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]

Re: The college lecture may be fading



Please excuse this cross posting to discussion lists with archives at:

ASSESS <http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/assess.html>,

Chemed-L <http://mailer.uwf.edu/archives/chemed-l.html>,

EVALTALK <http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html>,

Math-Learn <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/>,

Math-Teach <http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach>,

Phys-L <http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,

PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,

POD <http://listserv.nd.edu/archives/pod.html>

In his PhysLrnR post of 24 Aug 2002 21:32:40-0600, titled "Re: The
college lecture may be fading," Mike Zeilik wrote:

"Bligh's book. . .[Bligh (2000)]. . . is easy to find; I got one at
my local Boarders. He has 25 densely-packed pages of references. I
have checked few, but I find Bligh's synthesis fair and balanced.
Sure, he does not refer (on quick review) to any PAER. .
.(Physics/Astronomy Education). . . Research, but to me, that makes
his book all the more refreshing. And nowhere does he assert that
lectures are 'supremely effective' or supreme at anything
educational."

I have never claimed nor implied that Bligh or any other psychologist
asserted that lectures are "supremely effective."

The question I raised was:

"I wonder if Mike could be more definitive as to . . . what
PSYCHOLOGY research yields SOLID EVIDENCE that . . .
passive-student lectures are NOT supremely effective in promoting
student learning?"

Judging from what Bligh (2002) himself has to say, the
NON-JOSSEY-BASS UK EDITION OF HIS BOOK (Bligh 1998 - this is the 5th
edition) but NOT Jossey Bass's Bligh (2000) may indeed provide SOLID
EVIDENCE that passive-student lectures are NOT supremely effective in
promoting student learning." If so, it's an important and evidently
little-known-in-the-US addition to the educational research
literature.

In Bligh's (2002) own words (quoted with his permission, my CAPS):

BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH
"In all the first five editions of 'What's the Use of Lectures?' that
I published in UK over the past 30 years or so, I have included
tables of large numbers of experiments, mostly comparing the
effectiveness of lectures with other teaching methods. THE TABLES
INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE RESEARCHER(S), DATE, THE COMPARISON MADE AND
MOST CRUCIALLY THE TEST(S) USED.

Over the past 80 years their have been literally thousands of these
classroom based experiments. (Collins is hopelessly wrong to suggest
that they are all laboratory based. Where on earth he has got that
idea I cannot imagine, unless his definition of a laboratory is
different from mine.) In THE FIFTH EDITION IN UK I also included a
whole chapter on reservations and difficulties in conducting such
experiments and drawing the conclusions you summarize. These
include the breadth of criterial categories, the problems of mixed
criteria used by many investigators, imprecise definitions of
teaching methods, the problems of uncontrolled variables, the lack of
reported data for using meta analyses, and the enthusiasm of
experimenters for their pet comparative method.

Why I am glad that you raise these criticisms is not just that I
think criticism is central to the purpose of higher education, but
that JOSSEY BASS INSISTED NOT ONLY THAT ALL THE TABLES GIVING
EVIDENCE FOR MY CONCLUSIONS WERE REMOVED, BUT THAT THE CHAPTER ON
RESERVATIONS AND AN EARLY CHAPTER WARNING READERS NOT TO VALUE
UNSUBSTANTIATED SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED. Jossey
Bass's view was by reinforced by two or three of their reviewers and
I was left with a very poor opinion of them and regretted that a
publisher seemed to think American faculty don't value evidence and
criticism. IT WAS AS IF MY BOOK WAS BEING TURNED INTO COLD DOGMA
RATHER THAN A REASONED CASE. . . . (but). . . . . if you get the
5th Edition . . .(1998). . . from Intellect Books, ISBS, 5804 N.E.
Hassalo St, Portland Oregon 97213-3644 you can get 700 or so . . .
(references to research articles."
BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH-BLIGH

The non-scientific attitude of Jossey Bass and some of their
reviewers is yet another example of the depths to which some US
education research has fallen [for discussions of the need for
SCIENTIFIC educational research see e.g., Redish (1999); Hake (2000;
2002b,c); Mayer (2000, 2001)]. Shavelson & Towne (2001).

Lagemann (2000) writes: "Since the earliest days of university
sponsorship, education research has been demeaned by scholars in
other fields, ignored by practitioners, and alternatively spoofed and
criticized by politicians, policy makers, and members of the public
at large."

By the way, as a visit to <http://www.amazon.com> will confirm,
Donald Bligh has also written other books on higher education,
including Bligh et al. (1999).

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


REFERENCES
Bligh, D.A. 1998. "What's the Use of Lectures" 5th Edition from
Intellect Books, ISBS, 5804 N.E. Hassalo St, Portland Oregon
97213-3644, <http://www.intellectbooks.com/books/>. The UK sail mail
address is
Intellect Books, The Mill, Parnell Road, BRISTOL UK BS16 3JG. Their
telephone is 0044-117-958-9910. The UK 1998 edition is £14.95. U.S.$
24.95 Paperback, 230x174 mm, 192 pages. ISBN 1-871516-79-X.

Bligh D.A. 2000. "What's the Use of Lectures." Jossey-Bass. Evidently
a severely eviscerated version of Bligh (1998). Evidently all
editions after 1998 have been or will be similarly degraded,
presumably in order to increase sales to the non-scientific
educational establishment within the US.

Bligh D.A. 2002. Private communication to R.R. Hake of 31 August:
Comments on Hake (2002a). Excerpts given here are by permission of
D.A. Bligh.

Bligh, D.A., H. Thomas, & Ian McNay. 1999. "What Is the Point in Discussion?"
Intellect Books; ISBN: 1871516692; First edition (October 1999).

Hake, R.R. 2000. "Towards paradigm peace in physics-education
research. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, April 24-28; online as ref. 3 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.

Hake,R.R. 2002a. "The College Lecture May Be Fading," PhysLrnR post
of 22 Aug 2002 18:04:21-0700; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=physlrnr&F=&S=&X=1F2EF342A8FF04D3E2&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4451>.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Scientifically Based Research."
PhysLrnR/POD/AERA-D/Chemed-L/EvalTalk post of 13 Mar 2002
13:43:21-0800; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0203&L=physlrnr&P=R406&X=72078A104E5626BE13&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net>.

Hake, R.R. 2002c. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. See the section "Can
Educational Research Be SCIENTIFIC Research?").

Lagemann, E.C. 2000. "An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of
Education Research." Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 232.

Mayer, R. E. 2000. "What is the place of science in educational
research?" Educational Researcher 29(6): 38-39; online at
<http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/toc/er2906.htm>.

Mayer, R. E. 2001. "Resisting the assault on science: the case for
evidence-based reasoning in educational research." Educational
Researcher 30(7):29-30; online at
<http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/toc/er3007.htm>.

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
teaching physics." Am. J. Phys. 67(7):562-573: online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne, editors. 2001. "Scientific Research in
Education," National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.