Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in discussion-list
post "Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher
Education #2"[Hake (2011b)].
The abstract reads:
******************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Physics Education Research - Not
Widely Known in Higher Education" [Hake (2011a)
<http://bit.ly/iT4YsN>], a discussion-list subscriber wrote to me
privately, asking for references on instructional methods that had
been used in physics to produce relatively high average normalized
gains <g> in students' conceptual understanding of mechanics.
In this post I give the titles and references to seven of the more
popular "Interactive Engagement" (IE) methods discussed in
"Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses" [Hake (1998a,b)] and (following Heller, 1999
<http://bit.ly/in4bGv> - scroll to page 7) their relationship to
learning theories from cognitive science.
The common features of those methods are reflected in the
*operational* definition of IE courses given in Hake (1998a): " 'IE
courses' are those designed at least in part to promote conceptual
understanding through active engagement of students in heads-on
(always) and hands-on (usually) activities WHICH YIELD IMMEDIATE
FEEDBACK through discussion with peers and/or instructors, all as
judged by their literature descriptions."
Thus a hallmark of IE course is their use of "formative assessment"
as defined by Black & Wiliam <http://bit.ly/kuDmNX>: "All those
activities undertaken by teachers -- and by their students in
assessing themselves -- THAT PROVIDE INFORMATION TO BE USED AS
FEEDBACK TO MODIFY TEACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES."
BTW: (1) I think this post is relevant to instructors in ANY subject
that requires higher order thinking skills, not just Newtonian
mechanics. (2) After transmitting "Physics Education Research - Not
Widely Known in Higher Education" [Hake (2011a)], I was reminded that
Peggy Maki <http://www.peggymaki.com/> is one of the few assessment
gurus in higher education who is both knowledgeable and appreciative
of Physics Education Research - see e.g. "Assessing for Learning"
[Maki (2011) <http://bit.ly/j1hTeW>], especially Chapter 4.
******************************************
Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
30 April 2011.]
Hake, R.R. 2011a. "Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in
Higher Education," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/iT4YsN>. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were
transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/msoLwx> with a provision for
comments.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. "Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in
Higher Education #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/lNZe6Z>. Post of 30 Apr 2011 13:49:34-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/mozc8W> with a provision for
comments.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; an abstract is online at
<http://bit.ly/9qGR6m>.