Physics Education Research (PER) Could Use More PR

Some blog followers might be interested in “Physics Education Research (PER) Could Use More PR” [Hake (2011)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Bill Goffe wrote (paraphrasing): “PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH (PER) COULD USE MORE PR. In the last year I've only seen PER in the popular press twice: (1) a slew of reports on ‘Improved Learning in a Large Enrollment Physics Class’ [Deslauriers, Schelew, and Wieman (2011) http://bit.ly/sNVYKI, and (2) ‘Don't Lecture Me’ http://bit.ly/vw3b5H broadcast on local NPR stations. As I understand it, JOURNALISTS DON'T SO MUCH READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE (OR LISTSERVS!) BUT GET IDEAS PITCHED TO THEM. I would bet that an awful lot of pitching was done for Deslauriers et al. - it suddenly appeared in numerous publications. It would seem that more needs to be done along these lines."

Among the reports on Deslauriers et al. were: (a) “Study: It’s not teacher, but method that matters” [Borenstein (2011)] in the Associated Press; (b) “Less Talk, More Action: Improving Science Learning” [Carey (2010)] in the New York Times; (c) “An Alternative Vote: Applying Science to the Teaching of Science” in The Economist (2011)]; (d) “A Better Way to Teach?” [Mervis (2011)] in ScienceNOW; (e) “The Worst Way to Teach” [Bressoud 2011a)]; and (f) “The Best Way to Learn” [Bressoud 2011b)]; the last two in the Lauchings Column of the Mathematical Association of America.

Consistent with Goffe’s idea that PER needs more PR, the non-physicists Daniel Willingham http://bit.ly/p8aPpM and James Stigler http://bit.ly/ofJSwU interviewed by Carey (2011); and Jere Confrey http://bit.ly/pZXKm1 interviewed by Mervis (2011) revealed no acquaintance with any physics education research other than Deslauriers et al., even despite many references to such research in: (1) Deslauriers et al. (2011); and (2) many articles dating back to 2001 in influential journals including Science.

Unfortunately, the two examples of PER in the popular press cited above by Goffe both contain substantive errors: (a) Deslauriers et al. erroneously claim that “As reviewed by Froyd (2007) other science and engineering classroom studies report effect sizes less than 1.0”; (b) David Hestenes at http://bit.ly/ncfVQI in the “Don't Lecture Me” http://bit.ly/vw3b5H broadcast, erroneously states “. . .Eric Mazur was unusual. He was the first one who took it. . . . .[[Halloun & Hestenes (1985a)]]. . . . to heart.”
***********************************************

To access the complete 25 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/uQ7X5U.

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

“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) in “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education”


REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 7 Dec 2011.]
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.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Physics Education Research (PER) Could Use More PR,”online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/uQ7X5U. Post of 7 Dec 2011 13:45:18-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Economist Bill Goffe in his PhysLrnR post “Re: Business agenda for K-12 STEM education: not research-informed” wrote (paraphrasing):

“. . . it appears that Physics Education Research isn't widely known even in higher ed. For example Trudy Banta and Charles Blaich in a Change Magazine article “Closing the Assessment Loop” http://bit.ly/lQyEYp bemoan the fact that they can find very few instances of improved learning after a teaching innovation. The extensive physics education research that so convincingly demonstrates such a connection is not even mentioned.”

That Trudy Banta http://bit.ly/mKElpt and Charles Blaich http://bit.ly/iNrXrL are evidently either unaware or dismissive of physics education research is typical of the near total disconnect between (a) Psychologists, Education specialists, and Psychometricians (PEP’s), and (b) education researchers in STEM disciplines - see e.g., “Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education” http://bit.ly/ceg1Bx, and “Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's? [Hake (2006) http://bit.ly/caWtWl].

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

To access the complete 15 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/iT4YsN.

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

“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”

Robert DeHaan (2005)

“One of the most striking findings [came from comparison of the learning outcomes (as measured by the FCI and a related inventory on mechanics) from 14 traditional courses (2,084 students) and 48 courses using "interactive-engagement" (active learning) techniques (4,458 students). . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b)]]. . . . . The results on the FCI assessment showed that students in the interactive engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses by 2 SDs. Similarly, students in the interactive-engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses on the Mechanics Baseline Test, a measure of problem-solving ability. This certainly looks like evidence that active learning works! Research in physics education is having a profound effect on the development of instructional materials.”

Joel Michael (2006)


REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 April 2011.]

DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iT4YsN. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Michael, J. 2006. “Where's the evidence that active learning works?” Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at http://bit.ly/fjJ2Lj .

Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3” [Hake (2011c)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities” [Hake (2011a)], PhysLrnR's Bill Goffe wrote (paraphrasing): “I agree that teaching should be more valued, but economists Martin & Gillen (M&G) (2011) do a nice job in explaining why this seems unlikely in the near future.”

M&G observe that there's a thriving market for senior scholars in higher education but not for world-class teachers. The reason for this imbalance, they suggest, is that “potential employers of professors have sufficient information to judge scholarly productivity, but virtually no information that would allow them to judge teaching productivity.”

In commenting on M&G's article, “teaching postdoc” wrote: (paraphrasing): “How do we know when a teacher is ‘good’? Students know if they like or dislike a teacher; if they enjoyed or did not enjoy a course. But accurately assessment one's own progress is a very difficult task, and there's no evidence that course evaluations are meaningful. Really, one needs pre- and post-testing to quantitatively compare student abilities at the beginning vs end of the course. Almost no one actually does that. . . . . Scholarship is measured in papers and citations. Teaching is not measured at all.”

Regarding pre/post testing, Bill Goffe asked: “. . . . do any physicists use their students’ Force Concept Inventory (FCI) results when on the job market?” As far as I know, the answer is (thankfully) "NO." If pre/post testing were to be used for high-stakes summative purposes, then Campbell’s and Dunkenfeld’s Laws (see signature quotes) would probably rear their ugly heads so as to distort and corrupt the testing.

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

To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gSNTGi.

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

Dukenfield's Law http://bit.ly/bsRokM: If a thing is worth winning, it's worth cheating for.

Campbell's Law http://bit.ly/hMsyUr: The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 March 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eqw6ow. Post of 4 Mar 2011 08:04:14-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/hnkAuJ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gZSf8W. Post of 6 Mar 2011 15:16:50 -0800 to AERA-L & Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/dYSgww with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gSNTGi. Post of 12 Mar 2011 16:53:33-0800 to AERA-L & Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists.