Bao et al.’s Comparison of Learning And Scientific Reasoning In Chinese & U.S. Schools: Alternate Conclusions and Recommendations

Some blog followers might be interested in an article “Bao et al.’s Comparison of Learning And Scientific Reasoning In Chinese & U.S. Schools: Alternate Conclusions and Recommendations” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
The features, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the valuable 2009 Science report “Learning and Scientific Reasoning: Comparisons of Chinese and U.S. students show that content knowledge and reasoning skills diverge” by Bao et al. are summarized.

The primary feature is that Chinese and U.S. students enrolled in introductory physics courses for science and engineering majors in medium-rated universities were tested near the start of classes with the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA), and the Lawson Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR).

The primary finding is that although Chinese students’ averaged scores on the FCI and BEMA indicated good conceptual understanding of basic physics areas, and were, respectively, 1.9 and 2.9 standard deviations above those of U.S. students, their scores on the LCTSR were about the same as those of the U.S. students: at the low end of Lawson’s hypothetical-deductive reasoning range.

Bao et al. draw the conclusion that “current education and assessment in the STEM disciplines often emphasizes factual recall over deep understanding of science reasoning” and recommend that researchers and educators (1) “invest more in the development of a balanced method of education, such as incorporating more inquiry-based learning,” and (2) measure “not only content knowledge but also other factors so as to obtain a more holistic evaluation of students.”

I criticize the Bao et al. report on two counts: (1) the conclusion doesn't follow from the findings; and (2) the recommendations are either ambiguous, problematic, or invalid.

A conclusion consistent with the findings is: Average scores by both Chinese and U.S. freshmen on FCI, BEMA, and LCTSR indicate that K-12 STEM education in both those countries emphasizes factual recall over conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning.

Recommendations that are, in my view, less ambiguous, less problematic, and more valid are: K-12 educators should (1) utilize interactive engagement, inquiry, cognitive enhancement methods, and tests of reasoning; (2) emphasize a few fundamental concepts of STEM; and (3) develop age-appropriate assessments of concepts, epistemological beliefs, learning attitudes, and reasoning so as to formatively assess the effectiveness of their teaching methods. In addition, in the U.S. efforts should be made to (4) reduce poverty, (5) upgrade the education, salary, and prestige of K-12 teachers, and (6) establish National Education Standards.
************************************************

To access the complete 385 kB article please click on http://bit.ly/zQfIdo.

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

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
H. G. Wells (1920) in The Outline of History


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Feb 2012.]
Bao, L., T. Cai, K. Koenig, K. Fang, J. Han, J. Wang, Q. Liu, L. Ding, L. Cui, Y. Luo, Y. Wang, L. Li, & N. Wu. 2009a. “Learning and Scientific Reasoning: Comparisons of Chinese and U.S. students show that content knowledge and reasoning skills diverge.” Science 323(5914): 586 - 587, 30 January; online as a 184 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/90sdAG; supporting material is online as a 152 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/aNmbVz. See also the longer report “Learning of content knowledge and development of scientific reasoning ability: A cross culture comparison” [Bao et al. (2009b)].

Bao, L., K. Fang, T. Cai, J. Wang, L. Yang, L. Cui, J. Han, L. Ding, & Y. Luo. 2009b. “Learning of content knowledge and development of scientific reasoning ability: A cross culture comparison.” Am. J. Phys. 77(12): 1118-1123; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/wV1wbe.

Hake , R.R. 2012. “Bao et al.'s Comparison of Learning and Scientific Reasoning in Chinese & U.S. Schools: Alternate Conclusions and Recommendations,” online as a 385 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/zQfIdo. The abstract and link to the complete article are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Wells, H.G. 1920. The Outline of History. For a Wikipedia entry which discusses the interesting history of this treatise see http://bit.ly/yCkMjN. For Amazon.com information on a two volume set published in 1949 by Garden City Books see http://amzn.to/yvpDwU.

Re: FCI and CCI in China #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Re: FCI and CCI in China #2” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Jerry Epstein wrote (paraphrasing): “The Calculus Concept Inventory (CCI) has been given to about 1000 university students enrolled in a TEACHER-CENTERED calculus course in Shanghai, China. Their average normalized gains g(ave) were about two-standard deviations above those of U.S. university calculus courses, possibly due to student-organized out-of-class interactive group work.”

Craig Ogilvie responded: “Are there FCI (Force Concept Inventory) gains reported for a similar group of students/physics courses in China? It would support your hypothesis if they also showed high gains for non-IE pedagogy.” Here “IE” = “Interactive Engagement,” operationally defined [Hake (1998a)] as “those courses designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.”

David Meltzer then pointed to the research of Bao et al. on FCI pretest scores of Chinese and U.S. freshmen university students enrolled in science/engineering major courses, whose publication in the Science article “Learning and Scientific Reasoning: Comparisons of Chinese and U.S. Students” at http://bit.ly/90sdAG has been widely publicized.

Although Bao et al. measured only pretest scores (not pre-to-posttest gains) for Chinese freshmen university students enrolled in science/engineering major courses, they pointed out that those students had taken “algebra-based courses with emphasis on development of conceptual understanding and skills needed to solve problems” for FIVE YEARS in grades 8-12, whereas the U.S. students had taken at most ONE YEAR of physics.

That suggests that the Chinese K-12 math curriculum might also be more intensive than that in the U.S. IF that’s the case then it might help to explain the relatively high CCI gains for non-IE pedagogy, irrespective of possible student-organized out-of-class interactive group work.
***********************************************


To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zz7WXk

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 shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 Jan 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: FCI and CCI in China #2 online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zz7WXk. Post of 22 Jan 2012 16:27:43-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.