In his POD post of 17 March titled "Re: Forward - Content Knowledge,"
John Collins (2004) wrote:
"It seems that the old canons of content knowledge are up for review on a
number of fronts. [The Boston Globe report Bombardieri (2004)] may
interest POD members who are following the content knowledge
measurement thread of Hake, Kubitsky; and various of us interested
lurkers."
In her Boston Globe piece, Bombardieri (2004)] wrote [bracketed by
lines "GGGGGGGGGGGGGG. . . ."]:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, widely considered the nation's
top science and engineering school, is launching a two-year review of its
undergraduate education, examining its required courses and other student
experiences in light of new developments in science, as well as the
changing interests of students.
The review, which will be watched closely by other science and
engineering schools, will take a sweeping look at MIT's demanding
roster of required courses, developed more than a half-century ago
when MIT was an engineering school populated chiefly by men.
MIT needs to study how teaching methods and the frontiers of science
have been transformed in recent years and how those changes should be
reflected in the curriculum, officials said. "There's much more
biology in much of the research that we do," said Dean of Science
Robert Silbey, who will lead the review committee. "There's much more
interest in economics and social science among our students than
there was 20 years ago. It is important for any great university to
ask: What are its students like? And how should we go about preparing
them for life?"
MIT's review will be closely watched by rivals, such as the
California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon, and Stanford's
and Princeton's engineering schools, said David Botstein, a renowned
geneticist who taught at MIT for two decades and now heads a genomics
institute at Princeton. . . . .
The 24-member review committee, appointed by Vest, doesn't have a
mandate to make any specific changes. But teaching methods will be a
major focus of the curriculum review, Silbey said, with the 24
members of the review committee examining nontraditional classes
already offered at MIT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHYSICS DEPARTMENT HAS
CONVERTED LARGE FRESHMAN CLASSES FROM A LECTURE FORMAT INTO A STUDIO
IN WHICH STUDENTS SIT AROUND TABLES IN SMALL GROUPS WITH LAPTOPS. [My
CAPS.]
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
MIT's John Belcher (2003), who converted the large freshman classes
from a lecture format into a studio wrote [my CAPS]:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
What is the motivation for this transition to such a different mode
for teaching introductory physics? First, the traditional
lecture/recitation format for teaching 8.01 and 8.02 has had a 40-50%
attendance rate, even with spectacularly good lecturers (e.g.,
Professor Walter Lewin), and a
10% or higher failure rate. Second, THERE HAVE BEEN A RANGE OF EDUCATIONAL
INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING FRESHMAN PHYSICS AT UNIVERSITIES OTHER THAN
MIT OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PEDAGOGY
USING "INTERACTIVE ENGAGEMENT" METHODS RESULTS IN HIGHER LEARNING
GAINS AS COMPARED TO THE TRADITIONAL LECTURE FORMAT [e.g., see
Halloun and Hestenes (1985a), Hake (1998), Crouch and Mazur (2001)],
usually accompanied by lower failure rates. . . . . . The
motivations for moving to the TEAL format were therefore to increase
student engagement with the course by using teaching methods that
have been successful at other institutions (including Harvard, see
Crouch and Mazur 2001), and to reintroduce a laboratory component
into the mainline physics courses after a 30- year absence. . . . .
the learning gains in TEAL spring 2003 by standard measures are about
twice those in the traditional lecture/recitation format. The fact
that interactive-engagement teaching methods produce about twice the
average normalized learning gains when compared to traditional
instruction replicates the results of many studies obtained at other
universities, including Harvard.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
It should be noted that the Harvard course to which Belcher alludes
was, like Belcher's MIT course, stimulated by the pre/post testing
effort of physics education research. Mazur (1997) wrote:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
When reading this. . . . .[Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b; 1987);
Hestenes (1987)]. . . my first reaction was 'Not my students. . .!'
