Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in discussion-list
post "Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher
Education " [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: Economist Bill Goffe in his PhysLrnR post "Re: Business
agenda for K-12 STEM education: not research-informed" wrote
(paraphrasing):
". . . it appears that Physics Education Research isn't widely known
even in higher ed. For example Trudy Banta and Charles Blaich in a
"Change Magazine" article "Closing the Assessment Loop"
<http://bit.ly/lQyEYp> bemoan the fact that they can find very few
instances of improved learning after a teaching innovation. The
extensive physics education research that so convincingly
demonstrates such a connection is not even mentioned."
That Trudy Banta <http://bit.ly/mKElpt> and Charles Blaich
<http://bit.ly/iNrXrL> are evidently either unaware or dismissive of
physics education research is typical of the near total disconnect
between (a) Psychologists, Education specialists, and
Psychometricians (PEP's), and (b) education researchers in STEM
disciplines - see e.g. "Evidence on Promising Practices in
Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education" <http://bit.ly/ceg1Bx>, and "Possible Palliatives
for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's" [Hake
(2006) <http://bit.ly/caWtWl>].
*******************************************
"There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the
sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that
encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own
learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer
of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional
lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty
of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future.
. . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the
elements of scientific teaching by university science departments
could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate
society and a reinvigorated research enterprise."
Robert DeHaan (2005)
"One of the most striking findings [came from comparison of the
learning outcomes (as measured by the FCI and a related inventory on
mechanics) from 14 traditional courses (2,084 students) and 48
courses using "interactive-engagement" (active learning) techniques
(4,458 students). . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b)]]. . . . . The results on
the FCI assessment showed that students in the interactive
engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses
by 2 SDs. Similarly, students in the interactive-engagement courses
outperformed students in the traditional courses on the Mechanics
Baseline Test, a measure of problem-solving ability. This certainly
looks like evidence that active learning works! Research in physics
education is having a profound effect on the development of
instructional materials."
Joel Michael (2006)
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
27 April 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. "The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education," Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):
253-269; the abstract and first page are online at
<http://bit.ly/cqIK1w>.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in
Higher Education" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/iT4YsN>. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/msoLwx> with a provision for
comments.
Michael, J. 2006. "Where's the evidence that active learning works?"
Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at
<http://bit.ly/fjJ2Lj>.