Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Experiment by Argentinian Neuroscientists Suggests That ‘Socratic’ (Correction: ‘PLATONIC’) Dialogue Is an Educational Failure” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: Argentinian neuroscientists Andrea P. Goldin, Laura Pezzatti, Antonio M. Battro, and Mariano Sigman, in an article titled “From Ancient Greece to Modern Education: Universality and Lack of Generalization of the Socratic Dialogue” at http://bit.ly/OQ7naE, describe an experiment in which the questions posed by Plato’s “Socrates” in the Meno are put to contemporary students. Goldin et al. found that most of their students made the same errors as did the slave boy in the Meno. However, they conclude that the Socratic Method Is A Failure because, “after following every single question including Socrates’ ‘diagonal argument,’ almost 50% of the participants failed to learn the simplest generalization when asked to double the area of a square of different size.”
But is it really the Socratic Method that fails? The late classics scholar Gregory Vlastos (1991), wrote (my italics) : ". . . . throughout this first phase of his writing Plato remains convinced of the substantial truth of Socrates' teaching and of the soundness of his method. . . . [but] when [Plato] finds compelling reason to strike out along new paths, he sees no need to sever the personal bond with Socrates and when these lead him to new, unSocratic and antiSocratic conclusions, as they visibly do by the time he comes to write the Meno, the dramatist's attachment to his protagonist, replicating the man’s love for the friend and teacher of his youth, survives the ideological separation.”
Therefore, in my opinion, Goldin et al. should have titled their article “From Ancient Greece to Modern Education: Universality and Lack of Generalization of the Platonic Dialogue." That the Platonic Dialogue is the polar opposite of effective instruction is well known to most physics education researchers. For example, Robert Morse (1992) pointed out the pedagogical weakness of the Platonic Dialogue in his insightful parody of the Meno in “The Classic Method of Mrs. Socrates” at http://bit.ly/iT1ksI. I also question the assertions by Golden et al. that their observations (a) extend a broad literature which has questioned the efficacy of unguided education, and (b) question the efficacy of the modern educational system.
In my opinion, the dialogue of the historical Socrates as utilized by the late Arnold Arons http://bit.ly/jBcyBU, in stark contrast to that depicted in the Meno, has been demonstrated to be relatively effective. See e.g.: (a) “Promoting Student Crossover to the Newtonian World” [Hake (1987)] http://bit.ly/a6vc3H; (b) “Professors as physics students: What can they teach us?” [Tobias & Hake (1988)] http://bit.ly/eaqFzU; (c) “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab” [Hake (1992)] http://bit.ly/9tSTdB; (d) “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses” [Hake (1998a)] http://bit.ly/9484DG; (e) “Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses” [Hake (1998b)] http://bit.ly/aH2JQN; (f) “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” [Hake (2008a)] http://bit.ly/9kORMZ; (f) “Helping Students to Think Like Scientists in Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs” [Hake (2012a)] http://bit.ly/x5ruYF.
Will Goldin et al.’s (2011) demonstration of the educational failure of the Platonic Method as depicted in the Meno deter law professors from utilizing the Platonic Method as notoriously used in law schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kingsfield? Probably not judging from the opinions of law professors Stephen Ellmann (2011) in “The Socratic Method Tested” http://bit.ly/RSMIlq and Robert Dinerstein in “Limitations to the Method” http://nyti.ms/NoWvin. But don't abandon all hope. See e.g., Stephen Bainbridge (2008) in “Reflections On Twenty Years Of Law Teaching” http://bit.ly/PeG0Sv and Brian Leiter in “The ‘Socratic Method’: The Scandal of American Legal Education” http://bit.ly/V7zyC6.
For those wishing to learn more about Socrates: (1) Socrates [Nails (2010)] http://bit.ly/SG4iLc; (2) Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher [Vlastos (1991)] http://bit.ly/z9BsOo; (3) Plato's Meno [Scott (2009)] http://bit.ly/OOk54m; (4) YouTube videos: (a) Bryan Magee (2008) http://bit.ly/SekI8p discusses Plato with Miles Burnyeat http://bit.ly/VQNcZM; online in 5 sections: http://bit.ly/Q7205K, http://bit.ly/PLsfg7, especially http://bit.ly/OiWtu6, http://bit.ly/UDQznj, http://bit.ly/UDR3JV; (b) M.M. McCabe (2011) http://bit.ly/QtbG7H on Socrates http://bit.ly/NHVsKM; (c) Bettany Hughes (2011a) http://bit.ly/S3WQcU on Socrates and The Hemlock Cup http://bit.ly/P7eUO6.
********************************************
To access the complete 67 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/PNP5nF.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to 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
“I am deeply convinced that a statistically significant improvement would occur if more of us learned to listen to our students. . . . .By listening to what they say in answer to carefully phrased, leading questions, we can begin to understand what does and does not happen in their minds, anticipate the hurdles they encounter, and provide the kind of help needed to master a concept or line of reasoning without simply ‘telling them the answer.’. . . . . . .Nothing is more ineffectually arrogant than the widely found teacher attitude that ‘all you have to do is say it my way, and no one within hearing can fail to understand it.’. . . . Were more of us willing to relearn our physics by the dialog and listening process I have described, we would see a discontinuous upward shift in the quality of physics teaching. I am satisfied that this is fully within the competence of our colleagues; the question is one of humility and desire.”
- Arnold Arons (1974)
“If Confucius can serve as the Patron Saint of Chinese education, let me propose Socrates as his equivalent in a Western educational context - a Socrates who is never content with the initial superficial response, but is always probing for finer distinctions, clearer examples, a more profound form of knowing. Our concept of knowledge has changed since classical times, but Socrates has provided us with a timeless educational goal - ever deeper understanding.”
