Why Have K-12 Educators Ignored Benezet's Breakthrough?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Why Have K-12 Educators Ignored Benezet's Breakthrough?” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

******************************************
ABSTRACT: An educator wrote to me (paraphrasing): “I've just come across the Benezet Centre http://bit.ly/926tiM. Benezet's method seems superb. If it was such a success, why did it not spread?” Good question!! I think the best answer was given by the late Arnold Arons. In “The Arons Advocated Method” [Hake (2004)] at http://bit.ly/boeQQt, I quote Arons as follows: “I have looked at the Benezet papers at http://bit.ly/926tiM, and I find the story congenial. . . . . . .[but] whence do we get the teachers with the background, understanding, and security to implement such instruction. They will certainly not emerge from the present production mills.”
******************************************

To access the complete 53 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1fhomzu.

REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 24 Sept. 2013.]

Hake, R.R. 2013. “Why Have K-12 Educators Ignored Benezet's Breakthrough?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1fhomzu. Post of 24 Sep 2013 11:52:15-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Satirical Essays By Diana Senechal and Arnold Arons

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion list post of the above title. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Some subscribers might be interested these satirical essays by Diana Senechal and Arnold Arons for which I provide excerpts:

(a) “Research Breakthrough! Silver Bullet Found” [Senechal (2012)], online at http://bit.ly/Q1vRee;

(b) “Educational Practices - an Expert View of Current Trends” [Arons (1973)], online to subscribers of The Physics Teacher at http://bit.ly/JMDept;

(c) “An expert visit to the cognitive domain” [Arons (1984)], line to subscribers of The Physics Teacher at http://bit.ly/LdVDtY.

Arons was influenced by Frank Sullivan’s http://bit.ly/SV48uk Mr. Arbuthnot, the cliche expert, who futilely battled the banal in popular writing. Fortunately, Arbuthnot lives on in essays by Ben Yagoda (2001?) http://bit.ly/UvHSxV “24/7 With the Cliche Expert” at http://bit.ly/TaI9ET and Frank Prial (2006) http://bit.ly/R7OPPz “Wine talk: Rolling out those chewy behemoths” at http://nyti.ms/Q1IyWt.

And also - you know - having said that, in real time and for texters and googlers, the bottom line is that the imperial concerns of the real-time marketplace demand use of awesome, amazing, and game-changing cliches not only prior to, but at the end of the day, around the clock, and 24/7.
**********************************************

To access the complete 15 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/PMqXzt.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52


REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Satirical Essays By Diana Senechal and Arnold Arons,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/PMqXzt. Post of 7 Oct 2012 11:15:56 -0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Move Physics Demonstrations From the Lecture Hall Into the Lab!

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Move Physics Demonstrations From the Lecture Hall Into the Lab!” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Should the History of Science Be Rated X” at http://bit.ly/MbTWue, PERTG’s Lynda Williams wrote (paraphrasing): “Drop a book and page of paper side by side: the book hits the floor first. Aristotle was right! Then wad up the paper and repeat the experiment: the book and paper hit the floor at the same time. Newton is right! This is one of the best physics demos."

It would be even better if brought into the lab for students to perform as in Section X, “Motion of Falling Bodies” in Socratic Dialogue Inducing Lab #2 [Hake (1998c)], at http://bit.ly/mSCxV4.
*********************************************

To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/P3EUZ9.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

"I am deeply convinced that a statistically significant improvement would occur if more of us learned to listen to our students.. . . . . .By listening to what they say in answer to carefully phrased, leading questions, we can begin to understand what does and does not happen in their minds, anticipate the hurdles they encounter, and provide the kind of help needed to master a concept or line of reasoning without simply 'telling them the answer.'....Nothing is more ineffectually arrogant than the widely found teacher attitude that 'all you have to do is say it my way, and no one within hearing can fail to understand it.'.. . . . . .Were more of us willing to relearn our physics by the dialog and listening process I have described, we would see a discontinuous upward shift in the quality of physics teaching. I am satisfied that this is fully within the competence of our colleagues; the question is one of humility and desire."
- Arnold Arons (1974)


REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by and accessed on 18 July 2012.]
Arons, A. 1974. "Addendum to 'Toward Wider Public Understanding of Science', " Am. J. Phys. 42(2): 157; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/q0woZT.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Move Physics Demonstrations From the Lecture Hall Into the Lab!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/P3EUZ9. Post of 18 Jul 2012 22:38:42-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************************
In a previous post “Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” at http://bit.ly/MbTWue, I copied the abstract of Stephen Brush’s (1974) http://bit.ly/OpQNbw classic essay of the above title, but was unable to furnish the references because I did not have access to Brush's complete article. I've now located an online copy at http://bit.ly/MfDWs7. In this post I give:

a. Brush's abstract with references taken from the online version of Brush (1974), but converted to quasi-APA style and updated so as to include hot-links where available;

b. reactions to Brush (1974) in articles (a) “U-Rated Not X-Rated: Reassessing How Science Students Could Benefit from Learning History of Science” [Gooday (2005)] at http://bit.ly/NPmCvB, and (b) “Does science education need the history of science?” [Gooday et al. (2008)] at http://bit.ly/LciPpO;

c. references to a over 30 articles directly relevant to the use of history in science teaching;

d. six quotes on the non-text-book-nature of science progress as borne out by my own involvement in the convoluted early history of high-magnetic-field superconductivity.
***************************************************

