[net-gold] Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education
- 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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
.
.
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher
Education
.
If you reply to this long (15 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: Economist Bill Goffe in his PhysLrnR post "Re: Business
agenda for K-12 STEM education: not research-informed" wrote
(paraphrasing):
.
". . . it appears that Physics Education Research isn't widely known
even in higher ed. For example Trudy Banta and Charles Blaich in a
"Change Magazine" article "Closing the Assessment Loop"
<http://bit.ly/lQyEYp> bemoan the fact that they can find very few
instances of improved learning after a teaching innovation. The
extensive physics education research that so convincingly
demonstrates such a connection is not even mentioned."
.
That Trudy Banta <http://bit.ly/mKElpt> and Charles Blaich
<http://bit.ly/iNrXrL> are evidently either unaware or dismissive of
physics education research is typical of the near total disconnect
between (a) Psychologists, Education specialists, and
Psychometricians (PEP's), and (b) education researchers in STEM
disciplines - see e.g. "Evidence on Promising Practices in
Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education" <http://bit.ly/ceg1Bx>, and "Possible Palliatives
for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's" [Hake
(2006) <http://bit.ly/caWtWl>].
.
*******************************************
.
Economist Bill Goffe (2011) in his PhysLnrR post of 26 Apr 2011
titled "Re: Business agenda for K-12 STEM education: not
research-informed" wrote [bracketed by lines "GGGG. . . .", my insert
at ". . . . . .[[insert]]. . . . ."]:
.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
.
. . . . . if by "research-based," one is including PER . . . .
[[Physics Education Research]]. . . . , well, it appears that PER
isn't widely known even in higher ed. Here's an example:"Closing the
Assessment Loop," by Trudy W. Banta and Charles Blaich. . . . . . . .
. . . .[[Banta & Blaich (2011)]]. . . . . Banta is a leading expert
in "assessment" (briefly, U.S. colleges and universities are now
mandated by their accrediting bodies to assess learning and fix areas
that they find lacking) and Blaich heads the Wabash Study"
<http://bit.ly/m2JST2>.
.
In this paper, they. . . . [[Banta & Blaich]]. . . bemoan the fact
that they can find very few instances of improved learning after a
teaching innovation. In the pre-publication copy I have, PHYSICS
ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED.. . . . [[My CAPS]]. . . That is, no mention of
Hake's 6,000 student IE study . . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b; 2002;
2008a)]]. . . . ., the FCI . . . . . .[[Force Concept Inventory
(Hestenes et al., 1992)]]. . . . . (and doubtless other things I
don't know of).
.
It would seem a natural to me that all that PER has done should be
well-known in the assessment community; indeed, it could be a model
for higher ed.. . . . .[[see e.g., "The Physics Education Reform
Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?" (Hake, 2005) and "Why
Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?" (Wieman, 2007)]]
. . . . Yet, as best I can tell, the story isn't known.
.
I talked to Banta about this at a workshop and she suggested a
submission to "Assessment Update" <http://bit.ly/jnHraN>, which she
edits. I would imagine that this would help people working on
assessment on U.S. campuses and are looking rather desperately for a
model of success. . . . . .
.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
.
.
That Trudy Banta <http://bit.ly/mKElpt> and Charles Blaich
<http://bit.ly/iNrXrL> are evidently either unaware or dismissive of
physics education research is typical of the near total disconnect
between (a) Psychologists, Education specialists, and
Psychometricians (PEP's), and (b) education researchers in STEM
disciplines - see e.g. "Evidence on Promising Practices in
Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education," and
"Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that
Plagues Some PEP's" [Hake (2006)].
.
.
.
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>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
.
.
"There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the
sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that
encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own
learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer
of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional
lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty
of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future.
. . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the
elements of scientific teaching by university science departments
could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate
society and a reinvigorated research enterprise."
Robert DeHaan (2005)
.
.
"One of the most striking findings [came from comparison of the
learning outcomes (as measured by the FCI and a related inventory on
mechanics) from 14 traditional courses (2,084 students) and 48
courses using "interactive-engagement" (active learning) techniques
(4,458 students). . . . .[[Hake (1998a,b)]]. . . . . The results on
the FCI assessment showed that students in the interactive
engagement courses outperformed students in the traditional courses
by 2 SDs. Similarly, students in the interactive-engagement courses
outperformed students in the traditional courses on the Mechanics
Baseline Test, a measure of problem-solving ability. This certainly
looks like evidence that active learning works! Research in physics
education is having a profound effect on the development of
instructional materials."
Joel Michael (2006)
.
.
.
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
27 April 2011.]
.
.
Banta, T.W. & C. Blaich. 2011. "Closing the Assessment Loop," Change
Magazine, January/February; online at <http://bit.ly/lQyEYp>.
.
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. "The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education," Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):
253-269; the abstract and first page are online at
<http://bit.ly/cqIK1w>.
.
Epstein, J. 2007. "Development and Validation of the Calculus Concept
Inventory," in "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on
Mathematics Education in a Global Community," 7-12 September, edited
by Pugalee, Rogerson & Schinck; online as a 48 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/bqKSWJ>.
.
Goffe, B. 2011. "Re: Business agenda for K-12 STEM education: not
research-informed," PhysLrnR post of 26 Apr 2011 23:47:19-0400;
online at <http://bit.ly/muRtC2>. To access the archives of PhysLnR
one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by
clicking on <http://bit.ly/beuikb> and then clicking on "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)." 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!
.
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/d16ne6>.
.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as a 108 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>
(108 kB). A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a). Rejected :-( by
an AJP editor who thought the very transparent Physical-Review-type
data tables were "impenetrable."
.
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at <http://bit.ly/aL87VT>. For
an update on six of the lessons on "interactive engagement" see Hake
(2007).
.
Hake, R.R. 2005. "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible
Model for Higher Education?" online as a 100 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9aicfh>. This is a slightly edited version of the
article that was: (a) published in the "National Teaching and
Learning Forum" (NTLF) 15(1), December 2005, online to subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/> [If your institution doesn't subscribe then it
should!]; (b) disseminated by the "Tomorrow's Professor Mailing List
<http://bit.ly/9WAZ3Q > as Msg. #698 on 14 Feb 2006 (Type "698" into
the slot at the top of the page.)
.
Hake, R.R. 2006. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post
Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's," Journal of MultiDisciplinary
Evaluation, Number 6, November, online at<http://bit.ly/caWtWl>. This
even despite the admirable anti-alliteration advice at psychologist
Donald Zimmerman's site <http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/> to
"Always assiduously and attentively avoid awful, awkward, atrocious,
appalling, artificial, affected alliteration."
.
Hake, R.R. 2007. "Six Lessons From the Physics Education Reform
Effort," Latin American Journal of Physics, online as at 124 kB pdf
at <http://bit.ly/ecCpvs>.
.
Hake, R.R. 2008a. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008); a prepublication
version of Hake's chapter is online as a 1.1 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9kORMZ>.
.
Hake, R.R. 2008b. "Demonstrated Value of Formative Pre/post Testing,"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/j8YL58>. Post
of 7 Jan 2008 10:58:22-0800 to AERA-L, PhysLrnR, and POD.
.
Hake, R.R. 2008c. "Demonstrated Value of Formative Pre/post Testing -
Addendum," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/iZ9ikN>. Post of 7 Jan 2008 14:55:19 -0800 to AERA-L,
PhysLrnR, and POD. This corrects for the inadvertent omission of
undergraduate mathematics [Epstein (2007)] .
.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online as a 2.5 MB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/d6WVKO> (2.5 MB). To appear as a chapter in
"Rethinking Education as a Science" [Hake (in preparation)]. A
severely truncated version appears in Hake (2006).
.
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P. Mosca, & D. Hestenes. 1995. "Force
Concept Inventory (1995 Revision)," online (password protected) at
<http://bit.ly/b1488v>, scroll down to "Evaluation Instruments."
Currently available in 20 languages: Arabic, Chinese, Croatian,
Czech, English, Finnish, French, French (Canadian), German, Greek,
Italian, Japanese, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish,
Slovak, Swedish, & Turkish.
.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory," The Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158; online as a 100 kBpdf
at <http://bit.ly/foWmEb > [but without the test itself]. For the
1995 revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
.
Kelly, A.E., R.A. Lesh, J.Y. Baek. 2008. "Handbook of Design Research
Methods in Education: Innovations in Teaching." Routledge Education,
publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/dkLabI>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/flJaQ9>.
.
Labov, J.B., S.R. Singer, M.D. George, H.A. Schweingruber, & M.L.
Hilton. 2009. "Effective Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education
Part 1: Examining the Evidence," CBE Life Sci Educ 8(3): 157-161;
online at <http://bit.ly/cRc0JC>. This is a discussion of the
"Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM
Undergraduate Education" [National Academies (2008)].
.
Michael, J. 2006. "Where's the evidence that active learning works?"
Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at
<http://bit.ly/fjJ2Lj>.
.
National Academies. 2008. "Evidence on Promising Practices in
Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education: Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising
Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education" online at
<http://bit.ly/fAhNpA>: Meeting 1 of 30 June, online at
<http://bit.ly/ciNwjQ>; Meeting 2 of 13-14 October containing
commissioned papers online at <http://bit.ly/ceg1Bx>. See also the
commentary on these workshops by Labov et al. (2009).
.
Wieman, C. 2007. "Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science
Education?" Change Magazine, September/October; online as a 804 kB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/anTMfF>.
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education - David P. Dillard
