If you reply to this long (17 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: John Belcher, in a PhysLrnR wrote (slightly edited): "I am
on a panel discussion on 'Building Research into the Curriculum:
Effective Introductory Lab Courses' at an upcoming Amherst conference
'Best Practices in Science Education.' If you know of literature
references or have your own opinions/experience with this topic,
could you share them with me?" In my opinion, one of the best
discussions on effective introductory lab courses is "Guiding Insight
and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics Laboratory" [Arons (1993)].
Unfortunately Arons is much cited by seldom read, and will probably
be ignored by those who convene at the Amherst conference.
**************************************
John Belcher (2008), in his PhysLrnR post titled "Building Research
into the Curriculum: Effective Introductory Lab Courses" wrote
[bracketed by lines "BBBB. . . ."; my inserts at ". . . .[insert]. .
. . .":
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
I am on a panel discussion at a one day conference. . . .["Best
Practices in Science Education: Retaining Science and Engineering
Undergraduates, Sustaining the S & E Workforce". . . . ] on June 24th
at the UMass Amherst on "Building Research into the Curriculum:
Effective Introductory Lab Courses". . . . . I would like to be as
comprehensive as possible. If you know of literature references or
have your own opinions/experience with this topic, could you share
them with me?. . . . [According to the conference overview
<http://www.nsm.umass.edu/conf08/>:]. . . . "The conference seeks to
respond to a serious problem: a large percentage of students who
enter college interested in S & E disciplines switch to other majors,
while the number of job opportunities in S & E fields has quadrupled"
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
In my opinion, one of the best literature references on introductory
lab courses is "Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory
Physics Laboratory" [Arons (1993)]. Therein Arons wrote [EMPHASIS in
the original].:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The usefulness and effectiveness of the introductory laboratory have
been bones of contention in physics teaching as far as one goes back
in the literature. . . . . .The most common objectives explicitly
voiced in connection with the introductory physics laboratory. . . .
.are: (1) to verify or confirm laws, relations, or regularities
asserted in text, class, or lecture; (2) to have some experience with
actual physical phenomena; (3) to have the experience of, and develop
some skill in, handling instruments and making significant
measurements; (4) to have the experience of planning and doing
experiments and thus encountering some of the "process of science";
(5) to learn something about minimizing error and about the treatment
and interpretation of experimental data. All of these are, to some
reasonable extent, legitimate and desirable objectives. . . . . . .
It is quite apparent, however, that in the widespread implementation
of laboratory instruction ostensibly based on these objectives, the
students still emerge with levels of insight and achievement
deprecatingly described in the literature. . . . [see the article for
Arons's 8 references]. . . and with little more than what Whitehead
describes as "inert ideas," i.e., "ideas that are merely received
into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh
combination [Whitehead (1929, 1965)]. What can be done to help
students to deeper understanding to deeper understanding through
utilizing, or testing, and throwing into fresh combination the ideas
they encounter in the laboratory? I wish to suggest that we might
make at least some progress in this direction by GUIDING students
into utilizing one or more of [these] criss-crossing and overlapping
modes of inquiry:
1. Observing phenomena qualitatively and interpreting observations.
2. Forming concepts as a result of observations.
3. Building and testing abstract models in the light of observation
and concept formation.
4. Subjecting a piece of equipment to close examination in context,
figuring out how it works and how it might be used (rather than
simply being TOLD how it works and what it is supposed to do.
5. Deciding what to do with a piece of equipment, as well as deciding
how many measurements to make and how to handle and present the data.
6. Asking or pursuing "How so we know......? Why do we believe......?
What is the evidence for.......?" questions inherently associated
with a given experiment.
7. Explicitly discriminating between observation and inference in
interpreting the results of experiments and observations.
8. Doing general hypothetical-deductive reasoning (asking and
addressing "What will happen if?" questions) in connection with
laboratory situations. This includes visualizing outcomes in extreme
or limiting conditions, and, where, possible, forming an a priori
hypothesis and then testing it by performing an appropriately
designed experiment.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It has long been clear that tightly structured and directed
laboratory experiments are dull and demoralizing for the students and
generate little in the way of concept development or physical
understanding. It is also clear that the other extreme of completely
unstructured situations, in which the students are supposed to
conduct their own observations, inquiry, and final synthesis, are
also ineffective [Spears & Zollman (1997)]. . . . . . . . . . .
The problem is to provide students with enough Socratic guidance to
lead them into thinking and forming of insights but not so much as to
give everything away and thus destroy the attendant intellectual
experience. . . . . .
The difficulties experienced by students in mastering the Law of
Inertia and the concept of "force" and the robust preconceptions with
which they approach mechanical phenomena have been extensively
discussed in the literature and are widely appreciated by teachers.
Qualitative hands-on experience in the laboratory furnishes an
effective way of helping many students overcome these difficulties.
Examples of the questions students can be led to address through such
experience are given in Sections 3.10 through 3.12 of Arons (1990). .
