeSz .”
Herrmann pointed out that KPC mechanics is based on the interpretation of forces as momentum currents as made by Max Planck (1908) http://bit.ly/1ihA2yy and Andrea diSessa (1980) http://bit.ly/1oj8MqY . KPC documents are at KPC (2014) http://bit.ly/1kfI5AA .
*******************************************
To access the complete 45 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lMjeRu .
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: The Karlsruhe Physics Course and The German Physical Society,” post of 25 May 2014 19:58:29-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lMjeRu . The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Active Learning Increases Student Performance in STEM
Some blog followers might be interested in an article "Active Learning Increases Student Performance in STEM" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In a recent widely acclaimed report “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Freeman et al. (2014) at http://bit.ly/1v4JVbW wrote (my CAPS):
“To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under TRADITIONAL LECTURING versus ACTIVE LEARNING. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies). . . . . . students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. . . . . . This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. THE RESULTS raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and SUPPORT ACTIVE LEARNING AS THE PREFERRED, EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED TEACHING PRACTICE IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS."
That the results of the meta-analysis of Freeman et al. (2014) “support active learning as the preferred practice in regular classrooms” is consistent with e.g.: (a) meta-analyses by Springer et al. (1999) http://bit.ly/1lbJPZo, Hake (1998a) http://bit.ly/d16ne6, Minner et al. (2010) http://bit.ly/wdJq4R, and Ruiz-Primo et al. (2011) http://bit.ly/1ouNzdm; and (b) literature reviews by Handelsman et al. (2004) http://bit.ly/ILrHBK, Prince (2004) http://bit.ly/rkiBjq, Froyd (2007) http://bit.ly/1lerTBS, and NRC (2013) http://bit.ly/126os6j.
*********************************************
To access the complete 66 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1j3YdV4.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“Physicists are out in front in measuring how well students learn the basics, as science educators incorporate hands-on activities in hopes of making the introductory course a beginning rather than a finale.” – Erik Stockstad (2001) in “Science” at http://bit.ly/1k4Yp6O.
“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.” - William Wood & James Gentile (2003) in “Science” at http://bit.ly/SyhOvL.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in STEM,” post of 16 May 2014 14:36:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1j3YdV4. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In a recent widely acclaimed report “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Freeman et al. (2014) at http://bit.ly/1v4JVbW wrote (my CAPS):
“To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under TRADITIONAL LECTURING versus ACTIVE LEARNING. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies). . . . . . students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. . . . . . This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. THE RESULTS raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and SUPPORT ACTIVE LEARNING AS THE PREFERRED, EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED TEACHING PRACTICE IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS."
That the results of the meta-analysis of Freeman et al. (2014) “support active learning as the preferred practice in regular classrooms” is consistent with e.g.: (a) meta-analyses by Springer et al. (1999) http://bit.ly/1lbJPZo, Hake (1998a) http://bit.ly/d16ne6, Minner et al. (2010) http://bit.ly/wdJq4R, and Ruiz-Primo et al. (2011) http://bit.ly/1ouNzdm; and (b) literature reviews by Handelsman et al. (2004) http://bit.ly/ILrHBK, Prince (2004) http://bit.ly/rkiBjq, Froyd (2007) http://bit.ly/1lerTBS, and NRC (2013) http://bit.ly/126os6j.
*********************************************
To access the complete 66 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1j3YdV4.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“Physicists are out in front in measuring how well students learn the basics, as science educators incorporate hands-on activities in hopes of making the introductory course a beginning rather than a finale.” – Erik Stockstad (2001) in “Science” at http://bit.ly/1k4Yp6O.
“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.” - William Wood & James Gentile (2003) in “Science” at http://bit.ly/SyhOvL.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 May 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in STEM,” post of 16 May 2014 14:36:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1j3YdV4. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A Cure For Exploding Heads and Mailboxes #2
Some Blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “A Cure For Exploding Heads and Mailboxes #2” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*****************************************************
ABSTRACT: POD’s Vicky Meretsky (2014) wrote at http://bit.ly/1fKI1TL: “If your head and your mailbox are both exploding, consider taking POD in Digest format – you get one email per day with all the day’s messages in it. You can pick and choose which to read or just hit delete and kill anything from 1 to 50 messages all at once.”
On page 25 of “A Guide to the ADLsphere” [Hake (2010)] at http://bit.ly/970OZr (3.9 MB) I suggested another way to cure exploding heads and mailboxes: “For LISTSERV archives it’s [easy] to subscribe using the ‘NOMAIL’ option under ‘Miscellaneous.’ Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list, thereby conserving time, hard-drive space, and sanity.”
In the complete post I give the URLs for over 40 popular LISTSERVs.
******************************************************
To access the complete 70 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1fytFv5.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 30 April 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “A Cure For Exploding Heads and Mailboxes #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1fytFv5. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*****************************************************
ABSTRACT: POD’s Vicky Meretsky (2014) wrote at http://bit.ly/1fKI1TL: “If your head and your mailbox are both exploding, consider taking POD in Digest format – you get one email per day with all the day’s messages in it. You can pick and choose which to read or just hit delete and kill anything from 1 to 50 messages all at once.”
On page 25 of “A Guide to the ADLsphere” [Hake (2010)] at http://bit.ly/970OZr (3.9 MB) I suggested another way to cure exploding heads and mailboxes: “For LISTSERV archives it’s [easy] to subscribe using the ‘NOMAIL’ option under ‘Miscellaneous.’ Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list, thereby conserving time, hard-drive space, and sanity.”
In the complete post I give the URLs for over 40 popular LISTSERVs.
******************************************************
To access the complete 70 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1fytFv5.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 30 April 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “A Cure For Exploding Heads and Mailboxes #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1fytFv5. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Re: Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In a discussion “Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?” Bill Moyers http://bit.ly/1feQ5iw interviewed Diane Ravitch, who stated:
“The lure of getting federal money made many states change their laws to open the door to many, many more charter schools. . . . . . . Public education is becoming big business as bankers, hedge fund managers, and private equity investors are entering what they consider to be an ‘emerging market.’ As Rupert Murdoch put it http://bit.ly/1pAwGMh after purchasing an education technology company, ‘When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the US alone’ . . . . . . I think what’s at stake is the future of American public education. I believe it is one of the foundation stones of our democracy: So an attack on public education is an attack on democracy.”
See also “Here is the Bill Moyers Interview in Full” [Ravitch (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1mFTAmo.
Over 4 decades ago economist Albert O. Hirschman (1970) in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States http://bit.ly/11QKoRB, made a case against charter-schools similar to that made by Ravitch. He first quoted the conservative economist Milton Friedman who argued that SCHOOL VOUCHERS SHOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT PUBLIC-SCHOOL SYSTEM, writing “Parents could express their views about schools directly, by withdrawing their children from one school and sending them to another.”
Hirschman then countered (my italics): “[Friedman's opinion] is a near perfect example of the ECONOMIST'S BIAS IN FAVOR OF EXIT AND AGAINST VOICE: In the first place, Friedman considers withdrawal or exit as the ‘direct’ way of expressing one's unfavorable views of an organization. A person less well trained in economics might naively suggest that the direct way of expressing views is to express them! Secondly, the decision to voice one’s views and efforts to make them prevail are contemptuously referred to by Friedman as a resort to ‘cumbrous political channels.’ But what else is the political, and indeed the democratic, process than the digging, the use, and hopefully the slow improvement of these very channels?"
**********************************************
To access the complete 57 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1hcMHkF.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1hcMHkF. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In a discussion “Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?” Bill Moyers http://bit.ly/1feQ5iw interviewed Diane Ravitch, who stated:
“The lure of getting federal money made many states change their laws to open the door to many, many more charter schools. . . . . . . Public education is becoming big business as bankers, hedge fund managers, and private equity investors are entering what they consider to be an ‘emerging market.’ As Rupert Murdoch put it http://bit.ly/1pAwGMh after purchasing an education technology company, ‘When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the US alone’ . . . . . . I think what’s at stake is the future of American public education. I believe it is one of the foundation stones of our democracy: So an attack on public education is an attack on democracy.”
See also “Here is the Bill Moyers Interview in Full” [Ravitch (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1mFTAmo.
Over 4 decades ago economist Albert O. Hirschman (1970) in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States http://bit.ly/11QKoRB, made a case against charter-schools similar to that made by Ravitch. He first quoted the conservative economist Milton Friedman who argued that SCHOOL VOUCHERS SHOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT PUBLIC-SCHOOL SYSTEM, writing “Parents could express their views about schools directly, by withdrawing their children from one school and sending them to another.”
Hirschman then countered (my italics): “[Friedman's opinion] is a near perfect example of the ECONOMIST'S BIAS IN FAVOR OF EXIT AND AGAINST VOICE: In the first place, Friedman considers withdrawal or exit as the ‘direct’ way of expressing one's unfavorable views of an organization. A person less well trained in economics might naively suggest that the direct way of expressing views is to express them! Secondly, the decision to voice one’s views and efforts to make them prevail are contemptuously referred to by Friedman as a resort to ‘cumbrous political channels.’ But what else is the political, and indeed the democratic, process than the digging, the use, and hopefully the slow improvement of these very channels?"
**********************************************
To access the complete 57 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1hcMHkF.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Charter Schools: A Marketplace for Profits or Ideas?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1hcMHkF. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Re: Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
******************************************
ABSTRACT: Alan Jenkins, in his POD post “Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education” at http://bit.ly/1goohbN uses the term “research-based curricula” to mean: (a) “curricula emphasizing research or inquiry BY students,” NOT (b) “curricula shown to be effective in promoting higher-order learning by education research.”
For a review of the latter see e.g.: (1) Adapting to a Changing World - Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education [NRC (2013)] http://bit.ly/126os6j; and (2) “Teaching and physics education research: bridging the gap” [Fraser et al. (2014) http://bit.ly/1qITBqi.
For anti-inquiry arguments see “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner et al. (2006)] http://bit.ly/duJVG4 and counters by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) http://bit.ly/aKUD5s; Kuhn (2007) http://bit.ly/ekxUvD; Schmidt et al. (2007) http://bit.ly/9uwVc8; & Hake (2010) http://bit.ly/aGlkjm.
******************************************
To access the complete 61kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ou3skL.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education,”online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ou3skL. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
******************************************
ABSTRACT: Alan Jenkins, in his POD post “Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education” at http://bit.ly/1goohbN uses the term “research-based curricula” to mean: (a) “curricula emphasizing research or inquiry BY students,” NOT (b) “curricula shown to be effective in promoting higher-order learning by education research.”
For a review of the latter see e.g.: (1) Adapting to a Changing World - Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education [NRC (2013)] http://bit.ly/126os6j; and (2) “Teaching and physics education research: bridging the gap” [Fraser et al. (2014) http://bit.ly/1qITBqi.
For anti-inquiry arguments see “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner et al. (2006)] http://bit.ly/duJVG4 and counters by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) http://bit.ly/aKUD5s; Kuhn (2007) http://bit.ly/ekxUvD; Schmidt et al. (2007) http://bit.ly/9uwVc8; & Hake (2010) http://bit.ly/aGlkjm.
******************************************
To access the complete 61kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ou3skL.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education,”online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ou3skL. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Re: What's In a Selfie?
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: What’s In a Selfie?” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Jerry Becker (2014) at http://bit.ly/1ikCCon forwarded Tom Whitby’s “What's In a Selfie?” http://bit.ly/1edkNEY to Math-Teach. The “social media” extolled by Whitby appear to be what are sometimes called “Web 2.0 Social Media” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0. It's not clear that they have big advantages over Listserves – see e.g.: “The value of email discussion lists” [Grow (2009)] at http://bit.ly/daJ7bp and “Listserves Are a 21Century Tool With Advantages Over 'Web 2.0 Social Media' #2” [Hake (2012)] at http://bit.ly/y2M2t3.
***************************************************
To access the complete 53 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lgtNhc.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 09 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. “Re: What’s In a Selfie?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lgtNhc. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Jerry Becker (2014) at http://bit.ly/1ikCCon forwarded Tom Whitby’s “What's In a Selfie?” http://bit.ly/1edkNEY to Math-Teach. The “social media” extolled by Whitby appear to be what are sometimes called “Web 2.0 Social Media” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0. It's not clear that they have big advantages over Listserves – see e.g.: “The value of email discussion lists” [Grow (2009)] at http://bit.ly/daJ7bp and “Listserves Are a 21Century Tool With Advantages Over 'Web 2.0 Social Media' #2” [Hake (2012)] at http://bit.ly/y2M2t3.
***************************************************
To access the complete 53 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lgtNhc.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 09 March 2014.]
