The following is from the Physics Learning Listserv (one of my favorites,
btw). While the authors aren't doing TBL, they are doing something a bit
similar and comparing it to the fairly well-known Peer Instruction. I
haven't seen many such comparisons.
- Bill
----- Forwarded message from Calvin Kalman <[log in to unmask]> -----
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:22:25 +0000
From: Calvin Kalman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PER group help
Pitting Mazur"s peer instruction head to head with our conceptual conflict activity:
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Collaborative Groups and Peer Instruction in
a Large Introductory Physics Course for Science Majors
Calvin S. Kalman, Marina Milner-Bolotin, and Tetyana Antimirova
Canadian Journal of Physics 88, (5), 325-332, 2010.
We report on an experiment comparing examinations of concepts using
slightly modified peer instruction (MPI) interventions with a conceptual
conflict strategy based on collaborative groups (CG). Four interventions
were utilized in two sections of an introductory physics course for
science students. Both instructors and strategies were alternated in the
two classes so that instructor dependence could be factored out and so
that each class could serve as both an experimental and a control
group. The gain on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) used as a preand
post- test is essentially the same in both classes. The instructors
were experienced in use of MPI, but this was the first time that these
instructors had used a collaborative group activity in their classes and
only used it for the two interventions in each class described in this
paper. CG appears to be more effective as a teaching method than PI. It
also should be noted that the effectiveness of both teaching methods
seems to be instructor independent as long as the instructors followed
the same protocol
This gives weight to the results found in Table 2; the collaborative group method appears to be a more effective method, than peer instruction .
Table 2: Comparison of the conceptual conflict collaborative group method (CG) and Modified Peer Instruction (MPI) on the questions administered on three final examination questions.
Intervention
Question
Score ± standard error
Activity type (instructor)
Section T
Section M
Section T
Section M
A.
Final Q13
64.10%±5.5%
55.08%±4.6%
CG (T)
PI (M)
B.
Final Q11
46.15%±5.7%
49.15%±4.6%
PI (T)
CG (M)
C.
Final Q5
71.79%±5.1%
56.42%±4.5%
CG (M)
PI (T)
The final exam questions were all problems and not conceptual questions.
Using even more activities in the manner of a flipped classroom we reported in a paper given at the NARST 2012 annual meeting available for downloading on our website:
http://reflectivewriting.concordia.ca/
Understanding the Nature of Science and Nonscientific Modes of Thinking in Gateway Science Courses
Calvin Kalman, Concordia University, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Marina Milner-Bolotin, University of British Columbia
Tetyana Antimirova, Ryerson University, Toronto
Mark W. Aulls, McGill University
Elizabeth S. Charles, Dawson College Montreal
Xiang Huang, Concordia University Montreal
Ahmed Ibrahim, McGill University Montreal
Gyoungho Lee, Seoul National University
Xihui Wang, McGill University Montreal
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to investigate if a set of previously developed activities helps students change their approach to learning physics. These activities are: reflective writing and critique writing activities, and collaborative conceptual conflict group exercises. The study examines the effects of these interventions via analyzing students’ pre and posttest physics scores, their scores on the instruments measuring their scientific epistemologies, as well as via the analysis of student interviews and writing products. We found that controlling for the pre scores, the experimental teaching method has been found to have a significant positive impact on students’ Final Exam scores. Both the interviews and the student writing products indicate that students who were part of the intervention groups have undergone a shift in their thinking about physics and physics learning. Moreover, a number of them indicated how the skills they gained in the course could be transferred to other subjects.
We had not originally intended to compare the final examination scores because the exam was almost entirely problem-solving, though in a few short-answer questions some brief explanations were required. There were no essay questions.
A General Linear Model (GLM) regression analysis was performed on the data.. We found that the experimental teaching method had a significant positive impact on students’ final examination scores.
Best wishes
Calvin
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Dr. Calvin S. Kalman P. Phys. Phone: (514) 848-2424 xt 3284
_/ Professor,Department of Physics Fax: (514) 848-2828
_/ Principal, Science College
_/ Concordia University
_/ Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
_/
_/ Also Adjunct Professor Department of Educational
_/ and Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec
_/
_/
_/ homepage- http://physics.concordia.ca/faculty/ckalman.php
_/
_/ Editor-in-Chief book series Science & Engineering Education Sources
_/ http://www.infoagepub.com/series/Science-Engineering-Education-Sources
_/
_/ See
_/ Successful Science and Engineering Teaching in Colleges and Universities
_/ at
_/ http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1933371161.html
_/ See review found in the Journal of Chemical Education Oct. 2007:
_/ http://tinyurl.com/2rt7tj
_/
_/ For the research behind this book see:
_/ "Successful Science and Engineering Teaching: Theoretical and Learning
_/ Perspectives (Innovation and Change in Professional Education)"
_/ at
_/ http://tinyurl.com/3qn237
_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_//_/_/
On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:30 PM, John Clement wrote:
Of course lecture courses do not generally have zero gain on PER
evaluations. But they generally have lower gain than IE courses. Eric
Mazur's book "Peer Instruction" shows how his method both raised scores on
conceptual tests and on his conventional problem solving final. His
evidence is for a very strong student population. The learning cycle
research which goes back quite a ways shows that exploration generally needs
to come first and must not ever be omitted. The short lecture can come in
the middle between exploration and application. So the research does not
show that students do not measurably show gain even in lecture courses.
Hake's research shows that gain is limited to the 0-25% range for
conventional courses. While he also did an indirect test that showed
average gain to be around 12 or 13%. So conventional courses can improve
understanding at the 25% level. And the evidence for lecture courses is
tempered by the fact that they usually have a lab and recitation component,
where there may be some IE. But Mazur showed, due to a mismatch between the
lab and testing, that his lab component was not improving his gain.
But I have seen that the thinking skills are extremely important and that
students who score below 10/12 on the older Lawson test can not achieve 100%
understanding. My data shows that the Lawson score gives the limit on
normalized gain, so students who score zero on Lawson will not gain and
students who are 4/12 or below can only get at most 40% normalized gain. To
have full gain the students have to be mid formal operational, but even that
does not guarantee high gain. I just got my first ever zero, zero data
point in a college physics course. The problem may be that he is a foreign
student, but his spoken English is very good.
I don't think there is strong equivalent research in other fields such as
history, English, psychology... There are some people working on this in
computer science, chemistry, and biology. The modeling program at ASU
modeling.asu.edu<http://modeling.asu.edu> is working in other fields of science. Math is still
engaged in the math wars with each side saying the other has no evidence.
Jerry Epstein would be the best contact for math evidence. There is a
program called Workshop Math which was inspired by Prisciall Laws' Workshop
Physics which has shown better results. And of course the CIMM people might
be able to provide their evidence, which still needs to be published.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
Hi Frank,
Here is what I (actually a colleague of mine and I) are looking for:
(a) an article that makes clear the ineffectiveness of lecture (in any
discipline) for student retention.
(b) an article that looks at how students who have taken introductory
classes do not do measurably better on physics questions than
those who
haven't taken physics courses (they both simply rely on (bad)
intuitions)
Thanks in advance for any findings!
Jerrid
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Bill Goffe
Senior Lecturer
Department of Economics
Penn State University
304 Kern Building
University Park, PA 16802
814-867-3299
[log in to unmask]
http://cook.rfe.org
|