To access the complete 42 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

“Such puzzling concepts as force, energy, etc., are man-made and were evolved in an understandable sequence in response to acutely felt and very real problems. They were not handed down by some celestial textbook writer to whom they were immediately self-evident.”
- D.S.L. Cardwell (1963-1964)

“[One of the hallmarks of science literacy is to] recognize that scientific concepts (e.g., velocity, acceleration, force, energy, electrical charge, gravitational and inertial mass). . . . are invented (or created) by acts of human intelligence and are not tangible objects or substances accidentally discovered, like a fossil, or a new plant or mineral.”
- Arnold Arons (1983)


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 July 2012.
Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/jBcyBU. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

Cardwell, D.S.L. 1963-1964. “Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society” 106: 108.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA,” online at http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf. Post of 13 Jul 2012 13:51:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Yongkang Le of the PERTG discussion-list wrote (paraphrasing): “Since 2003 I’ve supervised physics teaching labs at both the fundamental and advanced levels. . . . I am frequently confused as to why my efforts do not benefit most students.”

I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Le’s labs are of the traditional cook-book type in which students follow a recipe to set up equipment, make measurements, and (supposedly) “verify” some relationship, principle, or theory. My experience has been that such labs are of little value in promoting students understanding and appreciation of either scientific methodology or physics concepts.

Examples of non-traditional labs are “Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs,” designed to promote students’ mental construction of concepts through:

(1) interactive engagement of students who are induced to think constructively about simple Newtonian experiments which produce conflict with their commonsense understandings;

(2) the Socratic method [e.g., Arons, 1997 http://bit.ly/jBcyBU; Hake, 1992 http://bit.ly/9tSTdB; Hake, 2012 http://bit.ly/x5ruYF] of the historical Socrates http://bit.ly/i4GWHz, not Plato’s alter ego in the Meno, utilized by experienced instructors who have a good understanding of the material and are aware of common student preconceptions and failings;

(3) considerable interaction between students and instructors and thus a degree of individualized instruction;

(4) extensive use of multiple representations (verbal, written, pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical) to model physical systems;

(5) real world situations and kinesthetic sensations (which promote student interest and intensify cognitive conflict when students’ direct sensory experience does not conform to their conceptions);

(6) cooperative group effort and peer discussions;

(7) repeated exposure to the coherent Newtonian explanation in many different contexts.
**********************************************

To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/KMNeOB.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE


“The usefulness and effectiveness of the introductory laboratory have been bones of contention in physics teaching as far as one cares to go back in the literature. Laboratory instruction is costly, and, since, its effectiveness has been difficult to substantiate compellingly, some responsible administrators have viewed it as a luxury we cannot afford.”
- Arnold Arons (1993)

REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 05 June 2012.]
Arons, A.B. 1993. “Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics Laboratory,” Phys. Teach. 31(5): 278-282; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/mhzOQi.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KMNeOB. Post of 5 Jun 2012 15:18:18-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Physics Demonstrations: Both Education and Entertainment

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Physics Demonstrations: Both Education and Entertainment” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

********************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Noah Podolefsky (2011) wrote (paraphrasing): “Perhaps the reason we don't have evidence that demos promote interest is that nobody has bothered to look for it because the research agenda has been mostly focused on quantifiable measures of content learning.”

But Coleman, Holcomb, & Rigden (1998) did look for it and reported that a survey at Virginia Tech confirmed students’ approval of demonstrations “clearly and unambiguously,” and that many “students commented in detail on the educational value of the demonstrations.”

What seems to have eluded the physics education community is that both students’ enjoyment and learning can be drastically increased by transforming lecture demonstrations into “Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs” http://bit.ly/9tSTdB in which the students themselves do the demos and discuss the physics behind the demos among themselves, with Socratic guidance as needed.
********************************************

To access the complete 22 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/rtrMbp.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which
Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“I am deeply convinced that a statistically significant improvement would occur if more of us learned to listen to our students . . . By listening to what they say in answer to carefully phrased, leading questions, we can begin to understand what does and does not happen in their minds, anticipate the hurdles they encounter, and provide the kind of help needed to master a concept or line of reasoning without simply ‘telling them the answer’.. . . .Nothing is more ineffectually arrogant than the widely found teacher attitude that ‘all you have to do is say it my way, and no one within hearing can fail to understand it.’. . . . Were more of us willing to relearn our physics by the dialogue and listening process I have described, we would see a discontinuous upward shift in the quality of physics teaching. I am satisfied that this is fully within the competence of our colleagues; the question is one of humility and desire.”
- Arnold Arons (1974)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 July 2011.]
Arons, A.B. 1974. “Toward wider public understanding of science: Addendum,” Am. J. Phys. 42(2): 157-158; online to subscribers at http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v42/i2 .