. .[the Sections are the same in Arons (1997)]. . . . . and a
Socratically oriented laboratory aimed at the same objectives is
described in considerable detail by Hake (1992). Such sequences
illustrate application of modes of inquiry #1 and #2 in the list
given above. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning (item 8) can now be
invoked by asking "What will happen if.......? questions concerning
situations that the students must imagine and deal with in the
abstract. Finally, students should be asked to distinguish
explicitly between the observations that were made and the inferences
drawn, illustrating application of mode 7.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Unfortunately, Arons (1990, 1997) is much cited but little read, and
will probably be ignored by the experts who convene at the upcoming
Amherst conference on "Best Practices in Science Education."
For tributes to Arons see Hake (2004) and Jossem (2008).
I am deeply convinced that a statistically significant improvement
would occur if more of us
learned to listen to our students....By listening to what they say in
answer to to carefully phrased,
leading questions, we can begin to understand what does and does not
happen in their minds,
anticipate the hurdles they encounter, and provide the kind of help
needed to master a concept or
line of reasoning without simply "telling them the
answer."....Nothing is more ineffectually
arrogant than the widely found teacher attitude that 'all you have to
do is say it my way, and no
one within hearing can fail to understand it.'....Were more of us
willing to relearn our physics by
the dialog and listening process I have described, we would see a
discontinuous upward shift in the
quality of physics teaching. I am satisfied that this is fully
within the competence of our
colleagues; the question is one of humility and desire.
Arnold Arons (1974)
Arons, A.B. 1977. "The Various Language: An Inquiry Approach to the
Physical Sciences; with Teacher's Guide." Oxford University Press.
Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/3k9m3r>.
Arons, A.B. 1990. "A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching." Wiley.
Now superseded by Arons (1997). See also Arons (1977).
Arons, A.B. 1997. "Teaching Introductory Physics." Wiley. Contains a
slightly updated version of Arons (1990), plus "Homework and Test
Questions for Introductory Physics Teaching" plus a new monograph
"Introduction to Classical Conservation Laws." Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/4dueqt>, Note the "Search Inside"
feature.
Belcher, J. 2008. "Building Research into the Curriculum: Effective
Introductory Lab Courses," PhysLrnR post of 25 May 2008
08:26:39-0400; online at <http://tinyurl.com/3nlqoj>. To access the
archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few
minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> and then
clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Hake, R.R. 2004. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to Am. J.
Phys. on 24 April 2004; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AronsAdvMeth-8.pdf> (144 kB).
Rejected by a referee who stated
"The title 'Arons-advocated method' is neither dignified nor
appropriate. Arons did not advocate the 'method' the author ascribes
to him. Referring to 'principles' would be preferable."
Jossem, E.L. 2008. "Turning points in physics education: Arnold
Arons, physicist and physics teacher, played a pivotal role in the
postwar development of physics education," Physics Today 61(5):
72-73; online to subscribers at
<http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_5/72_1.shtml>.
Hake, R.R. 1992. "Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab,"
Phys. Teach. 30(9): 546-552; updated version (4/27/98) online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/SocPed1.pdf> (88 kB). See also
Hake (2007, 2008)
Hake, R.R. 2007. "The Socratic Method of the Historical Socrates,
Plato's Socrates, and the Law School's Socrates," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0706&L=pod&P=R12261&I=-3>.
Post of 21 Jun 2007 13:43:05-0700 to AERA-J, AERA-L, Phys-L, &
PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2008. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in
Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008); a prepublication version of Hake's
chapter, primarily on "Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs, " is online
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB).
Kelly, A.E., R.A. Lesh, J.Y. Baek. 2008. "Handbook of Design Research
Methods in Education: Innovations in Teaching." Routledge Education;
publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/4eazqs>: "This
"Handbook" presents the latest thinking and current examples of
design research in education. Design-based research involves
introducing innovations into real-world practices (as opposed to
constrained laboratory contexts) and examining the impact of those
designs on the learning process. Designed prototype applications
(e.g., instructional methods, software or materials) and the research
findings are then cycled back into the next iteration of the design
innovation in order to build evidence of the particular theories
being researched, and to positively impact practice and the diffusion
of the innovation. The "Handbook of Design Research Methods in
Education"-- THE defining book for the field -- fills a need in how
to conduct design research by those doing so right now. The chapters
represent a broad array of interpretations and examples of how
today's design researchers conceptualize this emergent methodology
across areas as diverse as educational leadership, diffusion of
innovations, complexity theory, and curriculum research."
Spears, J. & D. Zollman. 1977. "The influence of structured versus
unstructured laboratory on students' understanding of process of
science," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 14(1): 33-38. A short ERIC abstract is
online at <http://tinyurl.com/63hxdd>: "College physics students'
understanding of the process of science, as measured by the Science
Process Inventory, was better for students in a traditional,
structured laboratory than in an inquiry laboratory that covered the
same experiments."
Whitehead, A.N. 1967. "The Aims of Education." Free Press. [First
published in 1929 by Oxford University Press.] Amazon.com information
at <http://tinyurl.com/4qnrhj>. Note the "Search Inside" feature.