Re: [Phys-l] Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland (was Article aboutinteractive lecture. . . . )

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

The article in question is not posted on the web, so one needs to read it to
see exactly what was measured.  But...
a.  The pedagogy was judged by a student survey
b.  The result was the grade in a presumable traditional course.

Interactive engagement is still a small fraction of currently used HS
pedagogy, so such a survey is unlikely to be able to measure it.  One can
only measure superficial aspects of a course by such a means.  Students can
only really report aspects such as the fraction of labs, the coverage of the
book...  I might be proven wrong after I look at the survey.

A more meaningful measurement might be to assess the HS courses using the
FCI/FMCE, and then see how the students do in
a.  a traditional course
b.  an interactive engagement course.

Sadler also calls into question the effectiveness of physics first.  I would
agree with this if the physics first is taught by traditional means.  Again,
most physics first courses are probably taught traditionally, so they are no
more effective than the current IPC courses.  I would also agree that the
linkage between physics, chem., and bio are not as strong as has been
proposed.

Sadler has shown in a separate study that more depth and less coverage in HS
improves results in a traditional college course, which is exactly what PER
shows on the FCI/FMCE.  He also shows a strong linkage between HS math and a
subsequent traditional physics course, but a weaker linkage with a
traditional HS physics course.  Unfortunately, HS math is often taught with
such low understanding, that students can not use it.  So both HS math and
science need radical reforms in what and how it is taught.

As to the class size issue, most physics courses tend to have about the same
class size, except for exceptional schools.  Traditional pedagogy should
work equally as well or as poorly in large or small classes.  Some forms of
interactive engagement needs interaction with a trained instructor.  The
lecture form will probably not work as well in HS.

I am currently trying to get a copy of the article.  So far I have only come
up with popularized accounts of it, which are at best marginally useful in
judging what was actually measured.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Perhaps Richard would like to comment on "Results show
> no differences for pedagogy and student achievement
> until class sizes fall to 10 or fewer students",
> posted
> by Patricia T. Viele below to phys-l under the Class
> Size subject heading.
>
> Bob Carlson
>
> Title: High School Class-Size and College Performance
> in Science
> Authors: Wyss, Vanessa L.; Tai, Robert H.; Sadler,
> Philip M.
> Descriptors: Physics; College Science; Multiple
> Regression Analysis;
> Academic Achievement; Class Size; High Schools;
> Student Experience;
> Biology; Chemistry; Teaching Methods; Racial
> Differences
> Source: High School Journal, v90 n3 p45-53 Feb-Mar
> 2007
>
> > This paper focuses on the influence of high school
> science class size
>
> > on students' achievement in introductory college
> science courses and
> > on the variation of teacher practice across class
> size. Surveys
> > collected information about high school science
> class experiences
>  from
> > 2754 biology, 3521 chemistry, and 1903 physics
> students across 36
> > public and 19 private institutions from 31 different
> states. The
>  first
> > analysis includes a cross-tabulation of 6 different
> class sizes and
> > the frequencies of teacher practices reported by
> students. The second
>
> > analysis includes a multiple linear regression of
> class size and
> > student achievement. Results show no differences for
> pedagogy and
> > student achievement until class sizes fall to 10 or
> fewer students.
> > These findings suggest that incremental reductions
> in class size are
> > likely not to have a significant impact on later
> student achievement.
>
> > (Contains 1 figure, 1 table, and 5 footnotes.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l