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

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

There are currently two pieces of research which reveal this.  The first was
reported by me at some AAPT meetings and has been published by another
groupt.  Essentially the score on Lawson's test of scientific thinking
skills is a fairly strong predictor of FCI/FMCE gain.  Actually it only
predicts the maximum gain according to my data.

A talk given by Ron Thornton at the Rochester AAPT meeting detailed how
observed student interactions were also a strong predictor.  Essentially
students who showed that they were not thinking deeply gained less.  This
was measured by the quality of questions they asked.  Factual questions got
a low score, but questions such as asking how you knew were given a high
score.  The number of questions, or the number of bad responses were not a
good indicator of high gain.

If the two results were combined with the style of course it might be
possible to foretell very accurately which students would benefit.  Now the
big problem is how to raise student thinking as measured by the Lawson test,
and worse yet how to raise student attitudes toward learning.  The latter
seems to be affected by the type of course with studio courses having a
positive effect and conventional courses a negative effect.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> To have better human procreation a scientific theory of it is needed.
>
> We know that teaching promoting students' "interactive engagement" is
> better for students' conceptual learning than "traditional teaching".
> Nevertheless, we cann't fortell for which particular student it works and
> why for this one yes and for the other not.
> Unless we start to look closely to the complex process of physics
> learning, we will be unable to rise actual efficacy of "interactive
> engagement".
>
> Best wishes
> Josip