If you reply to this long (11kB) 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: Mary Ann Valentino, in her PsychTeacher post "Re: why psychology is hard" wrote: "Hake's 'Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods. . . .' is exactly the kind of research that I think is needed for introductory psychology." I could not agree more! I quote a few lines from my 2005 PsychTeacher post "Why Don't Psychologists Research the Effectiveness of Their Own Introductory Courses?" that suggest two possible reasons for this failure: (a) pre/post paranoia, (b) mindless allegiance to randomized control trials. ***************************************** Mary Ann Valentino (2008), in her PsychTeacher post "Re: why psychology is hard," wrote (slightly edited): "Bob Grossman (2008) provided some very interesting information related to efforts to study and improve student success in introductory physics classes. Hake's (1998a,b) 'Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,' is exactly the kind of research that I think is needed for introductory psychology. With all the talk about introductory psychology being so difficult, I am surprised that we don't have research data to support our claims about the negative influence of 'psychobabble', difficulties with applied/conceptual questions, vast and new, unfamiliar jargon, etc." I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. In "Why Don't Psychologists Research the Effectiveness of Their Own Introductory Courses?" [Hake (2005a)], I wrote bracketed by lines "HHHHHH. . . . . "; references have been updated]: HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I know of no systematic pre/post testing research [as found in other disciplines (Hake, 2008)] on the introductory courses in psychology that are taken by thousands of undergraduates every year. This apparent inactivity seems strange considering that psychologists have: (a) pioneered other areas of educational research [Berliner 1993)], and (b) played leading roles in the Design Based Research movement [Kelly (2003)] that advocates classroom research." The evident failure of psychologists to research the effectiveness of their own courses - see e.g., "Do Psychologists Research the Effectiveness of Their Courses? Hake Responds to Sternberg" [Hake (2005b)] may be related to the fact that they may be afflicted by irrational: (a) pre/post paranoia, as discussed in "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's" [Hake (2006)], where PEP's = Psychologists, Education Specialists, & Psychometricians]; and (b) allegiance to randomized control trials (RCT's), as discussed in "Re: Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold Standard of Educational Research?"[Hake (2005c]. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> ". . .the important distinction. . .[between, e.g., education and physics]. . . is really not between the hard and the soft sciences. Rather, it is between the hard and the easy sciences." David Berliner (2002) in "Educational research: The hardest science of all." REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.] 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, D. 2002. "Educational research: The hardest science of all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online at <http://tinyurl.com/2f848j>. Grossman, R. 2005. "Revealing hidden transformations: Making science more learnable," College Teaching 53(1): 33-40, 2005; online at <http://www.kzoo.edu/psych/rg_Hidden.pdf> (88 kB). Grossman, R. 2008. "Re: why psychology is hard," PsychTeacher post of 11 Feb 2008 12:45:57-0500; online at <http://tinyurl.com/22ma8f>. See also Grossman (2005). 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. "Why Don't Psychologists Research The Effectiveness Of Their Own Introductory Courses?" online at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=pod&P=R8743&I=-3>. Post of 15 & 16 Jan 2005 AERA-D, EdStat, Assess, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, POD, PsychTeacher, & Teaching Ed Psych. See also Hake (2005b). 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, POD, & STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych. Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Re: Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold Standard of Educational Research?" online at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=pod&P=R12350&I=-3>. Post of 17 Apr 2005 20:30:46-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, STLHE-L, and TIPS. Hake, R.R. 2006. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's," [PEP's = Psychologists, Education Specialists, & Psychometricians] Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation 3 (6), November, online at <http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/41/50> . This is a severely truncated version of "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" [Hake (2007)]. Hake, R.R. 2007. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf> (2.5 MB) and 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/>. Hake, R.R. 2008. "Can Distance and Classroom Learning Be Increased?" IJ-SoTL 2(1): January; online at <http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v2n1/essays_about_sotl/hake/index.htm>. The "International Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning" (IJ-SoTL) <http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/> is an open, peer-reviewed, international electronic journal containing articles, essays, and discussions about the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and its applications in higher/tertiary education today. Kelly, A.E. 2003. "Research as Design," Educational Researcher 32(1):3-4; online at <http://tinyurl.com/38ju3s>. Introduces an issue devoted to the theme "The Role of Design in Educational Research." See also Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (in press). Kelly A.E., R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek, eds. (in press), "Handbook of Innovative Design Research in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics (STEM) Education." Taylor and Francis. Valentino, M.A. 2008. "Re: why psychology is hard," PsychTeacher post of 12 Feb 2008 08:43:11-0800; online at <http://tinyurl.com/yvxh55>. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
