Hi All,
Since my research on pedagogy was under discussion here, I hope you’ll allow me the opportunity to offer my two cent’s worth. I would like to thank my colleague Miguel Roig for citing my studies on concept signaling and modularization of text material. I also would like to thank Professor Pollak for his useful comment that we need more classroom-based or in-vivo studies of the effects of pedagogical tools or study aids. That said, I believe that instructional techniques and textbook pedagogy should be guided by the best available evidence we have and that we should not dismiss the value of well-controlled, laboratory-based studies of pedagogical tools and basic learning and memory processes. We often turn to laboratory studies because of the opportunities they afford to control variables we may not be able to randomize in classroom situations because of ethical or practical reasons (e.g., assigning students in classes to different instructional materials for research purposes). We can also supplement experimental studies with well-designed correlational research in the classroom that can be integrated within the course syllabus. For example, I recently completed a study of mastery quizzing in relation to student performance on midterm and final exams. Let me also suggest that we avoid committing the student uniformity fallacy of treating students as a homogenous group. Some students might benefit from certain pedagogical aids or instructional techniques, whereas others might not. These are researchable issues and I would like to offer a standing invitation to anyone who would like to participate in pedagogical research to get in touch with me. I guess that’s probably more than two cent’s worth but thanks for the opportunity to share my views. Cordially, Jeff Jeffrey S. Nevid, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology St. John's University 8000 Utopia Parkway Jamaica, NY 11439 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 718-990-1548 fax: 718-990-6705From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [tips] Tension between enabling understanding and good grades withTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:11:00 -0400 Miguel wrote Ed, I tend to agree with the general tone of your post. However, mycolleague, Jeff Nevid, has published evidence that at least one of thoselearning aids, concept signaling, (when short definitions/explanatory notesappear in the margins of the page) can enhance student performance. Alsomodular presentation of text, particularly if the students prefer suchformats, appears to enhance their exam performance. On the other hand, otherresearch cited by Nevid and Lampmann (see below) indicates that studentsrarely use some of the gimmicks you mention." I only wonder if the studies were conducted "in vivo or "in vitro." Too many of these studies give the students a chapter to read. One group gets a chapter with the gimmicks and the other group gets it without the gimmicks. This is what I mean by testing the gimmicks "in vitro." To do it right (in vivo) I'd want to compare students studying for a REAL EXAM using a textbook that lacks the gimmicks and compare that with other students studying for an exam with a standard text (that includes the gimmicks). And I would like to see that books be used the entire semester to avoid any sort of Hawthorne effect. Until that's done, I remain unconvinced. Ed Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania http://mywebpages.comcast.net/epollak/home.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
