Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in discussion list
post "Re: Interactive Engagement Typically Lowers Student Evaluations
of Teaching?" [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
**********************************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's Bill Goffe wrote (paraphrasing): "I thought I
recalled reading here that interactive engagement typically lowers
student evaluations of teaching, but I've not been able any such
claims in the literature."
Goffe's post initiated a 17-post thread (as of 19 March 15:47-0700)
accessible at <http://bit.ly/i9zBsd> to those who take a few minutes
to subscribe to PhysLrnR at <http://bit.ly/beuikb>.
Bill may have overlooked my post "Re: What if students learn better
in a course they don't like?" [Hake (2006)]. Therein I wrote
(condensing and paraphrasing):
"When I first started teaching an introductory physics course I
followed the example of teaching-award-winning faculty and taught in
a traditional manner: passive student lectures, lots of exciting
demos, algorithmic problem exams, recipe labs, and a relatively easy
final exam. I was gratified to receive a Student Evaluation of
Teaching (SET) evaluation point average EPA = 3.38 [B plus on a scale
of 1 - 4] for 'overall evaluation of professor.' Had I continued
using traditional methods and giving easy exams I would doubtless
have risen to become the U.S. Secretary of Education, or at least
President of Indiana University.
Unfortunately for my academic career, I gradually caught on to the
fact that students' conceptual understanding of physics was not
substantively increased by traditional pedagogy. I converted to the
'Arons Advocated Method' <http://bit.ly/boeQQt> of 'interactive
engagement.' This resulted in average normalized gains <g> on 'Force
Concept Inventory' that ranged from 0.54 to 0.65 as compared to the
<g> of about 0.2 typically obtained in traditional introductory
mechanics courses.
But my EPA's for 'overall evaluation of professor,' sometimes dipped
to as low as 1.67 (C-), and never returned to the 3.38 high that I
had garnered by using traditional ineffective methods. My department
chair and his executive committee, convinced by the likes of Peter
Cohen (1981, 1990) that SET's are valid measures of the cognitive
impact of introductory courses, took a very dim view of both my
teaching and my educational activities."
**********************************************************
"Few faculty members have any awareness of the expanding knowledge
about learning from psychology and cognitive science. Almost no one
in the academy has mastered or used this knowledge base. One of my
colleagues observed that if doctors used science the way college
teachers do, they would still be trying to heal with leeches."
James Duderstadt (2000), President Emeritus and University Professor of
Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 19 March 2011; some shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Re: Interactive Engagement Typically Lowers Student
Evaluations of Teaching?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/gKWO1S>. Post of 19 Mar 2011 15:51:49-0700 to AERA-L,
Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract and link to the complete 13 kB
post are also being transmitted to various discussion lists and are
also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/giKqqD> with a
provision for comments.
Duderstadt, J.J. 2000. "A University for the 21st Century." Univ. of
Michigan Press, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/cvJ1yI>.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/fUnbj5>, note the "Look
Inside" feature.