The abstract reads:

********************************************
ABSTRACT: Sara Rimer’s New York Times report “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard” concerning John Belcher’s “Technology-Enabled Active Learning” (TEAL) program has received widespread attention (about 30,000 hits on Google). Recently, guest blogger Diana Senechal (2009) in her provocative post “What’s with those clickers in physics class?” criticized TEAL on the basis of (a) comments published in the NYT by a few disaffected MIT students, and (b) her own preference for lectures over what she perceived as “group buzz, multiple-choice problems, and clickers.”

Similarly, Margaret Harris’ PhysicsWorld criticism of TEAL relies primarily on the comments of a few disgruntled MIT students.

But neither student comments nor one’s own preferences provide valid gauges of the *cognitive* (as opposed to the *affective*) impact of a course on the *average* student.

As repeatedly emphasized, the cognitive impact of a course is best gauged by pre-to-postest normalized gains on valid and consistently reliable tests developed through arduous quantitative and qualitative research by disciplinary experts.

Although this idea is gradually gaining traction in undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, geoscience, engineering, calculus, and physics, most of academia has turned a deaf ear. But similar ideas, independently suggested by physics Nobelist Carl Wieman (2005) may attract more attention.
******************************************* 

To access the complete 27 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/kqfpxy .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/

REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard – REDUX #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/kqfpxy . Post of 13 Sep 2009 08:31:05-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.

I thank Diana Senechal for her thoughtful comments on my response to her post “What’s with those clickers in physics class?” Four points – Diana wrote:

1111111111111111111111111111111
1. “The student in a lecture should be anything but passive. This is a time to absorb the material, to make sense of it, to write down and possibly ask questions, to isolate those things that require review, study, working out, and pondering.”

Of course, I completely agree. But in the real world, what *is* and what *should be* are two different things. The hard facts are that the average present-day student of introductory physics – even at Harvard and MIT – reacts passively to lectures and learns very little from them. This has been demonstrated, for example, by the very low average normalized gains of 0.23 [plus or minus 0.04 (std dev)] on a test of conceptual understanding of Newtonian Mechanics in 14 traditional lecture courses surveyed in “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 (1998); online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf . These gains are to be compared with the average normalized gains of 0.48 [plus or minus 0.14 (std dev)] of 48 traditional lecture courses that I surveyed. Similar results have been obtained by many other physics education research groups, as I indicated previously in my initial comment.

2222222222222222222222222222222
2. “Proponents of clickers point to research that shows significant average gains. Critics of clickers point to the losses – the demise of the lecture class, the emphasis on quick results, the emphasis on group talk over thought.”

Four points – a,b,c,d:

a. If the average introductory physics lecture class results in average normalized gains on a valid and consistently reliable test of conceptual understanding that are about two standard deviations below those of “interactive engagement” courses, how serious should be the concern for the demise of the introductory physics lecture class?

b. Does the average normalized gain reflect only “quick results” apparent only directly after a course? Not so according to (a) Greg Francis et al. in “Do they stay fixed?” Physics Teacher 36(8): 488- 491 (1998) http://tinyurl.com/ne558w ; and (2) Jonte Bernhard in “Does active engagement curricula give long-lived conceptual understanding?” Proceedings of GIREP 2000: Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000, Barcelona; online at http://tinyurl.com/npmcqb .

c. Is “group talk” inimical to “thought” ? If “group thought” means “social interaction” then it advances rather than retards thought for most students – see e.g., Joe Redish’s “5th principle of the cognitive model of instruction” – see point #3 below.

Furthermore, if Diana and others would take a crack at the “Force Concept Inventory” of David Hestenes et al., password protected at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html (scroll down to “Evaluation Instruments”) , then she and they might agree that correct responses from non-thinking students are unlikely.

d. Why the emphasis on the “average student” rather than the “exceptional student”? Because most exceptional students will learn on their own, even despite the (for them) usually helpful but unnecessary “interactive engagement.” On the other hand, the fate of the Planet is in the hands and minds of the masses of “average students” who, at least in democracies, control national policy – see e.g., ” ‘The Threat to Life on Planet Earth’ Is a More Important Issue Than David Brooks’ ‘Skills Slowdown’ “ at http://tinyurl.com/l28ojd .

3333333333333333333333333333333
3. “And many with experience in physics and mathematics will confirm that most of the learning has to be done alone, by pondering the material and working out problems. Surely they cannot all be wrong about this?”

The “many” to whom Diana refers are probably the *relative* few, such as (evidently) herself, who can benefit from good lectures. Their claims pertain to themselves but certainly not to the majority of introductory physics students.

