ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Bill Goffe, in his post “Re: PER Mentioned in Article About Obama Higher Ed Proposal” pointed to the Chronicle of Higher Education article “4 Key Ideas in Obama's Plan to Control College Costs Bear Familiar Fingerprints” [Berrett et al. (2013)] at http://bit.ly/18dhj1F. Therein Carl Wieman, Eric Mazur, and Richard Hake are mentioned. In my opinion:
1. Berrett et al.’s claims that (a) Wieman and Mazur, are proponents of the “flipped classroom,” and (b) some of the earliest and most-cited research on the flipped classroom was conducted by R.R. Hake (1998a) - see “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses” at http://bit.ly/9484DG; rely on an overly broad interpretation of the “flipped classroom” to mean “students participate actively during class instead of listening passively.”
2. Both claims "a" and "b" above are misleading to those who entertain the usual meaning of “flipped classroom,” succinctly set forth by Andrea Zellner (2012) in “Flipping out? What you need to know about the Flipped Classroom” at http://bit.ly/14vMuHP. She wrote (my italics): “The flipped classroom flips this [traditional passive-student lecture model] on its head: through lecture capture software, lectures can be captured on video for students to watch at home, freeing up class time for hands-on learning activities and discussion.”
*************************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/150Y0rk.
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
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
Linked In: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
“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) [Samuel Johnson doubtless rolls in his grave at the thought that in the 21st Century videos are evidently replacing reading.]
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 August 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Physics Education Research Mentioned in Article About Obama Higher Ed Proposals” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/150Y0rk. Post of 27 Aug 2013 18:40:06-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Carl Wieman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carl Wieman. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Science Magazine - Special Section on Science Education
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Science Magazine - Special Section on Science Education” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Articles in Science’s “Special Section on Science Education” are listed at http://bit.ly/YoZeiq and are FREE after registration at http://bit.ly/104XZ2b. Bruce Alberts, in his lead editorial “Prioritizing Science Education” at http://bit.ly/120FUoS wrote (paraphrasing and adding URL’s): “Most college faculty have not yet faced up to the urgent need to improve on the standard one-size-fits-all lecture format - see 'Grand Challenge: Undergraduate Teaching: Transformation is Possible If a University Really Cares' [Mervis (2013)] at http://bit.ly/128og0N.”
Unfortunately, aside from Mervis’ (2013) panegyric to the education research of physics Nobelist Carl Wieman, Science makes no mention of Physics Education Research (PER), even despite the Science article “Teaching in a research context” [Wood & Gentile (2003)] at http://bit.ly/SyhOvL. They wrote: “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.”
*********************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/YhNWtV.
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
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
“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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 May 2013.]
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. 2013. “Science Magazine - Special Section on Science Education,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/YhNWtV. Post of 02 May 2013 10:24:00-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Articles in Science’s “Special Section on Science Education” are listed at http://bit.ly/YoZeiq and are FREE after registration at http://bit.ly/104XZ2b. Bruce Alberts, in his lead editorial “Prioritizing Science Education” at http://bit.ly/120FUoS wrote (paraphrasing and adding URL’s): “Most college faculty have not yet faced up to the urgent need to improve on the standard one-size-fits-all lecture format - see 'Grand Challenge: Undergraduate Teaching: Transformation is Possible If a University Really Cares' [Mervis (2013)] at http://bit.ly/128og0N.”
Unfortunately, aside from Mervis’ (2013) panegyric to the education research of physics Nobelist Carl Wieman, Science makes no mention of Physics Education Research (PER), even despite the Science article “Teaching in a research context” [Wood & Gentile (2003)] at http://bit.ly/SyhOvL. They wrote: “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.”
*********************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/YhNWtV.
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
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
“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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 May 2013.]
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. 2013. “Science Magazine - Special Section on Science Education,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/YhNWtV. Post of 02 May 2013 10:24:00-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Randomized Control Trials - The Tarnished Gold Standard
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Randomized Control Trials - The Tarnished Gold Standard” [Hake (2012a)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - Erratum & Addendum” at http://bit.ly/YfMESg, Art Burke of the EvalTalk list pointed to an NYT piece “Applying Evidence to Social Programs” by Jon Baron at http://nyti.ms/Um9vVI.
