Re: [Phys-l] Faith in science and/or psychology

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

> When it comes to accepting psychological
> experimentation and results (basically educational research), the 'leap of
> faith' is, IMO, a bit broader.  The plethora of variables and the
> possibilities of 'rigging' the experiments (unconsciously in most cases)
> makes things a little less clear.  Using a single study here or there to
> 'prove' a point doesn't work well for me.  Ultimately, the only real
> 'proof'
> is the end product--the people coming out of the 'new' pedagogy
> pipeline--and there the results are still pretty fuzzy, I think.  Locally
> (Chemistry sections of the same course taught both using inquiry and not)
> aren't showing clear patterns downstream.  So, it is still not surprising
> that course and techniques designed to attack a given topic, a given
> misconception, to score higher on the FCI, or whatever, show positive
> results.   That these courses prove to produce better scientists,
> engineers,
> doctors, or just plain citizens upon graduation, is less clear.  If PER is
> working its way through the ranks of HS teachers, I don't think many of us
> at the College level have yet to see the benefits in many (if any) or our
> students.  Measuring the results from new College courses is even more
> difficult.
>
> The message being broadcast by some, is a 'my way or the highway' message
> that seems too over the top.  If nothing else, that message has the effect
> of disparaging the efforts of many of us over our many years of work.
> Don't
> be surprised then, that the rhetoric fails to make many friends.  ;-)
I think everyone agrees that we have no proof that PER or education research
is improving the pipeline of scientists.  But I think we also know that the
US is now in the position of buying foreign scientists because we are not
producing enough of our own.

One often accepts one experiment in physics.  But it is true that cognitive
science and education is a bit more fuzzy, or is it?  I have cited a couple
of experiments in hopes that someone might look at some of the evidence.  I
have spent a long time looking at many experiments and articles.  I have a
whole bookshelf full of them.  The weight of this evidence is probably more
than I can carry in a single box.  So I rightly feel that I have some
understanding of many of these things.  I have also done some experiments
and cross applied the lessons of PER to computer science.

So I am extremely convinced that the weight of evidence is in favor of the
PER approach, or one very similar to it.  The recently cited article in
Education Week is doing very similar things to PER and has improved students
scores on conventional science tests in inner city schools.  These students
now have a chance to graduate and be productive citizens.

My orientation is not just from one experiment, but from many experiments
done over a long span of years.  So please understand that it is no 1 but an
uncounted number of pieces of evidence that I use.

Some work quietly in the background and generate more evidence.  But then
there are people like me who enjoy arguing, and are convinced that we are on
the right side.  When I present a reference, and nobody seems to read it and
come up with comments about it, I think I am justified in thinking that they
either do not care, or don't have the time to bother, or are completely
dismissive of the research.  Everyone on this list can vigorously jump on an
"illogical" physics concept.  Well I jump on what I consider to be illogical
in light of the education research.  Like Hake, I regard this as a pressing
issue that needs to be addressed.

You say ultimately the real proof is the people coming out of the new
pedagogy.  But how will you know them?  Do you know if any of your current
students have come from the new pedagogy?  Why not come up with a survey
similar to Sadler's work to try to identify what type of teaching your
students already had, so you can judge for yourself.  Or you could contact
their previous teachers to find out what they used in terms of curricula.
One of the best ways to understand a type of research is to do some
yourself.

Try some PER or education research and see what it lines up with.  As far as
I know most who find my rhetoric over the top have not done this.  There may
be evidence counter to what I have already looked at.  Send it to me.  Try
to refute me.  I even do personal replies.  PLEASE

Actually I take part of the previous statement back.  On "conservative"
mathematician educator looked at PER at my urging.  He declared it to be
sound.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX