REFERENCES
Beichner, R. 2003. "PER CENTRAL (Digital Library) request for
features," PhysLrnR/Phys-L post of 19 Mar 2003 14:28:10-0500, titled
"PER CENTRAL (Digital Library) request for features"; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303&L=phys-l&P=R10457>.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998); online as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. See also Hake (2002a).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. SUBMITTED on 6/19/98 to the
"Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP"(PERS). In this sadly
unpublished (Physics Education Research has NO archival journal!)
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. 1999. "REsearch, Development, and Change in Undergraduate
Biology Education (REDCUBE): A Web Guide for Non-Biologists" at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~redcube>. This Adobe Acrobat
portable document file (pdf) gives non-biologists a point of entry
into the vast literature and web resources relevant to research,
development, and change in undergraduate biology education. The
9/8/99 version contains 47 biology-educator profiles; 446 references
(including 124 relevant to general science-education reform); and 490
hot-linked URL's on
(a) Biology Associations,
(b) Biology Teacher's Web Sites,
(c) Scientific Societies and Projects (not confined to Biology),
(d) Higher Education,
(e) Cognitive Science and Psychology,
(f) U.S. Government, and
(g) Searches and Directories.
The references and URL's may be generally useful to teachers and
education researchers, and may provide some ideas for hastening
education reform.
Hake, R.R. 2001a. "An Electronic Journal of Physics Education
Research?" PhysLrnR post of 1 Sep 2001 15:13:34 -0700; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=physlrnr&P=R2&X=3584A715562B1B4AA8&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net>.
[One must subscribe to PhysLrnR to access it archives, but it takes
only a few minutes to subscribe and then unsubscribe by following the
simple directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on."
Rather than unsubscribe after using the archives, it's easier to
subscribe in the first place using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!]
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.
NSF Advisory Committee. 1996. "Shaping the future: new expectations
for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology," online at <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf96139>.
NRC. 1997. "Developing a Digital National Library for Undergraduate
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education: Report
of a Workshop." Nat. Acad. Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5952.html>. Here a prestigious NRC
committee (a) considered a recommendation on p. 72 of the "Shaping
the Future" ("George Report" NSF 1996) that the NSF sponsor the
development of a "national electronic library...(NEL) ... for
validating and disseminating successful educational practices," and
(b) concluded, in part, that ".... the establishment of an NEL could
potentially be a useful tool for improving undergraduate SME&T
education ... (but) ... participants believed that the workshop
discussions had not made a convincing case that an NEL was an
essential component of SME&T education reform." See also the more
recent NRC (1999, 2000, 2001).
NRC. 1999. "Serving the Needs of Pre-College Science and Mathematics
Education: Impact of a Digital National Library on Teacher Education
and Practice. Proceedings from a National Research Council Workshop,
Nat. Acad. Press; online at < http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9584.html>.
NRC. 2000. "The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the
Information Age," Nat. Acad. Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9601.html>.
NRC. 2001. " Issues for Science and Engineering Researchers in the
Digital Age," Nat. Acad. Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10100.html>.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
APPENDIX [From Hake (1999) - see that article for the references]
VII. EPILOGUE
The NRC report "Developing a Digital National Library for
Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
Education: Report of a Workshop". . . [NRC 1997]. . . , summarizes
some serious concerns regarding undergraduate Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology (SME&T) reform:
(1) "Despite efforts by individuals and calls for improvement from
prestigious national organizations (e.g., Clinton and Gore... (see
OSTP listing in Sec. IIIF, Web Listings) ..., National Research
Council, National Science Foundation, Project Kaleidoscope), PROGRESS
IN THE REFORM AND IMPROVEMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE SME&T EDUCATION OFTEN
HAS BEEN AGONIZINGLY SLOW..... During the past three decades, the NSF
and other public and private sources have provided hundreds of
millions of dollars to support the development of classroom and
laboratory programs and materials that could, if widely disseminated
and adopted, help change how undergraduates in the United States
learn about SME&T. However, many college and university faculty are
either unaware of these resources, have difficulty accessing them, or
resist their use. As a result, too many faculty continue to spend
considerable time and effort 'reinventing' courses, course materials,
and laboratory programs that are already available to them and could
be adapted to their own teaching situations." (Our CAPS.)
(2) "Several of the greatest problems in transforming collegiate
science curricula relate directly to people's knowledge of the
resources. If there is no 'library' that focuses upon collecting,
classifying, indexing, querying, sharing, and making accessible
technological curricular resources and reviews of those materials,
then there are enormous costs in the initiation, instantiation,
maintenance, and extension of curricular reform: ........
(b) because there is no equivalent to the "Science Citation Index"
for the many curricular initiatives that are funded, or are local to
one campus, or even those ..... (described in published) ....
articles .... there is an enormous wastage due to the
'not-invented-here' syndrome. In particular, NSF does not get the
full benefit of its critical investment. Many marvelous innovations
of the post-Sputnik era have simply been lost because few others than
the innovators themselves have any knowledge at all about these
NSF-funded innovations....." J.R. Jungck in a paper commissioned by
the study (ref. 62, Sec. II of this survey).
(3) "The most crucial task now facing the NSF and other funders is
the conversion of innovation to broad and sweeping change. We know a
good deal about what works well for SME&T students. It will require
deep commitment to integrate the best of these innovations into the
ongoing life of undergraduate SME&T education, thereby effecting the
comprehensive educational change that is needed," Joan Girgus (Pew
Charitable Trusts - see listing in Sec. IIIC) on p. 43 of "Shaping
the Future," ref. 59 of Sec. IV "General References."
(4) "Innovations and successes in education need to spread with the
speed and efficiency of new research results," on p. 6 of "From
Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology," ref. 60 of Sec. IV "General
References." The more complete and meaningful quote is:
"Undergraduate education will not change in a permanent way through
the efforts of 'Lone Rangers.' CHANGE REQUIRES ONGOING INTERACTION
AMONG COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS THAT WILL REINFORCE AND
DRIVE REFORM. And replication is essential: innovations and successes
in education need to spread with the speed and efficiency of new
research results. WITH THE SUPPORT OF INSTITUTIONS, FOUNDATIONS, AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES, EDUCATORS NEED TO FORM 'INVISIBLE COLLEGES'
RESEMBLING THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNITIES." (Our
italics.)
The above concerns suggest the need for greater cooperation among the
disciplines in order to speed the glacial pace of undergraduate SME&T
reform. As suggested in the "Introduction" to this survey,
investigators in each discipline, in order to make their work more
visible to workers in other disciplines, might consider the
production of counterparts of the physicists' (A) "Physical Sciences
Resource Center," (B) "Resource Letter on Physics Education
Research," and (C) "Physics Education Research Papers on the Web,"
together with reviews by disciplinary experts in education research
(e.g, A. Van Heuvelen "Learning to think like a physicist: A review
of research-based instructional strategies," Am. J. Phys. 59, 891-897
(1991). Lacking such resources, guides such as the present "Research,
Development, and Change in Undergraduate X Education: A Web Guide for
Non-X's" may be of some transitory value.