Baron wrote (slightly edited): “Scientifically rigorous studies - particularly, the 'gold standard' of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT’s) - are a mainstay of medicine, providing conclusive evidence of effectiveness for most major medical advances in recent history. In social spending, by contrast, such studies have only a toehold. Where they have been used, however, they have demonstrated the same ability to produce important, credible evidence about what works - and illuminated a path to major progress.”
In this post I cite arguments that the “gold standard” RCT studies may not be as lustrous as claimed by Baron:
(1) Ever since the pioneering work of Halloun & Hestenes (1985a) at http://bit.ly/fDdJHm, physicists have been engaged in social science of Physics Education Research (PER) that has made useful, reliable, and nonobvious predictions without resort to RCT’s - e.g. “Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?” [Wieman (2007)] at http://bit.ly/anTMfF.
(2) In “A Response to ‘It's Not All About Class Size’ ” [Hake (2009)], I pointed out that according to the California Class Size Reduction Research Consortium [CCSRRC (2002)] at http://bit.ly/V923Ms, California's attempt to duplicate the vaunted Tennessee RCT study of reduced class size benefits results yielded no conclusive evidence of increased student achievement.
(3) In “A Summative Evaluation of RCT Methodology: & An Alternative Approach to Causal Research” [Scriven (2008] at http://bit.ly/93VcWD wrote: “In standard scientific usage, experiments are just carefully constrained explorations, and the RCT is simply a special case of these. To call the RCT the only ‘true experiment’ is part of an attempt at redefinition that distorts the original and continuing usage, and excludes experiments designed to test many simple hypotheses about - or simple efforts to find out - what happens if we do this.”
(4) In “Seventeen Statements by Gold-Standard Skeptics #2” [Hake (2010)] at http://bit.ly/TNpTR9 I cite, among others, the comments of the American Education Research Association; the American Evaluation Association; the National Education Association; the European Evaluation Society; Thomas Cook and Monique Payne, Hugh Burkhardt & Alan Schoenfeld; Margaret Eisenhart & Lisa Towne; Burke Johnson; Annette Lareau & Pamela Barnhouse; Joseph Maxwell; Dennis Phillips; Barbara Schneider, Martin Carnoy, Jeremy Kilpatrick, William Schmidt, & Richard Shavelson; Mack Shelley, Larry Yore, & Brian Hand; Deborah Stipek; and Carol Weiss.
(5) In "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," John Ioannidis' (2005 at http://1.usa.gov/YxUxkL states ". . . . there is strong evidence that selective outcome reporting, with manipulation of the outcomes and analyses reported, is a common problem even for randomized trails [Chan et al. (2004)] at http://1.usa.gov/X8SB1T.
(6) the present signature quote of Thomas Cook and Monique Payne.
************************************************
To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VzVc0K.
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
"In some quarters, particularly medical ones, the randomized experiment is considered the causal 'gold standard.' It is clearly not that in educational contexts, given the difficulties with implementing and maintaining randomly created groups, with the sometimes incomplete implementation of treatment particulars, with the borrowing of some treatment particulars by control group units, and with the limitations to external validity that often follow from how the random assignment is achieved."
- Thomas Cook and Monique Payne in "Evidence Matters" [Mosteller & Boruch (2002)]
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 04 Dec 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Randomized Control Trials - The Tarnished Gold Standard" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VzVc0K. Post of 4 Dec 2012 19:26:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM & ADDENDUM,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/YfMESg. Post of 30 Nov 2012 12:15:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists, and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/11c5w3e with a provision for comments.
Mosteller, F. & R. Boruch, eds. 2002. Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research. Brookings Institution, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/UoX3sA. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/n6T0Uo. An expurgated Google book preview is online at http://bit.ly/RX1k3u.
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - Erratum & Addendum” at http://bit.ly/YfMESg, Art Burke of the EvalTalk list pointed to an NYT piece “Applying Evidence to Social Programs” by Jon Baron at http://nyti.ms/Um9vVI.
Baron wrote (slightly edited): “Scientifically rigorous studies - particularly, the 'gold standard' of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT’s) - are a mainstay of medicine, providing conclusive evidence of effectiveness for most major medical advances in recent history. In social spending, by contrast, such studies have only a toehold. Where they have been used, however, they have demonstrated the same ability to produce important, credible evidence about what works - and illuminated a path to major progress.”
In this post I cite arguments that the “gold standard” RCT studies may not be as lustrous as claimed by Baron:
(1) Ever since the pioneering work of Halloun & Hestenes (1985a) at http://bit.ly/fDdJHm, physicists have been engaged in social science of Physics Education Research (PER) that has made useful, reliable, and nonobvious predictions without resort to RCT’s - e.g. “Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?” [Wieman (2007)] at http://bit.ly/anTMfF.
