Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a discussion-list
"Re: pedagogical reform in an introductory biology class, with nod to
PER" [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's Krishna Chowdary in a post "pedagogical reform
in an introductory biology class, with nod to PER" commented that
(paraphrasing):
(a) "It would have been nice if the 'Chronicle of Higher Education'
report 'Low-Cost Instructional Changes Can Cut Achievement Gap in
Intro Biology, Scholars Say' [Glenn (2011)] and the 'Science' article
'Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap
in Introductory Biology' [Haak et al. (2011)] had made more clear the
previous work in Physics Education Research (PER)," and
(b) "Glenn's statement that 'The instructors did not want to turn to
a multiple-choice (MC) test format because they were committed to
helping students learn high-level problem-solving and analysis, not
simple memorization of facts' contradicts the fact that 'MC physics
concept tests/clicker questions span the range from simple
memorization all the way to high-level synthesis, analysis, and
evaluation."
I agree with Chowdary and provide relevant academic references.
*********************************************
"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)
"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student
learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists,
biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These
tests provide convincing evidence that students
assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including
active, inquiry-based, and
collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in
traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 05 June 2011.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. "The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education," Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):
253-269; abstract online at <http://bit.ly/cqIK1w>.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Re: pedagogical reform in an introductory biology
class, with nod to PER," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/kIoYHz>. Post of 5 Jun 2011 15:02:52 -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/miDgSz>.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28
November; an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/9qGR6m>.