Re: [Phys-l] citations

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> Thaks, Brian.  That's the way citations are normally given in the research
> community.

Sorry, but unfortunately, we are all in a hurry, and this is more a chat
line than a scientific journal.  So references are given in a hurry, and the
reader may have to dig a bit.  Also opinions are often aired without any
relevant research base.  There is also the problem of retrieval.  I have
read virtually every paper on science and physics education that I can get
my hands on.  The amount of effort to build up my knowledge base has been
quite large, and as a result when someone asks for a reference, I have to go
back and hunt for it.  So I do get a bit testy when the information I gave
is ignored.  But I generally do give citations when asked, even if they are
a bit messy.

But make no mistake, there is a depth of literature that should be read by
anyone who is teaching science.  There are also relevant math research
papers.  Here I would cite one:

Cognitive Development, 6, 449-468 (1991)

Abstract:
It is widely assumed that instruction plays a role in learning and in
transfer. The present studies examine how type of instruction (containing
principle-based vs. procedure-based information) influences learning and
transfer in a mathematical concept. In the first study, both types of
instruction led a comparable number of children to learn, but
principle-based instruction led significantly more children to transfer
their new knowledge. In the second study, the types of instruction were
combined (i.e., children received both principle and procedure information).
The results were virtually identical to the results obtained from the
procedure-only instructions. This indicates that principle-based instruction
may be crucial for transfer to occur and, when children also are exposed to
procedures, few will transfer. It is hypothesized that children may ignore
the conceptually rich information inherent in the principle when procedures
are also provided.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This one took me years to track down.  The difference between the groups is
extremely large, and essentially it shows that teaching procedures for doing
problems kills transfer.  This is consistent with much of the PER research.
Essentially the concepts have to come first, and students must solve
problems without specific procedures for individual problems.  But some
general things can be helpful.  The Minnesota data on rich context problems
(the Hellers) does show that certain specific procedures are helpful, but I
don't recall that they demonstrated large amounts of transfer.  They did
show good FCI gain.  Also there might be fine line between some procedure
instruction and a lot of procedure instruction.  But in either case this
implies that the standard recitation method of having the teacher solve
problems is extremely bad.  I will admit to having been guilty of that, but
no more.  Now the students solve all of the problems and present them to
each other.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX