[net-gold] Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Other Net-Gold Lists -- Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <NetGold_general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Lists -- Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports Tourism <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HEALTH-RECREATION-SPORTS-TOURISM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
.
.
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:07:03 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant
Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann
.
.
If you reply to this long (20 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: In response to my post "Can Physics Education Research
Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?" at <http://bit.ly/yrvMaM>,
Steve Ehrmann <http://bit.ly/ADjG1f> of the ASSESS list wrote that he
doubted that Eric Mazur's method ("Peer Instruction" (PI)
<http://bit.ly/xd2sSe>) was an example of operant conditioning
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning> because PI did
not require many trials.
.
But in my post I quoted Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner, to
the effect she thought that *some* aspects of Mazur's method were
"behavioral," *not* that his method was an example of "operant
conditioning." The title of my post "Can Physics Education Research
Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?" was in response to the
statement "Physics Education Research Can Learn a Lot From Operant
Conditioning" by PhysLrnR's Diana Kronbrot (2012b) - erroneously
attributed by myself to Bud Nye in my post at <http://bit.ly/yrvMaM>.
.
Steve then went on to state that he thought Ron Thornton's
microcomputer-based labs <http://bit.ly/wecznc> might be examples of
operant conditioning because they featured "repeating trials to
internalize difficult ideas such as acceleration."
.
But I think Thornton's microcomputer-based labs are more than just
"repeating trials. . .. [[with motion detectors]]. . . . to
internalize difficult ideas." In addition they are good examples of
"interactive engagement" methods, operationally defined in Hake
(1998a) <http://bit.ly/9484DG> as those "designed at least in part to
promote conceptual understanding through active engagement of
students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which
yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or
instructors."
.
Therefore I don't think microcomputer- based labs can be accurately
characterized as either (a) "Skinnerian" or (b) examples of "operant
conditioning."
.
I give some examples of "interactive engagement" Socratic Dialogue
Inducing (SDI) Labs designed to promote students' *operational*
understanding of the terms "operational," "position," "vectors,"
"velocity," and "acceleration."
.
***************************************************
.
In response to my post of 10 Mar 2012 "Can Physics Education
Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning?" [Hake (2012)] Steve
Ehrmann (2012) made two points to which I shall respond below:
.
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
.
1. Steve Ehrmann wrote: "I've got a problem thinking of Mazur's
methods as being about operant conditioning - among other problems
operant conditioning requires many trials . . . . . ."
.
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning>:
.
"Operant conditioning is a form of learning during which an
individual modifies the occurrence and form of its own behavior due
to the consequences of the behavior. . . . . Operant conditioning,
sometimes called "instrumental conditioning" or "instrumental
learning," was first extensively studied by Edward L. Thorndike
(1874-1949). . . . B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) formulated a more
detailed analysis of operant conditioning based on reinforcement,
punishment, and extinction. . . . . . Following the ideas of Ernst
Mach, Skinner rejected Thorndike's mediating structures required by
"satisfaction" and constructed a new conceptualization of behavior
without any such references. So, while experimenting with some
homemade feeding mechanisms, Skinner invented the operant
conditioning chamber which allowed him to measure rate of response as
a key dependent variable using a cumulative record of lever presses
or key pecks (Chiesa, 2004). "
.
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), no one ever stated
or implied that Mazur's methods were "about operant conditioning."
The title of my post "Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From
Operant Conditioning?" was in response to PhysLrnR's Diana Kronbot
(2012b) who wrote [my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . ."]:
.
"Skinner . . . . .[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner>]]. .
. . made many contributions and his work on operant conditioning is
invaluable and makes a strong contributions to this day. CBT. . . ..
[[Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy>]] . ., as
you rightly point out is one of those strong contributions. Indeed
PER CAN LEARN A LOT FROM OPERANT CONDITIONING since rote learning
also has a part to play in learning complex ideas. BUT the
'responses' that are being reinforced are not merely physical. They
may well be verbal responses about the client's mental state"
.
Unfortunately in my post "Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot
From Operant Conditioning?" [Hake (2012a)] the above quote of Diana
Kornbot was erroneously attributed to Bud Nye :-( .
.
In that same post, I quoted Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner,
as stating that:
.
"Mazur's method is definitely behavioral in asking for student
responding, adjusting according to how they do answer, and in the
objectives being stated in clear terms that require 'applying' the
principles to every day life in addition to just memorizing them."
.
Thus Julie Vargas only states that *some* aspects of Mazur's method
are "behavioral," not that his method is "about operant conditioning."
.
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
.
2. Steve Ehrmann wrote [bracketed by lines "EEEEE. . . ., so as to
avoid awkward quotes within quotes; my inserts at ". . . .
.[[insert]]. . . . ."]:
.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
.
. . . .. but it's more clear that at least some computer-based labs
and simulations are examples of operant conditioning. Consider the
following example:
.
1. Students are paired. They are given a motion detector which is
attached to a computer. When the motion detector is pointed at a
student, it can detect the student's distance, speed, and
acceleration. The computer can plot any of those quantities against
any other. For example, if the student moves away from the computer
at a steady speed, the computer will display something like a
straight line, rising from left to right. If the display is switched
to velocity over time, the line will jump up as the student begins to
move and then will run roughly level from left to right.
.
2. The students are given a graph (e.g., velocity over time).
.
3. One student then moves toward or away from the motion detector,
trying to reproduce the graph they have been given. They can try as
many times as they like.
.
4. Once they succeed, they are given another graph and once again try
to move, relative to one another, in order to produce a live version
of that graph on their computer screen.
.
5. They keep repeating this process with different graphs until they
can reliably create graphs on their first attempts (e.g.,
acceleration over time).
.
Although the goal is to influence cognitive state rather than
physical actions (a no-no in behaviorism, I think....?), the notion
of repeating trials to internalize a new behavior (in this case to
internalize the idea of graphs of a physical quantity over time and
also to internalize difficult ideas such as acceleration) - that
sounds Skinnerian to me.
.
PS. As you know, the research by folks like Ron Thornton. . . . .
.[[see e.g., "Learning motion concepts using real-time
microcomputer-based laboratory tools" (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990)]].
. . . . . shows pretty convincingly that, when students learn about
graphs and acceleration this way, they perform better on later tests
in which they are given problems that they haven't previously seen.
In other words, they are capable of applying their knowledge to new
situations. . . .[[more generally it's been shown (Hake, 1998a,b)
rather convincingly that "interactive engagement" courses which
entail such practices as microcomputer-based laboratories with its
immediate feedback result in pre-to-posttest class average normalized
gains <g> on tests of conceptual understanding of Newtonian
mechanics which can be two-standard deviations above those of
traditional passive-student lecture courses]]. . . . . . . .
.
Here's a brief video. . . . .[[due to high-school physics teacher
Frank Noschese ]]. . . . showing students doing this kind of
experiment; . . . . <http://bit.ly/yMRREq>.
.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
.
I think:
.
a. microcomputerized labs entail much more than just "repeating
trials to internalize a new behavior," and should not be
characterized as "Skinnerian,"
.
b. are good examples of "interactive engagement" methods,
*operationally* defined in Hake (1998a) as those "designed at least
in part to promote conceptual understanding through active engagement
of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities
which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or
instructors."
.
To promote students' understanding of:
.
(1) the operational meaning of "operational" see e.g. "Helping
Students to Think Like Scientists in Socratic Dialogue Inducing
Labs"[Hake (2012b)];
.
(1) the operational meaning of the terms "position" and "vectors" see
e.g., SDI Lab #0.1 "Frames of Reference, Position, and Vectors,"
online as a 74 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/xItE73>;
.
(2) the operational meaning of the kinematic terms "velocity" and
"acceleration" by means of Thornton/Sokoloff-type motion detector
exercises see e.g., SDI Lab #0.2: "Introduction to Kinematics,"
online as a 57 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/xIil7c> - a Teacher's guide
is available by request to <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
.
.
.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Academia: <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake>
.
.
.
