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: PER for physics departments



If you respond to this long post (16kB) please don't hit the reply
button unless you pare the original message normally contained in
your reply down to a few lines, otherwise you will inflict the entire
message yet again on all list subscribers. Also, if you object to
cross-posting as a way to tunnel through interdisciplinary barriers,
please hit "delete" now.

In his PhysLrnR post "PER for physics departments" Antti Savinainen
(2004) wrote [bracketed by lines "SSSSSSSS . . . . "; slightly
edited]:

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I'd like to ask your advice on what to write for physics departments
on PER . . .[Physics Education Research]. . . My impression is that
physics professors in Finland usually know very little about PER and
do not have high respect for ideas coming from education departments
. . . [the same is true of most physics faculty in most other
countries, including the U.S.]. . .

I have planned to address the following points:

1. how PER has grown into a serious field of research in many physics
departments in the U.S.,

2. doing PER entails a strong background in physics,

3. conceptual understanding is a part of expertise in physics,

4. PER has developed conceptual tests in many domains of physics: I
will describe a few tests and their rationale,

5. studies strongly suggest that conceptual understanding is not
effectively fostered by traditional introductory physics teaching,

6. suggestions on how to reform teaching.

I think that the last point is a crucial one: it is not easy to
change a very deeply rooted practice (i.e, traditional lecturing,
etc.) into something new. THE FIRST STEP MIGHT BE ADMINISTERING A
CONCEPTUAL TEST TO SEE HOW WELL STUDENTS UNDERSTAND BASIC TOPICS
AFTER A COURSE. (My CAPS.) This might create a need for a change in
teaching. I intend to provide a list of research-based teaching
approaches in the order of increasing degree of reformation. What
would be your list?
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I think an incisive coverage of Savinainen's important points (1-6)
might provide some inducement to faculty in physics departments in
Finland and elsewhere to take PER seriously. More generally, with the
substitution of "discipline X" for "physics" and XER for PER,
Savinainen's 6 points could doubtless be made for other disciplines X
attempting to reform their introductory courses, especially those
utilizing pre/post testing as listed in [Hake (2004b)].

I also agree that "the first step [for faculty] might be
administering a conceptual test to see how well students understand
basic topics after a course."

Such a first step would be consistent with:

(a) Lesson #3 of "Lessons from the physics education reform effort"
[Hake (2002a)]:

"HIGH-QUALITY STANDARDIZED TESTS OF THE COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE
IMPACT OF COURSES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR GAUGING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
NON-TRADITIONAL EDUCATIONAL METHODS [RELATIVE TO TRADITIONAL
METHODS]. As indicated in the introduction, so great is the inertia
of the educational establishment (see Lesson 13) that three decades
of physics-education research demonstrating the futility of the
passive-student lecture in introductory courses were ignored until
high-quality standardized tests that could easily be administered to
thousands of students became available. These tests are yielding
increasingly convincing evidence that interactive engagement methods
enhance conceptual understanding and problem solving abilities far
more than do traditional methods."

(b) The experiences of MIT's John Belcher and Harvard's Eric Mazur as
detailed in Hake (2004a). (If MIT and Harvard are shifting from
passive-student lectures to interactive-engagement methods, then it's
possible that the latter may not be ALL bad.)

(c) The growing use of pre/post testing to gauge course effectiveness
in such fields as astronomy, economics, biology, chemistry, computer
science, and engineering, as indicated in Hake (2004b). For recent
rebuttals to those who distrust pre/post testing see Hake (2004c) and
Scriven (2004).

As for Savinainen's intention to "provide a list of research-based
teaching approaches in the order of increasing degree of
reformation," IMHO, any list that attempts to list reform methods in
such an order is bound to (a) be controversial, and (b) alienate some
reformers.

Rather, it might be better to follow Ken Heller's
<http://www.spa.umn.edu/directory/heller> lead [Heller (1999a,b)] and
list courses that "do not significantly change the course content and
can be incorporated within its traditional framework of lectures,
recitation sections, and laboratories."

In Hake (2002a) I give a list of reform methods used in courses
surveyed in Hake (1998a,b), most of which satisfy Heller's criteria
and are categorized (as suggested by Heller) in terms of
research-based learning theories that underlie some of the current
reform efforts [see Hake (2002a).

Heller places the reform courses that he discusses [Cooperative Group
Problem Solving (Minnesota), Tutorials (Washington, Maryland), Peer
Instruction (Harvard), Overview Case Studies (Ohio State),
Interactive Demonstrations (Oregon, Tufts) Socratic Dialog Labs
(Indiana)] into three categories - those derived from:

1. "Developmental Theory," originating with Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget
1958, Gardner 1985, Inhelder et al. 1987, Phillips & Soltis 1998);

2. "Cognitive Apprenticeship" (Collins et al. 1989, Brown et al. 1989).

