| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Please excuse this cross-posting to discussion groups with archives a=
t:
POD <http://listserv.nd.edu/archives/pod.html>,
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,
Phys-L: <http://mailer.uwf.edu/archives/chemed-l.html>,
Chemed-L: <http://mailer.uwf.edu/archives/chemed-l.html>.
In his POD post of 23 Jan 2002 15:07:32 -0500 titled "Re: ten
learning principles- worthwhile or not?", Michael Chejlava wrote:
"Perhaps a technique called round-robin-testing that is used by
analytical chemists to measure the robustness of analytical methods
would be useful here. . . . (in assessing the value of the "ten
learning principles" (see, e.g., AAHE et al. 1998, Potter 1998-99 and
the APPENDIX). . . . A robust method is one which can give consistent
results in different labs, with different analysts, with a range of
sample types and even different makes and models of instrumentation.
=2E . . . . . HAS ANYONE HEARD OF SUCH A SYSTEM BEING USED IN
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH? It would require that different instructors at
different type of schools would teach similar courses and use a
standard set of assessment tools. Also, there would need to be
control class sections at most if not all of the sites for best
results. . . ." (My EMPHASIS.)
In answer to Michael's question "HAS ANYONE HEARD OF SUCH A SYSTEM
BEING USED IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH?" The answer is "YES". Such "a
system" (a crucial component of the "scientific method") has been
used for several years in physics education research (PER).
In Hake (2002) (in the section "Can Educational Research be
Scientific Research") I wrote (see the article for the references):
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There has been a long-standing debate over whether education research
can or should be "scientific" (e.g., PRO: Dewey 1929, 1966, Anderson
et al. 1998, Bunge 2000, Redish 1999, Mayer 2000, 2001, Phillips and
Burbules 2000, Phillips 2000; CON: Lincoln and Guba 1985, Sch=F6n 199=
5,
Eisner 1997, Lagemann 2000). In my opinion, substantive education
research must be "scientific" in the sense indicated below. My biased
prediction (Hake 2000a) is that, for physics education research, and
possibly even education research generally: (a) the bloody "paradigm
wars" (Gage 1989) of education research will have ceased by the year
2009, with, in Gage's words, a "productive rapprochement of the
paradigms," (b) some will follow paths of pragmatism or Popper's
"piecemeal social engineering" to this paradigm peace, as suggested
by Gage, but (c) most will enter onto this "sunlit plain" from the
path marked "scientific method" as practiced by most research
scientists:
1. "EMPIRICAL: Systematic investigation . . . (by quantitative,
qualitative, or any other means) . . . of nature to find reproducible
patterns in the structure of things and the ways they change
(processes).
2. THEORETICAL: Construction and analysis of models representing
patterns of nature." (Hestenes 1999).
3. "Continual interaction, exchange, evaluation, and criticism so as
to build a . . . . community map." (Redish 1999).
For the presently discussed research, the latter feature is
demonstrated by the fact that FCI. . .(Force Concept Inventory). . .
normalized gain results for IE. . . (Interactive Engagement). . .
and T . . . (Traditional). . . courses that are consistent with
those of Hake (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) have now been obtained by physics
education research (PER) groups at the Univ. of Maryland (Redish et
al. 1997, Saul 1998, Redish and Steinberg 1999, Redish 1999), the
University of Montana (Francis et al. 1998), Rennselaer and Tufts
Universities (Cummings et al. 1999), North Carolina State University
(Beichner et al. 1999), Hogskolan Dalarna - Sweden (Bernhard 2001),
Carnegie Mellon University (Johnson 2001), and City College of New
York (Steinberg and Donnelly 2002).
In addition, PER groups have now gone beyond the original survey in
showing, for example, that (a) there may be significant differences
in the effectiveness of various IE methods (Saul 1998, Redish 1999);
and (b) FCI data can be analyzed so as to show the distribution of
incorrect answers in a class and thus indicate common incorrect
student models (Bao and Redish 2001).
Thus in physics education research, just as in traditional physics
research, it is possible to perform quantitative experiments that can
be reproduced (or refuted) and extended by other investigators, and
thus contribute to the construction of a continually more refined and
extensive "community map."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
REFERENCES
AAHE, American Association of Higher Education, American College
Personnel Association, National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. 1998. "Powerful Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility
for Learning," online at <http://www.aahe.org/assessment/joint.htm>.
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>.
Potter, D.L. 1999. "Is George Mason a Learning-Centered University?"
Inventio 1(1), online at
<http://www.doiiit.gmu.edu/Archives/feb98/potter.htm>.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
APPENDIX - TEN PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING: THE PRINCIPLE OF:
1. CONNECTEDNESS: Learning is fundamentally about making and
maintaining connections: biologically through neural networks;
mentally among concepts, ideas and meanings; and experientially
through interaction between the mind and the environment, self and
other, generality and context, deliberation and action.
2. A COMPELLING SITUATION: Learning is enhanced by taking place in
the context of a compelling situation that balances challenge and
opportunity, stimulating and utilizing the brain's ability to
conceptualize quickly and its capacity and need for contemplation and
reflection upon experiences.
3. AN ACTIVE SEARCH FOR MEANING: Learning is an active search for
meaning by the learner-- constructing knowledge rather than passively
receiving it, shaping as well as being shaped by experiences.
4. DEVELOPMENT AND HOLISM: Learning is developmental, a cumulative
process involving the whole person, relating past and present,
integrating the new with the old, starting from but transcending
personal concerns and interests.
5. SOCIAL INTERACTION: Learning is done by individuals who are
intrinsically tied to others as social beings, interacting as
competitors or collaborators, constraining or supporting the learning
process, and able to enhance learning through cooperation and sharing=
.
6. THE LEARNING CLIMATE: Learning is strongly affected by the
educational climate in which it takes place: the settings and
surroundings, the influences of others, and the values accorded to
the life of the mind and to learning achievements.
7. FEEDBACK AND USE: Learning requires frequent feedback if it is to
be sustained, practice if it is to be nourished, and opportunities to
use what has been learned.
8. INCIDENTAL LEARNING: Much learning takes place informally and
incidentally, beyond explicit teaching or the classroom, in casual
contacts with faculty and staff, peers, campus life, active social
and community involvements, and unplanned but fertile and complex
situations.
9. GROUNDEDNESS: Learning is grounded in particular contexts and
individual experiences, requiring effort to transfer specific
knowledge and skills to other circumstances or to more general
understandings and to unlearn personal views and approaches when
confronted by new information.
10. SELF-MONITORING: Learning involves the ability of individuals to
monitor their own learning, to understand how knowledge is acquired,
to develop strategies for learning based on discerning their
capacities and limitations, and to be aware of their own ways of
knowing in approaching new bodies of knowledge and disciplinary
frameworks.