| 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] |
PART 2
REFERENCES
Bogacki, P. 2003. "Math Archives: Calculus resources on-line,"
<http://archives.math.utk.edu/calculus/crol.html>.
Boyer Commission 1998. "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A
Blueprint for America's Research Universities, Stony Brook, N.Y;
online at
<http://www.sunysb.edu/boyerreport>. For a recent discussion see Wood (2003).
Clemens, H. 1998. "Is There a Role for Mathematicians in Math
Education?" Notices of the American Mathematical Society 36(5):
542-544.
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; online as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. A comparison of the pre- to
post-test average normalized gain <g> for 62 introductory
high-school, college, and university physics courses enrolling a
total 6542 students showed that fourteen "traditional" (T) courses (N
= 2084) which made little or no use of interactive-engagement (IE)
methods achieved an average gain <g>T-ave = 0.23 plus or minus 0.04
(std dev), regardless of the experience, enthusiasm, talents, and
motivation of the lecturers. In sharp contrast, forty-eight courses
(N = 4458) which made substantial use of IE methods achieved an
average gain <g>IE-ave = 0.48 plus or minus 0.14 (std dev), almost
two standard deviations of <g>IE-ave above that of the traditional
courses. For definitions of <g>, "traditional courses," and
"interactive-engagement" courses see the article. More recently,
normalized gain differences between T and IE courses that are
consistent with the work of Hake have been reported by many other
physics education research groups as referenced in Hake (2002b,c).
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unpublished (Physics Education Research has no archival journal!)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. 2001a. "Could the Math Wars End In a Treaty of Benezet?",
PhysLrnR/MathTeach post of 3 Dec 2001 20:41:14-0800; online at
<http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach/yalsnayglix/p05010403b83200d45a3d@%5B216.244.2.43%5D>.
Hake, R.R. 2001b. "Could the Math Wars End In a Treaty of Benezet?",
PhysLrnR/MathTeach post of 7 Dec 2001 16:36:40-0800; online at
<http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach/yalsnayglix/p05010422b837057735d3@%5B209.179.244.79%5D>.
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. "Comment on 'How do we know if we are doing a good
job in physics teaching?' by Robert Ehrlich," Am. J. Phys. 70(10):
1058-1059; online as ref. 17 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
Hake, R.R. 2002c. "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. 2003a. "Can Biologists Learn Anything from
Physics/Astronomy Education Research?" post of 30 Aug 2003 to the
discussion lists AERA-D, ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk,
FYA, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=pod&O=D&P=21082>.
Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Can Chemists Learn Anything from Physics/Astronomy
Education Research?" post of 1 Sep 2003 to discussion lists AERA-D,
ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, FYA, PhysLrnR, POD, and
STLHE-L;; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&F=&S=&P=171>.
Hake, R.R. 2003c. "Beyond Dead Reckoning to Improve Educational
Quality," ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, POD post of
20 Mar 2003 15:11:26-0800; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303&L=pod&P=R11002>.
Hake, R.R. 2003d. "Re: Math Education Research; was Physics First,"
PhysLrnR/Phys-L/MathTeach post of 12 Feb 2003 21:01:38-0800; online at
<http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach/criltwalquom/p05010400ba6f813a4092@%5B209.179.245.100%5D>.
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P Mosca, D. Hestenes. 1995. Force Concept
Inventory (Revised, 1995); online (password protected) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. (Available in English,
Spanish, German, Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish, and
Swedish.)
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53:1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test, precursor to the "Force Concept Inventory." This
landmark 1999, 2003a.b); or the NRC volumes Pelligrino et al. (2001)
and Shavelson & Towne (2002).
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion." Am. J. Phys. 53:1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory." Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158; online (except for the test
itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. For the 1995
revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
Izsak, A. "We Want a Statement That Is Always True": Criteria for
Good Algebraic Representations and the Development of Modeling
Knowledge," J. of Research in Mathematics Education 34(3): 191-227;
NCTM members may download the entire article at
<http://my.nctm.org/eresources/article_summary.asp?URI=JRME2003-05-191a&from=B>.
