How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2” [Hake (2011d)].

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

ABSTRACT: In my post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” [Hake (2011c)], I wrote:

“. . . . demonstrations that the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of Korsunsky's high school and Stuyvesant High School are inequitable would require meaningful value-added measures such as normalized average pre-to-posttest gains on valid and consistently reliable tests of higher-order learning. . .”

Math-Teach's “Haim” responded: “The problem is that you are not sure what you are measuring."

NONSENSE! In the case of Harvard, the higher-order learning consisted of conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics.

Haim continued: “First, parents and students seem to know something about Stuyvesant that educator assessments clearly fail to discern. . . . . Second . . . very many of Stuyvesant's students graduate at a very high level (certainly by comparison to most other high school graduates) of academic achievement. . . . the real problem is transparent. It is the ceiling effect. . . .City-wide and state-wide assessments are simply not designed for academic institutions.”

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with the theme of my post: “It is conceivable that if there were ‘Eric Mazurs’ or ‘John Belchers’ at Korsunsky's high-school and the Stuyvesant High School, scenarios similar to that at Harvard and MIT might occur. . . . . [[i.e., realization that students were not learning much from traditional passive-student lecture methods followed by a switch to interactive-engagement pedagogy.]]. . . . , even though all those institutions are regarded as ‘elite.’ ”

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

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gxUOAb .

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

“Above all things we must be aware of what I will call ‘inert ideas’

- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind

without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.”

Alfred North Whitehead (1929, 1965) in The Aims of Education

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Jan 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “The Ceiling Effect #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hUnHZe. Post of 12 Jan 2011 16:19:49-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gLWr7W with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fN1HmD. Post of 18 Jan 2011 15:34:47-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/h23shQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g25OHd. Post of 22 Jan 2011 14:50:14-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gnLPjH with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011d. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions – Response to Haim #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gxUOAb. Post of 26 Jan 2011 16:14:36-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists. See also the relevant previous posts Hake (2011a,b,c)].

Whitehead, A.N. 1967. Aims of Education and other essays. Free Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/fIUbXB. First published in 1929. Note the “Look Inside” feature.

How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” [Hake (2011d)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In a previous post “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” [Hake (2010b)] I implied that the less-than-stellar value-added rankings of Boris Korsunsky’s high school and Stuyvesant High School (each with top-tier reputations) were examples of “Value-Added Inequities.” I thank Catherine Johnson for correctly pointing out that those two appraisals were not necessarily inequitable - they could, in fact, be correct.

Two cases in point are the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of instruction at two elite institutions: (1) Eric Mazur's traditional 1990 calculus-based introductory course at Harvard, and (2) traditional introductory courses in electromagnetism a MIT. Both assessments are correct as judged by the value-added assessment provided by the average normalized pre-to-posttest gain on valid tests of students' conceptual understanding. Fortunately, in both cases “interactive engagement” pedagogy greatly improved normalized the pre-to-posttest gains in those courses: (1) Mazur switched to “Peer Instruction,” as is engagingly described by Mazur (2009) in “Confessions of a Converted Lecturer” on UTube at http://bit.ly/dBYsXh; and (2) John Belcher instituted TEAL (Technology Enabled Active Learning), as is cogently reported in the New Your Times by Sarah Rimer (2009) in “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard” at http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN .

In my opinion, demonstrations that the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of Korsunsky's high school and Stuyvesant High School are inequitable would require meaningful value-added measures such as normalized average pre-to-posttest gains on valid and consistently reliable tests of higher-order learning developed by disciplinary experts, not the value-added measures that characterize “Race to the Top,” and that have been called into question by the many expert panels listed in my previous post “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?”

It is conceivable that if there were “Eric Mazurs” or “John Belchers” at Korsunsky's high-school and the Stuyvesant High School, scenarios similar to those at Harvard and MIT might occur, even though all those institutions are regarded as “elite.”

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

To access the complete 36 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/g25OHd.

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)

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 (1997, p. vii)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 Jan 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. “The Ceiling Effect #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hUnHZe . Post of 12 Jan 2011 16:19:49-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gLWr7W with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fN1HmD. Post of 18 Jan 2011 15:34:47-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/h23shQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fAvRpA . Post of 19 Jan 2011 11:36:22 -0800 to AERA-L, EDDRA2, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, and PhysLnR.

Hake, R.R. 2011d. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g25OHd. Post of 22 Jan 2011 14:50:14-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists. See also Hake (2011 a,b,c).

Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering” [Hake (2011)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Some discussion-list subscribers might be interested in the MIT White Paper “The Third Revolution: The Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering” [Sharp et al. (2011)].

Therein it is stated that: “Convergence is a new paradigm that can yield critical advances in a broad array of sectors, from health care to energy, food, climate, and water.” For reviews of the “Convergence Movement” see MIT News (2011) and Inside Higher Ed's “The Rise of ‘Convergence’ Science” [Berrett (2011)].

For previous work in the “Unity of Knowledge” and inter/trans-disciplinary areas see e.g., (1) Principles of Systems [Forrester (1968)]; (2) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge [Wilson (1999)]; (3) Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of Knowledge [Bunge (2003)]; (4) Thinking in Systems: A Primer [Meadows (2008)]; (5) Inspired by Biology: From Molecules to Materials to Machines [NRC (2008); (6) citations in “Over Two-Hundred Annotated References on Systems Thinking” [Hake (2009)]; (7) The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory [Hammond (2010)]; and (8) Research at the Intersection of the Physical and Life Sciences [NRC (2010a)].

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

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/fI9Zjf .

As stated in the above post, in my opinion, although the White Paper is a valuable contribution to the advance of science, it might have been improved if it had acknowledged:

(a) precursors to its “new paradigm” of Convergence, such as the “Systems Dynamics” work of MIT's Jay Forrester in particular; and inter/trans-disciplinary “Systems Thinking” generally;

(b) world problems in need of inter/trans-disciplinary attention that are even more severe than the “health care” problem emphasized in the White Paper's Introduction - e.g., the “Threat to Life on Planet Earth.”

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

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Jan 2011.]

Berrett, D. 2011. “The Rise of ‘Convergence' Science’,” Inside Higher Ed, 11 January; online at http://bit.ly/fVOp3C. As of 14 Jan 2011 10:26:00-0800 there had been 9 comments at http://bit.ly/fomM8o . You might wish to add yours.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fI9Zjf . Post of 14 Jan 2011 11:14:07-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

MIT News. 2011. “MIT scientists say ‘convergence’ offers potential for revolutionary advances in biomedicine, other fields,” January 4; online at http://bit.ly/gdACA7.

Sharp, P.A., C.L. Cooney, M.A. Kastner, J. Lees, R. Sasisekharan, M.A. Yaffee, S.N. Bahatia, T. E. Jacks, D.A. Lauffenburger, R. Langer, P.T. Hammond, M. Sur. 2010. “The Third Revolution: The Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering,” online as a 3.1 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/eHzKKq .

Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title (transmitted to about 30 discussion lists on 16 March 2010) regarding Eric Mazur's http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/ engaging talk "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" at the University of Maryland on 11 November 2009. (I thank Joan Middendorf of Indiana University for calling my attention to Eric's talk.)

The abstract reads:

“I thought I was a good teacher until I discovered my students were just memorizing information rather than learning to understand the material. Who was to blame? The students? The material? I will explain how I came to the agonizing conclusion that the culprit was neither of these. It was my teaching that caused students to fail! I will show how I have adjusted my approach to teaching and how it has improved my students' performance significantly.”

That talk is now on UTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI ; and the abstract, slides, and references - sometimes obscured in the UTube talk - are at http://tinyurl.com/ybc53jw as a 4 MB pdf.

As of 16 March 2010, Eric's talk had been viewed by some 12,800 UTube fans!

In contrast, serious articles in the education literature, often read only by the author and a few cloistered academic specialists, usually create tsunamis in educational practice equivalent to those produced by a pebble dropped into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

For other commentary critical of the passive-student lecture - staple of U.S. higher education - see e.g.:

a. “Scholars at a Lecture” [Hogarth ((1822)];

b. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science" [Morrison (1986)] - a MUST-READ all-time classic!;

c. “Science Lectures: A relic of the past? [Mazur (1996)];

d. "The College Lecture, Long Derided, May Be Fading” [Honan (2002)];

e. "Re: The college lecture may be fading" [Hake (2002)];

f. “Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing” [Hake (2007)];

g. "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" [Rimer (2009)];

h. "Farewell, Lecture?" [Mazur (2009)].

Yes, I'm aware of the seemingly lecture-friendly:

1. “A time for telling” [Schwartz & Bransford (1998)];

2. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)].

Regarding Schwartz & Bransford (1998), their abstract ends: ”. . .the results indicate that there is a place for lectures and readings in the classroom IF STUDENTS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENTIATED DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE TO USE THE EXPOSITORY MATERIALS IN A GENERATIVE MANNER.” [My CAPS.]

In response, I wrote in “Re: Constructivism in the APB classroom” [Hake (2008a)]:

“But judging from the abysmally low pre-to-post test average normalized gains on tests of conceptual understanding for traditional high-school and college mechanics courses (Hake (1998a,b)], it would appear that the traditional learning strategy given to students by instructors for learning physics . . . . does NOT supply students with 'sufficiently differentiated domain knowledge to use the expository materials in a generative manner' [a loose translation from the psychologize might be: ‘sufficient conceptual understanding to benefit from the lecture.’ “

Regarding Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006), as indicated in "Language Ambiguities in Education Research" [Hake (2008b)], their failure to operationally define pedagogical terms hinders any meaningful interpretation of their paper. Quoting Klahr and Li (2005) “we suggest that those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research should focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded '-isms.' ”

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

Hake, R.R. 1998a. “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf (84 kB).

Hake, R.R. 1998b. “Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses,” online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf (108 kB). A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://tinyurl.com/y8kddm6 . Post of 21 Aug 2002 15:34:25-0700 to Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and POD.

Hake, R.R. 2007. “Re: Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing,” online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://tinyurl.com/yftrgmt . Post of 20 Feb 2007 15:45:37-0800 to Chemed-L, PhysLrnR, & POD.

Hake, R.R. 2008a. “Re: Constructivism in the APB classroom,” online on the OPEN! AERA-K archives at http://tinyurl.com/yj556qd .

Hake, R.R. 2008b. “Language Ambiguities in Education Research,” submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August 2008 but mindlessly rejected; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf (1.2 MB).

Hogarth, W. 1822. “Scholars at a Lecture,” online at http://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/hogarth_william_scholarsatalecture.htm .

Honan, W.H. 2002. "The College Lecture, Long Derided, May Be Fading,” New York Times, August 14, 2002; online at http://tinyurl.com/yjsanjf .

Kirschner, P.A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86; online at http://tinyurl.com/3xmp2m (176 kB).

Klahr, D. & J. Li. 2005. “Cognitive Research and Elementary Science Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 217-238; online as a 536 kB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/2b62uk (536 kB).

Mazur, E. 1996. “Science Lectures: A relic of the past? Physics World 9: 13-14; online at http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazur_22862.pdf (1 MB).

Mazur, E. 2009. "Farewell, Lecture?" Science 323 (5919): 50-51, 2 January; online to subscribers at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5910/50 . Free toall at http://tinyurl.com/sbys4 .

Morrison, R.T. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number 1, Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian R. Rice). The College Center for Curricular Thought: The University of Chicago, October 18-19, 1989; online at http://entropysite.oxy.edu/morrison.html, thanks to Gutenberg lecture pioneer Frank Lambert. (The Gutenberg lecture method recognizes the invention of the printing press!)

Rimer, S. 2009. "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard," New York Times, 12 January; online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?_r=1? (with 74 comments as of 15 March 2010).

Schwartz, D. L. & J. D. Bransford, 1998. "A time for telling," Cognition & Instruction 16(4): 475-522; an abstract is online at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3233709.

At MIT, Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard - REDUX #2

ABSTRACT: Sara Rimer's New York Times report "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" concerning John Belcher's "Technology-Enabled Active Learning" (TEAL) program has received widespread attention (about 30,000 hits on Google).

Recently, guest blogger Diana Senechal (2009) in her provocative post "What's with those clickers in physics class?" criticized TEAL on the basis of (a) comments published in the NYT by a few disaffected MIT students, and (b) her own preference for lectures over what she perceived as "group buzz, multiple-choice problems, and clickers."

Similarly, Margaret Harris' PhysicsWorld criticism of TEAL relied primarily on the comments of a few disgruntled MIT students. But neither student comments nor one's own preferences provide valid gauges of the cognitive (as opposed to the *affective*) impact of a course on the average student. As repeatedly emphasized, the cognitive impact of a course is best gauged by pre-to-postest normalized gains on valid and consistently reliable tests developed through arduous quantitative and qualitative research by disciplinary experts.

Although this idea is gradually gaining traction in undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, geoscience, engineering, calculus, and physics, most of academia has turned a deaf ear. But similar ideas, independently suggested by physics Nobelist Carl Wieman (2005) may attract more attention.

To access the complete 27 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/kqfpxy .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard - REDUX #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/kqfpxy. Post of 13 Sep 2009 08:31:05-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR.