Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)

[Tucker Hiatt <hiattu00@USFCA.EDU>]

At 10:00 PM -0500 4/28/02, John Clement wrote:

> active engagement curricula show much better gain than conventional teaching
> methods.

I must suppose that the researchers who measured this difference in
gain did so in "active engagement" classes vs. "conventional" (i.e.,
lecture & demo) classes where every other variable was held constant.
In other words, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, active engagement is better
than conventional teaching, says John.

But guaranteeing that "all else is equal" is tricky.  I don't mean to
pick nits, though, so let me ask an obvious question in this regard:

Were the "active engagement" and "conventional" classes covering the
same amount of material (regardless of time taken), or were they
spending the same amount of time (regardless of amount of material
covered)?

Thanks,

- Tucker

P.S.  My suspicion is, again, that "active engagement" takes longer.
It may have high gain, but is it any more "efficient" than
conventional methods?
--
***********************************
Tucker Hiatt, Director
Wonderfest
P.O. Box 887
(39 Fernhill Avenue)
Ross, CA  94957
hiattu00@usfca.edu
415-577-1126 (voice)
415-454-2535 (fax)
http://www.wonderfest.org

Truth is a great flirt.  - Franz Liszt
***********************************