PART 1
If you respond to this long (22 kB) post, please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the original message normally contained in
your reply down to a few lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire
post yet again on suffering list subscribers.
In his AP-Physics post of 13 Jul 2005 titled "Re: fads and facts: not
easy to tell apart" Mitchell Johnson (2005) wrote [slightly edited,
bracketed by lines "JJJJJJJJJJJJ. . . .":
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Download "Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994-00)". .
.[Hestenes (2000)]. . . at the Modeling website
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Near the bottom of the
first page it is stated that:
"Correlation between student [posttest] FCI scores and extent of the
teacher's academic background . . .[for those teachers who have
undergone training in Modeling instruction]. . . in physics is small.
This suggests that "crossover teachers" can be as effective as
physics majors in teaching introductory physics."
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
In his response of 16 Jul 2005, David Green (2005) made three points
1, 2, 3, that I'll address below:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. David wrote
"The website presented. . .[by Mitchell Johnson - does David mean the
Modeling website <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html> or does
he mean Hestenes (2000)??]. . . has almost no Research Data in it.
It is mostly arguments for Modeling made by two above named people. .
. .[Ibrahim Halloun & David Hestenes].
What could David mean by "Research Data"? There's an abundance of
"Research Data," both in Hestenes (2000) and at the Modeling website
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. To see the data at the
latter, one must take the time to download, e.g., exemplary research
articles by Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b), Hestenes & Wells (1992), or
Hestenes et al. (1992).
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. David wrote:
"Now, Mitchell states that there were large statistical gains on certain
tests for the Modeling Students as compared to the great unwashed herd of
non-modeling students."
David (and also Michell) seem to be unaware of the work of physics
education researchers (PER's) generally. Their research is consistent
with but much broader than just the work of Halloun & Hestenes and
their collaborators at Arizona State University.
An indication of the status of PER is contained in my post "Re:
Research that shows chalk-and-talk is ineffective?" [Hake (2005)].
Therein (among other things) I answered a good questions (Q1), posed
by ITFORUM subscriber Mark Peterson (2005), as follows [bracketed by
lines HHHHHHHH. . . .; see that article for the references; apologies
to those who have previously read the post - it was transmitted to
all the lists receiving this post, but was doubtless ignored by most
subscribers]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Q1. Does anyone know of any research to support [the ineffectiveness
of chalk-and-talk]?
A1. Good evidence for the relative ineffectiveness of the traditional
chalk-and-talk lecture, insofar as promoting student understanding in
**conceptually difficult areas**, comes from physics education
researchers (PER's) who have shown that "interactive engagement" (IE)
methods CAN produce average normalized pre/post test gains in
conceptual understanding (as measured by the valid and consistently
reliable "Force Concept Inventory" [Hestenes et al. (1992)] that are
about two standard deviations greater than those achieved in
traditional (T) courses.
Here:
(a) IE methods are those designed at least in part to promote
conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students
in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield
immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.
(b) T courses utilize passive-student lectures, algorithmic problem
exams, and recipe labs.
(c) The average normalized gain <g> for a course is the actual gain
[<%post> - <%pre>] divided by the maximum possible gain [100% -
<%pre>], where the angle brackets indicate the class averages. See
e.g. Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b) and references therein to the research
of many other groups in many different institutions that have shown
similar results.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"Well, gosh, I don't find that . . .[large statistical gains on certain
tests for the Modeling Students] surprising!! I bet there was NOT
ONE TEACHER in the study who did not know what was coming. They gave
pre- and post-tests and knew that the results were going to be
published. . . . .When I asked for research, I was actually asking
for actual research results AND the methodology.. . .[both are in the
aforementioned articles]. . . I am particularly interested in how
each group was selected since that is crucial. Unless the modeling
teachers were chosen in EXACTLY the same method (sic) as the control
group, the research is biased from the beginning in much the same way
as any survey done in say a magazine by asking for mail-in responses."
David's concern appears to be similar to that of the sometimes
quasi-rational Robert Ehrlich (2002) who wrote:
". . . the IE (Interactive Engagement) versus non-IE comparison is
hardly a double blind one, because both Hake and the course
instructor knew both the category the course is being placed into (IE
or non-IE), as well as the FCI gain for that class."
In "Comment on Ehrlich's 'How do we know if we are doing a good job
in physics teaching?'" [Hake (2002a)] I wrote [see that article for
references other than Hake (2002b)]
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
In the case of a survey such as mine, it is not clear that blindness
to differences in T (Traditional) and IE (Interactive Engagement)
physics instruction could have been found in any potential surveyors,
physics teachers, or students who were not medically
institutionalized.
Non-double-blind education research experiments may be less
convincing than some double-blind medical experiments, but that
doesn't mean that the education results should necessarily be taken
at LESS than face value.
In the case of my survey, I think that the results merit acceptance
at FULL face value, especially considering the fact that normalized
gain differences between T and IE courses that are consistent with
those I reported, have now been obtained by physics education
research groups [Hake (2002b)] at the University of Maryland [Redish
et al. (1997), Saul (1998), Redish and Steinberg (1999), Redish
(1999)], the University of Montana [Francis et al. (1998)],
Rennselaer and Tufts Universities [Cummings et al. (1999)], North
Carolina State University [Beichner et al. (1999)], Hogskolan Dalarna
- Sweden [Bernhard (2001)], Carnegie Mellon University [Johnson
(2001)], City College of New York [Steinberg and Donnelly (2002)].
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"In some quarters, particularly medical ones, the randomized
experiment is considered the causal 'gold standard.' It is clearly
not that in educational contexts, given the difficulties with
implementing and maintaining randomly created groups, with the
sometimes incomplete implementation of treatment particulars, with
the borrowing of some treatment particulars by control group units,
and with the limitations to external validity that often follow from
how the random assignment is achieved.
Cook & Payne (2002)
"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult
to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of
success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have
done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those
who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear
of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from
the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things
until they have had a long experience with them. Thus it happens that
whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they
do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly...."
Machiavelli (1513)
"Difficulties of Change: . . . 9. The PRIMA FACIE AFFRONT: Whereas I
have spent a significant fraction of my professional life perfecting
my lectures and otherwise investing conscientiously in the status
quo, therefore to suggest an alternative is, by definition, to attack
me."
Halfman et al. (1977).
"I shall take it that you are in the first flush of ambition and just
beginning to make yourself disagreeable. You think (do you not?) that
you have only to state a reasonable case, and people must listen to
reason and act upon it at once. It is just this conviction that makes
you so unpleasant. There is little hope of dissuading you; but has it
occurred to you that nothing is ever done until every one is
convinced that it ought to be done, and has been convinced for so
long that it is now time to do something else? AND ARE YOU NOT AWARE
THAT CONVICTION HAS NEVER BEEN PRODUCED BY AN APPEAL TO REASON WHICH
ONLY MAKES PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE? If you want to move them, you must
address your arguments to prejudice and the political motive, which I
will presently describe."
F.M. Cornford (1908)