In her TIPS post of 23 Jun 2005 titled "Re: assessing teaching of research methods," Annette Taylor wrote:
"There is a large literature on individual course, as well as program assessments in the ¨hard¨ science literatures and in the education science literature. For whatever reason, our friend Hake. . .[2005a]. . . does make a good point in challenging us as psychologists to seriously approach such assessments. . . . Perhaps it behooves us, who are at least interested in our teaching enough to subscribe to such list discussion services to take a leadership role in development of outcomes assessments." I wonder how many psychologists present courses on research methods in the time honored chalk-and-talk style? In a recent IT-Forum post of 24 Jun 2005 titled "Research that shows chalk-and-talk is ineffective?" Mark Peterson (2005) asked three good questions Q1,2,3 that I repeat below followed by my answers A1,2,3 (with apologies to those who have heard these answers many times before): **************************************** Q1. Does anyone know of any research to support [the ineffectiveness of chalk-and-talk]? A1. Good evidence for the relative ineffectiveness of the traditional chalk-and-talk lecture, insofar as promoting student understanding in **conceptually difficult areas**, comes from physics education researchers (PER's) who have shown that "interactive engagement" (IE) methods CAN produce average normalized pre/post test gains in conceptual understanding (as measured by the valid and consistently reliable "Force Concept Inventory" [Hestenes et al. (1992)] that are about two standard deviations greater than those achieved in traditional (T) courses. Here: (a) IE methods are those designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors. (b) T courses utilize passive-student lectures, algorithmic problem exams, and recipe labs. (c) The average normalized gain <g> for a course is the actual gain [<%post> - <%pre>] divided by the maximum possible gain [100% - <%pre>], where the angle brackets indicate the class averages. See e.g. Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b) and references therein to the research of many other groups in many different institutions that have shown similar results. BTW, as I have pointed out many time on both the TIPS [Hake (2005a)] and PsychTeacher lists, I know of no definitive pre/post testing that might gauge the relative effectiveness of different methods of psychology teaching. In Hake (2005a) I wrote (see that post for the references): HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I regard the apparent failure of psychologists to research the effectiveness of their own introductory courses as an important issue in education research because, among other things: (1) One might expect psychologists with their long history of education research [Berliner (1993), Lagemann (2000)] and their leading role in classroom-oriented "Design Based Research" [Kelly (2003); Hake (2004a,b; 2005a)] to be in the vanguard of those actively researching the effectiveness of own courses and thus serving as role models for other faculty. (2) Educational psychologists often staff the "Teaching and Learning Centers" of U.S. universities and thus might (but generally do not) influence faculty to research the cognitive effectiveness of their courses through valid and consistently reliable diagnostic tests developed by disciplinary experts, rather than through the usual problematic [Hake (2002)] student evaluations. (3) Psychologists and psychometricians seem to be in control of the U.S. Dept. of Education's "What Works Clearinghouse" <http://www.w-w-c.org/> and NCLB testing of "science achievement" to commence in 2007 [see Hake (2005b)]. Why should they be the arbiters of "What Works," when, as far as I know, they haven't even bothered to research "What Works" in their own courses? HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH **************************************** Q2. Are there researchers out there advocating for the chalk-and-talk traditional style lecture? A2. As far as I know there are no *serious* researchers who advocate chalk-and-talk traditional style lecture for conceptually difficult instructional areas (even despite the rampant misinterpretations of the work of David Klahr - for a discussion see Hake (2005b). Nevertheless, a powerful direct instruction lobby, led by the likes of Douglas Carnine (2000) [on the Technical Advisory Group for the U.S. Dept. of Education's "What Works Clearinghouse <http://www.w-w-c.org/>] currently appears to be influential in the U.S. Dept. of Education [see e.g., Hake (2005b)]. **************************************** Q3. Is it generally accepted amongst open-minded people that [chalk-and-talk] is not the right approach? A3. It is certainly the case that it is generally accepted amongst open-minded physics education researchers that chalk-and-talk is not the right approach *in conceptually difficult* areas. Nevertheless, I would guess that 80 or 90 percent of physics professors - yes, even at Indiana University - continue to use the time-honored chalk-and-talk method, even despite the fact that it has been abandoned in introductory physics courses at Harvard [Crouch & Mazur (2001) and MIT (Dori & Belcher (2004)]. As MIT mechanical engineering professor Woodie Flowers (2000) says "Why change, Been doin' it this way for 4000 years! . . .[with a brief hiatus for the historical - non-Platonic - Socrates]" Of course, traditional chalk and talk may still be beneficial in some non conceptually difficult areas. In Hake (2003) I wrote [bracketed by lines HHHHHH. . . ." : HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH As regards the rather polarized Physhare discussion on whether lectures are GOOD or BAD, I think it all depends on the subject matter, the nature of the students, and the goals of the teacher. As indicated in Hake (2002d), a major strength of the Paideia (2005) Method is its use of different approaches to fit the occasion (didactic lectures, coaching, and Socratic dialogue). Each method has its strengths and weaknesses but in the hands of a skilled teacher it can be made to compliment the other methods so as to advance student learning. A skilled teacher might LECTURE on material that can be rote memorized [but s(he) might be better off using the Gutenberg Method [Morrison (1986), Hake (2002c)] that recognizes the invention of the printing press], COACH skills such as typing or playing a musical instrument, and use SOCRATIC DIALOGUE (or some other IE method) to induce students to construct their conceptual understanding of Newton's Laws. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> REFERENCES Carnine, D. 2000. "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices (And What It Would Take to Make Education More Like Medicine)," online as a 52kB pdf at <http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/found.cfm?author=72&keyword=&submit=Search>. The Fordham Foundation's Chester Finn introduces Carnine's paper by eulogizing: "After describing assorted hijinks in math and reading instruction, Doug devotes considerable space to examining what educators did with the results of 'Project Follow Through,' one of the largest education experiments ever undertaken. This study compared constructivist education models with those based on direct instruction. One might have expected that, when the results showed that direct instruction models produced better outcomes, these models would have been embraced by the profession. Instead, many education experts discouraged their use." But according to Lagemann (2000), the results of Project Follow Through were inconclusive. She writes: "Some experiments ended inconclusively. One of these was the 'planned variation' strategy used in implementing Project Follow Through in the late 1960s . . . . as education researcher David K. Cohen . . . [1970]. . . concluded, all the Follow Through experiment really demonstrated was that power in education was so decentralized that the controls necessary for experimentation were virtually impossible to maintain." Cohen, D.K. 1970. "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action Programs in Education," Review of Educational Research 40: 231. Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results," Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at <http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/library.php>, search "All Education Areas" for author "Crouch" (without the quotes). Dori, Y.J. & J. Belcher, J. 2004. "How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts?" To appear in The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2), online at <http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/TEAL_Dori&Belcher_JLS_10_01_2004.pdf> (1 MB). Flowers, W. "Why change, Been doin' it this way for 4000 years!" ASME Mechanical Engineering Education Conference: Drivers and Strategies of Major Program Change, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, March 26-29, 2000; on the web as PowerPoint plus video at <http://hitchcock.dlt.asu.edu/media2/cresmet/flowers/>. (Download the free RealPlayer.): 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: 64-74; online as ref. 24 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB). Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on <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. 2002; also online as ref. 29 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>, or download directly by clicking on <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84 kB). Hake, R.R. 2002c. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," post of 21 Aug 2002 15:34:25-0700 to various discussion lists; online at <http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=phys-l&P=R17115>. Excerpts from Morrison (1986) are given. Hake, R.R. 2002d. "Re: Physics and the Paideia Process," post to Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and AP-Physics of 8 Feb 2003 13:45:56-0800; online at <http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302&L=physhare&O=A&P=5301>. Hake, R.R. 2003. "Re: Physics and the Paideia Process," online at <http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302&L=phys-l&P=R10386>. Post of 11 Feb 2003 15:24:33-0800 to Phys-L, Physhare, and PhysLrnR. Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Do Psychologists Research The Effectiveness Of Their Own Introductory Courses?" TIPS post of 19 Feb 2005 07:58:43-0800; online at <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13133.html>. Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851 (2005); APS March Meeting, Los Angles, CA. 21-25 March; online as ref. 36 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by clicking on <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf> (256 kB). Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Do Psychologists Research The Effectiveness Of Their Own Introductory Courses?" TIPS post of 19 Feb 2005 07:58:43-0800; online at <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13133.html>. Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P Mosca, D. Hestenes. 1995. Force Concept Inventory (Revised, 1995); online (password protected) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. (Available in English, Spanish, German, Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish, Swedish, and Russian.) Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, 1992. "Force Concept Inventory." Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158; online (except for the test itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. For the 1995 revision see Halloun et al. (1995). Lagemann, E.C. 2000. "An Elusive Science: The troubling history of education research." Univ. of Chicago Press. Morrison R. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in "Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics, Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education," No. 1, edited by M.R. Rice Univ. of Chicago, p. 50. See Hake (2002c) for excerpts from this *brilliant lecture*. Paideia. 2003. Website at <http://www.paideia.org/>: "Paideia schools offer a unique approach to active learning. [They] are built on the idea that public schooling is preparation for becoming educated over the course of one's life time. Paideia teachers use three instructional techniques: (1) didactic instruction for increasing students' factual recall, (2) intellectual coaching for developing students' literacy skills, and (3) seminar dialogue to strengthen students' conceptual understanding. Peterson, M. 2005."Research that shows chalk-and-talk is ineffective?" ITFORUM post of 24 Jun 2005 09:22:46-0700; online at <http://www.listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=itforum&O=D&P=18015>. Perkins, D. 1992. "Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for Every Child." Free Press, page 55-58. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
