The Old Barometer Story (OBS) Redux

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Old Barometer Story (OBS) Redux” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: John Denker of the PhysLrnR list called attention to “Angels on a Pin: A Modern Parable” [Calandra (1968)] at http://bit.ly/10KKI4h and wrote: “There's a lot more that could be said about this story.”

And there's also a lot that's already been said about the “Old Barometer Story” (OBS). See e.g.:
(1) the Wikipedia Entry on “The Barometer Question” at http://bit.ly/11TY6Ub;
and (in approximate chronological order):

(2) “The Barometer Fable” [Simanek (undated)] at http://bit.ly/Va0VsW;

(3) “a pointless story” [Goldenberg (1998)] at http://bit.ly/14jauf4;

(4) “The Old Barometer Story (was Problem Solving in Physics)” [Hake (2000)] at http://bit.ly/UZ7r7J;

(5) “Re: The Old Barometer Story” [Hubisz (2000) at http://bit.ly/10UFqEw;

(6) “Problem Solving in Physics” Beck (2000) at http://bit.ly/Tyuidt;

(7) “The Old Barometer Story (was Tower height joke)” [Hake (2007a)] at http://bit.ly/Y1HBkd;

(8) “The Old Barometer Story - Erratum & Addendum” [Hake (2007b)] at http://bit.ly/W1FI7q;

(9) “Re: Free Versus Pedantic Thinking” Hake (2008a)] at http://bit.ly/Vlvr8J;

(10) “Free Versus Pedantic Thinking” [Chandy (2008)] at http://bit.ly/10UHyw6;

(11) “Re: Free Versus Pedantic Thinking” [Raimi (2008)] at http://bit.ly/VlVmNy;

(12) “Re: Developing for creativity” [Hake (2008b)] at http://bit.ly/SDUAcw;

(13) “The Barometer Problem” [B. and D. Mikkelson (2011)] at http://bit.ly/14e674Z;

(14) “The myth of Niels Bohr and the barometer question” [“Johann” (2011)] at http://bit.ly/149Q6Os.

Note that Ralph Raimi (2008) at http://bit.ly/VlVmNy states that he heard the OBS in 1943, 15 years before the publication of the 1958 Reader's Digest version of the OBS referenced by B. and D. Mikkelson (2011)] at http://bit.ly/14e674Z as the earliest version of the OBS of which they were aware. Does anyone have a pre-1958 reference to the OBS?
*********************************************

To access the complete 27 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ur7zOm.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (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

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 Jan 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Old Barometer Story (OBS) Redux,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ur7zOm. Post of 25 Jan 2013 16:12:22-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction” [Hake (2012c)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Google Donates One Million Dollars to Local Schools” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/KMcNNw, I stated (paraphrasing): “The research reported in ‘Interactive-engagement (IE) vs traditional (T) methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses’ [Hake (1998a)] at http://bit.ly/9484DG strongly suggests that the ‘Explicit Direct Instruction’ (EDI) doesn't work nearly as well as IE in promoting conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability.”

In response Philip Freeman wrote (paraphrasing): “It’s possible that there is a linguistic issue here. . . . what this group calls “EDI” includes use of many of the approaches that Physics Education Research endorses. . . . . in talking to those in different contexts it is important to be careful about assumptions that words mean the same thing they do to us.”

I agree completely. In “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)] at http://bit.ly/bHTebD I wrote (paraphrasing): “Language ambiguities hinder development of education research and sometimes misrepresent its findings to both the education community and the general public. . . . . Such communication problems might be reduced if, quoting Klahr and Li (2005) at http://bit.ly/apA7es, ‘those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded -isms.’ ”

After considering operational definitions for “Interactive Engagement” (IE) and “Explicit Direct Instruction” (EDI), I stick by my statement “that the research reported in Hake (1998a) strongly suggests that EDI doesn't work nearly as well as IE in promoting conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability.”
***************************************************

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LdSe1e.

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 [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 June 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Google Donates One Million Dollars to Local Schools,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KMcNNw. Post of 17 Jun 2012 14:45:21-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at http://bit.ly/KdQZZF with a provision for comments. See also Hake (2012b).

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “Gates Foundation Dispenses 400 Million/Year to Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Mmc1aB. Post of 18 Jun 2012 10:33:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were also transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/NKPfwR with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012c. “Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/LdSe1e. Post of 19 Jun 2012 17:28:00-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding ?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding? ” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Math-Teach’s Robert Hansen, in his post “An Interesting Study” http://bit.ly/xRJ4Nw wrote (paraphrasing): “Thomas Judson’s study ‘High School Calculus in the United States and in Japan’ http://bit.ly/z13oSx shows what I’ve been asserting all along – Hake’s hypothesis that good students who can solve problems lack conceptual understanding is BS.”

That “good students who can solve problems lack conceptual understanding” is NOT the “Hake hypothesis” and is NOT “BS,” unless “BS” means something like “Basic Sense.” See, for example Kim & Pak’s “Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems” http://bit.ly/ApWSju.
**********************************************

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/xE2vbg.

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
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/xE2vbg. Post of 5 Mar 2012 19:42:03-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” [Hake (2011b)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” [Hake (2011a)], Math-Teach’s Robert Hansen wrote (paraphrasing):

“Is there a complete high-school assessment endorsed by PER [Physics Education Research]? The FCI [Force Concept Inventory] assesses only one component of physics and I think that keeps people, especially physicists, from getting too excited over normalized gains on the FCI.”

Hansen is either dismissive or oblivious of the fact that PER is concerned with (a) students’ conceptual understanding, (b) students’ ability to solve non-algorithmic problems, and (c) at least 10 other capabilities listed in this post. I suggest over 30 references to the PER literature that might reduce Hansen’s confusion.

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

To access the complete 24 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/eh6sge.

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 (PEDARRI)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“The premium so often put in schools upon external ‘discipline,’ and upon marks and rewards, upon promotion and keeping back, are the obverse of the lack of attention given to life situations in which the meaning of facts, ideas, principles, and problems is vitally brought home.”

John Dewey (1916)

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

Dewey, J. 1916. “The Nature of Realization or Appreciation” in Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, online at http://bit.ly/evICPb, Chapter 18, Educational Values, Section 1.1.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 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/ifvkSz.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: A recent thread “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” on the “Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education” (RUME) list has discussed an article by Sweller, Clark, & Kirschner (SCK) (2010) titled “Teaching General Problem-Solving Skills is Not a Substitute for, or a Viable Addition to, Teaching Mathematics” http://bit.ly/i7wori and published in the November 2010 issue of Notices of the AMS.

Math-problem guru Alan Schoenfeld wrote: “Sweller and colleagues set up a straw man, the notion of ‘general problem solving’ as a counterpoint to mathematical knowledge [but] there are techniques of mathematical problem solving, and there’s plenty of evidence that students can learn them, so the opposition Sweller and colleagues use to frame their paper is nonsensical. . . . .”

Sweller and colleagues have previously set up straw men - the title of their tract “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” http://bit.ly/duJVG4 invokes the straw men “Minimal Guidance” and “Failure” but critics of Sweller et al. point out that these methods are generally neither: (a) “un-guided or minimally guided,” nor (b) “failures.”

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

To access the complete 23 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/etl0dc .

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 08 December 2010.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/etl0dc . Post of 8 Dec 2010 19:58:52-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.