Physics education guru Joe Redish, on page 39, Chapter 2, of “Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite,” online at http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Book/ wrote [bracketed by lines “RRRRR. . . . . .”; see Redish's book for the references]:

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
This [5th principle of the cognitive model of instruction] is based on the work on group learning that builds on the ideas of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. These ideas have had a profound impact on modern theories of teaching and learning [Vygotsky (1987), Jonnson (1993)]:

Principle 5: For most individuals, learning is most effectively carried out by social interactions.

I once heard David Halliday. . . . . [physicist and coauthor of the famous Halliday/Resnick text]. . . . . remark that what he enjoyed most as a student was sitting down by himself alone in a quite room with a physics text and going “one-on-one” with the authors of the book – trying to understand them and figure out what they were saying. Many of us have similar inclinations. Physicists as a group seem to be selected for the character of being able to learn on our own. But in examining my experiences of this type, I have decided that “learning on my own” involves the ability to create an “internalized other” – to take a variety of viewpoints and to argue with myself. This is a not commonly found characteristic and should not be assumed in a general population of students.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. “Speaking of name errors, in ‘The Case for Classroom Clickers’ . . . . .[ http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/CaseForClickersJ.pdf ] . . . . you spell Ira David Socol’s surname two ways: “Socol” (twice) and “Socal” (nine times). It appears that “Socol” is correct. Not on the order of my Mazur goof, but I suppose errors happen.”

Touché! Diana is right, in all cases I meant to refer to clicker naysayer, Ira David Socol http://tinyurl.com/6p2blm of Michigan State. I would apologize but it’s not my fault! It’s the fault of my stupid spiel chequer – see e.g., Jerrold Zar’s “Candidate for a Pullet Surprise” at http://www.jir.com/favorites.html .

Research by engineering professor Richard Felder and others has indicated that some students are “active learners,” learning best when actively engaging in discussion about a topic. Others are “reflective learners,” learning best when given time to think and reflect. It sounds like you’re a reflective learner. Felder argues that the “traditional” lecture doesn’t support either type of learner, however. If the instructor is doing all the talking, then the active learners don’t get a chance to learn in their preferred way. And if the instructor doesn’t build in pauses for reflection, the reflective learners are short-changed, too.

So how to handle a variety of kinds of learners in a classroom? My approach is to use a variety of instructional techniques. I’ll pose a clicker question and have my students think about it silently and submit their answers. Then, if the distribution of answers indicates some confusion about the question, I’ll have them discuss the question with their neighbors and re-vote. Then I’ll lead a class discussion on the question, asking student volunteers to share their reasoning with the class. I’ll usually end with a mini-lecture–really just a time where I provide my explanation for the question at hand.

This structure does at least two things well: It provides students with different kinds of learning activities (quiet reflection, small-group discussion, large-group discussion, listening to an “expert” explanation). It also creates what is sometimes called a “time for telling.” It’s not that I don’t offer my explanation, it’s that I put that explanation at the end of the activity, at which point the students are ready to hear it–ready because they’ve had a chance to grapple with the question and ready because they’re interested in hearing the correct answer.

That is an interesting question. I don’t have an immediate answer, but I have a few ideas.

Maybe part of the reason I enjoy lectures is that I am not a good note-taker. I can’t do both at once: take good notes and think about what the professor is saying. So I listen, make sense of it in my mind, and jot down things for later. So to me lectures seem more active than peer interaction stuff.

But I had an early start with lectures. The first lectures I attended, I think, were given by astrophysicist Thomas Gold, who was visiting the college where my father taught. He gave lectures for the public, and I went to every one. I was 10 or 11 at the time. I was lucky and also interested. No one made me go to the lectures; I wanted to go.

Then in high school we had excellent history teachers who gave lectures combined with class discussion. They showed us how to take notes without getting bogged down. I never got good at taking notes during lectures, but I suppose I did get good at not getting bogged down.

And I have always liked class discussion, which seems somewhere in between the lecture and the rapid small-group activity. In class discussion you can talk a lot, or you can sit back and listen. Unless you seem out of it, teachers usually give students this flexibility. They might call on you unexpectedly, but you still have room to sit back and think.

What do I draw from this? Students need listening practice, and they need to learn how to listen actively, sustaining their attention for more than a few minutes. Listening intently and making sense of the material in your mind may be more important than taking thorough notes.

Part of my objection to the “workshop” approach (T.E.A.L. or otherwise) is that it seems to be taking over many subjects. The “workshop model” was mandated in NYC across subject areas and still is in many schools. I can see how it might draw many students in, but there is a cost. Rarely are students expected to listen to anything for more than a few minutes.

Derek, you mentioned before that you don’t expect your students to learn the way you learned. That is a good point. But it also raises the question: what about those who do learn the way you did, or who do things differently from the majority? I am often told that I am different, my way of doing things is not the norm, etc. But “the norm” may not be exactly what it seems.

Thank you for your thought-provoking comments.

Diana Senechal

It would have been nice if you had disclosed all of the extensive work in science education you have done for the National Science Foundation in offering your opinion of TEAL.

It would also be appropriate to point out that Belcher developed TEAL with NSF funding.

NSF grants may not influence your opinion of TEAL but they do prevent your opinion from being viewed as merely that of a disinterested physics professor.

These are precisely the ways that many of my students act during my classes built around clicker-facilitated peer instruction.

I completely agree with Diana’s statement. This is how students *should* approach lectures. What do we do about the students who don’t approach lectures this way?

I’m wondering how to encourage and support more students in doing this during a lecture? Most students seem to just copy down notes for later sense-making. What recommendations would you have, Diana, for getting students to the point that they are not passive during lectures–other than interactive engagement techniques like peer instruction?

Speaking of name errors, in “The Case for Classroom Clickers,” you spell Ira David Socol’s surname two ways: “Socol” (twice) and “Socal” (nine times). It appears that “Socol” is correct. Not on the order of my Mazur goof, but I suppose errors happen.

Perhaps you were thinking of Alan D. Sokal, author of the brilliant postmodernist physics hoax?

In any case, thank you for the link to the article. It is giving me some more insight into the clicker controversy.

Diana Senechal

Thank you for the correction: Eric Mazur, not Kurt Mazur (as in Kurt Masur the conductor). I dislike making errors, especially egregious ones, and am glad someone caught it.

As for the research that has shown the effectiveness of T.E.A.L., that may well be. But we are in school for more than short-term gains. If we have reached a point where the student role in a lecture is viewed as “passive,” we are in trouble.

The student in a lecture should be anything but passive. This is a time to absorb the material, to make sense of it, to write down and possibly ask questions, to isolate those things that require review, study, working out, and pondering.

There may be benefits to clickers. But there are also losses. Fast-paced interactive environments simply leave less room for in-depth presentations, and there is too much distraction and activity for a student to get absorbed.

Not everyone likes peer instruction or benefits from it. We are creating a culture that touts it as superior and dismisses the lecture as “passive,” “chalk and talk,” “sage on the stage,” and all those awful things. Proponents of clickers point to research that shows significant average gains. Critics of clickers point to the losses–the demise of the lecture class, the emphasis on quick results, the emphasis on group talk over thought.

And many with experience in physics and mathematics will confirm that most of the learning has to be done alone, by pondering the material and working out problems. Surely they cannot all be wrong about this?

Would it not be possible to retain the lectures and have clicker sections for those who wanted them? Surely you are not saying that students cannot be expected to listen to lectures any more?

Diana Senechal

“Current and former physics students, physics professors, science teachers, and others, what do you think? Do you like this ‘new’ approach to physics instruction? Do you find that it enhances or limits learning? And what do you think of those clickers?”

As a former physics professor who taught introductory physics, off and on, for 25 years at Indiana University, I like Belcher’s TEAL course and others that emphasize “interactive engagement” (IE) methods, i.e., 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.”

The evidence that IE Courses such a TEAL enhance learning is overwhelming – see e.g.,”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 (1998); online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf.

For the 62 coursed surveyed, those that employed IE methods achieved average normalized gains g(ave) on a valid and consistently reliable test of conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics that were about two standard deviations greater than those achieved by traditional passive-student lecture courses. Similar results have been reported in about 25 other research articles as listed in “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review,” at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf.

What do I think of those clickers? Properly used, it’s been demonstrated by Harvard’s Eric Mazur (*not* Diana’s “Kurt Mazur”) and others that “Peer Instruction” pedagogy that utilizes either clickers or low-tech flashcards can achieve large increases in average normalized learning gains over those achieved in traditional courses –see e.g., Crouch and Mazur’s “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results,” Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at http://tinyurl.com/sbys4; and also my own “The Case for Classroom Clickers – A Response to Bugeja“ at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/CaseForClickersJ.pdf .

I’ve seen studies showing that students who have taken physics classes..and done well in them..often give absolutely bizarre answers when asked to think about simple real-life physics problems. (If a ball is accelerated in a semicircular tube, will it follow a circular path when it comes out?)

In other words, they didn’t lose their preconceptions in the physics class.  I’m not sure what you can do to ameliorate students who really, verifiably don’t get it but flunking them is probably a good idea.