In response to my post "Lab Reports (was Human Error)" [Hake (2005)],
Mike Edmiston (2005) wrote:
"Contrary to comments by Uretsky and Hake, I think my labs and lab
reports are teaching exactly what I think they are teaching."
Perhaps Mike did not read my post [Hake (2005)] carefully. I wrote
[bracketed by lines "HHHHHH. . ."; see that post for the references]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
In a post titled "Re: Human Error," Jack Uretsky (2005a) replied to
Mike Edmiston's (2005) complaint about "students listing 'human
error' as one of the possibilities for why their lab results are not
as good as hoped for?":
"Perhaps your labs are not teaching what you think they are teaching.
That is why both Hake and I went to totally different lab formats."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The above quote "Perhaps your labs are not teaching what you think
they are teaching," is by Uretsky, NOT Hake. I did NOT comment that
Edmiston's labs were not teaching what he thought they were teaching.
Furthermore, I did not implement Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI)
labs [Hake (1992, 2002a))] because I thought traditional labs were
not teaching what they were supposed to teach, e.g., according to
Edmiston to:
a. take and analyze data;
b. debug experiments;
c. recognize the critical parts [of experiments];
d. understand, calibrate, use instruments;
e. write more effectively.
Instead, SDI labs were primarily an attempt to increase the gain in
conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics above the abysmally
low level measured [Hake (1998a,b; 2002b)] in "traditional" courses,
i.e., those with passive student lectures, recipe labs, and
algorithmic homework and exam problems.
This attempt suceeded to some extent, as judged by the relatively
high average normalized gains <<g>> = 0.60 for SDI lab courses at
Indiana University (IU), as compared with average normalized gains
of other courses considered in the
survey (Hake 1998b, 2002b): <<g>>T = 0.23 for 14 traditional (T)
courses, and <<g>>IE= 0.47 for 43 non-IU interactive engagement (IE)
courses.
Also, as indicated in Hake (2002a), SDI labs were were designed to enhance
students':
1. understanding of the nature of science;
2. use of effective strategies for scientific thinking and problem-solving; and
3. research skills such as collaborative effort, drawing, written
description, thought experiments, modeling, consideration of limiting
conditions, experimental design, control of variables, dimensional
analysis, and solution of real-world problems.
Among other advantages SDI Labs, they:
a. are adaptable to a wide range of student populations - middle
school, high school, college, university, non-physical-science
university professors;
b. are well received and popular with students;
c. are easily modified to suit local conditions and **are
transportable across cultures since native Socratic dialogists can
tailor the dialogue to suit native-student knowledge and experience**;
d. are inexpensive as far as equipment costs are concerned;
e. diminish the impersonality of large-enrollment introductory classes;
f. are compatible with other "interactive-engagement" methods
[operationally defined as those designed at least in part to promote
conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students
in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield
immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors];
g. may be inserted as the lab component in otherwise traditional
courses so as to enhance student interactivity and conceptual
understanding;
h. provide good training grounds for instructors who discover
undreamed of learning problems when they "shut up and listen to
students";
i. are good examples of inquiry or "guided construction" learning for
prospective teachers;
j. are a source of valuable research data on physics learning,
particularly if pre/post testing is carried out and dialogues and
conversations are recorded and analyzed [see e.g., Hake (1998a,b;
2002)].
I note that Edmiston's laudable goals are less amorphous than those
advocated in the AAPT's 2004 Laboratory Committee's Report [Foster
(2004)]: "The goal of the Committee on Laboratories is to advance the
pedagogy of the laboratory setting throughout the student's physics
experience. We work closely with the Committee on Apparatus and with
PIRA to achieve this goal." I note that no "mission statement"
appears at the AAPT Laboratory Committee's website
<http://www.aapt.org/Directory/laboratories.cfm>.
For interesting views and valuable references on "why we teach labs" see
Arons (1993), Swartz (1993), and NRC (1977, p. 16 - 20 "Laboratories").
Arons (1993) wrote: "The difficulties experienced by students in
mastering the Law of Inertia and the concept of "force" and the
robust preconceptions with which they approach mechanical phenomena
have been extensively discussed in the literature and are widely
appreciated by teachers. Qualitative hands-on experience in the
laboratory furnishes an effective way of helping many students
overcome these difficulties. Examples of the questions students can
be led to address through such experience are given in Sections 3.10
though 3.12 of [Arons (1990, 1997)] and a Socratically oriented
laboratory aimed at the same objectives is described by Hake (1992)."
[For a review of the "Arons Advocated Method" see the AJP-reviewer
suppressed Hake (2004)].
Swartz (1993) wrote: "We have some evidence from researchers such as
Richard Hake (1992) that some non-traditional techniques of lab
instruction can make a difference in student performance on exams."
NRC's (1997) Committee on Undergraduate Science Education wrote:
"Improving Undergraduate laboratory instruction has become a priority
in many institutions. Some labs encourage critical and quantitative
thinking, some emphasize demonstration of principles or development
of lab techniques, some help students deepen their understanding of
fundamental concepts [Hake (1992)].
Despite all the above, physics teachers, physics education
researchers, and the AAPT's Laboratory Committee have generally
ignored Socratic Dialogue Inducing labs.
"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
Arons, A. B. 1993. "Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory
Physics Lab," Phys. Teach. 3(5): 278- 282.
Arons, A.B. 1990. "A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching." Wiley;
reprinted with minor updates in Arons (1997).
Arons, A.B. 1997. "Teaching Introductory Physics". Wiley. Contains a
slightly updated version of Arons (1990) plus Homework and Test
Questions for Introductory Physics Teaching (Arons 1994), plus a new
monograph "Introduction to Classical Conservation Laws."
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB) - a
crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a); unjustifiably suppressed by
the AJ-PERS editor on the grounds that the very transparent data
tables were "impenetrable."
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and Society
(formerly Conservation Ecology) is a free online "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with
about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
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>.
Swartz, C. 1993. "To the solid ground of nature," Phys. Teach. 31(7): 392-393.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l