[net-gold] The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #3
- 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>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
.
.
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:53:22 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #3
.
If you reply to this long (17 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 "Re: 'The 'Teacher Effect' -
Response to Hansen #2" <http://bit.ly/eh6sge>, Math-Teach's Robert
Hansen posed a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with
Newtonian mechanics, but which he erroneously believed to be an
FCI-like question! He then claimed that such questions are
"trainable and tell very little of the true understanding that
results when one develops these notions through rigorous problem
solving (which for physics requires math)."
.
Hansen then leaked :-( an actual FCI question by referencing an AAPT
talk by Ken Hicks of Ohio University. If recipients of Hansen's post
examine Hicks' talk they may be mislead by Hicks' errors, of which I
list seven of the most egregious.
.
In a subsequent post, I'll address other serious deficiencies in
Hansen's (2011) <http://bit.ly/fjJAdl> response.
.
*********************************************
.
In the abstract of my post "Re: 'The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to
Hansen #2" [Hake (2011b)], I wrote: "Hansen is either dismissive or
oblivious of the fact that PER is concerned with (a) students'
conceptual understanding, (b) students' ability to solve
non-algorithmic problems, and (c) at least 10 other capabilities
listed in this post."
.
Robert Hansen (2011) in his reply to my post wrote [bracketed by
lines "HHHHH. . . . ."; my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . "]
.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
.
The FCI is supposed to test conceptual understanding, yet in a vacuum
void of math and the thoughtful application of concept that
accompanies math, as you note in (a) and (b) above, and as is noted
in much of the literature. The problem with conceptual notions like
those in the FCI is that they are trainable . . . . .[[a common
misconception of traditional physics instructors - see e.g.,
"Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" (Mazur, 2009)]]. . . . and tell
very little of the true understanding that results when one develops
these notions through rigorous problem solving (which for physics
requires math). . . . [[but see "Students do not overcome conceptual
difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems" (Kim & Pak,
2002)]]. . . . For example...
.
Explain why we have night and day?
.
.
A. The sun revolves around the earth.
.
B. The earth revolves around the sun.
.
C. The earth revolves around the moon.
.
D. The earth revolves around its axis.
.
.
(note: I deliberately used the word revolve instead of orbit for the
purpose of this comparison)
.
You might say "ah, baloney, this is not FCI!"
.
. . . .[[That statement is absolutely *correct*'! Hansen's question
has nothing whatsoever to do with Newtonian mechanics and
demonstrates his ignorance of the nature and arduous development of
(a) the FCI [Hestenes et al. (1992)], and (b) its precursor the
Mechanics Diagnostic test [Halloun & Hestenes (1985a)]. The
distractors in FCI questions, unlike those in Hansen's question,
represent common student misconceptions regarding force-and-motion,
discovered by the arduous qualitative and quantitative research of
Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b)]]. . . .
.
but here is a sample FCI problem (page 6) and is of the same form. .
. <http://plato.phy.ohiou.edu/~hicks/CATS-Symp-Hicks.pdf>
.
. . . . .[[Hansen's question is of the "same form" as the FCI
question leaked by Hicks (2011) in that it offers responses A-D, but
the sameness ends there! For an FCI-like question which is *not* on
the FCI see the "Introduction" to "Lessons from the physics education
reform effort" (Hake, 2002a)]]. . . .
.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
.
Math-Teach and Math-Learn subscribers who read Hansen's post and
click on Hicks' (2010) talk at the above URL (or its shorter
equivalent <http://bit.ly/e8Q3Ee>) may be seriously misled by Hicks'
errors. [One shouldn't be too hard on Hicks. Judging from his webpage
<http://bit.ly/gBEPMA>, Hicks is: (a) very busy and productive in
nuclear and high-energy physics, and (b) not a PER specialist. Also,
as far as I know -please correct me if I'm wrong - there are no
PER's at Ohio University. So Hicks deserves a lot of credit for
managing and researching a studio-type course in a probably
indifferent or hostile environment. Nevertheless a list of 7 of his
more egregious mistakes appears below:
.
1. On page 3, Hicks states: "The concept of Studio Physics was
pioneered by Bob Beichner at North Carolina State U." WRONG, it was
pioneered by Jack Wilson (1994) <http://www.jackmwilson.com/>, then
at RPI, as even the most cursory examination of Beichner's papers
will indicate!
.
2. On page 5, Hicks states: "Pre-test measures knowledge from
high-school." WRONG. It measures a student's conceptual understanding
of Newtonian mechanics at the start of the course. My experience has
been that many incoming students have not taken high-school physics
and some have taken a post-high-school introductory physics course.
.
3. On page 5, Hicks states that the FCI was "Developed by Eric Mazur
(Harvard University)." WRONG. Nothing could be further from the
truth, as even the most cursory examination of Mazur's papers will
indicate! It was developed by Hestenes et al. (1992) building on the
earlier "Mechanics Diagnostic test" of Halloun & Hestenes (1985a).
