|
|
RE: [math-learn] Re: Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2
Posted:
Jul 17, 2011 8:52 AM
|
|
|
|
But how do you know this?
Were there any objective evaluations of how you actually learned? One of
the important things that Laws et al found was that student evaluations of
the course went down at the same time that the research based test scores
went up. Mazur found the same thing, and he also showed that problem
solving ability went up. Now it is true that the dip in student evaluations
can be just temporary as the teacher learns to get students to buy into the
program.
Unfortunately most of the so called "discovery learning" is not well
designed and does not actually follow the learning cycle. It must be
research based inquiry, which is quite different from the usual "discovery"
learning. And the learning cycle does include some short lecture at
appropriate points.
Virtually all of the university professors are survivors of the teaching
methods which weeded out the other students, so of course they tend to
regard the lecture system as good. There is some evidence that it is
possible to do lecture first in the learning cycle, but only for the highly
formal operational thinkers. As I recall this was shown by Renner, but he
also showed that the other parts of the learning cycle needed to be done.
It is imperative for the other students that exploration come first.
In reality, I think the higher level thinkers do exploration independently
of the course, so it is not necessary for their development that it be done
in class. They automatically ask what if questions which are an important
part of exploration. I can remember thinking that some "verification labs"
that we did in class were stupid because the results were self evident. I
might have also considered the same labs as exploration stupid.
Notice one of the important things here is the word "research based". A
recent issue of American Journal of Physics reported a series of tests of
the standard lecture based learning vs a studio model IE program. The
results were that the lecture based courses had similar scores irrespective
of who taught them, and the studio program also had similar scores
independently of who taught them. But the studio courses scored about 50%
or better gain, while the lecture courses were typically around 12% gain.
Indeed one new professor taught 2 semesters each way and his gain mirrored
these results. The studio model was prescriptive in the sense that the
program had to be followed rigidly, but what the teacher did was not
scripted. These same results were obtained at ASU in the 90s where 4
professors with extremely different lecture styles ended up with the same
low gain.
So it may be that lecture works better for you, but there is probably no
objective proof. The human mind is very good at manufacturing pseudo cause
and effect. We all do this. That is why medical studies are rigidly
controlled to be able to figure out what actually happens.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
> I must be a very atypical learner.
>
> All throughout my life, I have always learned math best
> through the lecture
> and demonstration method.
>
> Of course, this is predicated upon the condition that the teacher or
> professor performing the lecture and demonstration is doing
> so effectively and
> going through the explanation of a problem solution in a patient and
> methodical step-by-step manner.
>
> In short, I have always learned better when I sit at my desk,
> listen to and
> watch the teacher or professor, and take notes on the steps
> of his or her
> problem solutions.
>
> On many occasions, I used to copy them over later, and more
> neatly, in a
> separate notebook as a study method.
>
> In contrast, I never learned math well from "discovery
> learning" approaches
> and group "interactive" approaches.
>
|
|