3. A combination of "1" and "2."

In addition, most of the methods surveyed in Hake (1998a,b), also
recognize the important role of social interactions in learning
(Vygotsky 1978, Lave & Wenger 1991, Dewey 1997, Phillips & Soltis
1998).

For references in the above 3 sentences see [Hake (2002a)]

Heller (1999a) wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHH. . . .; my CAPS]":

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"THE FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE PEDAGOGICAL CONTEXT FOR THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE OF THE CHANGES TO THE INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS COURSE, those
that do not significantly change the course content and can be
incorporated within its traditional framework of lectures, recitation
sections, and laboratories.

Understanding the necessity of having a pedagogical context comes
from our experience. As productive physicists, we all operate in a
physics context, a theoretical framework based on data that evolves
toward a closer representation of reality. We need that framework to
evaluate the significance of past work and formulate future efforts.
WITHIN PHYSICS WE HAVE MANY EXAMPLES SHOWING THAT A THEORY NEED NOT
BE CORRECT TO BE FRUITFUL. IT IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY THAT WE
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND A THEORY IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE USEFUL IN
GUIDING OUR WORK. IT IS SEEMS REASONABLE THAT A SIMILAR MODUS
OPERANDI IS USEFUL, AND MAYBE NECESSARY, TO MAKE CONTINUOUS PROGRESS
IN OUR TEACHING . . . [cf. Redish (2004)]. . . As an introduction to
such a pedagogical context I will attempt a brief review of the
development of the traditional structure of the introductory physics
course and the RESEARCH BASED LEARNING THEORIES THAT UNDERLIE SOME OF
THE CURRENT REFORM EFFORTS.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I cannot resist mentioning that Heller's sound judgement is evidenced
by his recognition [almost unique among PER's] of "Socratic Dialogue
Inducing (SDI) Labs" [see e.g., Hake (1992, 2002b)].

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. 1992. "Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab."
Phys. Teach. 30: 546-552; updated version (4/27/98) online as ref. 23
at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by
clicking on http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/SocPed1.pdf (88 kB).

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>.

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. 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.

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and Society
(formerly 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. "Socratic Dialogue Inducing Laboratory Workshop,"
Proceedings of the UNESCO-ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec. 2002; also online
as ref. 28 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> or download directly by
clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-SDIb.pdf> (44 kB).

Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: student assessment/content knowledge," online
at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&D=0&O=A&P=18653>.
Post of 17 Mar 2004 21:44:34-0800 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Physhare, Phys-L, POD, & STLHE-L. Sent to Math-Teach on 18
Mar 2004.

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Re: Measuring Content Knowledge," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&O=D&P=16472>.
Post of 14 Mar 2004 16:29:47-0800 to ASSESS, Chemed-L, EvalTalk,
Physhare,
Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L.

Hake, R.R. 2004c. "Re: pre- post testing in assessment" online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408&L=aera-d&T=0&F=&S=&P=3354>.
Post of 19 Aug 2004 13:56:07-0700 to AERA-D, AERA-J, ASSESS, EdStat,
EvalTalk, PhysLnrR, & POD.

Heller, K.J. 1999a. "Introductory physics reform in the traditional
format: an intellectual framework," AIP Forum on Education
Newsletter, Summer: pp. 7-9; formerly online at
<http://webs.csu.edu/~bisb2/FEdnl/heller.htm>, now a linkrotted URL.

Heller, K.J. 1999b. "Reform in the Traditional Format," invited talk,
APS/AAPT Atlanta Meeting; online at
<http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Talks/talks.html> under
"Invited Talks," or download directly by clicking on
<http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Talks/Heller1.pdf> (842 kB).

Redish, E.F. 2004. "A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education
Research: Modeling Student Thinking," to be published in "The
Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, Course CLVI
(Italian Physical Society)"; online as 724 kB pdf at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/index.html>.

Savinainen A. 2004a. "PER for physics departments," PhysLrnR post of
22 Sep 2004 21:56:00+0200; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409&L=physlrnr&O=D&X=5E3F876D5ECD605F84&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=7753>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that PhysLrnR is one of the few
"closed" discussion lists for which one must subscribe to access its
archives. However, it takes only a few minutes to subscribe 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." 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!

Scriven, M. 2004. "Re: pre- post testing in assessment," AERA-D post
of 15 Sep 2004 19:27:14-0400; online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409&L=aera-d&T=0&F=&S=&P=1952>.