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]

Re: [Phys-l] Out-of-Class Work



Yes, look at Mazur. He requires the students to read the book before they come into class. Look at Real Time Labs. These dispense with verification labs and substitute inquiry labs with graded HOMEWORK. Modeling uses homework, and conventional tests, but it puts in class discourse in the center of its innovation. McDermott tutorials use recitation time to explore ideas rather than the usual providing solutions to problems. The Hellers require work on problems.

Essentially the "new" pedagogy requires the students to do thinking in class where it can be done most profitably. But students still have to work outside of class. There is no evidence that FCI scores were ever high years ago. Indeed Feynman testified that students were not understanding, so we have anecdotal evidence that the system never worked well, but it did work for a very few.

As to lectures being more effective for college students, it is true that research revealed that the 3 phases of the learning cycle can be out of sequence for formal operational students, but that all 3 phases still need to be in place. The lecture is the second phase. Many students are not formal operational. This research goes back to Karplus, Renner, and Lawson. So the evidence in favor of lectures being effective for college students is slim, if it exists. I would rather say that lectures are probably even less effective for younger students at lower thinking levels.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


At a time when I was still a lecturer, I looked at several of what you
refer to as the 'new pedagogy' methods and concluded that what they had
in common was that they all hinged on the students reading the textbook
before class. (I don't recall which methods I looked at but Mazur's
Peer Instruction was definitely among them.) I came to the conclusion
that most of what my students were doing in class, namely, experiencing
their initial exposure to the material (aside from all the exposure they
experienced prior to signing up for my course) was something that the
students should be doing outside of class instead of in class. As far
as practicing applying the concepts, that was, in the lecture method,
happening almost exclusively outside of class. To me the 'new pedagogy'
represented an inversion of the old. In the new pedagogy, students
experience their initial exposure outside of class, by reading the
material, and begin practicing the application of it in class, where
they have me to help them. Of course they still have to practice the
application of it outside of class as well, but I do think that what we
do in class is what we should be doing in class, despite the fact that
it should also be done outside of class

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Tarara
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Out-of-Class Work (was Lecture vs Advocacy)

I am basically in agreement with everything Michael says here. My pet
peeve
about the 'new pedagogy' being touted by the PER reformers, is that it
largely does IN CLASS what should be done OUT OF CLASS.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l