| 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] |
Those who dislike long posts (19 kB) or academic references, or have
no interest in Dewey-like Pedagogy, are urged to hit the DELETE
button. And if you reply please don't hit the reply button unless you
prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a
few relevant lines, OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE POST MAY BE NEEDLESSLY
RESENT TO SUBSCRIBERS.
In response to my post "Re: Piaget & Dewey: Down for the Count? -
FORWARD from Kieran Egan" of 28 Oct 2005 [Hake (2005)], Jack Uretsky
(2005) wrote [bracketed by lines "UUUUUUUUUU. . . ."]:
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Dick Hake says, in part,
"If Dewey was and is WRONG, why is Dewey-like pedagogy so seemingly
successful in introductory physics education?"
What is the evidence that Dewey-like pedagogy is "seemingly
successful in introductory physics education."
Please make your evidence, if any, substantive, rather than a reading
assignment such as "if you would only read . . .".
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Modesty forbids my mentioning one piece of substantive evidence of
the many provided by physics-education researchers - see the recent
review by Heron & Meltzer (2005).
That's my own survey "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods:
A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses" [ignored by McCray et al. (2002) :-(]. The abstract
reads [bracketed by lines "HHHHHH. . . ":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
A survey of pre/post test data using the Halloun-Hestenes Mechanics
Diagnostic test or more recent Force Concept Inventory is reported
for 62 introductory physics courses enrolling a total number of
students N = 6542. A consistent analysis over diverse student
populations in high schools, colleges, and universities is obtained
if a rough measure of the average effectiveness of a course in
promoting conceptual understanding is taken to be the average
normalized gain <g>. The latter is defined as the ratio of the actual
average gain (%<post> - %<pre>) to the maximum possible average gain
(100 - %<pre>). 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 ± 0.04 (std dev). In sharp contrast,
forty-eight courses (N = 4458) which made substantial use of IE
methods achieved an average gain <g>IE-ave = 0.48 ± 0.14 (std dev),
almost two standard deviations of <g>IE-ave above that of the
traditional courses. . . .[see Bloom (1984)]. . . Results for 30 (N =
3259) of the above 62 courses on the problem-solving Mechanics
Baseline test of Hestenes-Wells imply that IE strategies enhance
problem-solving ability. The conceptual and problem-solving test
results strongly suggest that the classroom use of IE methods can
increase mechanics-course effectiveness well beyond that obtained in
traditional practice.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Here: (a) "Interactive-Engagement" (IE) courses are operationally
defined [even despite the anti-positivist vigilantes (Phillips
(2000)] 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;
(b) "Traditional" 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, and
algorithmic problem exams.
But why associate IE methods with Dewey? IMHO, the best justification
is provided by Ted Ansbacher's (2000) masterpiece "An interview with
John Dewey on science education." Ted's thoughtful and
well-researched treatment shows the consonance of Dewey's educational
ideas [as quoted straight from Dewey's own writings, not from the
accounts of sometimes confused Dewey interpreters], with the idea
that conceptual understanding can be promoted 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."
For a more detailed treatment of the results of Hake (1998a,b),
including statistical analysis in terms of the Cohen effect size "d,"
and the widely misunderstood t-tests and p values associated with
null-hypothesis testing, see "Lessons from the physics education
reform effort" [Hake (2002a)].
It is important to note that the above results [Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b,c)]:
(a) show that interactive engagement IE methods CAN (if properly
implemented) result in much higher normalized gains than traditional
T methods, and
(b) have been extensively corroborated.
As indicated in Hake (2002a) [SEE THAT ARTICLE FOR THE REFERENCES]:
". . . FCI normalized gain results for IE and T courses that are
consistent with those of (Hake 1998a,b,c) have now been obtained by
physics-education research (PER) groups at the Univ. of Maryland
(Redish et al. 1997, Saul 1998, Redish & Steinberg 1999, Redish
1999); Univ. of Montana (Francis et al. 1998); Rennselaer and Tufts
(Cummings et al. 1999); North Carolina State Univ. (Beichner et al.
1999); and Hogskolan Dalarna - Sweden (Bernhard 1999); and Carnegie
Mellon Univ. (Johnson 2001)."
Among the recent additions to the above list are: Crouch & Mazur
(2002), Savinainen & Scott (2002a,b), Savinainen (2004), Beichner &
Saul (2003), Cheng et al. (2004), and Hoellwarth et al. (2005).
Despite the above mountain of evidence for the superiority of
Deweyesk interactive-engagement over traditional methods of
introductory physics instruction, hard-core doubters remain - even on
the AP-Physics, Physhare, and Phys-L discussion lists! In "Lessons
from the physics education reform effort" [Hake (2002a)], I wrote
[SEE THAT ARTICLE FOR THE REFERENCES] :
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Lesson #8 [is]:
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACULTY TEND TO OVERESTIMATE THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THEIR OWN INSTRUCTIONAL EFFORTS AND THUS TEND TO SEE LITTLE NEED
FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM.
As examples of this tendency see Geilker (1997) [countered by Hilborn
(1998)]; Griffiths (1997) [countered by Hestenes (1998)]; Goldman
(1998); Mottman (1999a,b) [countered by Kolitch (1999), Steinberg
(1999), and Hilborn (1999)]; and Carr (2000).
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
More recently, among faculty upholding traditional teaching methods
come hell or high water are: Lamoreaux (2001) countered by Stith et
al. 2002; Ehrlich (2002) countered by Hake (2002b); and Roos (2002)].
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>
"An important scientific innovation. . .[IMO, "unorthodox idea" could
be substituted for "scientific innovation"] . . . rarely makes its
way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely
happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its
opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is
familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of
the fact that the future lies with the young."
-- Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics [1936]
REFERENCES are in PART 2