Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s “To Lecture or Not to Lecture?”

Some blog followers might be interested in an article “Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s ‘To Lecture or Not to Lecture?’,”
[Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

*******************************************************
ABSTRACT:
Paul Corrigan has ably reviewed the contentious debate over lecturing. In the present article I borrow from and supplement Corrigan’s Atlantic article “To Lecture or Not to Lecture?” at http://bit.ly/1cGQaKW and his blog entry “Beyond the Lecturing Debate” at http://bit.ly/1eKAR0A so as to include discussion of the following:

1. Lecturing is prevalent but “active learning” is advised by researchers.

2. Nevertheless, some academics defend “lectures.”

3. But such academics often advocate lecturing along with “active learning.”

4. Corrigan distinguishes “lecturing” from “Lecturing.”

5. Physics education research emphasizes higher-level learning and distinguishes “lecture” from “passive-student-lecture.”

6. Positive and negative depictions of the lecture.

7. Depictions of “active learning.”

8. Literary and YouTube criticism of the passive-student-lecture.

9. Nine anti-passive-student-lecture articles.

10. Twelve pro-lecture articles or books.

11. Should One Lecture or Not Lecture?
******************************************************


To access the complete 2.9 MB article please click on http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e.


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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.

“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 http://bit.ly/17PdW5Y, via James Boswell (1791) at http://bit.ly/qfDXPz.


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Feb 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Curmudgeonly Comments Concomitant to Corrigan’s ‘To Lecture or Not to Lecture?’,” online as a 2.9 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/1nA6z5e. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents – Response to Hunt

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents – Response to Hunt” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a post “Re: The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents” [Hake (2014)] at http://bit.ly/1mYwWoa, I pointed to the “vigorous leadership, voluminous messaging, and pro-public-/anti-private-education positions of (a) Diane Ravitch and (b) FairTest http://www.fairtest.org/. Then I commented that neither appeared to be informed regarding the virtues of rigorous measurement of students' higher-order learning by means of zero-stakes formative evaluation “designed and used to improve an intervention, especially when it is still being developed” [JCSEE, copied onto p. 132 by Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn.

In response, Russ Hunt (2014) at http://bit.ly/1hSsq6L wrote: “The virtues of rigorous testing aren't really the point: it's how the tests are administered and what uses they’re put to that Ravitch and Fair Test (and I) are concerned with.”

However, it IS to the point for many of those who wish to enhance students’ higher-level learning, as I have emphasized in, e.g.:

1. “Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort” [Hake (2002)] at http://bit.ly/aL87VT;

2. “The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education” [Hake (2005)] at http://bit.ly/9aicfh;

3. “Should We Measure Change? Yes!” [Hake (2007a)] at http://bit.ly/d6WVKO (2.5 MB);

4. “Re: pre-to-post tests as measures of learning/teaching” [Hake (2008a)] at http://bit.ly/MmPxwp;

5. “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” [Hake (2008b)] at http://bit.ly/9kORMZ (1.1 MB);

6. “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB);

7. “SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011b)] at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5;

8. “The NRC Finally Comes to Its Senses on Improving STEM Education” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/154M5yf; and

9. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” Hake (2013b)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
***************************************************

To access the complete 66 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u.


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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.

“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 [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “The Defiant Parents: Testing's Discontents – Response to Hunt,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lqiR4u. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 213 kB pdf http://bit.ly/SyhOvL, thanks to Ecoplexity http://bit.ly/152aFQ9.

Student Evaluations of Teaching Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance - Yet Again!

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Student Evaluations of Teaching Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance - Yet Again!” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: Dorothea Herreiner alerted the POD list to “Evaluating Students’ Evaluations of Professors” [Braga et al. (2011)] at http://bit.ly/LqAttL who wrote “Our measure of teacher effectiveness is negatively correlated with the students’ evaluations of professors.”

In response, Ed Nuhfer pointed to “Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of Students to Professors” [Carrell & West (2010)] at http://bit.ly/KtOnHp who wrote: “Professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement teach in ways that improve their student evaluations but harm the follow-on achievement of their students in more advanced classes.”

So What's New? See e.g.:
1. “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance” [SET's = Student Evaluations of Teaching]:
Hake (2006a) http://bit.ly/p3uh2K;
Hake (2006b) http://bit.ly/poBg28 (response to Scriven);
Hake (2006c) http://bit.ly/oHuu27 (response to McKeachie);
Hake (2006d) http://bit.ly/oX2rBp (response to Nuhfer);
Hake(2006e) http://bit.ly/qtJvBd (response to Theall)]; and

2. “SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2”
Hake (2011) at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5 (response to Woods).
************************************************

To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/KGK687.

