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] High School Class-Size and College Performance in Science (was Interactive Lecture. . . .)



If you reply to this long (20 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland," in which I implied the superiority of "Interactive Engagement" methods of instruction, a Phys-L subscriber asked me if I wished to comment on the seemingly contradictory claim of Wyss, Tai, and Sadler that students' achievement in introductory college science courses shows differences due to high-school pedagogy only when high-school class sizes fall to 10 or fewer students. If Wyss et al. measured achievement by course grades, and if introductory college science courses are all like traditional physics introductory college courses, then the claim of Wyss et al. is equivalent to the assertion that class sizes of 10 or less are necessary before certain pedagogical approaches can be effective in enhancing the capabilities that determine student grades in most current college science courses: rote-memorization, recipe following, and algorithmic-problem-solving. But such a claim is irrelevant to the voluminous research demonstrating an approximate two-standard deviation superiority in average normalized gains <g> in conceptual understanding for "Interactive Engagement" (IE) over "Traditional" (T) pedagogy in high school and college courses, regardless of class size.
********************************************

In response to my post "Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland" [Hake (2007a)], Bob Carlson (2007) of Phys-L wrote [my insert at ". . . . .[insert]. . . . . ."]

"Perhaps Richard would like to comment on "Results show no differences for pedagogy and student achievement until class sizes fall to 10 or fewer students". . . . [as quoted from the abstract of Wyss, Tai, and Sadler (2007) contained in the post by Patricia Viele (2007)]. "

Thanks to Bob Carlson and Pat Viele for bringing the article by Wyss et al. (2007) to my attention. The abstract of Wyss, Tai, and Sadler is [bracketed by lines "WTS-WTS-WTS-. . . ."; my CAPS]

WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS
This paper focuses on the influence of high school science class size on students' achievement in introductory college science courses and on the variation of teacher practice across class size. Surveys collected information about high school science class experiences from 2754 biology, 3521 chemistry, and 1903 physics students across 36 public and 19 private institutions from 31 different states. The first analysis includes a cross-tabulation of 6 different class sizes and the frequencies of teacher practices reported by students. The second analysis includes a multiple linear regression of class size and student achievement. RESULTS SHOW NO DIFFERENCES FOR PEDAGOGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNTIL CLASS SIZES FALL TO 10 OR FEWER STUDENTS. These findings suggest that incremental reductions in class size are likely not to have a significant impact on later student achievement.
WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS

Without knowing how Wyss et al. measured "achievement in introductory college science courses," it's difficult to comment on their statement that the influence of high-school class size on students' achievement in introductory college science courses "show[s] no differences for pedagogy and student achievement until class sizes fall to 10 or fewer students."

But judging from previous work [Sadler & Tai (1997, 2001, 2007)], Wyss et al. may have used *course grades* in Introductory College Science Courses (ICSC's) as measures of "achievement." The problem here is that, if one assumes that all ICSC's are similar to traditional physics introductory courses, then course grades depend primarily on students' abilities in rote-memorization, recipe following, and algorithmic-problem-solving. Hence it could be argued that Wyss et al. have shown (assuming the accuracy of student assessments of teacher practices) that class sizes of 10 or less are necessary before certain pedagogical approaches can be effective in enhancing those LOWER-LEVEL capabilities.

But what are the effects of class size and pedagogy on students' HIGHER-LEVEL learning? Pardon me, while I yet again jump to my well-worn soapbox.

As I keep arguing [Hake (2005a; 2006a,b; 2007b,c,d,e] to deaf ears, the best way to investigate that question is by DIRECT pre/post testing using valid and consistently reliable tests devised by disciplinary experts. [Not INDIRECT measures such as Student Evaluations of Teaching, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), National Survey Of Student Engagement (NSSE), Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG), and Knowledge Surveys (KS's) (Nuhfer & Knipp 2003) - for a discussion and references for all but the last see Hake (2005b).]

Such pre/post testing research [Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b)] for courses in Newtonian mechanics using the Mechanics Diagnostic test [Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b), or its successor the Force Concept Inventory [Hestenes et al. (1992)], has shown about a two-standard deviation superiority in average normalized gains <g> for "Interactive Engagement" (IE) over "Traditional" (T) secondary and post-secondary courses, regardless of class size.

Average normalized gain differences between T and IE courses that are consistent with the work of Hake (1998a, 1998b, 2002a, 2002b) have been reported by, e.g., Redish, Saul, & Steinberg (1997); Saul (1998); Adams & Noonan (1998); Heller (1999); Redish & Steinberg (1999); Redish (1999); Beichner et al. (1999); Cummings, Marx, Thornton, & Kuhl (1999); Novak, Patterson, Gavrin, & Christian (1999); Bernhard (2000); Crouch & Mazur (2001); Johnson (2001); Meltzer (2002a, 2002b); Meltzer & Manivannan (2002); Savinainen & Scott (2002a, 2002b); Steinberg & Donnelly (2002); Fagan, Crouch, & Mazur (2002); Van Domelen & Van Heuvelen (2002), Belcher (2003); Dori & Belcher (2004); Hoellwarth, Moelter, & Knight (2005); Lorenzo, Crouch, & Mazur (2006); & Rosenberg, Lorenzo, & Mazur (2006) - for the references see Hake (2007e).

For a recent discussions that focuses on class size see e.g., Hake (2007f), Hattie (2005), Kim (2007), Loveless & Hess (2006/2007), and. It should be apparent that for undergraduate science education, any study of the influence of class size on student learning would need to take into account the vast difference in the effectiveness of IE and T courses.

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 [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Carlson, R. "Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland," online at <https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2007/10_2007/msg00017.html>. Post of 3 Oct 2007 15:58:41-0700 to Phys-L and Physhare.

Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1): 64-74; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB).

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB) - a crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "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.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods," Proceedings of the UNESCO ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec.; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84 kB). [UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; ASPEN = ASian Physics Education Network.]
Hake, R. R. 2005a. "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher
Education?" online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/NTLF42.pdf> (100 kB). This is a slightly edited version of an article that was (a) published in the National Teaching and Learning Forum 15(1), December, online to subscribers at <http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n1/physics.htm>, and (b) disseminated by the
Tomorrow's Professor list <http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html> as Msg. 698 on 14 Feb 2006. For an executive summary see Hake (2006a).

Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Re: Measuring Teaching Performance," POD post of 13 May 2005; online at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0505&L=pod&P=R9303&I=-3>.

Hake, R.R. 2006a. "A Possible Model For Higher Education: The Physics Reform Effort (Author's Executive Summary)," Spark (American Astronomical Society Newsletter), June, online at <http://www.aas.org/education/spark/SparkJune06.pdf> (1.9MB). Scroll down about 4/5 of the way to the end of the newsletter.

Hake, R.R. 2006b. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's," Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Number 6, November, online at
<http://evaluation.wmich.edu/jmde/JMDE_Num006.html>. [PEP - Psychologist, Education Specialist, Psychometrician]. This even despite the admirable anti-alliteration advice at psychologist Donald Zimmerman's site <http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/> to "Always assiduously and attentively avoid awful, awkward, atrocious, appalling, artificial, affected alliteration."

Hake, R.R. 2007a. "Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland," online at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0710&L=pod&O=D&P=5173>. Post of 3 Oct 2007 14:48:35-0700 to AERA-L, AP-Physics, CTP-L, Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and POD.

Hake, R.R. 2007b. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf> (2.5 MB), or as ref. 43 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To appear as a chapter in "Evaluation of Teaching and Student Learning in Higher Education," a Monograph of the American Evaluation Association <http://www.eval.org/>. For a severely truncated version see Hake (2006b).

Hake, R.R. 2007c. "Can Scientific Research Enhance the Art of Teaching?" invited talk, AAPT Greensboro meeting, 31 July, online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Sci&Art3.pdf> (1.2 MB), or as ref. 50 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>. See esp. Sect. V. "University Leaders Bemoan the Inertia of Higher Education: Why Is It So Slow To Recognize the Value of Interactive Engagement Methods in Promoting Higher-Level Learning?"

Hake, R.R. 2007d. "Six Lessons From the Physics Education Reform Effort," Latin American Journal of Physics Education 1(1), September; online at <http://journal.lapen.org.mx/sep07/HAKE%20Final.pdf> (124 kB).

Hake, R.R. 2007e. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review," online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB), or as ref. 45 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>; in A.E. Kelly, R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek (in press), "Handbook of Design Research Methods in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education," Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hake, R.R. 2007f. "Re: Research on Undergraduate Class Size," online at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0709&L=pod&P=R4726&I=-3>. Post of 6 Sep 2007 13:12:49-0700 to AERA-K, AERA-J, AERA-L, POD, PhysLrnR, & RUME.
Hattie, J. 2005. "The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes," International Journal of Educational Research 43(6): 387-425; online at <http://tinyurl.com/y7bzl6> (free to subscribers and $30 to non-subscribers). An excellent review of class-size investigations for K-12. Hattie tells me that he is attempting to place this paper on his website <http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/staff/j.hattie/>.'

Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53: 1043-1055; online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics Diagnostic" test, precursor to the "Force Concept Inventory" [Hestenes et al. (1992)].

Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about motion." Am. J. Phys. 53: 1056-1065; online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept Inventory," Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158, March; online (except for the test itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The 1995 revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes is online (password protected) at the same URL, and is currently available in 14 languages: Chinese, Czech, English, Finnish, German, Greek, Italian, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, & Turkish.

Kim, J.S. 2006. "The Influence of Class Size Research on State and Local Education Policy," Brookings Papers on Education Policy Conference, May 22-23, Draft Copy, online at <http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/bpepconference/Kim_Paper.pdf> (392 kB).

Loveless, T. & F.M. Hess. 2006/2007. "What Do We Know about School Size and Class Size?" Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2006/2007; online at <http://tinyurl.com/2t3tld> (72 kB).

Nuhfer, E. & D. Knipp. 2003. "The Knowledge Survey: A Tool for All Reasons," in To Improve the Academy 21: 59-78; online at <http://www.isu.edu/ctl/facultydev/KnowS_files/KnowS.htm>.

Sadler P. & R.H. Tai. 1997. "The role of high-school physics in preparing students for college physics," Phys. Teach. 35: 282-285; online to subscribers at <http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=35&Issue=5>.
Sadler, P. & R.H. Tai. 2001. "Success in introductory college physics: the role of high school preparation." Science Education 85: 111-136; abstract online at
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SciEd..85..111S>

Sadler P. & R.H. Tai. 2007. "The Two Pillars Supporting College Science," Science 317: 457-458; online to subscribers at <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5837/457>.

Viele, P.T. 2007. "class size," Phys-L post of 03 Oct 2007 13:02:23-0400; online at <https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2007/10_2007/msg00013.html>. Some of the information at ERIC <http://tinyurl.com/2sczcp> is quoted with no further comment.

Wyss, V.L., R.H. Tai, and P.M. Sadler. 2007. "High School Class-Size and College Performance in Science," High School Journal 90(3): 45-53; ERIC abstract at <http://tinyurl.com/3xnd9h>; online at <http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/high_school_journal/v090/90.3wyss.html> to subscribers of High School Journal and to libraries subscribing to Project MUSE <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.