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: student assessment/content knowledge - PART 1



PART 1
In response TO my widely distributed post Hake (2004) [I apologize
for my computer's over zealous double posting on some lists], Dennis
Roberts in identical posts to AERA-D [Roberts (2004a)], EvalTalk
[Roberts (2004b)], and ASSESS [Roberts (2004c)], wrote:

"This . . . [Belcher's (2003) MIT studio course] . . . . is
interesting ... WHERE do they get the space to do this? Certainly
lecture halls or auditoriums are not designed to be converted into a
configuration like this. We have at Penn State, which I think borders
on unethical practice, large lecture sections with 500 or more
crammed into one auditorium. I don't see ANYway that a course
professor or Department could unilaterally decide to break a class
like this up into 100 small groups of 5 each sitting around tables
... with or w/o a laptop. ... I would be interested in how the
logistics of this have been worked out."

In response AERA-D's:

A. Y.M. Thum (2004) wrote:

"This . . . [the emulation of Belcher's studio class by other
universities]. . . is just fantasy of course, but what about a
virtual classroom? . . . [see Diana (2004)] . . . . .. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ."

B. Naomi Jeffery Petersen (2004), evidently unaware (as is most of
academia) of the fact that "interactive engagement" interventions
[see e.g., Hake (1998a)] have essentially solved Bloom's two-sigma
problem, at least for the case of Newtonian mechanics instruction,
wrote:

"Dennis raises a critical issue. In fact, this seems to be part of
the classic 'two sigma' question: the degree of personal engagement
between pupil and teacher holds greater influence on improved
academic performance than other interventions, and on a larger scale,
the degree of teacher engagement in school governance holds greater
influence on school-wide improvement than any classroom practice."

In the K-12 area, it could well be true that "the degree of teacher
engagement in school governance holds greater influence on
school-wide improvement than any classroom practice," but is there
any substatantive evidence for this assertion?

C. William Miller (2004) wrote:

"It seems to me that a compromise situation is available. Use of the
internet for group discussions, even with visual and auditory interaction
where connection speed permits, would provide instructor interaction with a
small group (and access to self-instruction materials?) that the large
lecture hall situation does not. Letting students elect the large lecture
versus internet 'chat-room' environment would reduce the size of the group
receiving lectures and add small group discussion without the space issue."

EvalTalk's Mark Hammer (2004) ended his long essay on student
assessment with "I'm not sure this orange crate can take all 200lbs
of me standing on it much longer."

Some responses particularly relevant to Dennis's request for
information on "how the logistics of this have been worked out," were
posted by ASSESS subscribers:

1. Ephraim Schechter (2004) wrote:

"Dennis, the website for NC State's SCALE-UP project. . . .
[<http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/>/ Scale-Up [where "/" means "click on"]. .
. . has photos of various campuses' implementations. . . see
<http://www.ncsu.edu/per/SCALEUP/Classrooms.html>]. . . and email
links to folks involved in the projects. MIT's info is there, and a
dozen others. Click the linklabout other colleges and universities
adapting the SCALE-UP approach."

2. The knowledgeable Diana (2004a) wrote:

"Hi Dennis. You can read more about MIT's renovations here
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2001/dec12/classroom.html>."

3. Diana (2004b) wrote again [bracketed by lines "DDDDDDDDD. . . .]":

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
One low cost approach to making large lecture hall classrooms
interactive is Mazur's Peer Instruction method,
see
<http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?ed=1&rowid=8>.
. . .[see also other references to the Harvard work or Mazur et al.
in Hake (2004).]

Other important work in this area is being done at:
Davidson College <http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html>, and
the

"Just in Time Teaching project" <http://webphysics.iupui.edu/jitt/jitt.html>.

Another [approach] is to install personal response systems . . . see
e.g., Burnstein & Lederman (2001, 2003)] . . ., which provide an
excellent way to get feedback from a large audience.

Moving to a hybrid instruction model may be the most cost effective
choice for institutions, see
<http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/rltas.html>,
<http://www.umuc.edu/virtualteaching/module1/media.html>,
<http://www.lon-capa.org/>.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I should have indicated in Hake (2004) that in physics the studio
course concept was pioneered by Jack Wilson (1994).

Considering the information and valuable opinions generated above
regarding studio courses, is it possible that cross-posting, so
reviled by many discussion list subscribers and administrators, is
not always ALL bad?


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>

"If once a [wo]man indulges [herself or himself] in murder, very soon
s[he] comes to think little of robbery; and from robbery s[he] next
comes to Sabboth-breaking, and from that to incivility,
procrastination. . .[and finally to cross-posting].
PC Paraphrase of Thomas DeQuincy

REFERENCES ARE IN PART 2