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: Cool Demo for Newton's First Law? - PART 1



PART 1

In his Physhare post of 26 Jun 2004 titled "Re: Cool Demo for
Newton's First Law?", Michael Horton (2004) made four comments to
which I shall respond:

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. "These SDI labs are interesting. They are obviously not aimed at
high school students, though."

While it's true that SDI Labs were initially written for
undergraduate students, extensive revisions have made them more
suitable for community-colleges (Uretsky 1993) and advanced
high-school physics courses. For example, high-school teacher Simon
Butterworth (2002) in a Physhare post titled "Re: Socratic Method"
wrote [bracketed by lines "BBBBBB. . . ."

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Just a quick note on the SDI labs developed by Richard Hake [see
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>]. Several posts are around so
I'll make mine a short note.

I have tried the first lab which relates to Newton's first and third
laws. A good one to start with I think. I think the students
benefited greatly from my trial, their understanding of NIII pairs is
much clearer much earlier this year.

Some of the features I liked were the enforced colour coding on
diagrams (makes students more carefully consider what arrows
represent), the snap shot pictures so that the effect of Fnet is
clearly internalised by them.

I also found the "AB switch" a catchy phrase for the NIII pairs.

The dialogue part of the activity is well structured and logically
leads the students through the topic, hitting all the potential
misconceptions that normally arise.

As a teacher with very little spare time, ready made programs that
can be used off the bat are a godsend and activities that work as
well as this one doubly so!
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB


In fact, SDI lab components have even been used successfully in
middle school. High-school teacher Holly Priestly (2002) in a
PhysLrnR response to a comment by John Texas Clement (2002) that SDI
Labs "may seem intimidating for an initial jump into novel pedagogy,"
wrote [bracketed by lines "PPPPPPPP. . . ."

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
The only "intimidating" thing [about SDI Labs] is that now students
are more responsible for their own learning, which, although should
be a given, is not. My husband used the SDI labs with his HS physics
classes for many years. He hung PVC piping across the room. . . [see
SDI Lab #0.1 "Vectors, Position, and Frames of Reference," online as
a 71kB pdf at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>]. . . and
another long piece for 3-dimensional location. The physics students
hated it ... but the GIFTED MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS DID REALLY GREAT
AND LOVED IT! Eventually the physics students "caught on" .... but
it was not how they were used to be taught. [My CAPS.]
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. "I don't think [SDI Labs are] far different from what we do now
except they have their own written narrator instead of a teacher
talking. This allows more dialogue in between activities than would
be possible if the teacher were talking."

The only "written narrator" is the lab manual that students work
through. The manuals promote active involvement in concrete
experiments which exemplify Newton's laws. Students collaborate to
construct "snapshot sketches," (i.e., time-sequential
"force-motion-vector diagrams") and write down answers to lab-manual
questions. Manuals and experiments can be modified by instructors to
suit local tastes or circumstances and considerable selectivity can
be exercised since most manuals contain more material than can be
adequately covered in two two-hour lab periods. Modification of
sections or entire SDI Lab manuals can be easily accomplished by
COPYING and then PASTING into word processing programs. Teachers do
NOT lecture to passive students in SDI labs, instead they engage the
students in far more effective Socratic dialogues. In Hake (2002a) I
wrote:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The ground rules for SDI Labs can be found in SDI Lab #0.1
(downloadable at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>). As employed
at Indiana University, there are two Socratic dialogists
(instructors) and twenty-four students divided into six groups in an
SDI Lab meeting. The student groups are seated around tables so that
group members can interact easily. Students work through lab manuals
that encourage active student thinking and involvement by
establishing certain requirements for the students. They record their
work in workbooks during the lab meeting and hand in these workbooks
at the end of each period. The books are annotated and returned at
the next lab period, but not graded. Students' lab grades are
determined from periodic written exams containing questions that
probe students' conceptual understanding of experiments similar to
those performed in the lab.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

