The Modeling Instruction Program has much evidence in favor of what John
Clement posted yesterday:
-- pedagogy is much more important for student learning than is motivation,
-- Modeling Instruction results in improved student motivation,
-- expertise takes a long time and will develop only as a result of
DELIBERATE practice.
Here is the beginning of a talk by David Hestenes to teachers. This part
concerns expertise. You can download the complete "Hestenes lectures on
Modeling Instruction" at <http://modeling.asu.edu>. Click on the high
school page. I find them insightful and easy to read!
cheers,
Jane Jackson
---------------------
Hestenes lectures on Modeling Instruction
Part 1a: EXPERTISE IN TEACHING
[June 23, 1997, morning talk by David Hestenes to Phase 1 workshop
teachers. Transcribed by Jane Jackson in Nov. 1997 and edited by David
Hestenes in Nov. 1999. Square brackets are used for Jane's comments.
David's comments are in parentheses.]
WHAT IS EXPERTISE IN TEACHING?
Some of you do not have high Force Concept Inventory (FCI) scores in your
classes. I want to assure you that all that means is that you have
something to learn about how to improve. There isn't anything intrinsically
wrong, and we have evidence for this in the published result on Malcolm
Wells. Back in 1985 we published the first data on the Mechanics
Diagnostic Test, a precursor to the FCI. Malcolm Wells was the first person
to apply this test to his high school class. His gains were low; his mean
posttest score was about 45%, which we now know is typical for traditional
physics instruction. But this was an epiphany for him, because he had put
in tremendous effort at improving his instruction, and he was using most of
the activities and general approach that you are using: photogates and
computers -- yet he got these gains which weren't good. (Malcolm Wells
didn't have "a natural gift" for teaching, by the way, but he worked very
hard on refining his technique.) However, by the time he finished his
dissertation, 3 years later, he made a BIG gain, among the highest FCI
gains ever achieved! Today we have two people who have slightly higher FCI
scores, but there are only a couple of people who have as good scores on
BOTH the FCI and the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT). This example shows that
it is definitely possible to improve considerably.
Now, in the paper that was written with Malcolm Wells, (American Journal of
Physics, July 1995), I really think you should review the points about
"What does it take to become an expert?" There we refer to the work of K.
Anders Ericsson, who has studied the development of expertise in a wide
variety of activities, from chess-playing and concert playing to
performance in many fields of endeavor. He doesn't talk specifically about
teaching. But he comes up with some general features of those people who
become expert. They are universal across the different domains. Let me
review the main points.
The first point is that IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BECOME EXPERT in any
complex domain. In fact, the time period is about 10 years. Consider a
person devoting all his time to playing chess. He may be a young prodigy
or start later; there is an advantage to starting young, but it still takes
10 years before you can perform at the level of the outstanding experts.
This is documented in areas where we have explicit data on performance.
There is every reason to believe that it applies to teaching as well.
But 10 years isn't enough by itself. Another of Ericsson's conclusions is
that experience doesn't necessarily produce improvement. So just because
you have 10 years of teaching, it doesn't mean that you are any better a
teacher than you were when you started out. In fact, with respect to
concert playing with musical instruments, he has data that show that just
performing in concerts doesn't improve your skill.
What DOES improve your skill? It is what Ericsson calls DELIBERATE
PRACTICE and that is EXAMINATION OF YOUR OWN PERFORMANCE AND ASKING HOW YOU
CAN IMPROVE IT, AND THEN TAKING SPECIFIC STEPS TO IMPROVE. That's what
WE'RE trying to help you do in the Modeling Workshops! DELIBERATE PRACTICE
over 10 years is as necessary to become an expert in teaching as in any
other field.
There is a vast amount of data on what it takes to become an expert! (I
refer you to Ericsson's review article.) After you take into account the
factors about the quality of practice and the age at which it starts, it
may surprise some people to learn that another factor -- namely TALENT --
isn't needed to account for variations in performance. Ericsson has
considerable discussion of child prodigies, and whether or not they are
necessarily more talented than others who are not called child prodigies.
The conclusion is that it is not clear that there is any such thing as
inherent natural talent, for physics, for example.
-------------------
Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling Instruction Program
Box 871504, Dept.of Physics & Astronomy,ASU,Tempe,AZ 85287
480-965-8438/fax:965-7331 <http://modeling.asu.edu>
We must manage our forests -- and our planet.