Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The NRC Finally Comes to Its Senses on Improving STEM Education.” The abstract reads:
***************************************
ABSTRACT: Kevin Kiley (2013) in his Inside Higher Ed review http://bit.ly/1bri3GP of Robert Zemsky’s (2013) Checklist for Change http://bit.ly/188VYrx reports that in an interview Zemsky said that (a) among the questions his book answers is “Why haven’t we changed?” and (b) a major impediment to change is “a disengaged faculty resistant to change.”
As I indicated in a previous comment [Hake (2013) http://bit.ly/1a189YT ] on Zemsky’s book, I’ve noticed Zemsky's derogation of faculty before. In “NRC’s CUSE: Stranded on Assessless Island?” [Hake (2003)] at http://bit.ly/184OVC4 ] I stated that Zemsky had “missed the boat with respect to the potential reform of undergraduate education through education research by disciplinary experts as monitored by rigorous pre/post testing [being] in the good company of CUSE (Committee on Undergraduate Education) [McCray, et al. (2003) at http://bit.ly/y6cFAG ], and its workshop participants.”
Fortunately, the NRC APPEARS TO HAVE FINALLY COME TO ITS SENSES ON IMPROVING STEM EDUCATION. On p. 35 of Adapting to a Changing World - Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education [NRC (2013) at http://bit.ly/126os6j ] it's stated:
“Hake’s (1998a) seminal report http://bit.ly/9484DG on the effectiveness of interactive engagement methods remains an important contribution to undergraduate physics education. The article presents results from the Mechanics Diagnostic (MD) [Halloun & Hestenes (1985) at http://bit.ly/fDdJHm ] and the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) [Hestenes et al. (1992) at http://bit.ly/foWmEb], given before and after instruction on Newtonian mechanics in a variety of courses taught using different approaches. . . . . . . the conclusion, that more effective instructional approaches involve active learning, has been supported by many other studies using different methodology [Meltzer and Thornton (2012) at http://bit.ly/O35gtB] and Hoellwarth et al. (2005) at http://bit.ly/156hHhF.]. **************************************************
To access the complete 53 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/154M5yf .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; Links to: Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; 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.
“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 18 Sept. 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. “The NRC Finally Comes to Its Senses on Improving STEM Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/154M5yf. Post of 18 Sep 2013 20:19:57-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Robert DeHaan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert DeHaan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Re: Research on Active Learning in Higher Education
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: Research on Active Learning in Higher Education” [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
***********************************************
ABSTRACT: Carolyn Hamblin of the POD list wrote (paraphrasing):
“I'm looking for research on active learning in higher education. I've found a lot in secondary ed but not much in higher ed.”
A Google search for [“higher education” “active learning”] (with the quotes but without the angle brackets) yielded 1.42 million hits on 28 July 2011 14:38-0700. After careful study of each of these hits ;-), I've selected the 20 best and referenced them in this post.
***********************************************
To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/pUM8jG .
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)
“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”
Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 July 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: Research on Active Learning in Higher Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/pUM8jG. Post of 28 Jul 2011 17:04:29 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
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: Carolyn Hamblin of the POD list wrote (paraphrasing):
“I'm looking for research on active learning in higher education. I've found a lot in secondary ed but not much in higher ed.”
A Google search for [“higher education” “active learning”] (with the quotes but without the angle brackets) yielded 1.42 million hits on 28 July 2011 14:38-0700. After careful study of each of these hits ;-), I've selected the 20 best and referenced them in this post.
***********************************************
To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/pUM8jG .
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)
“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”
Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 July 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: Research on Active Learning in Higher Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/pUM8jG. Post of 28 Jul 2011 17:04:29 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
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
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education
Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
*******************************************
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iT4YsN. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Michael, J. 2006. “Where's the evidence that active learning works?” Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at http://bit.ly/fjJ2Lj .
The abstract reads:
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: Economist Bill Goffe in his PhysLrnR post “Re: Business agenda for K-12 STEM education: not research-informed” wrote (paraphrasing):
“. . . it appears that Physics Education Research isn't widely known even in higher ed. For example Trudy Banta and Charles Blaich in a Change Magazine article “Closing the Assessment Loop” http://bit.ly/lQyEYp bemoan the fact that they can find very few instances of improved learning after a teaching innovation. The extensive physics education research that so convincingly demonstrates such a connection is not even mentioned.”
“. . . it appears that Physics Education Research isn't widely known even in higher ed. For example Trudy Banta and Charles Blaich in a Change Magazine article “Closing the Assessment Loop” http://bit.ly/lQyEYp bemoan the fact that they can find very few instances of improved learning after a teaching innovation. The extensive physics education research that so convincingly demonstrates such a connection is not even mentioned.”
That Trudy Banta http://bit.ly/mKElpt and Charles Blaich http://bit.ly/iNrXrL are evidently either unaware or dismissive of physics education research is typical of the near total disconnect between (a) Psychologists, Education specialists, and Psychometricians (PEP’s), and (b) education researchers in STEM disciplines - see e.g., “Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education” http://bit.ly/ceg1Bx, and “Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's? [Hake (2006) http://bit.ly/caWtWl].
*******************************************
To access the complete 15 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/iT4YsN.
To access the complete 15 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/iT4YsN.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which
Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”
Robert DeHaan (2005)
“One of the most striking findings [came from comparison of the learning outcomes (as measured by the FCI and a related inventory on mechanics) from 14 traditional courses (2,084 students) and 48 courses using "interactive-engagement" (active learning) techniques (4,458 students). . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b)]]. . . . . The results on the FCI assessment showed that students in the interactive engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses by 2 SDs. Similarly, students in the interactive-engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses on the Mechanics Baseline Test, a measure of problem-solving ability. This certainly looks like evidence that active learning works! Research in physics education is having a profound effect on the development of instructional materials.”
“One of the most striking findings [came from comparison of the learning outcomes (as measured by the FCI and a related inventory on mechanics) from 14 traditional courses (2,084 students) and 48 courses using "interactive-engagement" (active learning) techniques (4,458 students). . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b)]]. . . . . The results on the FCI assessment showed that students in the interactive engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses by 2 SDs. Similarly, students in the interactive-engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses on the Mechanics Baseline Test, a measure of problem-solving ability. This certainly looks like evidence that active learning works! Research in physics education is having a profound effect on the development of instructional materials.”
Joel Michael (2006)
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 April 2011.]
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 April 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iT4YsN. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Michael, J. 2006. “Where's the evidence that active learning works?” Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at http://bit.ly/fjJ2Lj .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
