If you reply to this long (20 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.
********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Interactive Lecture at U.
Maryland," in which I implied the superiority of "Interactive
Engagement" methods of instruction, a Phys-L subscriber asked me if I
wished to comment on the seemingly contradictory claim of Wyss, Tai,
and Sadler that students' achievement in introductory college science
courses shows differences due to high-school pedagogy only when
high-school class sizes fall to 10 or fewer students. If Wyss et al.
measured achievement by course grades, and if introductory college
science courses are all like traditional physics introductory college
courses, then the claim of Wyss et al. is equivalent to the
assertion that class sizes of 10 or less are necessary before certain
pedagogical approaches can be effective in enhancing the capabilities
that determine student grades in most current college science
courses: rote-memorization, recipe following, and
algorithmic-problem-solving. But such a claim is irrelevant to the
voluminous research demonstrating an approximate two-standard
deviation superiority in average normalized gains <g> in conceptual
understanding for "Interactive Engagement" (IE) over "Traditional"
(T) pedagogy in high school and college courses, regardless of class
size.
********************************************
In response to my post "Interactive Lecture at U. Maryland" [Hake
(2007a)], Bob Carlson (2007) of Phys-L wrote [my insert at ". . . .
.[insert]. . . . . ."]
"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". . . . [as quoted from the abstract of
Wyss, Tai, and Sadler (2007) contained in the post by Patricia Viele
(2007)]. "
Thanks to Bob Carlson and Pat Viele for bringing the article by Wyss
et al. (2007) to my attention. The abstract of Wyss, Tai, and Sadler
is [bracketed by lines "WTS-WTS-WTS-. . . ."; my CAPS]
WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS
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.
WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS-WTS
Without knowing how Wyss et al. measured "achievement in introductory
college science courses," it's difficult to comment on their
statement that the influence of high-school class size on students'
achievement in introductory college science courses "show[s] no
differences for pedagogy and student achievement until class sizes
fall to 10 or fewer students."
But judging from previous work [Sadler & Tai (1997, 2001, 2007)],
Wyss et al. may have used *course grades* in Introductory College
Science Courses (ICSC's) as measures of "achievement." The problem
here is that, if one assumes that all ICSC's are similar to
traditional physics introductory courses, then course grades depend
primarily on students' abilities in rote-memorization, recipe
following, and algorithmic-problem-solving. Hence it could be argued
that Wyss et al. have shown (assuming the accuracy of student
assessments of teacher practices) that class sizes of 10 or less are
necessary before certain pedagogical approaches can be effective in
enhancing those LOWER-LEVEL capabilities.
But what are the effects of class size and pedagogy on students'
HIGHER-LEVEL learning? Pardon me, while I yet again jump to my
well-worn soapbox.
As I keep arguing [Hake (2005a; 2006a,b; 2007b,c,d,e] to deaf ears,
the best way to investigate that question is by DIRECT pre/post
testing using valid and consistently reliable tests devised by
disciplinary experts. [Not INDIRECT measures such as Student
Evaluations of Teaching, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol
(RTOP), National Survey Of Student Engagement (NSSE), Student
Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG), and Knowledge Surveys (KS's)
(Nuhfer & Knipp 2003) - for a discussion and references for all but
the last see Hake (2005b).]
Such pre/post testing research [Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b)] for courses
in Newtonian mechanics using the Mechanics Diagnostic test [Halloun &
Hestenes (1985a,b), or its successor the Force Concept Inventory
[Hestenes et al. (1992)], has shown about a two-standard deviation
superiority in average normalized gains <g> for "Interactive
Engagement" (IE) over "Traditional" (T) secondary and post-secondary
courses, regardless of class size.
Average normalized gain differences between T and IE courses that are
consistent with the work of Hake (1998a, 1998b, 2002a, 2002b) have
been reported by, e.g., Redish, Saul, & Steinberg (1997); Saul
(1998); Adams & Noonan (1998); Heller (1999); Redish & Steinberg
(1999); Redish (1999); Beichner et al. (1999); Cummings, Marx,
Thornton, & Kuhl (1999); Novak, Patterson, Gavrin, & Christian
(1999); Bernhard (2000); Crouch & Mazur (2001); Johnson (2001);
Meltzer (2002a, 2002b); Meltzer & Manivannan (2002); Savinainen &
Scott (2002a, 2002b); Steinberg & Donnelly (2002); Fagan, Crouch, &
Mazur (2002); Van Domelen & Van Heuvelen (2002), Belcher (2003); Dori
& Belcher (2004); Hoellwarth, Moelter, & Knight (2005); Lorenzo,
Crouch, & Mazur (2006); & Rosenberg, Lorenzo, & Mazur (2006) - for
the references see Hake (2007e).
