Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Inquiry



No doubt it has been cyclic, and I do recall that there have been
implementations in the past, but I do not recall when. The main difference
is that now we have some "standard" tests, and we are measuring the gain,
while in the past it was purely anecdotal evidence. McDermott and Arons
were among the pioneers, along with Karplus, Renner, and Lawson. Heather
Brasell sparked the use of the sonic ranger by her showing that students had
better understanding of kinematic graphs with appropriate labs. But paper
and pencil tasks did not do as well.

I don't know if anyone has managed to replicate the gain using conventional
courses. Redish tried for a bit, but found that a few inquiry labs were
worth much more than his carefully crafted lectures. Mazur hit on
interactive lectures, but that was for students who already have high
thinking skills and test at the formal operational level.

So I would say it is a new ballgame because rather than going around in
circles we are finding that some methods work much better than others, and
that "style" is not very important.

Incidentally there is an APS abstract of a talk where they showed gain on
the MCAT in a PER course, over a conventional course. It brought the women
up to par with the men, but had little effect on the men's MCAT scores. So
PER does help the MCAT!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Rick --who wonders when the last time a program in inquiry based education
was all the rage, since such things do seem to be cyclic in the education
world. ;-)