(2) In “A Response to ‘It's Not All About Class Size’ ” [Hake (2009)], I pointed out that according to the California Class Size Reduction Research Consortium [CCSRRC (2002)] at http://bit.ly/V923Ms, California's attempt to duplicate the vaunted Tennessee RCT study of reduced class size benefits results yielded no conclusive evidence of increased student achievement.
(3) In “A Summative Evaluation of RCT Methodology: & An Alternative Approach to Causal Research” [Scriven (2008] at http://bit.ly/93VcWD wrote: “In standard scientific usage, experiments are just carefully constrained explorations, and the RCT is simply a special case of these. To call the RCT the only ‘true experiment’ is part of an attempt at redefinition that distorts the original and continuing usage, and excludes experiments designed to test many simple hypotheses about - or simple efforts to find out - what happens if we do this.”
(4) In “Seventeen Statements by Gold-Standard Skeptics #2” [Hake (2010)] at http://bit.ly/TNpTR9 I cite, among others, the comments of the American Education Research Association; the American Evaluation Association; the National Education Association; the European Evaluation Society; Thomas Cook and Monique Payne, Hugh Burkhardt & Alan Schoenfeld; Margaret Eisenhart & Lisa Towne; Burke Johnson; Annette Lareau & Pamela Barnhouse; Joseph Maxwell; Dennis Phillips; Barbara Schneider, Martin Carnoy, Jeremy Kilpatrick, William Schmidt, & Richard Shavelson; Mack Shelley, Larry Yore, & Brian Hand; Deborah Stipek; and Carol Weiss.
(5) In "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," John Ioannidis' (2005 at http://1.usa.gov/YxUxkL states ". . . . there is strong evidence that selective outcome reporting, with manipulation of the outcomes and analyses reported, is a common problem even for randomized trails [Chan et al. (2004)] at http://1.usa.gov/X8SB1T.
(6) the present signature quote of Thomas Cook and Monique Payne.
************************************************
To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VzVc0K.
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
"In some quarters, particularly medical ones, the randomized experiment is considered the causal 'gold standard.' It is clearly not that in educational contexts, given the difficulties with implementing and maintaining randomly created groups, with the sometimes incomplete implementation of treatment particulars, with the borrowing of some treatment particulars by control group units, and with the limitations to external validity that often follow from how the random assignment is achieved."
- Thomas Cook and Monique Payne in "Evidence Matters" [Mosteller & Boruch (2002)]
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 04 Dec 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Randomized Control Trials - The Tarnished Gold Standard" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VzVc0K. Post of 4 Dec 2012 19:26:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM & ADDENDUM,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/YfMESg. Post of 30 Nov 2012 12:15:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists, and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/11c5w3e with a provision for comments.
Mosteller, F. & R. Boruch, eds. 2002. Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research. Brookings Institution, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/UoX3sA. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/n6T0Uo. An expurgated Google book preview is online at http://bit.ly/RX1k3u.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
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.
***********************************************
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.
Monday, July 25, 2011
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 .
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 .
Friday, July 22, 2011
Lecture Isn’t Effective: More Evidence #4
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Lecture Isn’t Effective: More Evidence #4” [Hake (2011c)].
The abstract reads:
**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2” [Hake (2011b)], EvalTalk’s Jan Hill (2011a) wrote: “Yes, we educators know that lectures are ineffective. . . . .” To which Ricardo Gomez (2011) replied: (a) “What educators know that lectures are ineffective?” and (b) “Different teaching methods serve different learning objectives.”
In answer to “a”: among articles that demonstrate the relative ineffectiveness of traditional passive student introductory lectures in comparison with “interactive-engagement” methods are Hake (1998a); about 25 other physics education research reports consistent with Hake (1998a) as listed in Hake (2008); Epstein (2007); Mazur (2009); Prather, Rudolph, Brissenden, & Schllingman (2009); Prather, Rudolph, & Brissenden (2009); & Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman (2011)].
In response to “b”: different teaching methods also serve different audiences - e.g., introductory students vs attendees at professional meetings - see e.g. “Re: Lectures” [Hake (2011f)].