Hake, R.R. “Re: What’s In a Selfie?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lgtNhc. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
In response to my post “Re: Professors We Need You!” [Hake (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1hw62E1 regarding Nicholas Kristof’s “Professors, We Need You!” at http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD and “Bridging the Moat Around Universities at http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi, Christopher Green of the TIPS list responded at http://bit.ly/1dZrWfA [slightly edited; my URLs]:
“Kristof missed the boat on this one. If [Kristof] wants to know why professors are reluctant to enter public debate, he needs to address the quality of public debate in the US political arena. Both the governor of Wisconsin http://bit.ly/1c5FUrS and attorney general of Virginia http://bit.ly/NftpnE have recently used the powers of their offices to investigate and threaten the livelihoods of professors who opposed their political agendas (labor unions and climate change, respectively). [Politicians] have essentially demanded that professors NOT bring their expertise to bear on public debate and professors, understandably, have mostly complied.”
Thankfully, not ALL academicians have complied, e.g.:
(a) UC-Berkeley's Robert Reich http://bit.ly/1fga1Tm, an outspoken champion of labor unions http://bit.ly/1c8scER and tireless critic of income and wealth inequality – see e.g., Beyond Outrage http://amzn.to/1ebN6CI;
(b) Middlebury College’s Bill McKibbon http://bit.ly/1fhrKKb who has been lobbying for action to deter climate change for over two decades – see e.g. The End of Nature http://amzn.to/1p1wIgN and consider his organization http://350.org/;
(c) Columbia’s James Hansen (2010, 2014) http://bit.ly/omiMY3 who alerted the world to anthropogenic global warming in 1981 http://nyti.ms/1gwHUMm. In a recent draft Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions? http://bit.ly/1goLfgs, Hansen rebuffs 4 widespread misconceptions: human life is endangered by nuclear power; renewable energy sources alone are sufficient; killing nuclear would make the world safer; and renewable energy is cheaper and faster than nuclear power. Below I quote Hansen at some length because: (1) nuclear power is so controversial; and (2) so doing allows me to insert references, hot-links, and comments.
*************************************************
To access the complete 106 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1k9QuX5.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1k9QuX5.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
**************************************************
In response to my post “Re: Professors We Need You!” [Hake (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1hw62E1 regarding Nicholas Kristof’s “Professors, We Need You!” at http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD and “Bridging the Moat Around Universities at http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi, Christopher Green of the TIPS list responded at http://bit.ly/1dZrWfA [slightly edited; my URLs]:
“Kristof missed the boat on this one. If [Kristof] wants to know why professors are reluctant to enter public debate, he needs to address the quality of public debate in the US political arena. Both the governor of Wisconsin http://bit.ly/1c5FUrS and attorney general of Virginia http://bit.ly/NftpnE have recently used the powers of their offices to investigate and threaten the livelihoods of professors who opposed their political agendas (labor unions and climate change, respectively). [Politicians] have essentially demanded that professors NOT bring their expertise to bear on public debate and professors, understandably, have mostly complied.”
Thankfully, not ALL academicians have complied, e.g.:
(a) UC-Berkeley's Robert Reich http://bit.ly/1fga1Tm, an outspoken champion of labor unions http://bit.ly/1c8scER and tireless critic of income and wealth inequality – see e.g., Beyond Outrage http://amzn.to/1ebN6CI;
(b) Middlebury College’s Bill McKibbon http://bit.ly/1fhrKKb who has been lobbying for action to deter climate change for over two decades – see e.g. The End of Nature http://amzn.to/1p1wIgN and consider his organization http://350.org/;
(c) Columbia’s James Hansen (2010, 2014) http://bit.ly/omiMY3 who alerted the world to anthropogenic global warming in 1981 http://nyti.ms/1gwHUMm. In a recent draft Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions? http://bit.ly/1goLfgs, Hansen rebuffs 4 widespread misconceptions: human life is endangered by nuclear power; renewable energy sources alone are sufficient; killing nuclear would make the world safer; and renewable energy is cheaper and faster than nuclear power. Below I quote Hansen at some length because: (1) nuclear power is so controversial; and (2) so doing allows me to insert references, hot-links, and comments.
*************************************************
To access the complete 106 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1k9QuX5.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1k9QuX5.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Re: Professors We Need You!
