I am surprised that it had to come down to a study to wake you guys up out of your dream. I thought maybe some day you would try to tell us how successful you are and we would have to reply "What are you talking about? We don't even hire your students anymore!" How long have I been saying how good our foreign hires have been? But all they are doing is what we used to do. I have been saying all along that my peers and I would have eaten these concept inventories for breakfast. And all we did was attend middle class high school classes in calculus and physics, before the reforms. There is no doubt left in my mind that these alternative theories of pedagogy like I.E. are nothing more than reflections of the failure that occurs when you try to teach secondary subjects to non aspiring students. They belong in a book titled "When Teaching Will Not Work..." What Hake, Epstein (and John) need to understand is that when teaching does not work it isn't necessarily because the teaching is bad. When your student is neither interested nor aspiring, I don't care what it is you claim you are doing, but you aren't teaching. Without that ingredient you cannot teach. Not according to the general understanding of the term (but I am sure you have invented new definitions to cover yourselves). Your only possibility at that point is to try to inspire them. But the inspiration must be real and honest (or else it is called fraud). I mean, you can't claim to be inspiring them to take on physics when you portray physics to be an activity about as demanding as watching TV or twittering your friends.
On Jan 22, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Richard Hake wrote:
> Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent > discussion-list post "Re: FCI and CCI in China #2" [Hake (2012)]. > The abstract reads: > > *********************************************** > ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's Jerry Epstein wrote (paraphrasing): "The > Calculus Concept Inventory (CCI) has been given to about 1000 > university students enrolled in a TEACHER-CENTERED calculus course in > Shanghai, China. Their average normalized gains <g> were about > two-standard deviations above those of U.S. university calculus > courses, possibly due to student-organized out-of-class interactive > group work." > > Craig Ogilvie responded: "Are there FCI (Force Concept Inventory) > gains reported for a similar group of students/physics courses in > China? It would support your hypothesis if they also showed high > gains for non-IE pedagogy." Here IE = "Interactive Engagement," > *operationally* defined [Hake (1998a)] as "those designed at least in > part to promote conceptual understanding through the active > engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) > activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with > peers and/or instructors." > > David Meltzer then pointed to the research of Bao et al. on FCI > pretest scores of Chinese and U.S. freshmen university students > enrolled in science/engineering major courses, whose publication in > the "Science" article "Learning and Scientific Reasoning: Comparisons > of Chinese and U.S. Students" at <http://bit.ly/90sdAG> has been > widely publicized. > > Although Bao et al. measured only pretest scores (not pre-to-posttest > gains) for Chinese freshmen university students enrolled in > science/engineering major courses, they pointed out that those > students had taken "algebra-based courses with emphasis on > development of conceptual understanding and skills needed to solve > problems" for FIVE YEARS in grades 8-12, whereas the U.S. students > had taken at most ONE YEAR of physics. > > That suggests that the Chinese K-12 math curriculum might also be > more intensive than that in the U.S. IF that's the case then it > might help to explain the relatively high CCI gains for non-IE > pedagogy, irrespective of possible student-organized out-of-class > interactive group work. > *********************************************** > > To access the complete 16 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/zz7WXk> > > 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) > <firstname.lastname@example.org> > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> > <http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com> > <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake> > > REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 22 Jan 2012.] > Hake, R.R. 2012. "Re: FCI and CCI in China #2 online on the OPEN! > AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/zz7WXk>. Post of 22 Jan 2012 > 16:27:43-0800 to AERA-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/AbW5oy> with a > provision for comments. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]