If you reply to this long (13 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: Mick La Lopa of the POD (Professional & Organization
Development Network in Higher Education) discussion list, after
reviewing literature on inducing students to get more out of
pre-lecture assigned readings, now requires students to prepare
detailed study notes of their reading (which he grades), enabling a
replacement of his prior passive-student powerpoint lectures with
interactive discussions of the text material. Thus La Lopa appears
to have developed a form of chemist Frank Lambert's "Guttenberg
Lecture Method" that recognizes the invention of the printing press,
and is so riotously described by Robert Morrison at
<http://www.entropysite.com/morrison.html>. Unfortunately, La Lopa,
like most faculty, does not have access to a valid and consistently
reliable diagnostic test of students understanding of the crucial
concepts of his field. Thus he is unable to demonstrate in a
non-anecdotal fashion the need for and results of his innovation
through definitive pre/post testing, as is currently being done in
undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, geoscience,
engineering, mathematics, and physics. In addition to La Lopa's
method and strategies referenced in Nic Voge's POD-generated online
compilation, "Just in Time Teaching" (JITT) [Novak et al. (1999)] has
been used to induce study of and thinking about course material PRIOR
to the "lecture."
****************************************
Mick La Lopa (2007), in his POD post of 28 Aug 2007 titled "The best
'lecture' ever" wrote [bracketed by lines "LLLLL. . . ."; my insert
at ". . . .[insert]. . . ."]:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
In the past I have asked students to read the chapter that was to be
covered on any given day so they would be somewhat familiar with what
I was going to cover in the lecture, which was an overview of the
materials using powerpoint. Of course, few actually read it which
meant they did not really understand what I was talking about.
So, I educated myself on ways to get the most out of assigned
readings this summer. After reading a series of articles on getting
the most out of assigned readings. . . [for a listing of these
gleaned from POD posts following La Lopa (2007), see Voge (2007)]. .
. I started to require my students to prepare detailed study notes
(that will be graded) for the chapters that are to be covered on any
given day this semester.
Today we covered chapter 1. Guess what? In a class of 80 students
we had the most wonderful "lecture" about the information contained
in the chapter starting with the simple question of "What did you
learn from your study of chapter 1?" After calling on about 9-10
students we had covered the key points. Having the students know the
chapter contents and share it in class also freed me to augment what
they read with relevant practical examples from our industry to
assist with retention.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
It would appear that Mick has developed a form of the "Gutenberg
Lecture Method" THAT RECOGNIZES THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS
- see e.g. Morrison (1986) and Hake (2007a).
Morrison (1986) wrote:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
What does the Gutenberg Method involve? Simply this. You assign the
students portions of the textbook to study before they come to class.
When they come into the classroom, they are already acquainted with
the material. You don't waste your time, and theirs, outlining the
course. You don't waste time telling them that butyric acid smells
like rancid butter, and that valeric acid smells like old socks, and
other difficult intellectual concepts. The textbook has taken all
that drudgery off your hands. You don't waste your time doing what
Frank Lambert. . . .[Lambert (1963)]. . . . calls "presenting a
boardful of elegantly organized material with beautiful answers to
questions that the students have not asked."
The students have read the material, they have thought about it, and
they have questions to ask about it. You answer these questions, or,
better still, try to get them to answer their own questions, or get
other students to give the answers. You ask questions. You have a
discussion. If they're slow to come alive, you take up points that
you know give students trouble. You lead them through difficult
problems. The entire class hour becomes like those few golden moments
at the end of an old-fashioned lecture when a few students manage to
rise above the system and gather around your desk.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Now if only Mick had access to a diagnostic test of students
understanding of the crucial concepts of his field then he might be
able to demonstrate in a non-anecdotal fashion the need for and
results of his innovation through definitive pre/post testing as is
currently being done in undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry,
economics, geoscience, engineering, mathematics, and physics - see
e.g., "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for
Higher Education?" [Hake (2005)] and "Should We Measure Change? Yes!
[Hake (2007b).
In addition to La Lopa's method of requiring students to prepare
detailed study notes of their reading, and the strategies in
references listed by Voge (2007), "Just in Time Teaching" (JITT)
[Novak et al. (1999)] has been used to induce study of and thinking
about course material PRIOR to the "lecture." Crouch & Mazur (2001)
wrote: ". . . .to help students learn more from pre-class reading, we
have replaced reading quizzes with a modified form of the Warm-up
exercises of the Just-in-Time-Teaching strategy."
"The university...becomes subversive...when students are encouraged
to learn how to learn. "
Attributed (with no source) by Nic Voge (2007) to Robin Lakoff
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lakoff>, cf.
the subversive Elby (2001)
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction: Ten years of
experience and results," Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/sbys4>.
Elby, A. 2001. "Helping physics students learn how to learn,"
American Journal of Physics (Physics Education Research Supplement),
69(S1) S54-S64; online to subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=69&Issue=S1>,
free for subscribers, $19 for non-subscribers.
Hake, R.R. 2006. "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. 2007a. "Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing," AERA-L post
of 16 Feb 2007 22:05:16 -0800; online at <http://tinyurl.com/36rkjt>.
Morrison, R.T. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in
"Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number
1, Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian
R. Rice). The College Center for Curricular Thought: The University
of Chicago, October 18-19, 1989; online at
<http://www.entropysite.com/morrison.html>.
Novak, G., E. Patterson, A. Gavrin, and W. Christian. 1999.
"Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning and Web Technology."
Prentice-Hall; for an overview see
<http://webphysics.iupui.edu/jitt/jitt.html>.