The test used by Hicks was the 30-question 1995 version of the FCI
due to Halloun et al. (1995).
.
4. On page 6, Hicks leaks a question from the FCI, which Hansen
propagates. BAD PRACTICE by both Hicks and Hansen! Placing Concept
Test questions on the internet is a crime against educational
research because it compromises the integrity of the tests and
nullifies their use by instructors to formatively evaluate their
courses - see e.g., "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is
Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky" (Hake, 2010)].
.
5. On page 7, Hicks gives an equation for what appears to be the
*individual student* normalized gain "g" (which he calls "G") and
then sets the equation equal to "maximum possible increase." WRONG.
It's the ratio of the "actual gain (%post - %pre)" to the "maximum
possible gain (100% - %pre)." Insofar as evaluating the effectiveness
of his course, Hicks would have done better to have followed the
example of Hake (1998a) (and most other PER's) and use the *course
average* normalized gain <g> = [<%post> - <%pre>)/ [100% - <%pre>],
where the angle brackets indicate course averages.
.
6. On page 8, Hicks shows Fig. 1b from Coletta & Phillips (2005).
Under the graph appears the caption: "Data for University of
Minnesota students (number of cases N=1648) taught in the 'studio'
style for introductory physics." WRONG - see the caption for Fig. 1b
in Coletta & Phillips (2005).
.
7. On page 9, Hicks shows data from Hake (2002b) - a repeat of that
from Hake (1998a) - with the heading "Comparing Lecture vs Studio
Style." WRONG - As clearly indicated in the graph, it compares
"Interactive Engagement" (IE) vs "Traditional" (T) Pedagogy, where IE
and T pedagogies are *operationally* defined in Hake (1998a). "Studio
Style" courses may or may not be of the IE-type.
.
In a subsequent post, I'll address other serious deficiencies in
Hansen's (2011) response.
.
.
.
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>
.
.
.
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
18 April 2011.]
Coletta, V.P. and J.A. Phillips. 2005. "Interpreting FCI Scores:
Normalized Gain, Preinstruction Scores, & Scientific Reasoning
Ability," Am. J. Phys. 73(12): 1172-1182; an abstract is online at
<http://bit.ly/cRqwXS>.
.
.
.
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://bit.ly/d16ne6>. See also Hake (1998b).
.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive- engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at <http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>. Submitted on
6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP" (PERS),
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. 2002a. "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. 2002b. "Assessment of Student Learning in Introductory
Science Courses," 2002 PKAL Roundtable on the Future: Assessment in
the Service of Student Learning, online as a 192 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/gX5ciG>.
.
Hake, R.R. 2007. "Six Lessons From the Physics Education Reform
Effort," Latin American Journal of Physics, online as a 124 KB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/ecCpvs>.
.
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is
Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky," PhysLrnR post of 4 Jun 2010
17:08:25-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/gkPuao>. 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. 2011a. "Is the 'Teacher Effect' the Dominant Factor in
Students' Academic Gain?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ>. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were
transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/ifvkSz>.
.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. "The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #2,"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/eh6sge>. Post
of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract
and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various
discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/efQg1g>.
.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1043-1055; online at
<http://bit.ly/b1488v>. Scroll down to "Evaluation Instruments."
.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1056-1065; online at
<http://bit.ly/b1488v>. Scroll down to "Evaluation Instruments."
.
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.
.
Hansen, R. 2011. "Re: 'The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #2"
online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at <http://bit.ly/fjJAdl>.
Post of April 17 to Math-Teach & Math-Learn.
.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory," The Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158; online as a 100 kB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/foWmEb > [but without the test itself]. For the
1995 revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
.
Hicks, K. 2010. "Student Learning Outcomes from a Studio Physics
Course at OU" AAPT meeting, Marietta College October 9, online as a
668 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/e8Q3Ee>.
.
Kim, E. & S-J Pak. 2002. "Students do not overcome conceptual
difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems," Am. J. Phys.
70(7): 759-765; an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/eaHjo6>.
.
Mazur, E. 2009. "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" talk at the
University of Maryland on 11 November 2009. That talk is now on UTube
at <http://bit.ly/dBYsXh>, and the abstract, slides, and references -
sometimes obscured in the UTube talk - are at <http://bit.ly/9qzDIq>
as a 4 MB pdf. As of 18 April 2011 07:48:00-0700 Eric's talk had been
viewed 35,546 times. In contrast, serious articles in the education
literature (or even exciting posts such as this one) are often read
only by the author and a few cloistered specialists, creating
tsunamis in educational practice equivalent to those produced by a
pebble dropped into the Pacific Ocean.
.
Wilson, J.M. 1994. "The CUPLE Physics Studio," Phys. Teach. 32(9):
518-523; online to subscribers at <http://bit.ly/fQUlcX>. For related
resources from comPADRE see <http://bit.ly/h3VDuW>.
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] The 'Teacher Effect' - Response to Hansen #3 - David P. Dillard