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 13 March 2012; most shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
.
.
.
NOTE: To access the post by Nye and Kronbrot on the CLOSED archives
of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few
minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on
"Join or Leave PHYSLRNR-LIST." 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!
.
.
.
Mecca Chiesa, M. 2004. "Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the
Science," Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/wDc3rw>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/zoksKi>. According to the publisher: "To a greater
extent than any other behavioral formulation, Radical Behaviorism has
abandoned mechanistic explanation. Like Darwin, B.F. Skinner adopted
selection as a causal mode. He applied that mode himself to the
behavior of the individual, pointing out but leaving it to others to
unravel the causal role of selection in the behavior of a social
culture. Also, Radical Behaviorism parts company with traditional
behaviorists who pronounce private experience and thinking to be
outside the domain of science. Misconceptions, misinterpretations,
and misrepresentations have kept the humanity and the promise of this
approach to behavioral science from those who would have welcomed and
used it if they had been properly informed. From the Author's
Preface: 'This book is my attempt to bring together and to articulate
radical behaviorism's position on issues relating to how we ask
questions about behavior and how it can be explained within a
scientific framework. Some may disagree with my interpretation,
others may find aspects of it helpful to their own understanding.
Above all, I hope that this book will do for other students and
practitioners of psychology what writing it has done for me: provide
an integrative theme for evaluating the multiplicity of theoretical
approaches in psychology today.' "
.
Ehrmann, S. 2012. "Re: Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot
From Operant Conditioning?" on the OPEN ACCESS archives at
<http://bit.ly/zi060m>. Post of 12 Mar 2012 11:01:0 -0400 to ACCESS.
.
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 an 84 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9484DG> . See also the crucial but ignored companion
paper Hake (1998b).
.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as a 108 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>. A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement"
(PERS) of the American Journal of Physics, but rejected by its editor
on the grounds that the very transparent, well organized, and crystal
clear Physical-Review-type data tables were "impenetrable"!
.
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From
Operant Conditioning?" on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/yrvMaM>. Post of 10 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0800AERA-L and
Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/wfURAx> with a provision for
comments. That post erroneously :-( attributed to PhysLrnR's Bud Nye
the statement "Physics Education Research Can Learn a Lot From
Operant Conditioning" by PhysLrnR's Diana Kronbrot (2012b).
.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. "Helping Students to Think Like Scientists in
Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs," Phys. Teach. 50(1): 48-52; online
to subscribers at <http://bit.ly/zNr2hx>. A version identical to the
Physics Teacher article except for (a) minor formatting changes, and
(b) the addition of a few *hot-linked* URL's is online as a 299 kB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/x5ruYF>.
.
Kornbrot, D. 2012a. "Re: Behavior and/or cognition," online on the
CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/yISyjG>. Post of 5 Mar
2012 09:02:41+000018:21:53+0000 to PhysLrnR.
.
Kornbrot, D. 2012b. "Re: Behavior and/or cognition," online on the
CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/ya9bas>. Post of 6 Mar
2012 18:21:53+0000 to PhysLrnR. To find Kronbrot's statement "PHYSICS
EDUCATION RESEARCH CAN LEARN A LOT FROM OPERANT CONDITIONING?" amid
the confusing mix of Nye and Kornbrot statements, scroll down to the
second statement prefaced by "Diana."
.
Nye, B. 2012. "Re: Behavior and/or cognition," on the CLOSED!
PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/xDEuyv>. Post of 5 Mar 2012
09:48:44-0800 to PhysLrnR. CAUTION !! - Nye prefaces his own comments
by quoting Kornbrot's (2012a) *entire* already archived post, even
though it's only a mouse click away at <http://bit.ly/yISyjG>.
.
Thornton, R.K.& D.R. Sokoloff. 1990. "Learning motion concepts using
real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58(9):
858-867; online as 1MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/w9G1lp>; an abstract if
freely available at <http://bit.ly/yD9hHc>.
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Can Physics Education Research Learn a Lot From Operant Conditioning? Response to Ehrmann - David P. Dillard
