If you reply to this long (10 kB) post 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 already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
Two additions to my previous post "Bob Boice Review [Hake (2007a)]":
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. I note that Alan Altany's free online "Mountain Rise"
<http://mountainrise.wcu.edu/>, in its first issue
<http://mountainrise.wcu.edu/vol1no1.html> contains a laudatory
review by Irene Mueller (2003) of Robert Boice's (2000) "Advice of
New Faculty Members."
Mueller wrote [bracketed by lines "MMMMMM. . . . ."; my insert at ".
. . .[insert]. . . ."]:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
His research at comprehensive and research universities has
identified "quick starters" - the exemplary 3-5% of new faculty
members who "begin with ease and acceptance" and "worked without
rushing and busyness" (pp. 11-12). They personify the principles of
"nihil nimus" (nothing in excess) for novice faculty. Boice's study
of quick and poor starters among new faculty members is the basis of
the advice and the 10 "nihil nimus"rules he provides in this book,
which is organized into three sections - Teaching, Writing, and
Socialization. . . . [these rules are included in Hake (2007a)]. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If you are interested in research-based, tested, and useful
guidelines and suggestions on HOW to become more efficient, more
effective, and less stressed in your faculty position, I strongly
recommend this book's rules and advice.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. In her POD Post "Research and Practice (Bob Boice) [LONG],"
Rachelle Thibodeau (2002b) wrote [bracketed by lines "TTTTTTTT. . . .
."; my CAPS]:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Here is a more extended summary of Boice's (1997) position as I read it:
According to Boice, FACULTY DEVELOPERS SHOULD IDEALLY BE
RESEARCH-PRACTITIONERS WHOSE INTERVENTIONS ARE BASED ON
HIGHER-EDUCATION RESEARCH FINDINGS, THEN EVALUATED AND REPORTED ON IN
THE LITERATURE. However, Boice believes that faculty developers have
an "aversion" to measuring the outcomes of their instructional
interventions to see whether they have actually had a positive impact
on the quality of teaching and learning . . . .
He also complains that when faculty developers do measure their
interventions, they TOO OFTEN RELY ON SUPERFICIAL MEASURES SUCH AS
FACULTY SATISFACTION WITH THE PROGRAM OR PARTICIPANTS' CHANGED
ATTITUDES RATHER THAN CHANGED TEACHING BEHAVIOR OR LEARNING OUTCOMES
FOR STUDENTS. Boice cites multiple cases to support his view that the
majority of publications by and for faculty developers are
anti-empirical in stance, favouring reports of informal, unevaluated,
short-term interventions. . . . . . . .
THE RESULT OF THIS ATTITUDE IS THAT FACULTY-DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
ARE TYPICALLY DESIGNED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF
WHAT WORKS. . . To make matters worse, higher-education researchers
(as opposed to faculty developers) simply do not conduct or publish
studies of instructional-improvement interventions, preferring to
focus on pure rather than applied research.
WITHOUT HIGH QUALITY EVALUATION OF THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL INTERVENTIONS,
FACULTY DEVELOPERS, ARE UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN OR PROVE THE BENEFITS OF
THEIR INTERVENTIONS to either the faculty who would benefit from them
or to the institutions that would support them." (My CAPS.)
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
As indicated in Hake (2005, 2006, 2007b,c), I am in complete
agreement with Boice.
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>
". . .the important distinction. . .[between, e.g., education and
physics]. . . is really not between the hard and the soft sciences.
Rather, it is between the hard and the easy sciences."
David Berliner (2002)
REFERENCES
Berliner, D. 2002. "Educational research: The hardest science of
all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online at
<http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=438>.
Boice, R. 1997. "What discourages research-practitioners in faculty
development." In J. C. Smart. ed, "Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research" (Vol. XII, pp. 371-435). New York: Agathon Press
(see at <http://www.agathonpress.com/hbk1to14.htm> where it is stated
that a free abstract of this paper may be obtained).
Boice, R. 2000. "Advice for New Faculty Members: Nihil Nimus." Allyn
& Bacon. Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/ywv9gr>. Note
the "Look inside this book" feature.
Hake, R.R. 2006. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post
Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's" [PEP's = Psychometricians,
Education specialists, and Psychologists], Journal of
MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Number 6, November, online at
<http://evaluation.wmich.edu/jmde/JMDE_Num006.html>.
Hake, R.R. 2007b. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online as ref. 43
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To appear as a chapter in
"Evaluation of Teaching and Student Learning in Higher Education," a
Monograph of the American Evaluation Association
<http://www.eval.org/>. A severely truncated version appears at Hake
(2006).
Hake, R.R. 2007c. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in Kelly & Lesh (2007).
Kelly, A.E. & R.A. Lesh, eds. 2007. "Handbook: Design-Based Research
in Education, " in press. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.