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]

Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)



A number of unproven assumptions have been asserted about PER, and I will
start with the one that the lecture/lab format used to work. We only know
that it did produce a number of good scientists, but we do not know that
actually used to work better. It certainly is a filter which separates the
survivors from other students. We are still producing a number of good
scientists, but at a reduced rate. My student observations have revealed
that students are still opportunists and they still engage in all kinds of
techniques to get a quick fix. Feynman tried to "reform" his lectures and
admitted that his efforts did not produce greater student understanding. I
don't think we have firm evidence that the old method works any worse or
better than it did before. Students use to be compliant and would sink
without complaining, but now they let us know when they think things do not
work.

The comment that there are 50 educational theories and that it is difficult
to choose between them is IMHO inaccurate. There is actually a fairly well
defined set of theories which are being used by the reformers. Virtually
all reforms trace back to the research into the learning cycle as promoted
by Karplus. The learning cycle is in turn rooted in Piagetian psychology.
Most pedagogical treatments for "alternate conceptions" or misconceptions
stem from Piaget's insight that children learn by experimentation and that
learning is either accommodation or assimilation. Assimilation is just
fitting new information into an existing framework. When a child
experiences a surprising result (but not too surprising) it can accommodate
it by changing patterns of thinking. Such surprises or discrepant events
must be powerful enough to make a strong impression. This can be provided
by reproducible physical events, and is less often produced by reading or
lecture. Within this framework various sequences and materials have been
developed which have been found by research to work. Also various research
in the 80s and 90s reveal that students exhibit understanding when they can
translate between 4 different representations: pictorial, descriptions,
graphical, and mathematical. BTW this has its parallels in the techniques
used to teach dyslexic children. Within this framework teachers must help
students develop metacognition.

A second thread in PER is the problem of promoting expert problem solving.
This is being attacked by reducing the plug and chug aspects of problem
solving and by explicitly teaching the step necessary to apply concepts.
For example the 4 SVT equations are not taught, and students are expected to
use general ideas without resorting to just case specific equations. Both
of these general threads can hardly be called spoon feeding as students are
asked to think on their own. Within these threads there are a number of
techniques which utilize the theory in various ways, but differ widely in
surface appearance. I propose that the perception of 50 different theories
is similar to the way in which students think problems are different because
they have different surface features, when in reality they are the same.

The answer to the very valid question as to whether or not this form of
pedagogy develops individuals who are better suited for success in life is
not known. However, we can also ask whether conventional education promotes
greater success. There is a great deal of evidence to show that it often
does not. There is some evidence to show that reform pedagogy is quite
successful. The work of Shayer and Adey in England has been successful in
raising scores 18% in science 15% in math. and 15% in English on exit exams.
Their methods are twins of the methods promoted by PER. Reuven Feuerstein
in Israel uses some very good interventions to raise the thinking skills of
students. He has successfully raised groups of low scoring students to
normal IQ and individual students to normal or superior IQs (some at age 15
were as low as estimated IQ 65). His methods are designed to promote better
prefrontal lobe development and have some features in common with reformed
science education. Some of his students have even gone on to become tenured
university faculty. (of course some would say "Now we know where they come
from!")

At the moment our educational system is failing to develop good thinking
processes in all but a fraction of individuals. That this has always been
true is not in dispute. Previously this was considered to be the norm, but
now our educational system is required to try to educate everyone. The
evidence is overwhelming that students can develop better thinking skills
and that educators can promote this development. Good FCI/FMCE scores
actually correlate well with the development of such thinking skills, so
they are more than just indicators of physics learning. However they are
hardly the whole story.

Any teacher who has done the necessary research (in literature or by
experiment) and worked hard to improve his/her teaching should not feel
guilty. Unfortunately the system is stacked so as to make it very difficult
to research and implement good pedagogy. When I used the word gain,
certainly FCI gain was in the background, but we all know that real gain
involves more. In either case the words "active engagement" in the post on
homework alludes to PER and all that it implies.

Incidentally, reformed pedagogy does not necessarily require more work after
the initial learning curve. The preparation is different, and more grading
is not necessarily required. Lecture based methods such as Mazur's or the
ILDs require using and tracking the responses to questions. Technology has
made that easy. The lab methods have short homeworks which can be graded
instead of the labs. Modeling uses conventional tests, but the instructors
have to be skilled in using good Socratic dialog. Also students are not
actually required to do more work. Part of the time usually spent
inaccurately transferring information from the overhead projections to the
notebook is instead spent thinking about and engaging with the material.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


2) The real active engagement is to actively engage the
student's brains.
There are many ways to do this--self motivation having been
cited recently
as one. It seems to me that much of the 'new pedagogy' focuses
on forcing
students into situations where they _must think_ whereas more
traditional
pedagogies simple expect that thinking to come from those
students who are
serious about the course.


This is the crux of my reading of what the PER literature is
saying. After 20+ years of teaching the intro. course the biggest change
I have seen is in the way students approach the course. The PER literature
is very useful in addressing this change. The lecture/lab format worked.
The problem for me, is that *now* it doesn't work nearly as well as it
used to. Until the students become more self-motivated in their learning
again, the new strategies are worth looking at. Of course, people being
people no one teaching technique will ever work for every student.

Mike Monce
Connecticut College