If you reply to this long (15 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.
Jack Uretsky (2009a), in his Phys-L post of 2 February 11:49:12 -0600
wrote [my insert at ". . . . [insert] . . ." ; my CAPS]:
"I submit, in fact, that there is no credible evidence that effective
teaching is more or less than an art form . . . . . . . .
.[*assuming* that Jack meant to place "anything but" before "more or
less of an art form," my reaction is "nonsense" - see e.g., "Can
Scientific Research Enhance the Art of Teaching?" (Hake, 2007a)]. .
. . One of the difficulties, of course, is that there seems to be no
objective way, at present, to identify effective teaching when it
occurs - if ever.. . . .(I don't want to discuss such
PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC DEVICES AS FCI's, which are self-reported measures
taken under uncontrolled conditions and may SIMPLY AMOUNT TO
SELF-PROMOTION BY FRUSTRATED WOULD-BE TEACHERS)."
To which John (Texas) Clement (2009) responded:
"Nonsense. There is creditable evidence in the research literature
which shows that conceptual gain happens when teaching using the
learning cycle is used. This goes back to the 70s, and has been
reported by a variety of researchers."
Clement's claim evoked the following reply from Jack Uretsky (2009b)
[bracketed by lines "UUUUUU. . . . "; my insert at ". . . . [insert]
. . . ; slightly edited; my CAPS; I realize that bracket lines (such
as "UUUUU. . . ." below) surrounding quotes are unorthodox and
confusing to some readers, but they do serve to:
(a) avoid (in most cases) awkward quotes within quotes ". . .
.'........'. . . .", and
(b) "clearly indicate who said what, unlike the ambiguous marginal
angle brackets ">", ">>", ">>>," ">>>>," ">>>>>". . . . . that
befoul posts such as Uretsky (2009c), containing a two sentence post
followed by 14 kB of already archives posts!]:
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
. . . . .simply reciting the mantra that "there is credible evidence"
neither creates the evidence, nor, to the extent that there is any,
make it credible.
So-called FCI gains are reported by those who give and correct the
tests, the circumstances under which the tests are given are
unreported . . . .[false - scan any of the articles that report FCI
gains in the list below bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . ."]. . . .,
the test review procedures (there shouldn't be any) are unreported .
. . .[FCI tests are almost never reviewed in class - otherwise they
would be useless]. . . , the error rates in correcting the tests are
unknown . . . .[errors in scantron sheet output are very rare]. . . .
, and, persistence, over time, of the purported gains, if any, are
unknown . . . .[NONSENSE! - see Francis et al. (1998) and Bernhard
(2000) and]. . .
I understand that Professor Clement has strong beliefs in these
matters, as evidenced by the invective with which he starts his
comment . . . .[evidently Jack means Clement's well-chosen word
"nonsense" as applied to Uretsky (2009a)]. . . . ., but THE DATA, in
this matter DO NOT, in my opinion, SURVIVE THE SCRUTINY THAT WE WOULD
GIVE TO PHYSICS EXPERIMENT.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
It's unfortunate that Jack Uretsky has evidently failed to enlighten
the wider research community with of his deep understanding of the
scientific method and its violation by those who report FCI gain
data. How sad that prominent hard-core research physicists such a
John Belcher, David Hestenes, Eric Mazur, Joe Redish and even
Nobelist Carl Wieman [Wieman (2007), Wieman & Perkins (2005)], all
lacking access to Uretsky's profound insights, have failed to realize
that FCI-gain data are "pseudo-scientific" and don't "survive the
scrutiny that we would give to a physics experiment."
And many other physicists, doubtless "frustrated would-be teachers,"
have been suckered into the "FCI Gain Scam." For a listing of such
gullible victims, in "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review" [Hake (2008)] I wrote [see that article for
references other than Hake (1998a,b; 2002a, b), Francis et al.
(1998), Redish (1999), Bernhard (2000), Crouch & Mazur (2001), Dori &
Belcher (2003), and the naive John Ziman (2000)].
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Average normalized gain differences between Traditional (T) and
Interactive Engagement (IE) courses that are consistent with the work
of Hake (1998a, 1998b, 2002a, 2002b) and Figure 1 . . .[of Hake
(1999a)]. . . . have been reported by: Redish, Saul, & Steinberg,
1997; Saul, 1998; Francis, Adams, & Noonan, 1998 . . . [who, contrary
to Uretsky's uninformed opinion, provide evidence of "the
persistence, over time, of the purported gains"]. . . . .,; Heller,
1999; Redish & Steinberg, 1999; Redish, 1999; Beichner et al., 1999;
Cummings, Marx, Thornton, & Kuhl, 1999; Novak, Patterson, Gavrin, &
Christian, 1999; Bernhard, 2000 . . . [who, contrary to Uretsky's
uninformed opinion, provides evidence of "the persistence, over
time, of the purported gains"]. . . . .; 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; and Belcher,
2003; Dori & Belcher, 2004. . . .[here pre-to-post test gains are
reported for an electromagnetism test]. . .; Hoellwarth, Moelter, &
Knight, 2005; Lorenzo, Crouch, & Mazur, 2006; & Rosenberg, Lorenzo, &
Mazur, 2006.
This consistency of the results of many investigators in various
institutions working with different student populations with the
results of Hake (1998a, 1998b, 2002a, 2002b) constitutes the most
important single warrant for the validity of conclusion in Hake
(1998a) that: "The conceptual and problem-solving test results
strongly suggest that the classroom use of IE methods can increase
mechanics-course effectiveness well beyond that obtained in
traditional practice." Such gradual buildup of an agreed-upon
"community map" (Redish, 1999; Ziman, 2000) is characteristic of the
progress of traditional science, but it seems to be consistently
undervalued in educational research. . . . [and by advanced thinkers
such as Jack Uretsky]. . . . .
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and
communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound,
summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have
obtained individually into reliable, well established, public
knowledge."
John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature
224: 318-324; abstract
online at <http://tinyurl.com/ypwelt>.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of
experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 69(9): 970-977; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/sbys4>.
Dori, Y. J. & Belcher, J. 2004. "How does technology-enabled active
learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of
electromagnetism concepts?" The Journal of the Learning Sciences
14(2); online at <http://tinyurl.com/cqoqt>.
Francis, G. E., Adams, J. P., & Noonan, E. J. 1998. "Do they stay
fixed?" Physics Teacher 36(8): 488- 491; online to subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=36&Issue=8>.
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://tinyurl.com/3xuyqe> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive- engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at <http://tinyurl.com/2tg5d9> (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." For
an update on six of the lessons on "interactive engagement" see Hake
(2007b).
Hake, R. R. 2002b. "Assessment of physics teaching methods,"
Proceedings of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization's ASPEN (ASian Physics Education Network)
workshop on active learning in physics, University of Peradeniya, Sri
Lanka; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84
kB).
Hake, R.R. 2007b. "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. 2008. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in "Handbook of Design Research Methods in
Education: Innovations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Learning and Teaching" [Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008)] -
publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/4eazqs>; a
pre-publication version of Hake's chapter is online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB).