Evidently in response to my post "Re: Pedagogical Efficacy of On-line
Programs" [Hake (2006)], Barak Rosenshine (2006) in his AERA-C post
of 28 Apr 2006 with the thread-breaking title "On-line programs"
wrote [bracketed by lines "RRRRRRR. . . "; my CAPS]:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
It is ABSURD to think one can compare the effectiveness of
teacher-led and on-line programs because there are extensive
variations within teacher-led and computer-mediated instruction.
We know that two schools, using the same methods, can obtain quite
different results. We know that different on-line programs on the
same topic can yield quite different results.
These issues don't go away, even with random assignment.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I shall assume that by "teacher-led programs," Rosenshine meant
"non-online programs," since some online programs ARE teacher led.
It is, of course, ABSURD to think that one cannot compare the
pedagogical effectiveness of non-online and online programs, even
despite the extensive variations within those programs.
There are extensive variations within interactive-engagement (IE) and
traditional (T) introductory physics courses, but that did not deter
a meta-analysis [Hake (1998a,b)] showing a nearly two-standard
deviation superiority in student learning of 48 IE courses over 14 T
courses.
Research on the pedagogical effectiveness of online vs non-online
programs might start with a research question such as:
"Can online programs equal or surpass the pedagogical effectiveness
of non-online programs."
IF, as in pre/post testing research in astronomy, economics, biology,
chemistry, computer science, economics, engineering, and physics
courses [see Hake (2004a) for references]; but not as in most
education research, including the inconclusive "no detectable
difference debate" [see Hake (2004b) for references] one employs:
(a) pre/post testing with valid and consistently reliable tests
developed by disciplinary experts,
(b) the average normalized pre-to-post-test gain <g> as a gauge of
pedagogical effectiveness,
then the research question becomes:
"Can <g>'s attained in online programs, equal or surpass the <g>'s
attained in non-online programs."
As a start one might compare the <g>'s obtained in online mechanics
courses with those in non-online mechanics courses [Hake (1998a,b)].
Of course a meta-analysis over many different online courses would be
required to properly compare them with non-online courses.
As far as I know, no such research has been reported.
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>
"In the course of coming into contact with empirical material,
physicists have gradually learned how to pose a question properly.
Now proper questioning often means that one is more than half the way
towards solving the problem."
Werner Heisenberg (1999)
REFERENCES
Heisenberg, W. 1999. "Physics & Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern
Sciences." Prometheus Books (reprint edition - originally published
as "Physik und Philosophie"). Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/pjofn>. Note the "Search inside this book
feature."
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). See also
Hake (2005).
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. 2004a. "Re: Measuring Content Knowledge," POD posts of 14
& 15 Mar 2004, online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&P=R13279&I=-3> and
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403&L=pod&P=R13963&I=-3>.
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "The No Significant Difference Debate," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=pod&P=R6235&I=-3>.
Post of 22 Jan 2004 09:11:06-0800 to PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L.
Hake, R. R. 2005. "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible
Model for Higher Education," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/NTLF42.pdf> (100 kB). This is a
slightly updated version of an article that was (a) published in the
National Teaching and Learning Forum 15(1), December 2005, online to
subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n1/physics.htm>, and (b)
disseminated by the Tomorrow's Professor list
<http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html> as Msg. 698 on 14 Feb 2006.
Hake, R.R. 2006. "Re: Pedagogical Efficacy of On-line Programs,"
online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0604&L=pod&F=&S=&P=22080>.
Post of 27/28 Apr 2006 14:07:3-0700 to AERA-A, AERA-B, AERA-C, AERA-D,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EdStat, EvalTalk,
ITFORUM, Math-Learn, PhysLrnR, POD, PsychTeacher (rejected), STLHE-L,
TeachingEdPsych, & TIPS.
Rosenshine, B. 2006. "On-line programs," AERA-C post of 28 Apr 2006
18:15:10-0500; online at the AERA-C archives
<http://lists.asu.edu/archives/aera-c.html>. Evidently one must
subscribe to AERA-C (Learning & Instruction) to access its archives,
but it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by following the simple
directions at
<http://lists.asu.edu/archives/aera-c.html> / "Join or leave the list
(or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If you're busy,
then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then,
as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at
any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
