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: [Phys-l] active learning needs a theory



His survey does not have any information about the length of time spent on a
particular topic, as I recall. And of course there are other sources of
evidence besides his survey. Actually I think you will find that extra time
spent in a traditional manner really does little to improve the gain.

So what are the other factors which are problematic?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


[Original Message]
From: John Clement <clement@hal-pc.org>

Unfortunately a theory will not promote it. We have huge amounts of
data
that show that it gives better results. Hake's 6000 student survey is
overwhelming evidence in support of it, and yet this evidence is
ignored.

I can also interpret this survey as saying that students who spend 3-6
weeks on Newton's Laws will score better on a Newton's Law test than
students who spend about one week on them (typical traditional
curriculum).
I've never been terribly impressed by this--thus it is NOT, IMO,
overwhelming evidence. There are other factors/problems with the survey,
but I'll let it stand that it doesn't say to me what it seems to say to
you.

Rick {Who can get good normalized gains on the FCI by focussing more
attention on the conceptual understanding of Newton's Laws without overt
'interactive techniques', but who also doesn't know anyone who does
'traditional lecture' anymore either. -- Classification of courses is one
of the problems I have with the survey above.}