Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Longitudinal Studies...



Hi:

1. Some people take vitamin C to ward off common colds.
2. These people swear by this therapy and claim that they have, as Linus
Pauling argued, fewer cold which are less severe than when not taking
vitamin C.
3. This is anecdotal evidence and may be either due to the vitamin C or
just psychological (the placebo effect).
4. Double blind experiments are at best inconclusive and many of them
seem to indicate that vitamin C has no effect on the common cold.
5. Whose right? Even if the value of vitamin C against common colds is
only due to the placebo effect, the result is real and these people
should continue with their treatment.
6. However as a result of studies with vitamin C there may be other
positive benefits such as its use as an antioxidant in the human body.


__________________________________________________________________________________

1. Some physics teachers use one of the new innovative physics teaching
methods in order to produce better physics students.
2. These people swear by these methodologies and claim to produce
students with better conceptual understanding than when using more
traditional methods.
3. This is anecdotal evidence and may be either due to the new
methodology, may be an example of the Hawthorn effect, may be due to the
increased enthusiasm and renewed vigor of the instructor, or
combinations of these.
4. Double blind experiments of teaching effectiveness are not possible,
but there seems to be evidence as Cliff Swartz pointed out that with
education innovations "it is very hard to demonstrate their efficacy."
5. Whose right? I can reduce my teaching to one or two concepts a
semester and involve the students in a real creative, hands-on, engaging
process. My subsequent testing will show that these students have
learned these one or two concepts far better than my other students who
obtained a less in depth understanding but learned other concepts (in
less depth) as well. (There is no argument here and anyone who tries to
make a point that less is more is only arguing that the more is more in
depth.)
5. The only real assessment of any educational innovation is a
longitudinal study which compares the student taught by one of the new
teaching innovations with the traditional student.
6. There are real benefits to teaching innovations. Bits and pieces can
be incorporated into traditional teaching methods.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things are not black or white. As a traditionalist I don't lecture in a
style that is "throwing pearls to swine." (I do have an undergraduate
degree in science education, after all.) I attempt to engage my students
using a wide variety of innovative techniques picked up at AAPT
meetings, from educational literature, workshops, and other sources.
I'll bet most of you reading this do the same.

My students go on to use their physics either in engineering, in
physics, or in some other technical area. I have been successful with
what I do, but maybe I could do better. So far, however, the evidence of
success of some of the new innovations is not in. What is the success of
these new programs as measured by longitudinal studies? How
transportable are they? Can they be used by all of us or are the
reported successes due to the personalities and styles of those who
created or teach using these innovations? How cost effective are they?
Can they be used with the existing infrastructure of the college or
university or do new classrooms/laboraties need to be constructed? What
kind of manpower (person power) is needed to teach by these methods? Do
they require a lot of supervision by faculty and/or graduate students?

These and other questions need to be answered. As physicists we need to
transfer OUR scientific methodology to obtain these answers and not act
like salesmen and peddle our new pet hypotheses. Paul Camp wrote that he
was interested in transferability. Do we forget to transfer our training
as physicists when we delve into the subject of physics education? I
have yet to see the kind of really important data that we should demand
as physicists.

Have a good weekend.

Roger Pruitt