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]

[Phys-L] Re: Research on Student Response Systems



In his Phys-L post of 10 Feb 2005 17:51:49-0500 titled "Research on
Student Response Systems," Mark Lucas wrote:

"I have a couple of colleagues trying to track down solid studies,
preferably at the college level but also in K-12, regarding the
learning effectiveness of using Student Response Systems in class."

In a post [Hake (2004a)] titled "Classroom Communication Systems"
(aka "Student Response Systems") I made five points regarding the use
of Classroom Communication Systems (CCS) and listed 62 references to
the relevant literature. That was followed by a post "Classroom
Communication Systems - Additional References" [Hake (2004b)] that
contained 11 more CCS reference given by David Meltzer in a post to
PhysLrnR [Meltzer (2004)].

Both posts [Hake (2004a,b)] were submitted to various discussion
lists, but Phys-L, Chemed-L, and Biopi-L were mercifully spared.
However, subscribers to those lists can easily scan my CCS posts by
clicking on the URL's given in the REFERENCES below.

The five points that I made in Hake (2004a) are these - CCS [see that
post for the references]:

1. Are not by themselves magic bullets, but have been used - at least
in physics - to effectively promote "interactive engagement" (IE)
methods: "heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which
yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or
instructors." IE methods were found to have a nearly two-standard
deviation superiority [cf. Bloom (1984)] over traditional (T) methods
in enhancing students' conceptual understanding of mechanics by Hake
(1998a,b; 2002a) and many other physics-education research groups as
referenced in Hake (2002a,b)].

2. Are best tried in combination with pre/post testing to assess
their impact on student learning relative to traditional methods, as
in the work of Mazur (1997), Crouch & Mazur (2001), Fagen et al.
(2002), Meltzer & Manivannan (2002), Dori & Belcher (2004), and Cheng
et al. (2004). Such pre/post testing using reasonably well matched
control groups (the traditional courses) does not meet the U.S. Dept.
of Education's (USDE's) PSEUDO "gold standard" of randomized control
trials, but [as argued in Hake (2004a)] would nevertheless probably
pass muster at the USDE's "What Works Clearing House"
<http://www.w-w-c.org/> as "quasi-experimental studies of especially
strong design" [see <http://www.w-w-c.org/reports/standards.html>].
Despite rampant pre/post paranoia [Hake (2000, 2004b)], pre/post
assessments of student learning are being more and more utilized in
fields such as astronomy, economics, biology, chemistry, computer
science, engineering, and physics [see Hake (2004c)].

3. May allow a cost-effective Socratic approach [Hake (1992, 2002c,
2004d), Abrahamson (1998)] to instruction in large-enrollment
"lecture" sections. The Socratic potential of CCS has been generally
overlooked in the literature, possibly because of the gross
misunderstanding of the Socratic Method by academics (Hake 2004d).

4. May be more effective if used in conjunction with activities such
as "Just in Time Teaching" (JITT) [Novak et al. (1999), Crouch &
Mazur (2001)]. JITT induces study of and thinking about course
material PRIOR to the "lecture."

5. Could be considered as "Low Threshold Applications" (LTA's) for
the initiation of more effective education. LTA is a term evidently
coined by Steve Gilbert of the Teaching, Learning and Technology
Group <http://www.tltgroup.org/listserv/index.html> for applications
or activities that are not overly demanding of effort, resources, and
time [see <http://www.tltgroup.org/LTAs/Home.htm>.

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>

"Human beings, who are almost unique in
having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable
for their apparent disinclination to do
so."
Douglas Adams in "Last Chance to See"


REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Classroom Communication Systems," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412&L=pod&O=D&P=24855>.
Post of 18 Dec 2004 15:00:07-0800 to POD, AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J,
AERA-K, ASSESS, DrEd, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, and STLHE-L.

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Classroom Communication Systems - Additional
References," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412&L=pod&P=R22831&I=-3>.
Post of 1 22 Dec 2004 11:03:41 -0800 to POD, AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J,
AERA-K, ASSESS, DrEd, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, and STLHE-L.

Meltzer, D. 2004a. Re: Classroom Communication Systems." PhysLrnR
post of18 Dec 2004 19:16:58-0600; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412&L=physlrnr&F=&S=
&X=0988E219B818270BC1&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=3523>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that PhysLrnR is one of the few
discussion lists whose archives are closed to non subscribers :-( -
WHY ??. However, it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by
following the simple directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If
you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l