[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: Will NCLB Promote Direct Instruction of Science?

[rlamont <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

Herb,

In my experience, the cycle seemed shorter - maybe about 10 years total. For
the most part, what I've seen in the first part of the cycle agrees with
what you've stated. However, in the second part I've noticed a gradual
creeping in of the traditional lecture approach to augment the "new and
improved" method. Despite all of its flaws, the students seem to need and
want some type of formal presentation. In the last part of the cycle, almost
everyone I've worked with has reverted to the "old" approach of lecture and
review of homework or sample problems.

The old "Keller Plan" that was very popular a while back was a revolt
against the rigid pace of the traditional lecture format - it stressed
students progressing at individual rates through blocks of material. Papers
on the Keller Plan died out from the literature in about 4-5 years. No one
came up with a "new" plan that specifically replaced the Keller Plan.
Instead, instructors gradually brought back the traditional uniform syllabus
that gave students a specific timetable - mainly because students feel more
comfortable with specific guidelines.

The "Peer Group" approach went through a similar cycle (at least at the
institutions where I have worked). Again, after the initial 5 years or so,
no one wrote papers denouncing the peer approach - there was just a gradual
drift back to lectures - first with one formal lecture per week to
supplement the peer meeting - then two - then eventually back to the
standard lecture format. Much of the pressure to do this was from
disgruntled students who wanted everyone to be presented with the same
material on a uniform schedule.

To summarize, I haven't experience one method replacing another. What I've
seen are repeated attempts to replace traditional lecture that have all died
a quiet death. Each new method has always used the lecture as its straw man,
not the previous "new" idea.

Bob at PC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Herbert H Gottlieb
>
> Having gone through a great deal of the "educational literature" during
> the
> past 60 years I am convinced that every new (or rediscovered) teaching
> method
> goes through a similar 15 year cycle.
>
> During the first five years
>     The "new" or the "rediscovered" teaching method is shown to
> significantly
> inprove learning when compared with other methods currently in practice.
> As
> the word spreads and teachers try the new method for the first time, they
> are
> astounded that it is so much better than any of the "traditional" method
> that
> they had been using.
>
> During the second five years
>     More and more teachers abandon their outworn "traditional" methods of
> teaching,
> try the new method and fill the "education journals" with their success
> stories
> and statistics showing conclusively that the new method is really
> superior to
> anything that they have ever tried before.
>
> During the third five years
>     Less and less articles acclaiming the new method are published. In
> fact,
> there are almost no articles at all are found during the last year or two
> of this interval.  Meanwhile another new or rediscovered teaching method
> is introduced and it starts its own 15 year cycle to oblivion.
>
> Any comments ???
>
> Herb Gottlieb from New York City
> (Where we have been there, tried it, and are already starting on our next
> 15 year cycle)
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l