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list “Re: Professors We Need You!” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
The LrnAsst List’s Norman Stahl at http://bit.ly/O06Tjn and Nick Voge at http://bit.ly/1j8wBMT have called attention to Nicholas Kristof’s NYT Opinion piece "Professors, We Need You!" at http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD.
In a subsequent blog entry “Bridging the Moat Around Universities” http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi, Kristof:
(a) wrote: “[Professors, We Need You! was] about the unfortunate way America has marginalized university professors – and, perhaps sadder still, the way they have marginalized themselves from public debate”;
(b) posted 313 comments (as of 19 Feb 2014 09:04-0800) on his opinion piece, about equally divided between approval and disapproval.
One of more substantive comments is by Aaron Barlow, faculty editor of the AAUP magazine Academe who pointed to “Public Intellectuals and the AAUP” (Schrecker at http://bit.ly/NZH5E5, and “The Case for Academics as Public Intellectuals” (Behm, Rankins-Robertson, & Roen (BRR) at http://bit.ly/1dDTZky. (BRR + commentors on BRR + myself) list about 40 academicians who have “bridged the moat around universities.”
But the fact that at least 40 [out of a total of over a million higher-education faculty] have “bridged the moat” does not negate Kristof’s general claim that “[professors] have marginalized themselves.”
**************************************************
To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1hw62E1.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Professors We Need You!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1hw62E1. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
**************************************************
The LrnAsst List’s Norman Stahl at http://bit.ly/O06Tjn and Nick Voge at http://bit.ly/1j8wBMT have called attention to Nicholas Kristof’s NYT Opinion piece "Professors, We Need You!" at http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD.
In a subsequent blog entry “Bridging the Moat Around Universities” http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi, Kristof:
(a) wrote: “[Professors, We Need You! was] about the unfortunate way America has marginalized university professors – and, perhaps sadder still, the way they have marginalized themselves from public debate”;
(b) posted 313 comments (as of 19 Feb 2014 09:04-0800) on his opinion piece, about equally divided between approval and disapproval.
One of more substantive comments is by Aaron Barlow, faculty editor of the AAUP magazine Academe who pointed to “Public Intellectuals and the AAUP” (Schrecker at http://bit.ly/NZH5E5, and “The Case for Academics as Public Intellectuals” (Behm, Rankins-Robertson, & Roen (BRR) at http://bit.ly/1dDTZky. (BRR + commentors on BRR + myself) list about 40 academicians who have “bridged the moat around universities.”
But the fact that at least 40 [out of a total of over a million higher-education faculty] have “bridged the moat” does not negate Kristof’s general claim that “[professors] have marginalized themselves.”
**************************************************
To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1hw62E1.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: Professors We Need You!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1hw62E1. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s “To Lecture or Not to Lecture?”
Some blog followers might be interested in an article “Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s ‘To Lecture or Not to Lecture?’,”
[Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*******************************************************
ABSTRACT:
Paul Corrigan has ably reviewed the contentious debate over lecturing. In the present article I borrow from and supplement Corrigan’s Atlantic article “To Lecture or Not to Lecture?” at http://bit.ly/1cGQaKW and his blog entry “Beyond the Lecturing Debate” at http://bit.ly/1eKAR0A so as to include discussion of the following:
1. Lecturing is prevalent but “active learning” is advised by researchers.
2. Nevertheless, some academics defend “lectures.”
3. But such academics often advocate lecturing along with “active learning.”
4. Corrigan distinguishes “lecturing” from “Lecturing.”
5. Physics education research emphasizes higher-level learning and distinguishes “lecture” from “passive-student-lecture.”
6. Positive and negative depictions of the lecture.
7. Depictions of “active learning.”
8. Literary and YouTube criticism of the passive-student-lecture.
9. Nine anti-passive-student-lecture articles.
10. Twelve pro-lecture articles or books.
11. Should One Lecture or Not Lecture?
******************************************************
To access the complete 2.9 MB article please click on http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“People have nowadays . . . got a strange opinion that everything should be taught by lectures. Now, I cannot see that lectures can do so much good as reading the books from which the lectures are taken. Lectures were once useful; but now, when we can all read, and books are so numerous, lectures are unnecessary.” - Samuel Johnson http://bit.ly/17PdW5Y, via James Boswell (1791) at http://bit.ly/qfDXPz.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s ‘To Lecture or Not to Lecture?’,” online as a 2.9 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
[Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*******************************************************
ABSTRACT:
Paul Corrigan has ably reviewed the contentious debate over lecturing. In the present article I borrow from and supplement Corrigan’s Atlantic article “To Lecture or Not to Lecture?” at http://bit.ly/1cGQaKW and his blog entry “Beyond the Lecturing Debate” at http://bit.ly/1eKAR0A so as to include discussion of the following:
1. Lecturing is prevalent but “active learning” is advised by researchers.
2. Nevertheless, some academics defend “lectures.”
3. But such academics often advocate lecturing along with “active learning.”
4. Corrigan distinguishes “lecturing” from “Lecturing.”
5. Physics education research emphasizes higher-level learning and distinguishes “lecture” from “passive-student-lecture.”
6. Positive and negative depictions of the lecture.
7. Depictions of “active learning.”
8. Literary and YouTube criticism of the passive-student-lecture.
9. Nine anti-passive-student-lecture articles.
10. Twelve pro-lecture articles or books.
11. Should One Lecture or Not Lecture?
******************************************************
To access the complete 2.9 MB article please click on http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“People have nowadays . . . got a strange opinion that everything should be taught by lectures. Now, I cannot see that lectures can do so much good as reading the books from which the lectures are taken. Lectures were once useful; but now, when we can all read, and books are so numerous, lectures are unnecessary.” - Samuel Johnson http://bit.ly/17PdW5Y, via James Boswell (1791) at http://bit.ly/qfDXPz.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s ‘To Lecture or Not to Lecture?’,” online as a 2.9 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Friday, January 31, 2014
The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents – Response to Hunt
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents – Response to Hunt” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a post “Re: The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents” [Hake (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1mYwWoa, I pointed to the “vigorous leadership, voluminous messaging, and pro-public-/anti-private-education positions of (a) Diane Ravitch and (b) FairTest http://www.fairtest.org/. Then I commented that neither appeared to be informed regarding the virtues of rigorous measurement of students' higher-order learning by means of zero-stakes formative evaluation “designed and used to improve an intervention, especially when it is still being developed” [JCSEE, copied onto p. 132 by Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn.
In response, Russ Hunt (2014) at http://bit.ly/1hSsq6L wrote: “The virtues of rigorous testing aren't really the point: it's how the tests are administered and what uses they’re put to that Ravitch and Fair Test (and I) are concerned with.”
However, it IS to the point for many of those who wish to enhance students’ higher-level learning, as I have emphasized in, e.g.:
1. “Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort” [Hake (2002)] at http://bit.ly/aL87VT;
2. “The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education” [Hake (2005)] at http://bit.ly/9aicfh;
3. “Should We Measure Change? Yes!” [Hake (2007a)] at http://bit.ly/d6WVKO (2.5 MB);
4. “Re: pre-to-post tests as measures of learning/teaching” [Hake (2008a)] at http://bit.ly/MmPxwp;
5. “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” [Hake (2008b)] at http://bit.ly/9kORMZ (1.1 MB);
6. “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB);
7. “SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011b)] at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5;
8. “The NRC Finally Comes to Its Senses on Improving STEM Education” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/154M5yf; and
9. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” Hake (2013b)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
***************************************************
To access the complete 66 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“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).
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents – Response to Hunt,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 213 kB pdf http://bit.ly/SyhOvL, thanks to Ecoplexity http://bit.ly/152aFQ9.
***************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a post “Re: The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents” [Hake (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1mYwWoa, I pointed to the “vigorous leadership, voluminous messaging, and pro-public-/anti-private-education positions of (a) Diane Ravitch and (b) FairTest http://www.fairtest.org/. Then I commented that neither appeared to be informed regarding the virtues of rigorous measurement of students' higher-order learning by means of zero-stakes formative evaluation “designed and used to improve an intervention, especially when it is still being developed” [JCSEE, copied onto p. 132 by Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn.
In response, Russ Hunt (2014) at http://bit.ly/1hSsq6L wrote: “The virtues of rigorous testing aren't really the point: it's how the tests are administered and what uses they’re put to that Ravitch and Fair Test (and I) are concerned with.”