Gomez also wrote: “I can't imagine Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, or Isaiah Berlin using ‘interactive teaching methods’ . . . . . instead of the great lectures they were famous for. . . . . or maybe they did use one of best interactive teaching methods ever invented: the Socratic method.”
I would agree that the “Socratic Method” of the historical Socrates is “one of the best interactive teaching methods ever invented,” witness “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab” [Hake (1992)], but the “Socratic Methods” of Plato’s Meno and the law school are, in my opinion, among the worst - see e.g. : “The Socratic Method of the Historical Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and the Law School Socrates” [Hake (2007)].
**************************************************
To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/oVqvml.
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 (1997, p. vii)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 July 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. 2011a. “Re: Lecture Isn’t Effective: More Evidence,” online on the OPEN! MathEdCC archives at http://bit.ly/r80W5i along with 10 responses as of 22 July 2011. Post of 15 July, shamelessly cross-posted to Math-Teach, Math-Learn, MathEdCC, and RUME.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/mXiXoh. Post of 20 Jul 2011 17:13:46-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/rr2BQU with a provision for comments. See also the precursor Hake (2011a).
Hake, R.R. 2011c. “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/oVqvml. Post of 22 Jul 2011 14:52:44 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
The abstract reads:
**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2” [Hake (2011b)], EvalTalk’s Jan Hill (2011a) wrote: “Yes, we educators know that lectures are ineffective. . . . .” To which Ricardo Gomez (2011) replied: (a) “What educators know that lectures are ineffective?” and (b) “Different teaching methods serve different learning objectives.”
In answer to “a”: among articles that demonstrate the relative ineffectiveness of traditional passive student introductory lectures in comparison with “interactive-engagement” methods are Hake (1998a); about 25 other physics education research reports consistent with Hake (1998a) as listed in Hake (2008); Epstein (2007); Mazur (2009); Prather, Rudolph, Brissenden, & Schllingman (2009); Prather, Rudolph, & Brissenden (2009); & Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman (2011)].
In response to “b”: different teaching methods also serve different audiences - e.g., introductory students vs attendees at professional meetings - see e.g. “Re: Lectures” [Hake (2011f)].
Gomez also wrote: “I can't imagine Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, or Isaiah Berlin using ‘interactive teaching methods’ . . . . . instead of the great lectures they were famous for. . . . . or maybe they did use one of best interactive teaching methods ever invented: the Socratic method.”
I would agree that the “Socratic Method” of the historical Socrates is “one of the best interactive teaching methods ever invented,” witness “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab” [Hake (1992)], but the “Socratic Methods” of Plato’s Meno and the law school are, in my opinion, among the worst - see e.g. : “The Socratic Method of the Historical Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and the Law School Socrates” [Hake (2007)].
**************************************************
To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/oVqvml.
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 (1997, p. vii)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 July 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. 2011a. “Re: Lecture Isn’t Effective: More Evidence,” online on the OPEN! MathEdCC archives at http://bit.ly/r80W5i along with 10 responses as of 22 July 2011. Post of 15 July, shamelessly cross-posted to Math-Teach, Math-Learn, MathEdCC, and RUME.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/mXiXoh. Post of 20 Jul 2011 17:13:46-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/rr2BQU with a provision for comments. See also the precursor Hake (2011a).
Hake, R.R. 2011c. “Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/oVqvml. Post of 22 Jul 2011 14:52:44 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?
Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2009)]
The abstract reads:
*************************************
ABSTRACT: Jerry Bracey in his book Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality listed what he regarded as 10 lessons from the “Eight-Year Study” of 1942, in which more than 30 high schools in the 1930s were encouraged to try non-traditional approaches to teaching. Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews then (a) repeated Bracey's 10 lessons along with comments by Bracey and by himself, and (b) bravely invited his readers to kick sand in the faces of Bracey and himself by letting him know which of the Bracey/Mathews comments were most inane.” Taking Mathews at his word, in my view the most inane Bracey/Mathews comments center around Bracey's Lesson #8 that SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EDUCATION IS AN OXYMORON. If this lesson is correct then it would appear that the following authors all have their heads buried in the sand: David Hestenes (1979), Edward (Joe) Redish (1999), Richard Shavelson & Lisa Towne (2002) and members of the National Academy's "Committee on Scientific Principles for education research," Paula Heron & David Meltzer (2005), Carl Wieman (2007), and Richard Hake (2007).
*************************************
To access the complete 24 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/n9cyjy .
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. “Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/n9cyjy . Post of 7 Jul 2009 17:03:51-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