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Physics Demonstrations: Both Education and Entertainment,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/rtrMbp . Post of 31 Jul 2011 14:16:04-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists.

Re: Ashamed it is physicists and not learning scientists!

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: Ashamed it is physicists and not learning scientists!” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

****************************************************
ABSTRACT: A NYT report on a Science article “Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class” [Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman (2011)] carried a remark by James Stigler: “the study is an important step in a journey that is long overdue, given the vast shortcomings of education as usual. I think that the authors are pioneers in exploring and testing ways we can improve undergraduate teaching and learning,” he said. “As a psychologist, I'm ashamed that it is physicists who are leading this effort, and not learning scientists.”

Stigler's comment elicited this lament from physics education research (PER) pioneer Robert Fuller: “Should someone at UCLA tell Stigler that physicists have been doing this type of research at least since Karplus and Arons in the 1960's?”
****************************************************

To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/n6vdFd.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which
Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“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 [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 July 2011.]
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: Ashamed it is physicists and not learning scientists!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/n6vdFd. 25 Jul 2011 16:13:10 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; an abstract is online at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m .

Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

***************************************
ABSTRACT: Joshua Fisher (2011) in his Math-Teach post “A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” wrote (paraphrasing): “How does one enable middle school kids to know the formula for the area of a sphere as required by the standards? . . . .So just give it to ‘em, right? Yet, my supervisor tried to avoid this consequence. My question is . . . . ‘What is the incentive to promote Not Telling over Telling?’ ”

For physics education, Fisher’s last question might be better posed as “What is the incentive to promote ‘Interactive Engagement’ (IE) over ‘Direct Instruction’ (DI).” The answer is that over 40-years worth of physics education research has demonstrated that IE is far more effective in promoting students' conceptual understanding of physics than DI.

I suspect that a similar statement might be made for math education, but except for the work of Jerry Epstein (2007) at http://bit.ly/bqKSWJ, there's been little, if any, pre- to post-course testing of math concepts. Thus math educators have little information on the relative effectiveness of IE and DI courses in promoting conceptual understanding.
***************************************

To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/iHzGwm.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“…I point to the following unwelcome truth: much as we might dislike the implications, research is showing that didactic exposition of abstract ideas and lines of reasoning (however engaging and lucid we might try to make them) to passive listeners yields pathetically thin results in learning and understanding - except in the very small percentage of students who are specially gifted in the field.”
Arnold Arons in Teaching Introductory Physics (p. vii, 1997)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 June 2011.]
Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iHzGwm. Post of 26 Jun 2011 15:07:50-0700 to Math-Teach, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 19 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #5

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title [Hake (2010)].

The abstract reads:

************************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to "Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" [Hake (2010)]; UK physicist Lewis Elton (2010) wrote that:

(a) he had abandoned the passive-student lecture in 1969, long before Eric Mazur,

(b) his contributions to the debate over lectures had been neglected, and

(c) he would appreciate anything I might be able to do to remedy "b".

In this post I attempt to remedy the perceived neglect of Elton's contributions by quoting extensively from his article "Could undergraduate physics teaching be better?" [Elton (2004)].

************************************************

To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yapgbok .

REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Elton, L. 2004. "Could undergraduate physics teaching be better?" The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 16, October, online at http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue16/front16.htm.

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #5,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yapgbok. Post of 21 Mar 2010 11:35:39-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PBL.

Arnold Arons' Role in the History of Physics Education Research

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009). The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: Dewey Dykstra, in a PhysLrnR post “early history of PER”. . . . [PER = Physics Education Research]. . . . quoted PER pioneer Bob Fuller's account of that subject. Fuller's assessment of the role of Arons and Karplus in the history of PER is:

(a) consistent with my own that "Arnold Arons, along with Robert Karplus, can fairly be called one of the founding fathers of U.S. Physics Education Research. . . .” and

(b) inconsistent with (1) Beichner's view that Arons' only contribution to PER was his role in the formation of McDermott's PER group, and (2) the opinion of a reviewer of my AJP-rejected "The Arons Advocated Method" [Hake (2004)] that Arons' “activities did not constitute systematic investigations. . . .Therefore this claim. . . [that he's one of the a founding fathers of PER]. . . . should be removed."

I suggest that Fuller consider editing a future volume of “Reviews in Physics Education Research” so as to set the historical record straight.

To access the complete 17 kB please click on http://tinyurl.com/y968dlm.

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2004. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to theAmerican Journal of Physics on 24 April 2004; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AronsAdvMeth-8.pdf (144 kB).

Hake, R.R. 2009. "Re: Arnold Arons' Role in the History of Physics Education Research," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/y968dlm. Post of 29 Jun 2009 to AERA-D, AERA-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Net-Go, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, & POD.