Intrigued, I decided to test my own students' conceptual
understanding, as well as that of physics majors at Harvard. . . . .
the results of the test came as a shock: The students faired hardly
better on the Halloun and Hestenes test [1985a] than on their midterm
exam. Yet the Halloun and Hestenes test is SIMPLE, whereas the
material covered by the examination (rotational dynamics, moments of
inertia) if of far greater difficulty, or so I thought."
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
(a) The abrupt average normalized gain <g> increase from 0.25 in 1990
to 0.49 in 1991 when Eric replaced his passive-student lectures (THAT
NETTED VERY POSITIVE STUDENT EVALUATIONS) with the interactive
engagement "Peer Instruction."
(b) The gradual increase in <g> from 0.49 in 1991 to 0.74 in 1997 as
various improvements [Crouch & Mazur (2001)] were made in the
implementation of "Peer Instruction."
The MIT and Harvard results are consistent with those from hundreds
of other introductory physics courses employing either traditional or
interactive engagement methods [for a review see Hake (2002)].
And yet lessons from the physics education reform effort [e.g., Hake
(2002), Stokstad (2001)] continue to be ignored [Hake 2003a,b,c] by
the NRC [1997, 1999, 2003, McCray (2003)], and throughout most of
academia [except for MIT and Harvard]. However, the expert education
committees of the NRC may be coming to their senses: Donovan &
Pellegrino (2003) finally acknowledge the existence of Halloun &
Hestenes (1985a) and the importance of pre/post testing.
REFERENCES
Belcher, J.W. 2003. "Improving Student Understanding with TEAL" [TEAL
= Technology Enhanced Active Learning], MIT Faculty Newsletter Vol.
XVI No. 2 October/November; online at
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/fnlEditedLinks.pdf>.
Bombardieri, M. 2004. "MIT reviews what, how it teaches: School cites
changes in science, students," Boston Globe, March 17; online at
<http://snipurl.com/55ei>.
Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction: Ten years of
experience and results," Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at
<http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/publications.php>. See also Fagen et al. (2002).
Donovan, M.S. & J. Pellegrino, eds. 2003. "Learning and Instruction:
A SERP Research Agenda," National Academies Press; online at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10858.html>.
Hake, R.R. 1998. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
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. "NRC's CUSE: Oblivious of the Advantage of Pre/Post
Testing With High Quality Standardized Tests?" post of 25 Jul 2003
13:07:23-0700 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, and
POD; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=pod&O=D&P=17145>.
Later distributed to AERA-D and STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2003b. "NRC's CUSE: Stranded on Assessless Island?" post
of 3 Aug 2003 12:52:16-0700 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk,
PhysLrnR, and POD; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=pod&F=&S=&P=391>.
That post was later sent to AERA-D, STLHE-L, Phys-L, and Biolab.
Hake, R.R. 2003c. "Spare Me That Passive-Student Lecture," post of 1
Oct 2003 17:07:48-0700 to AERA-D, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Biloab, FYA,
Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Math-Teach, and POD; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=pod&O=D&P=947>.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53:1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test. This landmark work is NOT referenced in McCray et
al. (2003); NRC (1997, 1999, 2003); or the NRC volumes Pelligrino et
al. (2001) and Shavelson & Towne (2002).
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion." Am. J. Phys. 53:1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1987. "Modeling instruction in mechanics,"
Am. J. Phys. 55: 455-462.
Mazur, E. 1997. "Peer instruction: a user's manual." Prentice Hall;
online at <http://galileo.harvard.edu/>.
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 and
astronomers attending the workshop were Paula Heron, Priscilla Laws,
John Layman, Ramon Lopez, Richard McCray, Lillian McDermott, Carl
Wieman, Jack Wilson, and (believe it or not) pre/post champion Mike
Zelik.
NRC. 1997. "Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook," National
Research Council, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education,
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html>.
NRC. 1999. "Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science,
Mathematics,Engineering, and Technology," National Research Council,
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6453.html>.
NRC. 2003. "Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in
Science and Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics," ed. by M.A.
Fox & N. Hackerman, National Research Council, Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10024.html>.
Pellegrino, J.W., N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser, eds. 2001. "Knowing What
Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment,"
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html>.