Re: What Does the FCI Tell Us?

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 11:42 5/11/01 -0700, Richard Hake wrote:

> ...these studies . . .(ref. 1-3). . .  do indicate
> statistically that certain approaches do better on the selective
> testing methods used, I am no fan of *any* of the evaluation
> instruments (tests) amenable to statistical tallying...


> "The conceptual and problem-solving test . . .(Mechanics Baseline
> (ref. 6). . . results strongly suggest that the classroom use of
> Interactive Engagement (IE) methods can increase mechanics-course
> effectiveness well beyond that obtained in traditional practice."
///
> "a. Interactive Engagement (IE) methods as those designed at least in
> part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive
> engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually)
> activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with
> peers and/or instructors...

> c. Traditional (T) courses as those reported by instructors to make
> little or no use of IE methods, relying primarily on passive-student
> lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic-problem exams."
> ...it doesn't tell us how to extend the idea to other subject
> matter and whether we can expect this success to extrapolate to other
> subject matter,
> say, for example, chemistry or biology, astronomy, nuclear physics,
> relativity, or quantum mechanics. Especially it doesn't help me to
> imagine how better to teach a subject where the concepts are not
> directly accessible to the senses, and only indirectly related to
> simple experiments one can perform. Have we any notion how to devise
> an 'energy concept inventory' or a 'photon concept inventory' or a
> 'field concept inventory'? I don't think so."


> .... The use of IE strategies can increase the effectiveness of
> conceptually difficult courses well beyond that obtained with
> traditional methods.
> Education research in biology (Hake 1999b,c), chemistry (Herron &
> Nurrenbern 1999), and engineering (Felder et al. 2000a,b), although
> neither as extensive nor as systematic as that in physics (McDermott
> & Redish 1999, Redish 1999), is consistent with the latter in
> suggesting that in conceptually difficult areas, interactive
> engagement methods are more effective than traditional
> passive-student methods in enhancing students' understanding.
///
> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University


Oh alright! So (let us suppose) I am a fresh teacher willing to
suppose that you are not lying, you are not gravely mistaken,
and if I interact with students in ploughing up the study topics
so that they will know immediately if their grasp is mistaken,
yet are not abashed to display their sometimes mistaken ideas
by heavy handed contradiction ex cathedra, then they will likely
shine in the course work in the final analysis.
 Why wouldn't I adopt this approach?
Why wouldn't everybody adopt this approach?

Possibilities:
1) It's an educational recipe of the month. Old hands have
done that and been there, and over again, and profited not?

2) It's an uneven energy balance: if I give 200% effort,
the students do 20% better. I certainly will not walk into
that kind of contract, will I?
10 students at 120% = 200 points cumulative surplus versus
1 instructor at 100 points deficit. This looks like the
Tragedy of the Commons, and the instructor/commons is getting
downtrodden by the students/cattle.

3) Engagement is a personal loss of privacy. Consciousness to the
demands of all comers means no lectures on autopilot.

4) What I don't know is much more visible if I am not the one
choosing the topic of conversation. Dangerous. Uncomfortable?

(Am I getting warm yet?)




brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
                Eureka!