Comments on: Twisting the Ivory Tower (OR Change in university physics )

By: New approaches to learning physics « Sciencegeekgirl

New approaches to learning physics « Sciencegeekgirl — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:44:12 +0000

[...] approach, though not without its critics. You can see my previous post on Twisting the Ivory Tower to see more about reforms in undergraduate courses, including this SCALE-UP approach. I have another [...]

By: Bruce Emerson

Bruce Emerson — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:02:36 +0000

Stephanie,

Great post — thanks for capturing a valuable discussion.. and look who looked in:) A couple of comments for the discussion.

Given that nationally roughly half (fact checkers please) of all physics students take their physics at a community college it seems relevant to note that the opportunities, barriers, and sustainability issues for this significant group of faculty form an almost mirror image to those articulated in your AAPT session. If it seems that it might be helpful I would be willing to attempt a draft based on my experiences and others in the Oregon AAPT at some future time (too big a rabbit hole for today). In this context I would also note that there is a huge population of high school physics teachers who are doing tremendous things as they develop and implement ideas and techniques arising from PER.

The “validity” discussion as it applies to PER is always fascinating. The implication that in the natural sciences experimental results have high intrinsic validity and PER results have less seems to me to be a bit of a red herring. What we do know is that what we might traditionally do (the folk theory) does not produce many of the learning outcomes that we profess to hold in high value. However uncertain the data may be there is little evidence that any of the myriad tools and strategies arising from PER ever do worse than the folk theory. Under these circumstances making no effort to explore teaching methods that might improve the learning of our students is a capitulation to the status quo. At the very least when I am trying to use a new tool or strategy with my students I am more engaged and alert to what is happening for my students. In this way we also model the processes of science that we hope for our students to learn and use.

By: Dan Burns

Dan Burns — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:01:57 +0000

Stanford University is hiring someone to oversee the adoption of PER methods in their undergraduate physics program. They will report directly to the head of the physics department. If you have a masters in physics you should apply!

By: sciencegeekgirl

sciencegeekgirl — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:24 +0000

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Nic. It’s true that my experience with educational research is limited to the past year, in which I’ve perhaps been steeped in a particular educational research framework. In that past year, the type of research I have been exposed to has been strongly reminiscent of psychological and social-psychological research (in which I hold an undergraduate degree). I am not repeating what a neighbor has said, but rather basing my opinion on my observations that educational research — like psychological research — does not have access to the kind of controls that natural science does. It is simply very difficult to extract the effects of, say, educational practices on the brain of a student. There are many variables that cannot be accounted for. That limits the broad applicability of particular findings. I think that educational research *is* compelling, nonetheless, because when we observe the same results across a variety of populations of students and in a variety of contexts (such as the power of peer instruction), then we can extract out a certain amount of truth from the world despite the fog of multiple uncontrollable variables.

So, I am glad to have the wide variety of educational research approaches pointed out, and I would like to clarify that I do find educational research compelling, especially when the same result is seen in multiple contexts. But I stick to my original statements — the *validity* (in its precise definition) of educational research must be stringently examined, whether that work be from a psychological, sociological, cultural, anthropological, etc., perspective.

I know that many faculty in the natural sciences feel similarly, and coming up with a way to convince them that this work is valid and applies to their classroom is a challenge to our discipline. If you can come up with a way to convince *me*, who is nominally on the inside of the discipline, that seems a good place to start. One shouldn’t need to have an advanced degree in the discipline in order to see its value (which I *do*, but with friendly skepticism).

By: Nic V

Nic V — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:29:26 +0000

You write,
“Part of the problem is that faculty don’t often apply the same scientifically rigorous approach to their teaching as they do to their scientific scholarship – ie., methods based on empirically-based repeatable experiments. Faculty generally use teaching methods based on personal beliefs, don’t assess the results of their teaching, and pay more attention to the anecdotes of their neighbor than the peer-reviewed literature. They don’t read the education research literature (not surprising) and doubt its generality. Now, I must say, I personally don’t believe that education research has the same level of “truthiness” as does research in the natural sciences. It’s psychological research, essentially, which is inherently limited in its validity,” in which you commit the errors you attribute to science professors. Why, precisely, do you hold your beliefs about educational research and its “validity”; are you repeating what a neighbor has said?

I’ll focus only on one point, however. Not all educational research is “essentially” psychology research, and that you believe so, reveals your limited theoretical base. The disciplines of sociology, anthropology, communication and philosophy all have long traditions of educational research and scholarship, and that does not include more recent approaches such as cognitive science and literacy studies, just to name a couple. Perhaps educational research would be more compelling to you if you actually knew more about it. As an example of work you are probably familiar with, I will cite Sheila Tobias’s work. Unfortunately, her approach does not seem well grounded in theories of culture, but she focuses on the “cultures” of science in a way that is putatively not best thought of as “essentially” psychological. I would describe her work as being “socio-cultural” in approach, if, as I said, largely a-theoretical.