REFERENCES
Belcher, J.W. 2003. "Improving Student Understanding with TEAL" [TEAL
= Technology Enhanced Active Learning], MIT Faculty Newsletter Vol.
XVI No. 2 October/November; online at
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/fnlEditedLinks.pdf> (176 kB).
Bloom, B.S. 1984. "The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of
Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring," Educational
Researcher 13(6), 4-16 (1984): "Using the standard deviation
(sigma),of the control (conventional) class, it was typically found
that the average student under tutoring was about two standard
deviations above the average of the control class. . . The tutoring
process demonstrates that most of the students do have the potential
to reach
this high level of learning. I believe an important task of
research,and instruction is to seek ways of accomplishing this under
more practical and realistic conditions than the one-to-one
tutoring,kwhich is too costly for most societies to bear on a large
scale. This is the '2 sigma' problem."
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 [cf. Bloom (1984)]. Here: (a) the average normalized gain <g>
is the actual gain [<%post> - <%pre>] divided by the maximum
possible gain [100% - <%pre>] where the angle brackets indicate the
class averages; (b) IE courses are operationally defined as those
designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through
interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on
(usually) activities which yield immediate feedback
through,discussion with peers and/or instructors; (c) T courses are
operationally defined courses as those reported by instructors
to.make little or no use of IE methods, relying primarily
on.passive-student lectures, recipe labs [hands-on but heads-off],
and,algorithmic problem exams. MORE RECENTLY, NORMALIZED GAIN
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN T AND IE COURSES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
WORK OF HAKE (1998a,b) HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY MANY OTHER PHYSICS
EDUCATION RESEARCH GROUPS AS REFERENCED IN HAKE (2002).
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. 2002. "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. 2004. "Re: student assessment/content knowledge (Was Re: Forward -
Content Knowledge)," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&O=D&P=18498>.
Post to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Physhare, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR, POD, & STLHE-L.
Hammer, M. "Re: student assessment/content knowledge," EvalTalk post
of 18 Mar 2004 13:05:56-0500; online at
<http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403c&L=evaltalk&T=0&F=&S=&X=2DB0C244852F3837B0&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4917>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that one must subscribe to EvalTalk in
order to access its archives, but it takes only a few minutes to
subscribe by following the simple directions at
<http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html> / "Join or leave the list
(or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If you're busy,
then subscribe 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!
Roberts, D. 2004b. "Re: student assessment/content knowledge,"
EvalTalk post of 18 Mar 2004 11:37:33-0500; online at
<http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403c&L=evaltalk&T=0&F=&S=&X=2BEBE410A84A30FEEC&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=3970>.
[The encyclopedic URL indicates that one must subscribe to EvalTalk
in order to access its archives, but it takes only a few minutes to
subscribe by following the simple directions at
< <http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html> / "Join or leave the
list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If you're
busy, then subscribe 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!
Wilson, J.M. 1994. "The CUPLE Physics Studio," Phys. Teach. 32:
518-523: "Students have been quite enthusiastic about the course, as
measured by the responses on the end-of-semester surveys. Nearly
twice as many students agree that they enjoyed the studio-courses as
compared to the traditional lecture/recitation/lab format . . . .
Students in these courses are performing as well or better than
students in the traditional courses in spite of the one-third
reduction in class contact time. This was demonstrated by student
performance on tests matched in difficulty, length, and content to
tests from previous years and those given this year in the in the
traditional courses."