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

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 24 June 2012.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Student Evaluations of Teaching Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance - Yet Again!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KGK687. Post of 24 Jun 2012 09:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion lists.

SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3” [Hake (2011a) http://bit.ly/gSNTGi], problem-based-learning pioneer http://bit.ly/etekAw Don Woods (2011a) wrote at http://bit.ly/h1VrME [my CAPS; my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . .]:

“. . . . there are at least 20 valid forms of evidence that can be used for measuring teaching ‘productivity.’ These include . . . . . well-designed COURSE EVALUATIONS. . . . .[[I shall assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that Woods uses ‘course evaluations’ as shorthand for ‘Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET’s)’]]. . . . . , exams and assignments, . . . . . More details are given in my forthcoming book ‘Motivating and Rewarding University Teachers to Improve Student Learning: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators’. . . . . .[[Woods, 2011b)]]. . . . .”

In “Culture of Science Education - Response to Woods” [Hake (2011b) http://bit.ly/fetCy6] I wrote (paraphrasing):

“I disagree that SET’s are a valid method of measuring ‘teaching productivity’ IF ‘teaching productivity’ means ‘student learning’ - see e.g., ‘Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment the Remedy?’ [Hake (2002a)], ‘SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance #4’ [Hake (2006e)], and ‘Effectiveness of Student Evaluations’ [PhysLrnR (2011)].”

In the present post I give 7 EXHIBITS suggesting that “SET’s ARE NOT VALID GAUGES OF STUDENTS' HIGHER-LEVEL LEARNING”: (1) Halloun & Hestenes (1985a); (2) Crouch & Mazur (2001); (3) Eric Mazur (1997, 2009); (4) John Belcher (2003); (5) Richard Hake (2006f); (6) Richard Hake (2011c); (7) Russ Hunt (2011); and (8) David Gavrin (2003).

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

To access the complete 76 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/jLZaz5.

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 17 May 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011. “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5. Post of 17 May 2011 09:47:36-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being distributed to various discussion lists.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.

The Burden of Proof #2

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent discussion list post "Re: The Burden of Proof #2" [Hake (2009)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************************
ABSTRACT: Kevin Carey in his blog post "The Burden of Proof," quoted Paul Basken's report "Engineering Schools Prove Slow to Change" on a Carnegie Foundation study that bemoand "a faculty culture resistant to change." Carey objects to blaming the slowness of change in engineering schools on culture because, in his view, "the more autonomy faculty are given in the classroom, the greater the burden the burden of proof to demonstrate that their choices are actually working.

But the problem is that most faculty fail to discharge their burden of proof of student learning because they (and administrators) are immersed in a culture that relies on course exams and Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET's) to gauge student learning - both of which typically measure lower-level educational objectives such as memory of facts and definitions rather than higher-level outcomes such as critical thinking and non-algorithmic problem solving.

How then can faculty measure their students' higher-level learning from start to finish of a course? As demonstrated by the physics education reform effort, by direct formative evaluation of students' domain-specific learning through pre/post testing using: (a) valid and consistently reliable tests of conceptual understanding devised by disciplinary experts, and (b) traditional courses as controls.

Such definitive evaluation of the cognitive impact of courses has (a) increased student learning in some U.S. introductory physics courses (including large enrollment classes at California Polytechnic at San Luis Obispo, Harvard, MIT, North Carolina State, and the University of Colorado); (b) is gradually gaining a foothold in introductory astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geoscience, and math; and (c) has the potential to gradually enhance the effectiveness of higher education generally, including that in engineering.
*********************************************************

To access the entire 28 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/d4yy45

REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. "Re: The Burden of Proof #2," AERA-L post of 23 February 2009 14:57:57-0800; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/d4yy45

Should We Measure Change? Yes!

Some blog followers (blogees?) may be interested in:

Hake, R.R. 2008. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online at 

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf   (2.5 MB) or as reference 43 at 

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake .   To appear as a chapter in Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education [Hake, in preparation].

ABSTRACT: Formative pre/post testing is being successfully employed to improve the effectiveness of courses in undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geoscience, mathematics, and physics.  But such testing is still anathema to many members of the psychology-education-psychometric (PEP) community. I argue that this irrational bias impedes a much needed enhancement of student learning in higher education. I then review the development of diagnostic multiple-choice tests of higher-level learning; normalized gain and ceiling effects; the documented two-sigma superiority of "interactive engagement" over traditional passive-student pedagogy in the conceptually difficult subject of Newtonian mechanics; the probable neuronal basis for such superiority; education's lack of a "community map"; higher education's resistance to change and its related failure to improve the public schools; and, finally, why we should be concerned with student learning.