In her PhysLrnR post of 13 Dec 2001 22:10:26-0500, titled
"demonstrations (picking up a thread from a few weeks ago)" [the
picked-up thread is not identified :-( ] Catherine Crouch wrote:
"We are completing analysis . . .[see, e.g. Fagan & Crouch (2001)]. .
. of a study of effectiveness of different modes of presentation of
demonstrations, and find that asking students to predict the outcome
of the demonstration before showing the demonstration has a
significant impact on how well they are able to explain the
demonstration at the end of the semester (in the post-testing, the
demonstration is simply described as a physics problem without
reference to being done as a demonstration, and they are not told
that they may have seen it before). THE FRACTION OF THE CLASS THAT
CAN CORRECTLY EXPLAIN IT IS STILL DISAPPOINTINGLY LOW, but it makes a
difference to engage students by having them predict the outcome."
(My CAPS)
In the ensuing PhysLrnR discussion on this thread, the "Thornton &
Sokoloff method" aka "Interactive Lecture Demonstration strategy" and
"Powerful Ideas curriculum (PIPS) are mentioned [with no referencing
:-( ] as relatively effective ways to present demonstrations so as to
promote student learning.
To follow this thread go to the PhysLrnR archives
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>, type
"demonstrations" into the "Search for" slot, and "2000" into the
"Since" slot to obtain 44 hits. [PhysLrnR blocks use of its archives
to non-subscribers (purportedly to guard subscribers from spamers),
but it takes only a few minutes to subscribe using the NOMAIL option
(to avoid the receipt of posts) by following the simple directions at
the archive site.]
A similar search of the Phys-L archives yielded 106 hits, but they
appeared to contain little discussion of demonstration effectiveness.
However, a broader search came up with one exception - Karl Trappe's
Phys-L post of 24 Sep 1996 05:17:29+0000, titled "Re: Lecture
Demonstrations."
That students learn little from traditional demonstrations became
clear to me some decades ago when I asked conceptual-type questions
that probed prospective elementary teachers' understanding of my
brilliant and entertaining demonstrations. [The students were
ignorant of algebra so standard algorithmic problems were out of the
question.] I was shocked to discover that the demos had passed
through their heads leaving no measurable trace. (I latter learned
that the same was true of pre-meds and physics majors.)
After discussions with the late Arnold Arons (Hake 1991), I stopped
doing demonstrations in the lecture hall and brought them into the
laboratory as Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) labs. Among standard
demos given the SDI treatment were:
1. Dry ice blocks sliding on glass.
2. Dropping a steel ball, unfolded sheet of paper, and
crumpled-into-a-ball sheet of paper simultaneously.
3. Swinging a bucket of water over the head.
4. Motion of a pendulum bob with a fish scale inserted in the suspending rope.
5. The tablecloth slip-out trick.
6. The old R.W. Wood spinning-wheel-in-the-suitcase trick.
7. The precessing bicycle wheel.
8. Rotation on a turntable while shifting the radial position of
hand-held weights.
9. Playing catch on a merry-go-round.
Both qualitative and quantitative data (Hake 1987; 1998a,b; 2001b;
Tobias and Hake 1988) indicated the relative superiority of the SDI
method.
And yet SDI labs, despite their free online availability (Hake
2001a), are almost totally ignored by physics teachers and PER's. Why
is this? In footnote 39 of Hake (1998b) I wrote (see that paper for
the references):
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"The Socratic method has been sadly neglected by physics instructors,
despite its demonstrated effectiveness. Possible reasons are:
(1) the competing allure of the quick high-tech fix (rather than slow
deep-thought redesign) of science education,
(2) the degree of understanding and commitment required of instructors,
(3) unfamiliarity with and misunderstanding of the method.
That method, employed so successfully (see Table II and refs. 20-22,
34, 35, 43d) is NOT derived from the classic Socrates of Plato's Meno
(cf. ref 10c), but rather from the HISTORICAL Socrates as researched
by G. Vlastos, private communication and "Socrates, Ironist and Moral
Philosopher" (Cornell Univ. Press, 1991), esp. Chap. 2, "Socrates
contra Socrates in Plato."
The essence of Socrates was set forth by Howard Gardner in "The
Academic Community Must Not Shun the Debate Over How to Set National
Educational Goals," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 Nov. 1989:
"If Confucius can serve as the Patron Saint of Chinese education, let
me propose Socrates as his equivalent in a Western educational
context - a Socrates who is never content with the initial
superficial response, but is always probing for finer distinctions,
clearer examples, a more profound form of knowing. Our concept of
knowledge has changed since classical times, but Socrates has
provided us with a timeless educational goal - ever deeper
understanding."
For good discussions of the Socratic method, including an attempt to
encapsulate it in "production rules," see A. Collins, "Processes in
Acquiring Knowledge," in Schooling and Acquisition of Knowledge, ed.
by R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, and W.E. Montague (Lawrence Erlbaum,
1977); A. Collins and A.L. Stevens, "Goals and strategies for inquiry
teachers," in Advances in Instructional Psychology, vol. II, ed. by
R. Glaser (ibid., 1982); A. Collins and A.L. Stevens, "A cognitive
theory of interactive teaching," in Instructional Design Theories and
Models: An Overview, ed. by C.M. Reigeluth (ibid., 1983). For a
neural-network justification of the dialectic method see D. Hestenes
in ref. 37a.
Socratic dialogue is not a panacea, but is most useful for finding
out what and how students are thinking, guiding them to construct
their own understanding of difficult physics concepts, and for
conveying scientific approaches and reasoning skills (see Arons in
ref. 43d, p. 325). For less difficult instructional tasks, other
methods may be more efficient. The complementarity of Socratic,
didactic, and coaching instruction is discussed by D. Perkins, "Smart
Schools" (Free Press, 1992).
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
REFERENCES
Fagan, A.P. & C.H. Crouch. 2001. "Demonstrations: More Than Just
Entertainment?" AAPT Announcer 31(4): 126-127.
Hake, R.R. 1987. "Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian
world." Am J. Phys. 55(10):878-884.
_______. 1991. "My Conversion To The Arons-Advocated Method Of
Science Education,"Teaching Education" 3(2), 109-111 (1991); on the
web at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> as [MyConversion.pdf,
5/18/00, 12K].
_______. 1992. "Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab."
Phys. Teach. 30:546-552; updated version (4/27/98) online at
<http://physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
_______. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses." Am. J. Phys. 66(1):64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
_______. 1998b. Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses, submitted to Physics Ed. Res. Supplement to Am. J.
Phys; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
_______2001b. "Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort," to
appear shortly in "Conservation Ecology" (a free "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research") at
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss2/index.html>; also online
as ref. 10 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>:
[ConEc-Hake-O081901b.pdf], 8/19/01, 284K, 241 references, 123
hot-linked URL's.
Tobias S. & R.R. Hake. 1988. "Professors as physics students: What
can they teach us?" Am. J. Phys. 56, 786 (1988).