My apologies to list subscribers. In my previous post "Sternberg
Becomes A&S Dean at Tufts" [Hake (2005a)] I carelessly wrote:
"I hope Sternberg will indeed: . . . . . . . [urge] Tufts
psychologists, unlike those in other institutions, to research the
effectiveness of their own introductory psychology courses [Hake
(2005b)], as have astronomers, biologists, chemists, economists, and
engineers [Hake (2004a,b)]."
Since:
(a) astronomers, biologists, chemists, economists, and engineers have
NOT, in general, researched the effectiveness of their own, or anyone
else's, introductory psychology courses, and
(b) physicists HAVE led the way in researching the effectiveness of
their own introductory physics courses [see e.g., Stokstad (2001),
Klymkowsky et al. (2003), Powell (2003), Wood & Gentile (2003),
Handelsman et al. (2004), Heron & Meltzer (2005)],
I should have written:
"I hope Sternberg will indeed: . . . . . . . [urge] Tufts
psychologists, unlike those in other institutions, to research the
effectiveness of THEIR OWN introductory courses [Hake (2005b)]; as
have astronomers, biologists, chemists, economists, engineers, and
physicists. [Hake (2004a,b)]."
Suggestion #11 of my own universally ignored (even by myself) posting
suggestions [Hake (2004c)] is:
11. Carefully PROOFREAD your posts prior to posting - check English,
spelling (especially names), and grammar; remove all ambiguous and
offensive material.
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
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: Measuring Content Knowledge", online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=aera-d&T=0&O=D&P=5436>.
Post of 14 Mar 2004 16:29:47-0800 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLnrR, POD, and STLHE-L; later sent to
AERA-D with a few corrections where it appears at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=aera-d&P=R3625&I=-3>.
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Re: Measuring Content Knowledge", online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&O=A&P=17167>.
Post of 15 Mar 2004 14:29:59-0800 to ASSESS, EvalTalk, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR, & POD.
Hake, R.R. 2004c. "Thirteen Posting Suggestions," AERA-K post of 26
Jan 2004 16:44:44-0800; online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=aera-k&T=0&O=D&P=3392>.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Sternberg Becomes A&S Dean at Tufts," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=pod&O=D&P=12521>.
Post of 19 Jul 2005 16:24:40-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-L,
PhysLrnR, POD, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS.
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "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>.
Handelsman, J., D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R.
DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S.M. Tilghman, W.B. Wood.
2004. "Scientific Teaching," Science 304 (23): 521-522, April; online
for free (entire article to "Science" subscribers, abstract to
guests) at <http://www.sciencemag.org/search.dtl>, search for Volume
304, First Page 521. Supporting Online Material (SOP) material -
showing physics contributions - may be freely downloaded at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/304/5670/521/DC1/1>. The complete
article may be downloaded for free at Handelsman's homepage as a 100
kB pdf
<http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/fac/joh/scientificteaching.pdf>, or as
an 88kB pdf at John Belcher's site
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/scientificteaching.pdf>.
Heron, P.R.L. & D. Meltzer. 2005. The future of education research:
Intellectual challenges and practical concerns," Amer. J. Phys.
73(5): 390-394; online at
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/articles/index.html>, scroll down
to "invited papers," or download directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/docs/Heron-Meltzer.pdf> (56kB).
They write [see the article for the references]: "In the past few
decades, an increasing number of physicists have taken up this
challenge by applying methods of research based on those that have
been employed successfully in investigations of the physical world.
This endeavor is broadly known as "physics education research" (PER).
Systematic studies of student learning have revealed a wide gap
between the objectives of most physics instructors engaged in
traditional forms of instruction and the actual level of conceptual
understanding attained by most of their students. [McDermott (1991,
1993); Hake (1998)]. But PER has gone beyond documenting shortcomings
in student learning and traditional instruction. Researchers have
developed instructional materials and methods that have been
subjected to repeated testing, evaluation, and redesign. Numerous
reports have documented significant and reproducible learning gains
from the use of these materials and methods in courses ranging from
large-enrollment classes at major public universities to small
classes in two-year colleges and high schools.[McDermott (1991, 1993,
1998, 2001); Hake (1998); McDermott & Redish (1999)
Klymkowsky, M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas, & M. Zeilik. 2003. "Bioliteracy
and Teaching Efficiency: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists,"
Cell Biology Education 2: 155-161; online
<http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no3/article.cfm?articleID=67>.
Powell, K. 2003. "Spare me the lecture," Nature 425: 234-236, 18
September,; online as a 388K pdf at
<http://www.nature.com./cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v425/n6955/index.html>,
scroll down to "News Feature": "US research universities, with their
enormous classes, have a poor reputation for teaching science.
Experts agree that a shake-up is needed, but which strategies work
best? Kendall Powell goes back to school."
Stokstad, E. 2001. "Reintroducing the Intro Course." Science 293:
1608-1610, 31 August 2001. This special issue on "Trends in
Undergraduate Education is online to subscribers at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol293/issue5535/index.shtml>.
Stokstad wrote: "Physicists are out in front in measuring how well
students learn the basics, as science educators incorporate hands-on
activities in hopes of making the introductory course a beginning
rather than a finale."
Wood, W.B., and J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302, 1510; 28 November 2003; freely online only to
subscribers only at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5650/index.shtml#policyforum>.
They write [see the article for the references]:
"Unknown to many university faculty in the natural sciences,
particularly at large research institutions, is a large body of
recent research from educators and cognitive scientists on how people
learn [Bransford et al. (2000)]. The results show that MANY STANDARD
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING, INCLUDING
TRADITIONAL LECTURE, LABORATORY, AND RECITATION COURSES, ARE
RELATIVELY INEFFECTIVE AT HELPING STUDENTS MASTER AND RETAIN THE
IMPORTANT CONCEPTS OF THEIR DISCIPLINES OVER THE LONG TERM. Moreover,
these practices do not adequately develop creative thinking,
investigative, and collaborative problem-solving skills that
employers often seek. Physics educators have led the way in
developing and using objective tests [Hestenes et al. (1992), Hake
(1998a), NCSU (2005)] to compare student learning gains in different
types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now
developing similar instruments [Mulford & Robinson (2002), Klymkowsky
et al. (2003), Klmkowsky (2004)]. 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 [Hake
(1998a), NCSU (2005)]."
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