Non-members have free access only to the abstract.
Klymkowsky, M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas, & M. Zeilik. 2003. "Bioliteracy
and Teaching Efficacy: WHAT BIOLOGISTS CAN LEARN FROM PHYSICISTS," in
press; online at <http://spot.colorado.edu/~klym/master.html> /
"Biology Concept Inventory Development" / "What is a concept
inventory and who we are" / " "download a preprint from Cell Biology
Education on the BCI", where "/" means "click on."
McCray, R.A., R.L. DeHaan, J.A. Schuck, eds. 2003. "Improving
Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics: Report of a Workshop" Committee on Undergraduate STEM
Instruction," National Research Council, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10711.html>. Physicists
attending the workshop were Paula Herron, Priscilla Laws, John
Layman, Ramon Lopez, Richard McCray, Lillian McDermott, Carl Wieman,
and Jack Wilson.
NCPI. 2002. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, "Beyond
Dead Reckoning: Research Priorities for Redirecting American Higher
Education." The 25-page report is online as a 4.7 K pdf at
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/>. See also Hake (2003c).
NRC. 1997. "Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook," National
Research Council, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education,
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html>.
NRC. 1999. "Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology," National Research Council,
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6453.html>.
NRC. 2003a. "Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in
Science and Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics," ed. by M.A.
Fox & N. Hackerman, National Research Council, Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10024.html>.
NRC. 2003b. "BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future
Research Biologists," Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to
Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, Board on Life
Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press; online
at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10497.html>.
Pelligrino, J.W., N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser, eds. 2001. "Knowing What
Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment,"
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html>.
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. 2002. "Scientific Research in Education,"
National Academy Press, online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.
Sowder, J.T. 1998. "What are the 'Math Wars' in California All About?
Reasons and Perspectives" Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online at
<http://mathematicallysane.com/analysis/mathwars.asp>: "I will
discuss today the ways that I see these two sides differing: They
hold different beliefs about what mathematics is, different beliefs
about how mathematics is learned, different understandings of what it
means to know mathematics, and different ways of interpreting what
research has to tell us on these issues. In a nutshell, THEY
REPRESENT DIFFERENT VALUE SYSTEMS. I believe that rational,
reflective discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the
two sides closer together. Thus, although the two sides may not reach
total agreement, they can come to understand the issues better and
find ways to compromise. I am told that California schools educate
one-seventh of the students in this country. THERE IS TOO MUCH AT
STAKE TO CONTINUE THE FIGHTING, to take a chance on sacrificing the
mathematical education of our children by not reaching some agreement
on what that education should be." (My CAPS.)
UMd-PERG. 2003. Univ. of Maryland Physics Education Research Group,
listing of physics education groups with web homepages; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/homepages.htm>.
Wood, W.B. 2003. "Inquiry-Based Undergraduate Teaching in the Life
Sciences at Large Research Universities: A Perspective on the Boyer
Commission Report," Cell Biology Education 2: 112-116; online at
<http://www.cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no2/article.cfm?articleID=57#b3>:
"THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF STANDARD LECTURE-BASED CURRICULA HAS BEEN
PARTICULARLY WELL DOCUMENTED IN PHYSICS. . In the early 1990s,
physicists at Arizona State University developed a test called the
Force Concept Inventory (FCI), designed to examine students'
understanding of basic concepts in mechanics (Hestenes et al., 1992).
This and similar tests have been used to compare the prevalence of
common misconceptions before and after taking an introductory physics
course or completing a physics major. . . . . Using such instruments,
physicists could show that taking traditional lecture-lab courses
improved understanding somewhat but that other teaching approaches,
discussed below, did much better (Hake, 1998a,b); M. Zeilik, personal
communication).
THE END !!