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: Physics and the Paideia Process



In his Physhare post of 10 Feb 2003 21:07:58-0500, Rick Tarara wrote
[bracketed between "TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-. . ." so as to avoid
awkward quotes within quotes "'....'":

TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA
The evidence . . .(on traditional vs non-traditional physics
instruction). . . IS NOT all that clear. The problem, at least in
Physics, is that we have a lot of physicists trying to be
psychologists. Most of the "evidence" that I've seen suffers from
poor to no experimental design, lack of controls, and the fact that
the "experimenters? had vested interests in the outcomes. I
certainly hope you are not falling back on the "Hake plot" as primary
evidence!

The prime evidence that the lecture format does work, and which
continues to be ignored by some, is the last several hundred years of
education and human history. It's good enough for me.
TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA


In response:

1. What Physics Education Researchers (PER's) are "trying to be
psychologists"? Perhaps Rick could give some examples. In my opinion,
the dubious average record of psychologists in education research
hardly warrants emulation [see e.g. Lagemann (2000), Shavelson &
Towne (2002)].

2. Can Rick point to SPECIFIC cases of PER in which "most of the
'evidence' . . . suffers from poor to no experimental design and lack
of controls"? In my opinion most PER adheres to standards of good
research [see, e.g., Shavelson & Towne (2002), Ziman (2000)].

3. Most PER's do think (considering the evidence) that
non-traditional Interactive Engagement (IE) methods of instruction
are more effective for enhancing students' conceptual understanding
than are traditional (T) PASSIVE-student lectures. Does this mean
that all PER-generated evidence for this standpoint is to be ignored?
Having spent 40 years in traditional condensed-matter (CM) physics
research, I can attest that research done by "neutral" CM physicists
is essentially non-existent. But good CM researchers exert tremendous
effort to put their biases to the test and examine possible sources
of error in their experiments and ideas. The same is true for most
PER's.

4. Probably few advocates of IE methods "fall back" on what Tarara
calls the "Hake plot" [Fig. 1 of Hake (1998a and 2002a)]. Instead
there is a vast accumulation of quantitative and qualitative evidence
extending over at least 30 years [for reviews see e.g., McDermott &
Redish 1999, Hake 2002a, Redish 2003] that strongly suggests the
superiority of IE methods for enhancing students' conceptual
understanding.

And even the Tarara-berated "Hake-plot" evidence is now found to be
consistent with more recent PER work. In Hake (2002b) I wrote (SEE
THAT ARTICLE FOR THE REFERENCES):

HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
I think most physics education researchers (PER's), if not all
physics instructors, currently agree that PER, with its: (a)
standardized assessments such as the FCI, MD, FMCE, and CSEM [for
other physics assessment instruments see NCSU (2002) and FLAG
(2002)], and (b) half-century old "normalized gain" g (Sec. III
below), has shown rather conclusively that:

(1) the traditional mode of introductory physics instruction (passive
student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem exams) is
relatively ineffective in promoting students' conceptual
understanding, even when employed by teachers who receive relatively
high student evaluations [(Hake (2002e), Hunt (2002)], and

(2) "interactive engagement (IE) methods" CAN be much more effective
than "traditional" (T) methods in promoting conceptual understanding
of mechanics. For example, for mechanics test results (Hake 1998
a,b,c) for courses using IE and T methods, I obtained a Cohen (1988)
effect size "d" of 2.43 (Hake 2002a), much higher than any found by
Lipsey & Wilson (1993) in their meta-meta-analysis of psychological,
educational, and behavioral treatments. Seven reasons for this "d
disparity" between physics-education and other social-science
research are given in Hake (2002a).

More recently, normalized gain differences between T and IE courses
that are consistent with the work of Hake (1998a,b,c; 2002a,b,c,d)
have been reported by Redish et al. (1997); Saul (1998); Francis et
al. (1998); Redish & Steinberg (1999); Redish (1999); Beichner et al.
(1999); Cummings et al. (1999); Novak et al. (1999); Beichner et al.
(2000); Bernhard (2000); Crouch & Mazur (2001); Johnson (2001);
Meltzer (2002a,b,c); Meltzer & Manivannan (2002); Savinainen & Scott
(2002a,b); Steinberg and Donnelly (2002); Fagan et al. (2002); and
Van Domelen & Van Heuvelen (2002).
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE

As regards the rather polarized Physhare discussion on whether
lectures are GOOD or BAD, I think it all depends on the subject
matter, the nature of the students, and the goals of the teacher. As
indicated in Hake (2002c), a major strength of the Paideia (2003)
Method is its use of different approaches to fit the occasion
(didactic lectures, coaching, and Socratic dialogue). Each method has
it strengths and weaknesses but in the hands of a skilled teacher it
can be made to compliment the other methods so as to advance student
learning. A skilled teacher might LECTURE on material that can be
rote memorized [but s(he) might be better off using the Gutenberg
Method [Morrison (1986), Hake (2002d)] that recognizes the invention
of the printing press], COACH skills such as typing or playing a
musical instrument, and use SOCRATIC DIALOGUE (or some other IE
method) to induce students to construct their conceptual
understanding of Newton's Laws.

Nevertheless my 25-years experience in a large research university
(LRU) leads me to agree with Mike Zeilik that most introductory
science classes at LRU's consist of passive-student lectures. This is
one reason that (a) pre/post testing in hundreds of LRU classes shows
that students subjected to traditional methods of instruction gain
almost no conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics (see e.g.,
Hake (1998a) and the consistent results cited above); (b) Harvard
graduating seniors think the seasons are due to seasonal changes in
the distance between the sun and the earth (Schneps & Sadler 1985);
and (c) MIT graduating engineers have trouble getting a bulb to light
given one bulb, a battery, and one piece of wire (Shapiro et al.
1997). But Rick's right - the lecture system is just fine!

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
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses . . . (high school, college, and university). . .,"
Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998); online as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online ref. 2 5 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. In this crucial companion
paper to Hake (1998a): average pre/post test scores, standard
deviations, instructional methods, materials used, institutions, and
instructors for each of the survey courses of Hake (1998a) are
tabulated and referenced. In addition the paper includes: (a) case
histories for the seven IE courses of Hake (1998a) whose
effectiveness as gauged by pre-to-post test gains was close to those
of T courses, (b) advice for implementing IE methods, and (c)
suggestions for further research.

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods,"
Proceedings of the UNESCO-ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec. 2002; also online
as ref. 29 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.

Hake, R.R. 2002c. "Re: Physics and the Paideia Process," post to
Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and AP-Physics of 8 Feb 2003
13:45:56-0800; online at
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302&L=physhare&O=A&P=5301>.

Hake, R.R. 2002d. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," post of 21
Aug 2002 15:34:25-0700 to various discussion lists; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=phys-l&P=R17115>.
Excerpts from Morrison (1986) are given.

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

McDermott, L.C. & E.F. Redish. 1999. RL-PER1: Resource letter on
physics education research. Am. J. Phys. 67(9): 755-767; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

Morrison R. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in
"Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics, Proceedings of the
Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education," No. 1, edited by R.R. Rice
Univ. of Chicago, p. 50. See Hake (2002d) for excerpts from this
BRILLIANT LECTURE.

Paideia. 2003. Website at <http://www.paideia.org/>: "Paideia's
two-fold goal is to teach all students to think. . . To this end, the
Paideia classroom combines three instructional techniques: didactic
instruction, coaching of academic skills, and [Socratic Teaching]. .
. .[The complementarity of didactic lectures, coaching, and Socratic
teaching is discussed by Perkins (1992)]. . . . Together, these three
types of instruction have been proven to enhance the literacy,
problem solving, and thinking skills of students at all grade levels
and abilities."

Perkins, D. 1992. "Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for
Every Child." Free Press, page 55-58.

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>.

Redish, E.F. 2003. "Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite." Wiley.

Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne, eds. 2002. "Scientific Research in
Education," National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>. "The Committee argued that
all the sciences, including scientific educational research, shared a
set of epistemological or fundamental guiding principles, and that
all scientific endeavors should:
(a) pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically,
(b) link research to relevant theory,
(c) use methods that permit direct investigation of the questions,
(d) provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning,
(e) attempt to yield findings that replicate and generalize across studies, and
(f) disclose research data and methods to enable and encourage
professional scrutiny and critique."

Schneps, M.H. & P.M. Sadler. 1985. Private Universe Project. Harvard
- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science Education Department;
online at
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/sed/resources/privateuniv.html>.

Shapiro, I., C. Whitney, P. Sadler, M. Schneps. 1997. "Can We Believe
Our Eyes" Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science
Education Department; description online at
<http://www.learner.org/progdesc/index.html?uid=26&sj=>.

Ziman, J. 2000. "Real Science: What it is, and what it means."
Cambridge University Press.