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] learning, judgment, self-assessment, etc.



The problem of judgement and self-assessment is a lot more complicated than
just having people replay what they did and critique it.

What happens when the person can not perceive that there were flaws in what
went on? This is precisely what happens with incompetent individuals. It
turns out that they usually think they are very competent and do not see
where they they have problems. There was a good article in the NYTimes
science section a number of years ago about this. The researchers howewever
were able to change the individuals by teaching them how to recognize
competence. At that point they saw their defects and actually became more
competent.

There are also basic blocks in the person's cognitive ability that can block
recognition of competence. Reuven Feuerstein has categorized these, and I
would strongly urge anyone who is serious about understanding these things
to look at his publications. He has had outstanding success in improving
students' abilities by analyzing the mental deficits and then remediating
them. But his methos do not resemble conventional or even many of the
constructivist strategies.

Why not come close to home and ask why we tolerate a curriculum that is a
mile wide and an inch deep? How can this be changed? What sort of mental
levers need to be twisted to change this? Has anyone had small success
changing this paradigm?

One of the big problems which I didn't see mentioned is the role of
paradigms. When a person has a strong paradigm it it difficult to change it
or even get them to acknowledge that it exists. One big clue is that when
it is attacked, they put forth arguments like "it stands to reason..." or
"I should know what caused this...", and they deny that research can be
contrary to what they think. They even resort to personal attacks when a
strong paradigm is challenged.

Notice the paper in AJP: The implications of a robust curriculum in
introductory mechanics Chance Hoellwarth and Matthew J. Moelter American
Journal of Physics -- May 2011 -- Volume 79, Issue 5, pp. 540. Some
instructors were turned off by the almost lecture free teaching, because
they were not allowed to make changes. But the "studio style" physics
classes did much better than the conventional classes and even instructors
who did both experienced success in the studio, but not in the lecture hall.
So some individuals are unwilling to consider that their paradigms are not
quite right, or that they do not know how to achieve higher gain. This is
part and parcel of the mess of education, where everyone has an opinion, but
is unwilling to measue it against evidence. Then there is the debate about
the validity of the experiment showing higher gains in an IE classroom
according to the NYTimes article "Less Talk, More Action: Improving Science
Learning". Most of the people who criticized it apparently were unaware of
similar studies that have gone back to the early 90s, and they didn't look
at them. I know that they didn't look at the recent AJP article. From
looking at a few of the blogs, most of the argumentation is based on what
the person believes and not on any research evidence. Then there is the
middle school website that has outrageous mistakes, but even when told by
physics PhDs that it is wrong they defend it as being for younger students,
so it is OK.

So I propose that self assessment actually comes after learning assessment.
While the role of discussion is important, it needs to be properly targeted,
or it does not work. Look at Shayer & Adey on how they use discussion as a
wrap up to the Thinking Science labs. There is a study from TIMMSS that
shows that teachers who use discussion get slightly less gain. The effect
size is miniscule. Notice that just the presence of discussion is surveyed
so there is no evidence for the type of discussion or in what context, so it
is not a very valid experiment. On the other hand the Weinman experiment
shows large gain! So why arent't people like Willingham comeing out against
the TIMMSS analysis and criticizing the Weinman experiment. Again it comes
down to the paradigm or beliefs.

We are very good at noticing positive evidence and forgetting negative
events, so on that basis we build up our paradigms. The role of memory
selectivity and reconsolidation is important in building judgment. See:
How Much of Your Memory Is True? 08.03.2009 Discover Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jul-aug/03-how-much-of-your-memory-is-true
When I challenge people as the veracity of their memories it is amazing how
they react as if memory is always indelible and absolutely true. I long ago
gave up that idea.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX