In his Phys-L post of 18 Feb 2002 19:16:24-0600, titled "Re:
Conceptual Tests," John Clement wrote (slightly edited):
"His. . .(Hake's). . . papers are available at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> and the one I think you. .
(Tina Fanetti). . . want is at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> the results of the
6000 student survey. THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN CRITICIZED . . .(in). . .
THAT IT RELIED ON VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF TEST SCORES. Another of
his papers implies that average HS gain figures may be much lower
than the scores reported to him."
Several corrections and comments:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. The relevant references are NOT at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> The correct references are
Hake (1998a,b) at the location indicated in the "REFERENCE" list
below. The latter paper (Hake 1998b) also gives case histories for
the seven Interactive Engagement (IE) courses whose effectiveness, as
gauged by pre- to posttest gains, was close to those of traditional
courses, advice for implementing IE methods, and suggestions for
further research. Various criticisms of the survey and of physics
education research generally are countered in Hake (1998c). For a
summary and update of the survey see Hake (2002a). For a recent
treatment of assessment issues see Hake (2002b).
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. John writes "THIS SURVEY . . .(Hake 1998a). . . HAS BEEN
CRITICIZED . . . (in). . . THAT IT RELIED ON VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF
TEST SCORES." With friends like John, who needs enemies? It's true
that such criticism has been made, but as John should know, the
criticism is totally unjustified and has only come from those who
have evidently NOT carefully read Hake (1998a). For example, see my
response to economist Bill Becker's (2001) criticism #3b in the
section "Criticisms of the Survey" at Hake (2002a):
Becker (2001) wrote:
3b ". . . . if test administration is voluntary, teachers who observe
that their average class score is low on the pretest may not
administer the posttest. This is a problem for multi-institution
studies, such as that described in Hake (1998a) where instructors
elected to participate, administer tests and transmit data."
Hake's (2002a) response is:
"Becker may have overlooked Hake's (1998a, Sec. II, "Survey Method
and Objective") statement: "This mode of data solicitation . . .
(voluntary submission of data by teachers). . . tends to pre-select
results which are biased in favor of outstanding courses which show
relatively high gains on the FCI . . . As in any scientific
investigation, bias in the detector can be put to good advantage if
appropriate research objectives are established. We do NOT attempt to
access the AVERAGE effectiveness of introductory mechanics courses.
Instead we seek to answer a question of considerable practical
interest to physics teachers: "CAN the classroom use of IE methods
increase the effectiveness of introductory mechanics courses well
beyond that attained by traditional methods?"
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
John wrote: "Another of his . . . (Hake's). . . . papers implies
that average HS gain figures may be much lower than the scores
reported to him."
There are at least two possible interpretations of the above somewhat
ambiguous quote:
1. John may have meant that I implied that the average of HS gain
figures in courses throughout the country may be lower than those
reported in Hake (1998a,b). That is, of course, the clear implication
of the Sec. II, "Survey Method and Objective") statement of Hake
(1998a) quoted above. But as indicated above the objective of Hake
(1998a,b) was NOT to access the AVERAGE effectiveness of introductory
mechanics courses!
2. It's conceivable that John meant that I somewhere implied that the
teachers who reported data to me did not honestly report their
results so that the average of their true HS gain figures was lower
than those that appear in Hake (1998a,b). That the teachers reporting
to me were dishonest is, I think, extremely doubtful considering
their reputations. Furthermore, I never implied any such thing.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
REFERENCES
Becker, W. E. 2001. "What does the quantitative research literature
really show about teaching methods?" Preprint available online at:
<http://www.indiana.edu/~sotl/onlinepres.html>.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses." Am. J. Phys. 66(1):64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," submitted to Physics Ed. Res. Supplement to Am.
J. Phys.; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 1998c. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods in
mechanics instruction." APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer:
5-7; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108
countries. Volume 5, issue 2
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss2/index.html> contains a
special feature on "Interactive Science Education."
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Assessment of Student Learning in Introductory
Science Courses"; online at
<http://www.pkal.org/events/roundtable2002/paper-hake.pdf>.
Unfortunately the URL's are NOT hot-linked, but I shall correct this
deficiency within a few days. In the meantime the URL's can, of
course, be copied and pasted into a browser window.