For a recent discussions that focuses on class size see e.g., Hake
(2007f), Hattie (2005), Kim (2007), Loveless & Hess (2006/2007),
and. It should be apparent that for undergraduate science education,
any study of the influence of class size on student learning would
need to take into account the vast difference in the effectiveness of
IE and T courses.
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(1): 64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB) - a crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and
Society (formerly Conservation Ecology) is a free online
"peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental policy
research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods,"
Proceedings of the UNESCO ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec.; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84
kB). [UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization; ASPEN = ASian Physics Education Network.]
Hake, R. R. 2005a. "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible
Model for Higher
Education?" online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/NTLF42.pdf> (100 kB). This is a
slightly edited version of an article that was (a) published in the
National Teaching and Learning Forum 15(1), December, online to
subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n1/physics.htm>, and (b)
disseminated by the
Tomorrow's Professor list
<http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html> as Msg. 698 on 14
Feb 2006. For an executive summary see Hake (2006a).
Hake, R.R. 2006a. "A Possible Model For Higher Education: The Physics
Reform Effort (Author's Executive Summary)," Spark (American
Astronomical Society Newsletter), June, online at
<http://www.aas.org/education/spark/SparkJune06.pdf> (1.9MB). Scroll
down about 4/5 of the way to the end of the newsletter.
Hake, R.R. 2006b. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post
Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's," Journal of MultiDisciplinary
Evaluation, Number 6, November, online at
<http://evaluation.wmich.edu/jmde/JMDE_Num006.html>. [PEP -
Psychologist, Education Specialist, Psychometrician]. This even
despite the admirable anti-alliteration advice at psychologist Donald
Zimmerman's site <http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/> to "Always
assiduously and attentively avoid awful, awkward, atrocious,
appalling, artificial, affected alliteration."
Hake, R.R. 2007c. "Can Scientific Research Enhance the Art of
Teaching?" invited talk, AAPT Greensboro meeting, 31 July, online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Sci&Art3.pdf> (1.2 MB), or as
ref. 50 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>. See esp. Sect. V.
"University Leaders Bemoan the Inertia of Higher Education: Why Is It
So Slow To Recognize the Value of Interactive Engagement Methods in
Promoting Higher-Level Learning?"
Hake, R.R. 2007d. "Six Lessons From the Physics Education Reform
Effort," Latin American Journal of Physics Education 1(1), September;
online at <http://journal.lapen.org.mx/sep07/HAKE%20Final.pdf> (124
kB).
Hake, R.R. 2007e. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB), or
as ref. 45 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>; in A.E. Kelly,
R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek (in press), "Handbook of Design Research
Methods in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education," Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hake, R.R. 2007f. "Re: Research on Undergraduate Class Size," online
at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0709&L=pod&P=R4726&I=-3>.
Post of 6 Sep 2007 13:12:49-0700 to AERA-K, AERA-J, AERA-L, POD,
PhysLrnR, & RUME.
Hattie, J. 2005. "The paradox of reducing class size and improving
learning outcomes," International Journal of Educational Research
43(6): 387-425; online at <http://tinyurl.com/y7bzl6> (free to
subscribers and $30 to non-subscribers). An excellent review of
class-size investigations for K-12. Hattie tells me that he is
attempting to place this paper on his website
<http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/staff/j.hattie/>.'
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53: 1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test, precursor to the "Force Concept Inventory"
[Hestenes et al. (1992)].
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory," Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158, March; online (except for
the test itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The
1995 revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes is online (password
protected) at the same URL, and is currently available in 14
languages: Chinese, Czech, English, Finnish, German, Greek, Italian,
Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, & Turkish.
Kim, J.S. 2006. "The Influence of Class Size Research on State and
Local Education Policy," Brookings Papers on Education Policy
Conference, May 22-23, Draft Copy, online at
<http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/bpepconference/Kim_Paper.pdf> (392
kB).
Loveless, T. & F.M. Hess. 2006/2007. "What Do We Know about School
Size and Class Size?" Brookings Papers on Education Policy:
2006/2007; online at <http://tinyurl.com/2t3tld> (72 kB).