How do the Socratic dialogists function in an SDI Lab? In Hake (1992) I wrote:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The primary ground rules for SDI labs are given below in italics . .
.[here I use CAPS]. . . more or less as they appear in the lab
manual. [Explanatory paragraphs appear in parentheses].
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. IF CONFUSED OR UNCERTAIN (AFTER SERIOUS EFFORT AND DISCUSSION WITH
OTHER STUDENTS) CALL IN A SOCRATIC DIALOGIST BY INVERTING THE HELP
SIGN ABOVE YOUR TABLE.
[Displaying the HELP sign allows students to continue their work
while waiting for assistance. The dialogists move from table to
table, both in response to "HELP" signs and to check student
progress. We have found that *it is very important to constantly
monitor student performance* so that difficulties can be diagnosed
*as they occur* in the lab and not latter on during the annotation of
manuals (see "E" below). Effective dialogue requires considerable
skill, knowledge, and experience. Ideally, the Socratic method
involves questioning students in such a way that they are lead to
express their ideas and figure things out for themselves. Instructors
may at first fall short of this ideal, but generally improve with
time. We recommend that at least one experienced Socratic dialogist
be present at lab sessions to act as a second and role model for
apprentice dialogists. We have found that top undergraduate physics
majors are among the best (and least expensive) apprentices and allow
the SDI lab method to be brought to the masses in a cost-effective
manner.]

E. HAND IN LAB MANUALS AT THE END OF EACH LAB PERIOD.
[The manuals are annotated but not graded by the instructor.
Instructors request the students to repeat deficient work or discuss
confused responses at the next lab period. We have found that
discussion of previous lab manual work *must usually be initiated by
the instructors,* who need to keep careful records to be sure that
all necessary discussions have been completed. The lab grade is
determined by several written lab exams containing questions
demanding a good conceptual understanding of experiments similar to
those performed in the lab. Thus even those students who are
concerned only with the course grade are motivated to understand the
material.]
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. "There would surely have to be considerable teaching after these
labs as students might come to the wrong conclusion."

Two comments:
(a) Since students are constantly interacting with their peers and
with the dialogists, and their lab manuals are checked during lab
sessions and annotated by the dialogists after the lab sessions,
relatively few of them adopt wrong conclusions regarding any of the
experiments.

(b) It's not clear what Michael Horton means by "teaching." If he
means lecturing to passive students, research [for a review see Hake
(2002b)] strongly suggests that such will not do much to enhance
student learning. Perhaps he means some method that he has developed
that he believes to be more effective in promoting student learning
than passive student lectures, SDI Labs, or popular interactive
engagement methods (see e.g., those listed in Hake 1998a,b).


4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. "Research has shown that one of the weaknesses of Discovery
Learning is that when kids discover the wrong thing, they tend to
remember it just as long as if they had discovered the right thing
(Keegan, 2002)."

SDI Labs are emphatically NOT an example of "Discovery Learning."
["Discovery Learning," "Collaborative Learning," "Active Leaning," or
generally "X Learning" are poor designations for pedagogical
methods, because they prejudge a method's effectiveness. Research may
show that there's been zero or even negative learning in methods
designated as "X Learning."] As indicated in the "Conclusions" of
Hake (1992):

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
SDI labs have been shown [Hake (1998a,b)] to be relatively effective
in guiding students to construct a coherent conceptual understanding
of Newtonian mechanics. THE METHOD MIGHT BE CHARACTERIZED AS "GUIDED
CONSTRUCTION," RATHER THAN "GUIDED DISCOVERY" OR "INQUIRY." We think
the efficacy of SDI labs is primarily due to the following essential
features:

(a) interactive engagement of students who are induced to think
constructively about simple Newtonian experiments which produce
conflict with their commonsense understandings;

(b) the Socratic method Arons (1993), Hake (2002, 2004)] utilized by
experienced instructors who have a good understanding of the material
and are aware of common student preconceptions and failings;

(c) considerable interaction between students and instructor and thus
a degree of individualized instruction;

(d) extensive use of multiple representations (verbal, written,
pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical) to model
physical systems;

(e) real world situations and kinesthetic sensations (which promote
student interest and intensify cognitive conflict when students'
direct sensory
experience does not conform to their conceptions);

(f) cooperative group effort and peer discussions;

(g) repeated exposure to the coherent Newtonian explanation in many
different contexts.


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>

REFERENCES are in PART 2