In his POD post of 27 Nov 2003 09:16:06-0500 titled "Revision,
Conferencing, and Student Writing Gains," Dan Tompkins wrote:
"It is a truism that one way to improve writing skills is to require
revision of papers. This is certainly true in my own practice, but I'd
like to have as much evidence as I can before I try to argue for this
claim. Can anyone on this list point me to good studies of the gains
(or, of the failures to gain) brought by a practice of revision in
undergraduate writing courses?"
As I keep saying to deaf ears [e.g., Hake (2003a)], universities have
failed to heed the lessons of the physics education reform effort
[Hake (2002)], especially
"Lesson #3: High-quality standardized tests of the cognitive and
affective impact of courses are essential for gauging the
effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods relative to
traditional methods. . . . so great is the inertia of the educational
establishment (see Lesson #13) that three decades of
physics-education research demonstrating the futility of the
passive-student lecture in introductory courses were ignored until
high-quality standardized tests that could easily be administered to
thousands of students became available."
In my opinion, until DISCIPLINARY EXPERTS make the effort to develop
valid and consistently reliable tests of good writing and use such
tests in a pre/post test mode, little substantive evidence regarding
the need for, or effects of, various modes of writing pedagogy (such
as practice brought by revision in undergraduate writing courses)
will be forthcoming.
In the meantime, faculty may have to depend on anecdotal evidence and
testimonials from those generally recognized to be good writers. For
example, in an interview by Harry Kreisler (1986) on "The Art of Good
Writing" John Kenneth Galbraith said (bracketed by lines "GGGGGGG. .
. .":
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
One extraordinary part of good writing is to avoid excess, which many
writers do not understand. The next thing, which of course is
obvious, is to be aware of the music, the symphony of words, and to
make written expression acceptable to the ear. . . . THE THIRD THING
IS NEVER TO ASSUME THAT YOUR FIRST DRAFT IS RIGHT. The first draft,
when you're writing, involves the terrible problem of thought
combined with the terrible problem of composition. And it is only in
the second and third and fourth drafts that you really escape that
original pain and have the opportunity to get it right. Again, I'm
repeating myself; I'VE SAID MANY TIMES THAT I DO NOT PUT THAT NOTE OF
SPONTANEITY THAT MY CRITICS LIKE INTO ANYTHING BUT THE FIFTH DRAFT.
[My CAPS.]
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
What does writing have to do with science/math education? In "The
Arons-Advocated Method" [Hake (2003b)] I wrote (bracketed by lines
"HHHHHH. . . .":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
In regard to the liberal side of science/math education, I once asked
Arons for his opinion on the virtually forgotten Benezet (1935/36)
method [Benezet (1935/36), Mahajan & Hake (2000)] of delaying
algorithmic mathematics until the sixth grade in favor of reading;
inventing; discussing stories and problems; estimated lengths,
heights, and areas; and finding and interpreting numbers relevant to
students' lives. Arons (2000) responded (my CAPS):
"I HAVE LOOKED AT THE BENEZET PAPERS, AND I FIND THE STORY CONGENIAL.
The importance of cultivating the use of English cannot be
exaggerated. I have been pointing to this myself since the '50's, and
am delighted to find such explicit agreement. I can only point out
that my own advocacy has had no more lasting effect than Benezet's.
[You will find some of my views of this aspect in (Arons 1959)] . . .
. Benezet taught excellent arithmetic from the very beginning just as
it should be taught. What he removed was useless drill on memorized
algorithms that had no connection to experience and verbal
interpretation.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"How do I know what I think until I see what I say?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
REFERENCES
Arons, A.B. 1959. "Structure, methods, and objectives of the required
freshman calculus-physics course at Amherst College. Am. J. Phys.
27(9): 658-666.
Arons, A.B. 2000. Private communication to R.R. Hake of 30 June.
Benezet, L.P. 1935/36. "The teaching of arithmetic I, II, III: The
story of an experiment," Journal of the National Education
Association 24(8), 241-244 (1935); 24(9), 301-303 (1935); 25(1), 7-8
(1936). The articles were: (a) reprinted in the "Humanistic
Mathematics Newsletter" #6: 2-14 (May 1991); (b) placed on the web
along with other Benezetia at the Benezet Centre; online at
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>. See also
Mahajan & Hake (2000).
Kreisler, H. 1986. "Intellectual Journey: Challenging the
Conventional Wisdom - Conversations with John Kenneth Galbraith - The
Art of Good Writing"; online at
<http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Galbraith/> / "The
Art of Good Writing" [where '/" means "click on"].
Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it time for a physics counterpart
of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the 1930's?" "Physics
Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education"; online as
article #6, at the Benezet Centre
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>:
"Students in Manchester, New Hampshire were not subjected to
arithmetic algorithms until grade 6. In earlier grades they read,
invented, and discussed stories and problems; estimated lengths,
heights, and areas; and enjoyed finding and interpreting numbers
relevant to their lives. In grade 6, with 4 months of formal
training, they caught up to the regular students in algorithmic
ability, and were far ahead in general numeracy and in the verbal,
semantic, and problem-solving skills they had practiced for the five
years before." We conjecture that implementation of the "Benezet
Method" in early grades would drastically improve the effectiveness
of high-school and university physics, science, and mathematics
instruction.
McCray, R.A., R.L. DeHaan, J.A. Schuck, eds. 2003. "Improving
Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics: Report of a Workshop" Committee on Undergraduate STEM
Instruction," National Research Council, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10711.html>. Physicists
attending the workshop were Paula Heron, Priscilla Laws, John Layman,
Ramon Lopez, Richard McCray, Lillian McDermott, Carl Wieman, and Jack
Wilson.
Hake, R.R. 2002. "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.
Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Normalized Gain (was Inquiry method and
motivation)," post of 24 Nov 2003 17:12:05-0800 to EvalTalk,
Math-Learn, PhysLrnR, & POD; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0311&L=pod&O=D&P=18573>.
Later sent to AERA-D, ASSESS, and Biopi-L; and in abstract form to
Chemed-L, Phys-L, Physhare, STLHE-L, edstat, FYA, AP-Physics, and
NRC's Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, responsible the
McCray (2003) report that completely ignored the lessons of physics
education reform effort.