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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake

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


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

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

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

Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?

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

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Diana Kornbrot wrote that “Behaviourism, a la Skinner, questions the usefulness of inferred mental states as an explanatory concept - this has proved a dead-end.”

To which Bud Nye responded]:

“But, behavioral treatments have a strong, extremely well documented history of effectiveness in psychotherapy and learning. The applied behavior analysis research support of behavioral methods is massive, of extremely high quality, and compelling."

And Diana Kornbrot in a later post wrote [my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . . . . . . Skinner. . . . .[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner]]. . . made many contributions and his work on operant conditioning is invaluable and makes a strong contributions to this day. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy . . . . .[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy]]. . . .. is one of those strong contributions . . . Indeed Physics Education Research (PER) CAN LEARN A LOT FROM OPERANT CONDITIONING since rote learning also has a part to play in learning complex ideas. But the 'responses' that are being reinforced are not merely physical. They may well be verbal responses about the client's mental state.”

I quote (with permission) comments I received from Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner, in response to my posts “Could ‘Precision Teaching’ and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?” at http://bit.ly/iA8mpj and http://bit.ly/ldcizH. Vargas's comments appear to be consistent with the above opinion of Nye. She wrote [my inserts at “. . . .[[insert]]. . . .”; my CAPS]:

“In Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching (Vargas, 2009) I quote [Eric Mazur]. What I didn't know was that his work was being touted as 'constructivist-oriented' 'Interactive Engagement.' I don't see . . . . [[Mazur's method, see e.g., his YouTube talk at http://bit.ly/dBYsXh]]. . . . as like Direct Instruction. . . . . . There is no choral responding. . . . . . I'm not sure [Mazur's method] is like Precision Teaching either. . . . . . . . .[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_teaching]]. . . . . I didn't see any fluency exercises, nor student graphing. But [MAZUR'S METHOD] IS DEFINITELY BEHAVIORAL in asking for student responding, adjusting according to how they do answer, and in the objectives being stated in clear terms that require 'applying' the principles to every day life in addition to just memorizing them.”
**************************************************

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/yrvMaM.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake

“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 according to James Boswell (1791)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 March 2012.]
Boswell, J. 1791. Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D, online at http://bit.ly/qfDXPz.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/yrvMaM. Post of 10 Mar 2012 09:43:20-0800 AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists. This post erroneously attributes Diana Kronbrot's statement "Physics Education Research (PER) CAN LEARN A LOT FROM OPERANT CONDITIONING" to Bud Nye : - ( .

Vargas, J. 2009. Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching. Routledge, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/lTonxZ. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/iPiNwd, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature- some might be interested in the results of a search for “Mazur.”

Re: Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?

Some blog followers might be interested in a post titled “Re: Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another? “[Hake (2010b)]. The abstract reads:

########################################

ABSTRACT: Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner and President of the B.F. Skinner Foundation http://www.bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/Home.html , commented on my post “Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?" [Hake (2010a)] as follows (quoted with permission; my insert at “. . . .[[insert]]. . . .”):

1. [In “Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching ” (Vargas, 2009)] I quote [Eric Mazur]. . . . . . What I didn't know was that his work was being touted as "constructivist-oriented” "Interactive Engagement."

2. I don't see [Mazur's] work as like Direct Instruction. . . . [[in this post I give various conflicting meanings of the vague term “direct instruction"]]. . . . As described in his book he just poses practical multiple-choice questions following a mini-lecture (usually a third of the lecture hour) students first answer and then discuss among themselves and answer again as he walks around listening to their explanations. There is no choral responding.

3. I'm not sure [Mazur's method] is like Precision Teaching either. I didn't see any fluency exercises, nor student graphing.

4. But [Mazur's method] is definitely BEHAVIORAL in asking for student responding, adjusting according to how they do answer, and in the objectives being stated in clear terms that require "applying" the principles to every day life in addition to just memorizing them.

To access the complete 18 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/y8mnz8n .

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

Hake. R.R. 2010a. “Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/ye5rrnq . Post of 25 Mar 2010 11:47:54-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract was also sent to various discussion lists and is online at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/03/could-precision-teaching-and-wider.html with a provision for comments.

Hake. R.R. 2010b. “Re: Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/y8mnz8n . Post of 31 Mar 2010 09:54:24 -0700 to AERA-L Net-Gold, and SClistserv. The abstract is also being sent to various discussion lists.

Vargas, J. 2009. Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching. Routledge, publisher's information at http://tinyurl.com/yzbzurp . Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/yc8hz2y. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. An expurgated “Google Book Preview” is online at http://tinyurl.com/yh7lpxk . Vargas discusses the following aspects of the semi-log “Standard Celeration” chart” (SCchart) of “counts” vs time (use the “>” at the top of the page to scroll through the pages): (a) Lindsley's development of “Precision Teaching” and the SCchart on pages 126 and 127; (b) “counts” as a measure of behavior at the top of page 103; (c) interpretation of the SCchart on page 132. If I understand the “Standard Celeration” chart correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially the behavorists' version of a kinematics semilog plot of speed (time rate of change of position) “v” vs time “t”. Hence “Celeration” from the “celeration” part of the kinematics “acceleration.”

Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Community Learn Something From One Another?

Some blog followers might be interested in a post titled “Could ‘Precision Teaching’ and the Wider Education Community Learn Something From One Another.”

The abstract reads:

############################

ABSTRACT: In response to “Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #2” [Hake (2010b)], Joshua Garner (2010) of the behaviorist-oriented “Precision Teaching” SClistserv list wrote: “By applying simple behavioral psychology principles in a college physics class student performance increased. . . . duh. . . . by the end of the video I said to myself, 'Gee this guy is using direct instruction and active student responding (in an around-about way)’. ”

But, the wider education community generally regards Mazur's approach as the constructivist-oriented “Interactive Engagement,” loosely speaking, the polar opposite of “direct instruction.”

The insularity of education research was further demonstrated by SClistserv's J.W. Eshleman (2010) who, responding to “Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #5” [Hake (2010c)], referenced three methods to measure and enhance the degree of student learning in a “lecture,” all developed *within* the Precision Teaching Community (PTC), ignoring such methods developed *outside* the PTC - over 30 such are discussed in the double-asterisked references to this post.

Considering the Garner and Eshleman posts, could the "Precision Teaching" and wider education communities learn something from one another?

############################

To access the complete 35 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/ye5rrnq .

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

Eshleman, J.W. 2010. “Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #5,” SClistserv post of 22 Mar 2010 14:16:47-0400. Online on the OPEN! SClistserv archives at . SClistserv is short for “Precision Teaching/Standard Celeration Charting.” The masthead at the archives http://tinyurl.com/y8twxf6 reads: “The Standard Celeration listserve (SClistserv) came about to serve all people interested in precision teaching (PT) and standard celeration charting. . . . . . .” As indicated in Hake (2007), Ogden Lindsley (1991, 1992), a disciple of B.F. Skinner, is evidently the founder of “Precision Teaching” and inventor of the “Standard Celeration” chart (SCchart). For other references see Fluency.org http://www.fluency.org/ ; “Precision Teaching Hub and Wiki Blog” [Claypool-Frey (2010)l; “Precision Teaching and Standard Celeration Charting” [Kubina 2010); and the Standard Celeration Society [SCC (2010)]. For a good set of references see Clayton et al. (2007). For related books see e.g., Gardner et al. (1994), Heward et al. (2004), Heward (2008), Johnston & Pennypacker (2008), & Vargas (2009). Vargas (2009) discusses (a) Lindsley's development of “Precision Teaching” and the SCchart; (b) “counts” as a measure of behavior; and (c) interpretation of the SCchart.

Garner, J. 2010. “Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #2,” SClistserv post of 20 Mar 2010 18:54:50-0700; online on the OPEN! SClistserv archives at http://tinyurl.com/y8o6mge.

Hake. R.R. 2010, “Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/ye5rrnq. Post of 25 Mar 2010 11:47:54-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract is also being sent to various discussion lists.