- Howard Gardner (1989)
“We think the way we do because Socrates thought the way he did.”
- Bettany Hughes (2011a,b)
“[I] am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you.”
- Socrates in Apology [Plato (399 BC?)]
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by ‘http://bit.ly/’ and accessed on 29 Sept 2012.
Arons, A. 1974. “Addendum to 'Toward Wider Public Understanding of Science,” Am. J. Phys. 42(2): 157; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/q0woZT.
Gardner, H. 1989. “The Academic Community Must Not Shun the Debate Over How to Set National Educational Goals,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 November.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Experiment by Argentinian Neuroscientists Suggests That ‘Socratic’ (Correction: ‘PLATONIC’) Dialogue Is an Educational Failure” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/PNP5nF. Post of 29 Sep 2012 14:00:28-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Hughes, B. 2011a. YouTube talk “Bettany Hughes on Socrates and The Hemlock Cup,” online at http://bit.ly/P7eUO6. Hughes does not mention the Meno in her explanation of Socratic questioning. As of 29 Sept. 2012 16:44-0700, this video had been viewed 13,483 times. I thank Mike Klymkowsky http://besocratic.colorado.edu/ for alerting me to the work of Bettany Hughes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettany_Hughes.
Hughes, B. 2011b. The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life. Random House, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/RGRKDj. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/QLym3E, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. See also http://www.bettanyhughes.co.uk/.
Plato. 399BC? Apology, translated by Benjamin Jowett (2008), online at http://bit.ly/TJEqiS, thanks to the Gutenberg Project.
Showing posts with label Meno. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meno. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Yongkang Le of the PERTG discussion-list wrote (paraphrasing): “Since 2003 I’ve supervised physics teaching labs at both the fundamental and advanced levels. . . . I am frequently confused as to why my efforts do not benefit most students.”
I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Le’s labs are of the traditional cook-book type in which students follow a recipe to set up equipment, make measurements, and (supposedly) “verify” some relationship, principle, or theory. My experience has been that such labs are of little value in promoting students understanding and appreciation of either scientific methodology or physics concepts.
Examples of non-traditional labs are “Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs,” designed to promote students’ mental construction of concepts through:
(1) interactive engagement of students who are induced to think constructively about simple Newtonian experiments which produce conflict with their commonsense understandings;
(2) the Socratic method [e.g., Arons, 1997 http://bit.ly/jBcyBU; Hake, 1992 http://bit.ly/9tSTdB; Hake, 2012 http://bit.ly/x5ruYF] of the historical Socrates http://bit.ly/i4GWHz, not Plato’s alter ego in the Meno, utilized by experienced instructors who have a good understanding of the material and are aware of common student preconceptions and failings;
(3) considerable interaction between students and instructors and thus a degree of individualized instruction;
(4) extensive use of multiple representations (verbal, written, pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical) to model physical systems;
(5) real world situations and kinesthetic sensations (which promote student interest and intensify cognitive conflict when students’ direct sensory experience does not conform to their conceptions);
(6) cooperative group effort and peer discussions;
(7) repeated exposure to the coherent Newtonian explanation in many different contexts.
**********************************************
To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/KMNeOB.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“The usefulness and effectiveness of the introductory laboratory have been bones of contention in physics teaching as far as one cares to go back in the literature. Laboratory instruction is costly, and, since, its effectiveness has been difficult to substantiate compellingly, some responsible administrators have viewed it as a luxury we cannot afford.”
- Arnold Arons (1993)
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 05 June 2012.]
Arons, A.B. 1993. “Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics Laboratory,” Phys. Teach. 31(5): 278-282; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/mhzOQi.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KMNeOB. Post of 5 Jun 2012 15:18:18-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Yongkang Le of the PERTG discussion-list wrote (paraphrasing): “Since 2003 I’ve supervised physics teaching labs at both the fundamental and advanced levels. . . . I am frequently confused as to why my efforts do not benefit most students.”
I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Le’s labs are of the traditional cook-book type in which students follow a recipe to set up equipment, make measurements, and (supposedly) “verify” some relationship, principle, or theory. My experience has been that such labs are of little value in promoting students understanding and appreciation of either scientific methodology or physics concepts.
Examples of non-traditional labs are “Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs,” designed to promote students’ mental construction of concepts through:
(1) interactive engagement of students who are induced to think constructively about simple Newtonian experiments which produce conflict with their commonsense understandings;
(2) the Socratic method [e.g., Arons, 1997 http://bit.ly/jBcyBU; Hake, 1992 http://bit.ly/9tSTdB; Hake, 2012 http://bit.ly/x5ruYF] of the historical Socrates http://bit.ly/i4GWHz, not Plato’s alter ego in the Meno, utilized by experienced instructors who have a good understanding of the material and are aware of common student preconceptions and failings;
(3) considerable interaction between students and instructors and thus a degree of individualized instruction;
(4) extensive use of multiple representations (verbal, written, pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical) to model physical systems;
(5) real world situations and kinesthetic sensations (which promote student interest and intensify cognitive conflict when students’ direct sensory experience does not conform to their conceptions);
(6) cooperative group effort and peer discussions;
(7) repeated exposure to the coherent Newtonian explanation in many different contexts.
**********************************************
To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/KMNeOB.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“The usefulness and effectiveness of the introductory laboratory have been bones of contention in physics teaching as far as one cares to go back in the literature. Laboratory instruction is costly, and, since, its effectiveness has been difficult to substantiate compellingly, some responsible administrators have viewed it as a luxury we cannot afford.”
- Arnold Arons (1993)
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 05 June 2012.]
Arons, A.B. 1993. “Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics Laboratory,” Phys. Teach. 31(5): 278-282; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/mhzOQi.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Physics Laboratory Teaching,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KMNeOB. Post of 5 Jun 2012 15:18:18-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
