I must comment on one item Beichner mentioned in passing: (this is a minor
rant)
He stated, ". . . some QuickLabs that I and others put together in an effort
to make reading a little more active (if that can be done.) . . ."
If one knows how to read, it can be a very active experience. You have to
read actively. This is easier said than done as it require discipline and
effort on the part of the reader. And doesn't come naturally to a lot of
people (me included). But I think one denigrates the reading experience, by
assuming it isn't or nearly isn't an active experience. Whether it is
active or non-active is a choice made by the reader. And I'd venture to say
that a student who reads their physics text in a non-active fashion isn't
going to get much out of the experience. A significant problem is that this
set of students constitutes what seems to me to be a large majority
(80-90%).
It seems to me, that a lot of the PER results as implemented, tend to be
doing explicitly in the classroom what my prof's either expected (or was
necessary for me and my peers, in order to do well) outside of class.
examples, active engagement in the reading process, peer learning, "quick
labs", contriving examples that stretch and lead to cognitive disonance, etc
. . .