If you object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through
intra-disciplinary barriers, please hit "delete" now. And if you
respond to this long (19 kB) post, please don't hit the reply button
unless you prune the original message normally contained in your
reply down to a few lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire post
yet again on suffering list subscribers.
In his AP-Physics Post of 22 Jul 2005 09:35:20-0500 titled
"Interactive Engagement has many forms (was fads, facts ...), Wayne
Mullins wrote:
"Thanks to Paul L's [Lulai's] references I have been deep into
American Journal of Physics this week . . . . I have suspected as
David [Green] made in his last comment that many of the extremely
veteran teachers are really doing some of the innovative teaching
approaches without knowing what they are called. Heck, I am not
really too sure what 'Modeling' is. Adding to this confusion is R.
Hake's reply where he uses numbers on IE to defend the success of
modeling."
I'm curious to know which of my AP-Physics posts Wayne interprets as
using "numbers on IE to defend the success of modeling." I usually
use IE numbers only to defend the success of IE methods *generally.*
I fear that Wayne Mullins may not have gone deeply enough into the
American Journal of Physics (AJP) to find the paper [Hake (1998a)]
that first OPERATIONALLY DEFINED "Interactive Engagement" (IE)
courses 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."
"Given the above definition of IE courses, it is not at all
surprising that "extremely veteran teachers are really doing some of
the innovative teaching approaches without knowing what they are
called," or using the term "interactive engagement."
In Hake (1998a,b) I surveyed 48 courses that were using what I called
IE methods. The *most popular* (not necessarily the most effective)
IE methods followed by the number of IE courses in my survey using
those methods were (in order of popularity):
a. Collaborative Peer Instruction (CPI): 48 (all courses);
b. Microcomputer-Based Labs (MBL): 35;
c. Concept Tests: 20;
d. Modeling: 19;
e. Active Learning Problem Sets (ALPS) or Overview Case Studies (OCS): 17;
f. physics education-research based text or no text: 13;
g. Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: 9.
References for those methods, as well as many less popular methods,
can be found in Hake (1998a,b).
Today there are many more popular IE methods than just those listed
above. At the upcoming AAPT meeting, 6-10 August 2005, in Utah there
are workshops on a wide variety of IE methods - contrary to the
implication in Mitchell Johnson's AP-Physics post of 20 Jul 2005 that
only the Modeling Program offers a training ground.
For a recent view of physics education research (PER) and its future
that's much broader than the narrow Modeling/FCI view of many
AP-Physics list subscribers, see "The future of education research:
Intellectual challenges and practical concerns" [Heron & Meltzer
(2005)].
Unfortunately, many of the AP-Physics posters on the thread "fads and
facts: not easy to tell apart" seem to have the erroneous ideas that:
(a) "Modeling" is the ONLY reform physics teaching method worth
mentioning, and
(b) the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is the ONLY diagnostic test
[ignoring the many such tests listed at NCSU (2005) and FLAG (2005)]
being used in PER to show the (usually two-standard deviation)
superiority of reform methods over traditional methods.
If "a" and "b" were indeed the case, it is doubtful that the College
Board would be considering "big changes . . for AP Physics Exams" so
as to "bring the exams more in line with the ongoing PER reforms that
have greatly changed the teaching of introductory physics"
[Friedlander (2005)]. Such changes are especially noteworthy at
Harvard [Crouch & Mazur (2001)], North Carolina State University
[Beichner & Saul (2003)], and MIT [Dori & Belcher (2004)], none of
which - as far as I know - employ the ASU version of modeling.
Also on the thread "fads and facts: not easy tell apart" is the
gleeful immolation by some posters, especially Boris Korsunsky, of a
straw man: the normalized gain <g> on tests of the conceptual
understanding of mechanics is the only gauge of the success of an
introductory physics course.
No one that I know has ever been dumb enough to erect such a straw
man. In Section IV of Hake (2002b) I wrote [bracketed by lines
"HHHHHH. . . ":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
IV. DOES THE NORMALIZED GAIN TELL ALL?
Does the class average normalized gain <g> for the FCI, MD, or FMCE
provide a definitive assessment of the OVERALL effectiveness of an
introductory physics class? NO!
It assesses "only the attainment of a MINIMAL conceptual
understanding of mechanics. In some first-semester or first quarter
introductory physics courses, subjects other than mechanics are often
covered. The effectiveness of the course in promoting student
understanding of those topics would not, of course, be assessed by
the normalized gain on the FCI, MD, or FMCE.
Furthermore, as indicated in Hake (1998b), among desirable outcomes
of the introductory course that <g> DOES NOT measure directly are
students':
(a) satisfaction with and interest in physics;
(b) understanding of the nature, methods, and limitations of science;
(c) understanding of the processes of scientific inquiry such as experimental
design, control of variables dimensional analysis, order-of-magnitude
estimation, thought experiments, hypothetical reasoning, graphing, and error
analysis;
(d) ability to articulate their knowledge and learning processes;
(e) ability to collaborate and work in groups;
(f) communication skills;
(g) ability to solve real-world problems;
(h) understanding of the history of science and the relationship of science to
society and other disciplines;
(i) understanding of, or at least appreciation for, "modern" physics;
(j) ability to participate in authentic research.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
BTW, for surveying AJP for physics education research (PER) papers, I
recommend these online sources:
(a) "Resource letter on physics education research" [McDermott & Redish (1999)]
They give references to and annotations for papers published since 1972;
(b) David Meltzer's (2005) "Ongoing Project #3". David lists AJP PER
papers with hot links to to their abstracts.
REFERENCES
Beichner, R.J & J.M. Saul. 2003. "Introduction to the SCALE-UP
(Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate
Programs) Project," submitted to the Proceedings of the International
School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Varenna, Italy, (July 2003) online
at
<http://www.ncsu.edu/per/Articles/Varenna_SCALEUP_Paper.pdf> (1MB).
Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction: Ten years of
experience and results," Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at
<http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/library.php>, search "All Education
Areas" for author "Crouch" (without the quotes).
Dori, Y.J. & J. Belcher, J. 2004. "How Does Technology-Enabled Active
Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of
Electromagnetism Concepts?" To appear in The Journal of the Learning
Sciences 14(2), online at
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/TEAL_Dori&Belcher_JLS_10_01_2004.pdf>
(1 MB).
FLAG. 2005. "Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide; online at
<http://www.flaguide.org/>: ". . . offers broadly applicable,
self-contained modular classroom assessment techniques (CAT's) and
discipline-specific tools for STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics] instructors interested in new approaches to
evaluating student learning, attitudes and performance. Each has been
developed, tested, and refined in real colleges and universities
classrooms." Assessment tools for physics and astronomy (and other
disciplines) are at <http://www.flaguide.org/tools/tools.php>.
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>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB). 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. More recently, average 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 (2002a,b). See also
Hake (1998b).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB). Submitted
on 6/19/98 to the Physics Education Research Supplement (PERS) to Am.
J. Phys. but rejected by its editor on the grounds that the very
transparent Physical Review-type data tables were too complex! This
paper is a crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).
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 online "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with
about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.