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: Active learning in theory, active learning in practice, or both?



Once again server line limitations [Chemed-L: 150 lines; Phys-L: 300
lines; STLHE-L: 150 lines] have mercifully shielded subscribers from
an inordinately long post (this time 760 lines):

Hake, R.R. 2003. "Re: Active learning in theory, active learning in
practice, or both?" post of 3 Oct 2003 20:34:50-0700 to AP-Physics,
ASSESS, Biopi-L, PhysLrnR, and POD [all with no line limitations
:-)]; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=pod&O=D&P=2480>.

Masochists who wish to torture themselves with the entire post may do
so by clicking on the above URL.

They will read (in part):

" . . . . even with [the possible reforms discussed above]:

(a) scientifically accurate and pedagogically sound texts;

(b) so-called "active-learning" materials such as those mentioned
above by Woolf [in my opinion the term "active learning" commonly
applied to reform pedagogy is ambiguous and misleading, as discussed
in Hake (2002d)];

(c) the curricula of Benezet (1935/36), Swartz (1969, 1986, 1993),
Mahajan & Hake (2000), Shayer & Adey (2002); Dawson & Lyndon (1997),
or the NRC (1997);

(d) the ninth-grade physics CLIFF of Lederman (2001) "Physics First";
or the far superior but less attainable

(e) K-12 science/math learning RAMP of Ken Ford (1989) and the AAAS's
(2003) "Project 2061" [cartoons depicting the Lederman Cliff and the
Ford Ramp are displayed in Hake (2002c)];

little nation-wide improvement in K-12 science/math education will
occur unless THE crucial problem [see e.g., Hake (2002a, Lessons #10
& #12); 2002b,c)] is addressed, namely:

THE DIRE SHORTAGE OF *EFFECTIVE* K-12 TEACHERS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regarding step #6 . . .[to alleviate the above problem]. . .
"Revitalize Moribund Science-Major Programs," I was disappointed to
find that Bob Hilborn and Ruth Howes [Hilborn & Howes (2003)] made no
mention of the potential of Curriculum S [Hake 2000a] to:
(a) resuscitate ailing physics-major programs that might,
(b) help to educate desperately needed K-12 science teachers to combat
science illiteracy (Hake 2000b), and thus
(c) increase our chances of solving the monumental science intensive
problems (economic, social, political, and environmental) that beset
us.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>