If you reply to this long (26 kB) post please
don't hit the reply button unless you prune the
copy of this post that may appear in your reply
down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the
entire already archived post may be needlessly
resent to subscribers.
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: I argue that there's nothing to prevent
the development in *any* discipline of
"Interactive Engagement" methods similar to those
found in physics to yield average normalized
gains about two standard deviations greater than
those produced by traditional passive-student
lecture courses. It has been suggested that the
failure of psychologists to engage in such
development, even despite their long history of
major contributions to education [e.g. Berliner
(1993)], can be attributed to a lack of funding.
But I would guess (please correct me if I'm
wrong) that over the past 20 years there's been
more funding for educational research by
psychologists than by physicists. In my opinion,
the lack of substantive discussion in the
psychology literature of the measurement and
enhancement of learning gains in introductory
psychology courses suggests that psychologists,
with a few notable exceptions, are simply not
interested in gauging the effectiveness of their
undergraduate courses in enhancing student
higher-order learning.
*******************************************
In a post "Re: Pretest and Post-test instruments
for an Psychology" [Hake (2007a)] I wrote:
"Asking psychologists for information on pre/post
testing is like asking physicists for information
on divining rods . . . . Sad to say, if you want
to gauge the effectiveness of your course in
promoting student learning, you'll probably get
near zero help from psychologists."
Physicist Doug Holton (2007), who seems to know
more about pre/post testing in psychology than
most psychologists, wrote [bracketed by lines
"HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-. . . ."; my inserts at ".
. . .[insert]. . . ", some of them replacing
Holton's bare URL's with more informative
academic references; my CAPS]:
HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON
Pre-testing/Post-testing isn't the only thing
involved here. Physicists and scientists doing
educational research and reform have had these
other resources:
1. The sciences and engineering have a large body
of research on various misconceptions and
difficulties students have in these domains,
although there is no real comprehensive database
of this. A partial list is . . .[Minstrell
(2007)]. . . Psychology has nothing at that
scale, but see this online article for a few
examples of student difficulties . . .[Chew
(2004)]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Along with a good conceptual test, you need a
good alternative model of instruction, such as
the various interactive engagement methods
proposed in science education research. What is
the alternative in psychology, business, law, etc.
If making an FCI-like . . .[Force Concept
Inventory - Hestenes et al. (1992)]. . . test
were enough, psychology would have had more
pre/post testing long ago. Psychology had
Vaughan's Test of Common Beliefs)] 30 years ago.
. . .[Lamal (1979]. . . . From a cursory glance,
it appeared that the test showed just that
psychology instruction is not changing students'
misconceptions, and that was it.
Perhaps more would have changed in psychology
education if funding was given to more education
and psychology researchers to reform education in
all areas. Early physics misconceptions research
was done by both physicists and psychologists . .
.[see e.g. psychologist McCloskey (1983) and
references in the classic "The 100-Year Journey
of Educational Psychology From Interest, to
Disdain, to Respect for Practice" (Berliner,
1993)]. . . ., but then it became almost solely
the domain of physicists, probably because of
funding choices. . . . . A consequence is that
physicists are not always keeping up with or
acknowledging newer research in learning and
psychology, and most psychologists and learning
scientists are unaware of educational research
performed solely by non-psychologists, such as in
AJP. . . . .[the "American Journal of Physics,"
see, e.g., "Listing of Physics Education Research
papers published in the American Journal of
Physics since 1972" (Meltzer, 2005)]. . . . . I
wish it were possible for psychologists and
general education researchers to have the same
chances for funding and jobs in reforming and
researching education in all areas, including the
sciences and engineering. . .
HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON-HOLTON
TWO POINTS:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Holton wrote in the first paragraph of "5"
above: "Along with a good conceptual test, you
need a good alternative model of instruction,
such as the various interactive engagement
methods proposed in science education research.
What is the alternative in psychology, business,
law, etc."
As I indicated in a my previous counter [Hake
(2007b)] to physicist Michael Wittmann's (2007)
preposterous claim that "we can't define
Interactive Engagement":
" 'Interactive Engagement' was operationally
defined in Hake (1998a) as 'methods designed at
least in part to promote conceptual understanding
through interactive engagement of students in
heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually)
activities which yield IMMEDIATE feedback through
discussion with peers and/or instructors.' "
Thus it would seem that there should be little to
prevent the development in *any* discipline of
"Interactive Engagement" methods similar to those
in physics. In "The Physics Education Reform
Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?"
