Re: [Phys-l] active learning needs a theory

[Richard Hake <rrhake@earthlink.net>]

Rick Tarara, in his Phys-L post of 2 Jun 2006 17:39:55-0400 titled
"Re: active learning needs a theory" wrote [bracketed by lines
"TTTTTTT. . . . .":

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
>  [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 [Hake (1998a,b)} 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 [survey] -- 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.
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Tarara thus continues shoveling out his blatantly uninformed nonsense
on physics education research generally and my articles [Hake
(1998a,b)] in particular.

I realize that reading is out of style, but if Tarara would take the
time to at least scan Hake (1998a) he would find the following
[bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHH. . . .":

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
V. ERRORS IN THE NORMALIZED GAIN
A. Statistical Fluctuations ("Random Errors")
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Systematic Error
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Fraction of Course Time Spent on Mechanics
Comparisons can be made for Traditional (T) and IE (Interactive
Engagement) courses within the same institution where the fraction f
= tm/ts of class time tm spent on mechanics (including energy and
momentum conservation) to the total semester (or semester-equivalent)
time ts is about the same:

Arizona State (f = 0.8): <<g>>IE2 - <<g>>T3 = 0.47 - 0.24 = 0.23;

Cal Poly (f =1.0): <<g>>IE3 - <<g>>T1 = 0.56 - 0.25 = 0.31;

Harvard (f = 0.6): <<g>>IE4 - <<g>>T1 = 0.56 - 0.27 = 0.29;

Monroe Com. Coll. (MCC), non-calc. (f = 0.8):
     <<g>>IE4 - <<g>>T1 = 0.55 - 0.22 = 0.33;

MCC, calculus (f = 1.0): <<g>>IE4 - <<g>>T1 = 0.47 - 0.22 = 0.25; and

Ohio State (f = 0.7): <<g>>IE1 - <<g>>T1 = 0.42 - 0.18 = 0.24.

Thus a substantial difference <<g>>IE - <<g>>T is maintained where
the time factor is equal.

That the gain difference is not very sensitive to the fraction of the
course time spent on mechanics over the range common in introductory
courses can also be seen from the fact that the differences quoted
above are rather similar to

(a) one another despite the differences in f, and

(b) the difference <<g>>IE48 - <<g>>T14 = 0.25 which characterizes
the entire survey, despite the fact that f varies among the survey
courses. Questionnaire responses covering 22 of the survey courses
indicated that f ranged from 0.7 to 1.0 with an average of 0.9 ±
0.1sd .
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

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>


REFERENCES
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).

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) -   a
crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).