[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: "Effective" teaching methods

[John M Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

You are describing the classic Hawthorne experiment.  However, the
data from that experiment was lost, and only the summary report
remained.  There is now a great deal of doubt that the experiment was
correctly done.  I think that one needs to actually find the paper and
the data on which this assertion is based.  The original Hawthorne
experiment supposedly used variations in lighting.

As far as change goes, there is no evidence that just changing the
classroom routine improves test scores, but there is ample evidence
that the interactive engagement techniques produce a dramatic
improvement.  There have been implementations of techniques that have
resulted in improved test scores over a long period of time, but
usually what happens is that teachers move on, or teach a different
course, and the reforms are thrown out because the new instructors do
not understand or believe them.  However, once there is a critical
number of instructors who can form an ongoing group to maintain the
reform it can be sustained.

This has happened in other fields such as law, and it could happen in
science.  One of the big differences between the current effort and
previous efforts is that there is now hard evidence based on
evaluations and this has been done at a number of sites.  Also the
evidence shows very large gains.  Some of the previous reforms such as
just aligning math and physics have shown gains, but they have been
modest compared to the large effects demonstrated by FCI/FMCE testing.

As a result there is some hope that permanent improvement can be
achieved by changing the teaching methods.  Change is hard, but it
does happen when people change their paradigms.  This would be
essentially a scientific revolution in education if it happens.
 Remember that medical doctors at one time did not believe that
cleanliness improved outcomes, despite clear evidence that cleanliness
dramatically decreased the death rate during childbirth.  A number of
people made this connection including  including  a physician
Semmelweis and our own Oliver Wendall Holmes, but nobody paid any
attention.  Semmelweis even demonstrated in the hospital that
cleanliness worked.  It finally took the germ theory and even more
dramatic results using carbolic acid to convince physicians.  But even
then some persisted in disbelieving it and continued to wear their
prestigious blood stained coats.

Then there was Boltzmann who committed suicide before his theories
could become the standard dogma.  Of course one can always go back to
the atomic theory which appeared at various times, but was never
widely accepted until there was more evidence...

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:12:44 -0600
  "Frohne, Vickie" <VFrohne@BEN.EDU> wrote:
> A colleague of mine is a former industrial physicist.  He told me of
> a study in which a firm was trying to influence employee's
> productivity.  For example, they found that playing music  improved
> productivity. Turning off the music a month later also improved
> productivity.   They tried changing the color of the walls, and I
> don't know what else. The final analysis: It was change itself that
> improved productivity, not the specific nature of the changes.  IMHO,
> teaching fads are sort of like that.  Teachers get bored, especially
> if they're cycling through the same material year after year.
> Students get bored, too. Change perks up everybody.
>
> As for "miracle" cures in education, teaching syles are a personal
> as shoes. A good teacher adopts or adapts various methodologies
> according to what fits him or her, and tries new things from time to
> time to keep his or her teaching fresh. ANY technique might work well
> for one instructor and not another.  This is often forgotten by the
> purveyors of the "miracle" cures.
>
> Vickie Frohne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forum for Physics Educators on behalf of Herbert H Gottlieb
> Sent: Mon 11/15/2004 9:00 PM
> To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
> Subject: "Effective" teaching methods
>
> High-school teacher Michael Horton (2004) asked:
> " Does anybody have a source of lists of teaching methods
> that research has shown to be effective?
>
> Herb Gottlieb replies:
>
> 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" methods 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