[Hake (2005a, 2006a)] I wrote:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I see no reason that student learning gains far
larger than those in traditional courses could
not eventually be achieved and documented in
other disciplines from arts through philosophy to
zoology IF their practitioners would:
(a) reach a consensus on the *crucial* concepts
that all beginning students should be brought to
understand;
(b) undertake the lengthy qualitative and
quantitative research required to develop
multiple-choice tests (MCT's) of higher-level
learning
of those concepts, so as to gauge the need for
and effects of non-traditional pedagogy; and
(c) develop Interactive Engagement methods suitable to their disciplines.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Holton wrote in the third paragraph of "5"
above: "Perhaps more would have changed in
psychology education if funding was given to more
education and psychology researchers to reform
education in all areas. . . . [misconceptions
research after the early work by psychologists].
. . became almost solely the domain of
physicists, probably because of funding choices.
. . . I wish it were possible for psychologists
and general education researchers to have the
same chances for funding and jobs in reforming
and researching education in all areas, including
the sciences and engineering."
I would guess (please correct me if I'm wrong)
that over the past 20 years more funds for
research in education have gone to psychologists
than to physicists. In my opinion, the lack [with
notable exceptions, e.g., Grossman (2005),
Sotherland et al. (2007), Sternberg &
Clinkenbeard (1995), Sternberg et al. (1998a,b;
1999)] of substantive discussion in the
psychology literature of the measurement and
enhancement of learning gains in introductory
psychology courses suggests that psychologists,
with a few notable exceptions, are simply not
interested in gauging the effectiveness of their
undergraduate courses in enhancing student
higher-order learning..
Yes, I know that "Teaching of Psychology"
<http://www.ithaca.edu/beins/top/top.htm> is,
according to psychologist Jerry Rudman [by way of
Axelson (2005)]: "packed with empirical
evaluations done of specific teaching techniques
and strategies, psychology courses, and
psychology programs."
But as I indicated in "Do Psychologists Research
the Effectiveness of Their Courses? Hake Responds
to Sternberg" [Hake (2005b)]:
". . . physicist David Meltzer kindly sent me
"Annotated Bibliographies on the Teaching of
Psychology for 1999, 2000, and 2001" [Johnson &
Schroeder (1999, 2000, 2001)]. A quick scan
indicated NOTHING AT ALL IN PSYCHOLOGY COMPARABLE
TO THE RIGOROUS PRE/POST TESTING ASSESSMENTS OF
INTRODUCTORY COURSES TAKING PLACE IN PHYSICS."
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>
"Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us
to observation and memory. It instigates to
invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving.
Not that it always effects this result; but that
conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and
ingenuity."
John Dewey "Morals Are Human," Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Axelson, R. 2005. "Re: Termination of
PsychTeacher Thread on Researching the
Effectiveness of Introductory Courses," ASSESS
post of 24 Jan 2005 08:16:41-0600; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/yplm38>.
Bishop, W. 2004. "RE: Mathematically Incoherent,"
Math-Learn post 11 Sept 2004 3:54 pm; online at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/message/6483>.
Benezet, L.P. (1935, 1936). "The Teaching of
Arithmetic I, II, III: The Story of an
Experiment." Journal of the National Education
Association 24(8): 241-244 (1935); 24(9): 301-303
(1935); 25(1): 7-8 (1936). The articles (a) were
reprinted in the Humanistic Mathematics
Newsletter 6: 2-14 (May 1991); (b) are on the
web along with other Benezetia at the Benezet
Centre
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>.
See also Mahajan & Hake (2000).
Berliner, 1993. "The 100-Year Journey of
Educational Psychology From Interest, to Disdain,
to Respect for Practice," in Fagan & VandenBos
(1993); online at
<http://courses.ed.asu.edu/berliner/readings//journey.htm>.
Berliner's earliest dated reference to
experimentation in education is Rice (1912).
Berliner writes (my CAPS): "One of those who set
the stage for Thorndike was the great muckraker
and classroom observer Joseph Mayer Rice (1857-
1934), THE FATHER OF RESEARCH ON TEACHING. Rice
endured great difficulties for his beliefs just a
few years before the experimental psychology of
E. L. Thorndike was deemed acceptable (see Rice,
1912). In 1897, in Atlantic City, New Jersey,
Rice was asked to present his empirical
classroom-based research on the futility of the
spelling grind to the annual meeting of school
superintendents. I do not think they were as
polite as today's administrators, as they
attacked the speaker, yelling the equivalent of
"give him the hook." . . .[for the futility of
the early-grade algorithmic-math grind see
Benezet (1935/36)] - for a "give him the hook"
response see e.g., Bishop (2004)] . . . Leonard
P. Ayres (1912) reports on the meeting as
follows: 'The presentation of these data threw
that assemblage into consternation, dismay, and
indignant
protest. BUT THE RESULTING STORM OF VIGOROUSLY VOICED OPPOSITION WAS
DIRECTED, NOT AGAINST THE METHODS AND RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION,
BUT AGAINST THE INVESTIGATOR WHO HAD PRETENDED TO
MEASURE THE RESULTS OF TEACHING SPELLING BY
TESTING THE ABILITY OF THE CHILDREN TO SPELL.'
Chew, S.L. 2004. "Student Misconceptions in the
Psychology Classroom," online at
<http://teachpsych.lemoyne.edu/teachpsych/eit/eit2004/eit04-03.pdf>
(128 kB). This essay originally appeared as the
monthly "E-xcellence in Teaching" e-column in the
PsychTeacher Electronic Discussion List (see
<http://teachpsych.lemoyne.edu/teachpsych/div/psychteacher.html>)
for March 2004.
Grossman, R. 2005. "Revealing hidden
transformations: Making science more learnable,"
College Teaching 53(1): 33-40, 2005; online at
<http://www.kzoo.edu/psych/psy_faculty_grossman.htm>
/ "Discovering Hidden Variables," where "/" means
"click on," or simply click on
<http://www.kzoo.edu/psych/rg_Hidden.pdf> (88 kB).
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(1): 64-74;
online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf>
(84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods
in introductory mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf>
(108 kB) - a crucial companion paper to Hake
(1998a).
Hake, R. R. 2005a. "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 edited version of an article that was
(a) published in the National Teaching and
Learning Forum 15(1), December, online to
subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n1/physics.htm>
[if your institution does not have a subscription
to the invaluable NTLF, then in my opinion, it
should] and (b) disseminated by the Tomorrow's
Professor list
<http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html>
as Msg. 698 on 14 Feb 2006. For an executive
summary see Hake (2006a). See also Hake (2007c)
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Do Psychologists Research the
Effectiveness of Their Courses? Hake Responds to
Sternberg," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=pod&P=R11939&I=-3>.
Post of 21 Jul 2005 22:55:31-0700 to AERA-C,
AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk,
PhysLrnR, POD, & STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2006a. "A Possible Model For Higher
Education: The Physics Reform Effort (Author's
Executive Summary)," Spark (American Astronomical
Society Newsletter), June, online at
<http://www.aas.org/education/spark/SparkJune06.pdf>
(1.9MB). Scroll down about 4/5 of the way to the
end of the newsletter.
Hake, R.R. 2006b. "Possible Palliatives for the
Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some
PEP's," [PEP's = Psychometricians, Education
specialists, and Psychologists], Journal of
MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Number 6, November,
online at
<http://evaluation.wmich.edu/jmde/JMDE_Num006.html>.
Hake, R.R. 2007a. "Re: Pretest and Post-test
instruments for an Introduction to Psychology,"
online at
<http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40acsun.frostburg.edu/msg20275.html>.
Post of 20 Jan 2007 23:01:17-0800 to PhysLrnR,
PsychTeacher (Rejected :-(), TeachingEdPsych, &
TIPS.
Hake, R.R. 2007b. "Re: Pretest and Post-test
instruments for an Introduction to Psychology,"
PhysLrnR post of 23 Jan 2007 22:09:50-0800,
online at <http://tinyurl.com/26egbv>.
Hake, R.R. 2007c. "Should We Measure Change?
Yes!" download directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf>
(2.5 MB). Failure to access that URL probably
means that a new version (T, U, V, W. . .) has
been placed online - it can be accessed as ref.
43 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To
appear as a chapter in "Evaluation of Teaching
and Student Learning in Higher Education," a
Monograph of the American Evaluation Association
<http://www.eval.org/>. A severely truncated
version appears at Hake (2006b).
Hersh, R.H. 2005. "What Does College Teach? It's
time to put an end to 'faith-based' acceptance of
higher education's quality," Atlantic Monthly
296(4): 140-143, November; freely online to
(a) subscribers of the Atlantic Monthly at <http://tinyurl.com/dwss8>, and
(b) (with hot-linked academic references) to
educators at <http://tinyurl.com/9nqon> (scroll
to the APPENDIX). See also Hersh & Merrow (2005).
Hersh R.H. & J. Merrow, eds. 2005. "Declining by
Degrees: Higher Education at Risk." Palgrave
Macmillan. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/bvcf4>.
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>. The
1995 revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes
is online (password protected) at the same URL,
and is available in English, Spanish, German,
Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish,
Swedish, and Russian.
Holton, D. 2007. Re: Pretest and Post-test
instruments for an Introduction to Psychology,"
PhysLrnR post of 20 Jan 2007 23:01:17-0800;
online at <http://tinyurl.com/yqkbg6>.
Johnson, D.E., & S.I. Schroder. 1999. "Annotated
Bibliography on the Teaching of Psychology,"
Teaching of Psychology 27(4): 296-303.
Johnson, D.E., & S.I. Schroder. 2000. "Annotated
Bibliography on the Teaching of Psychology,"
Teaching of Psychology 28(4): 303-309.
Johnson, D.E., & S.I. Schroder. 2001. "Annotated
Bibliography on the Teaching of Psychology,"
Teaching of Psychology 29(4): 337-344.
Lamal, P.A. 1979. "College Students' Common
Beliefs about Psychology," Teaching of Psychology
6(3): 155-158; an ERIC abstract is online at
<http://tinyurl.com/3ca4b8>. The abstract reads:
"Describes an extension of E. D. Vaughan's Test
of Common Beliefs, which verifies that
undergraduate student beliefs about what
psychology is and what psychologists do change
very little, even those which teachers in an
introductory course believe they have changed.
(Author/CK)" A search for "College Students'
Common Beliefs about Psychology" yielded 13 hits
on Google <http://www.google.com/> and 12 hits on
Google Scholar <http://scholar.google.com>. These
might be worth examining.
Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it time for a
physics counterpart of the Benezet/Berman math
experiment of the 1930's?" Physics Education
Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education,
online at <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512202>.
McCloskey, M. 1983. "Naïve theories of motion,"
in "Mental Models," D. Gentner & A.L Stevens,
eds., Erlbaum, pp. 299-324. An ERIC abstract is
online at <http://tinyurl.com/yn2zxc>.
Meltzer, D.E. 2005. "Listing of Physics Education
Research papers published in the American Journal
of Physics since 1972," online at
<http://www.physicseducation.net/current/PER_articles_in_AJP_1972-2005_rev_10-11-05.pdf>
(532 kB).
Minstrell, J. 2007. "Diagnoser: Facets of
Students' Thinking," online at
<http://depts.washington.edu/huntlab/diagnoser/index.html>.
Sotherland, P. A. Dueweke, K. Cunningham, B.
Grossman, and G. Mahler. 2007. "Big Picture
Results, Find Grained Analysis: Understanding CLA
Performance at Kalamazoo College.". . . [CLA =
Collegiate Learning Assessment, co-directed by
Richard Hersh (2005)]. . . Sotherland et al.
write: "Through a grant from The Teagle
Foundation, and as part of an assessment
collaborative with Colorado College and Earlham
College, we administered the CLA to first-year
students and then to seniors during the 2005-2006
academic year. First-year students took the CLA
during Orientation Week in the fall and seniors
took the CLA in late winter quarter or early
spring quarter." [The Collegiate Learning
Assessment is designed to measure the ability to
think critically, reason analytically, and write
effectively - see
<http://www.cae.org/content/pro_collegiate.htm>].
Sternberg, R.J. & P.R. Clinkenbeard. 1995. "The
triarchic model applied to identifying, teaching,
and assessing gifted children," Roeper Review
17(4): 255-260.
Sternberg, R.J., M. Ferrari, P.R. Clinkenbeard, &
E.L Grigorenko. 1996. "Identification,
instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A
construct validation of a triarchic model,"
Gifted Child Quarterly 40: 129-137.
Sternberg, R.J., B. Torff, & E.L. Grigorenko.
1998a. "Teaching for successful intelligence
raises school achievement." Phi Delta Kappan 79:
667-669.
Sternberg, R.J., B. Torff, & E.L. Grigorenko.
1998b. "Teaching triarchically improves school
achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology
90: 374-384.
Sternberg, R.J., E.L. Grigorenko, M. Ferrari &
P.R. Clinkenbeard. 1999. "A triarchic analysis of
an aptitude-treatment interaction," European
Journal of Psychological Assessment 15(1): 1-11.
Wittmann, M. 2007. Re: Pretest and Post-test
instruments for an Introduction to Psychology."
PhysLrnR post of 22 Jan 2007 21:24:16-0500;
online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2ufg89>.
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