However, it IS to the point for many of those who wish to enhance students’ higher-level learning, as I have emphasized in, e.g.:
1. “Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort” [Hake (2002)] at http://bit.ly/aL87VT;
2. “The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education” [Hake (2005)] at http://bit.ly/9aicfh;
3. “Should We Measure Change? Yes!” [Hake (2007a)] at http://bit.ly/d6WVKO (2.5 MB);
4. “Re: pre-to-post tests as measures of learning/teaching” [Hake (2008a)] at http://bit.ly/MmPxwp;
5. “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” [Hake (2008b)] at http://bit.ly/9kORMZ (1.1 MB);
6. “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB);
7. “SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011b)] at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5;
8. “The NRC Finally Comes to Its Senses on Improving STEM Education” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/154M5yf; and
9. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” Hake (2013b)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
***************************************************
To access the complete 66 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“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).
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents – Response to Hunt,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 213 kB pdf http://bit.ly/SyhOvL, thanks to Ecoplexity http://bit.ly/152aFQ9.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Two Different Meanings of “Formative Evaluation” #2
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Two Different Meanings of ‘Formative Evaluation’ #2” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
*******************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “FairTest Appears To Be Uninformed on ‘Formative Evaluation’ In The JCSEE Sense” at http://bit.ly/1dL3c5K, Michael Paul Goldenberg and FairTest’s Monty Neil posted what appeared to be non sequitures on EDDRA2, symptomatic of the general failure of educators to recognize the existence of two very different meanings of “Formative Evaluation”:
(1) “Evaluation designed and used to improve
an intervention, especially when it is still being
developed” – JCSEE (1994) as copied on p. 132
of Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn. . .(FE-JCSEE)
(2) “All those activities undertaken to provide
information to be used as feedback so as to adapt
the teaching to meet student needs” – paraphrased
from Black & Wiliam (1998, p. 2)
at http://bit.ly/1jTqiwK.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (FE-B&W)
An example of FE-JCSEE is zero-stakes pre/post testing utilizing Concept Inventories http://bit.ly/dARkDY which are constructed by disciplinary experts through arduous qualitative and quantitative research– see e.g.: (a) “The Impact of Concept Inventories on Physics Education and Its Relevance for Engineering Education” [Hake (2011)]at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB), and (b) “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
An example of FE-B&W is its use in the “interactive engagement” (IE) methods that have been shown –Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG and many others to achieve average normalized gains g(ave) on Concept Inventories that are about two standard deviations above those of traditional passive-student lecture courses. Here IE methods are defined [Hake 1998a)] as: “methods designed to promote conceptual understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.”
******************************************************
To access the complete 90 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“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.” - Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 29 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Two Different Meanings of 'Formative Evaluation' #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; online as a 152 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/ncAuQa.
*******************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “FairTest Appears To Be Uninformed on ‘Formative Evaluation’ In The JCSEE Sense” at http://bit.ly/1dL3c5K, Michael Paul Goldenberg and FairTest’s Monty Neil posted what appeared to be non sequitures on EDDRA2, symptomatic of the general failure of educators to recognize the existence of two very different meanings of “Formative Evaluation”:
(1) “Evaluation designed and used to improve
an intervention, especially when it is still being
developed” – JCSEE (1994) as copied on p. 132
of Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn. . .(FE-JCSEE)
(2) “All those activities undertaken to provide
information to be used as feedback so as to adapt
the teaching to meet student needs” – paraphrased
from Black & Wiliam (1998, p. 2)
at http://bit.ly/1jTqiwK.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (FE-B&W)
An example of FE-JCSEE is zero-stakes pre/post testing utilizing Concept Inventories http://bit.ly/dARkDY which are constructed by disciplinary experts through arduous qualitative and quantitative research– see e.g.: (a) “The Impact of Concept Inventories on Physics Education and Its Relevance for Engineering Education” [Hake (2011)]at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB), and (b) “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
An example of FE-B&W is its use in the “interactive engagement” (IE) methods that have been shown –Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG and many others to achieve average normalized gains g(ave) on Concept Inventories that are about two standard deviations above those of traditional passive-student lecture courses. Here IE methods are defined [Hake 1998a)] as: “methods designed to promote conceptual understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.”
******************************************************
To access the complete 90 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr.
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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
“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.” - Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 29 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Two Different Meanings of 'Formative Evaluation' #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; online as a 152 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/ncAuQa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
