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

["Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

> [Original Message]
> From: John Clement <clement@hal-pc.org>
> 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?
I won't bother to respond to a certain arrogant, egocentric, and downright
nasty cross-poster--I usually have him on my kill list, but I will respond
to the above.  

The real problem  is that I believe that most of the interactive courses in
the survey were (at this time in the PER process) being designed
specifically to address problems with the tests that were used as
diagnostic tools.  That is, in many ways, these courses were  'teaching to
the test' in the extreme.  Now maybe some of the 'traditional' courses were
'teaching to the test' as well, but if we look at the typical 'traditional'
course of 10-15 years ago, (or just look at most text books still today),
Newton's laws are at most a one week topic.  In using the FCI (Force
Concept Inventory) as one of the major diagnostic tools here, one needs a
very strong conceptual understanding of Newton to do well, and I would
never suppose that a total of one week's work on Newton's Laws would
suffice (my previous note being specific to Newton's Laws and the FCI). 
Jack U. has also waded in on this, and I concur.  The survey IS highly
suggestive that interactive techniques are more useful here than
traditional lecture courses, but as I also stated before, I don't know
anyone still teaching in that 'pure' older style--thus I see much of this
harping about 'lecture' as 'straw man' arguments.  The draft of the survey
I read (yes I can read, or at least I used to be able), back at the AAPT
meeting at Notre Dame, had some questionable course assignments as well
(between interactive and traditional)-but maybe that got sorted out.  So
'overwhelming' evidence it is not, to me.

> His survey does not have any information about the length of time spent
on a
> particular topic, as I recall. 

Watch out John, this implies you can't read either, so you may be in line
for his ridicule!  ;-)

Rick