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] Textbooks vs multimedia

Yes, authors do spend a lot of time writing the texts. It is hard work.
All authors spend a lot of time writing, and not many can be as facile as
Asimov who wrote over 200 books and has one in every Dewey decimal category.
He attributed his facileness to his ability to type 32 correct words/
minute.

But just because it is a massive undertaking does not mean that it is the
optimum solution to giving students something they can use outside of class
to help their learning. The Mazur talks referenced by BC point out some of
the problems. The experiments I cited show that standard text design is not
optimal. And the fact that 50% of the students do not open the book, means
that even if the book has some value, it is wasted. Only 10% use it
regularly. The rest mainly use it to cram for the exams.

The "extensive notes" idea is only a possibility which may have been
misremembered, and was not in the Sadler report.

What I see as being the real problems are:
1. Non usage. So multimedia texts if well designed may improve student
performance because they may actually use them. They did seem to prefer
them.
2. Texts are not designed according to the way that the learner thinks.
They are designed according to traditional recipes which mirror the way the
teacher perceives the learner thinks.

So elaborate color illustrations are probably worse than more sparse black
and white figures. Pages with extra things that distract from the text
(sidebars...) probably provide too many distracting elements. Concept
presentation needs to be reversed to conform to the learning cycle. Problem
solving needs to stress the use of concept based problem solving. So
students need to solve kinematic problems primarily with graphs and maps
before being introduced to the equations. Bar charts need to be stressed in
energy, and their usage should be part of problem solving and not just
decorative illustrations. Textbook authors need to have looked at and
understood both cognitive research and science education research.

This amounts to a paradigm shift in how the text is written. But eventually
the CD or other digital media may take over because they are cheaper to make
and distribute. At that point we need to have "digital texts" which are
well designed according to known cognitive science. The experiment in AJP
points that out. What we don't need is a translation of the pinted text to
digital. But already this latter process is going on.

We don't have evidence if following a text in college has the same bad
effects as in HS. But one might infer that this is the case. Also there is
no evidence for or against the few research based texts in the Sadler survey
because they are seldom used compared to the big name standard texts.
Research based texts are often used in conjunction with research inspired
pedagogy, so it would be extremely difficult to separate the effects. But
we do know that the research based pedagogy has better results on the
evaluations that have been used. These evaluations may not be perfect, but
they are the only things we have.

So does teaching students how to use texts actually work? I suspect it
helps a very few, because the texts are not written in a brain compatible
fashion for the rest. But again, there are to my knowledge no experiments
on this. We are the ones with the "different" ways of thinking, so some of
us benefit from reading texts. Once you know the material, the text seems
transparent, but it isn't. The Minds on Physics series uses a learning
cycle approach where students are introduced to concepts via activities
without being given definitions. Then they are given the definitions. They
are supposed to read the text AFTER the exploration. That way the text now
will make sense because they have a framework for understanding. Similarly
a teaching strategy which mirrors this would have the exploration lab come
first, then the lecture.

I do know of cases where students learned entirely from the text and did not
attend lectures, but that does not illuminate the situation for the majority
of students.

So far I have seen comments which express the conviction that the text is
very helpful, but is there any evidence that can be cited to show that this
is true? Sadler saw no differences between one conventional text and
another, which leads me to conclude that they are all not very effective.
It any were effective they would stand out. So the STD being extremely
small leads me to suspect that the average is close to zero.

Oh yes, the Sadler survey did show the well known result that SES and GPA
were the biggest predictors of success in a college physics course. It is
on the web somewhere, but I can't find it after a bit of searching. I do
have a copy, but I don't know where it is currently posted.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX




While recognizing the limitations of textbooks, I am not that harsh in
my judgement as others in this list.
Maybe, because I personally know one author who spent years preparing
his text, and this had serious repercussions on his health, and his
family life.
I do not have the time or the inclination to "write extensive notes" to
my students, as has ben suggested. On badly written chapters (the worst
are chapters/sections about work and energy in Mechanics, and about
potential in E & M) I just explain what needs to be done, and provide
succint notes.
I include in tests, (for about 20-25% of the marks), questions that
must be answered in words, diagrams and equations, rather than numbers.
Invariably, the class average on these is worse than the numerical
problems.
For 2nd and 3rd semester classes, I ask students to make a 10 minute
presentation on some aspect of the course, or some technology related to
what we do. These start about the 6th week. It takes away time from
formal teaching, but it amounts to an oral test, when I can find out if
the students really understand what they are talking about.
Fouad I. Ajami
Physics Department
Champlain College
900 Riverside Drive,
St Lambert, QC, Canada, J4P 3P2
Tel: 450-672-7360-272
Fax: 450-672-9299



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l