TBers,

This recently came across my email from a teaching in higher ed list  
I am on.
You have to pick through it, but there is some interesting stuff here...


***************************************************
ABSTRACT: I respond to comments by IFETS subscriber James Kariuki
regarding innovation in higher education: (a) the training and
support that's been available, and (b) the formidable barriers to
innovation.  Regarding the latter, I discuss the student resistance,
as described by John Belcher,  to the innovative TEAL program at MIT.
Belcher's experience is consistent with James Rhem's essay "The High
Risks of Improving Teaching"; Patti Thorn's dissertation "Bridging
the Gap Between What Is Praised and What Is Practiced: Supporting the
Work of Change as Anatomy & Physiology Instructors Introduce Active
Learning into Their Undergraduate Classroom"; my own "Re: Problems
with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment the Remedy?"; and with David
Garvin's description of student outrage over Harvard's initiation of
the case-based method.
***************************************************

In response to my post "The Myths of Innovation" (Part 1) [Hake
(2007a)],  James Kariuki (2007), in his IFETS post of 27 May 2007
wrote [bracketed by lines "KKKKKK. . . . ; slightly edited; my A, B]:

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
A. I'm not sure how much training and support has been available in
higher education for professors to use innovation, and how effective
it is.

B. The knowledge and skills acquisition is very important and is
strenuous, time consuming, expensive and tedious especially when it
involves a complete change on the roles, routines and norms of the
adopters (see Klein & Knight, 2005).
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

REGARDING "A":
Some training and support for pedagogical innovation in U.S. higher
education has come from education specialists in university teaching
and learning centers (TLC's) [see, e.g., the listing at CTSE (2007)].
In fact, such support from MIT's excellent TLC
<http://web.mit.edu/tll/> contributed to the success of John
Belcher's TEAL (Technology-Enabled Active Learning) project,
discussed in "Re: The Myths of Innovation" [Hake (2007b)].

However, the main impetus in physics has come from the bottom-up
Physics Education Research (PER) Groups [over 50 U.S. PER groups are
listed by Meltzer (2007)]. Unfortunately such education research
groups are seldom found in other disciplines, even despite the
encouragement of exemplary groups such as the "Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning" [SOTL (2007)],  the "International Society for
Exploring Teaching and Learning" [ISETL (2007)], and the
"International Society for  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning"
[ISSOTL (2007)].

The research and development work of PER groups in the U.S. has been
reviewed by e.g.,  Redish (1999), Stokstad (2001), Heron & Meltzer
(2005), and Hake (2007c).  Stokstad's abstract reads: "Physicists are
out in front in measuring how well students learn the basics, as
science educators incorporate hands-on activities in hopes of making
the introductory course a beginning rather than a finale. Figuring
out what works is vitally important to the country, say U.S.
educators. Each year, hundreds of thousands of U.S. students get
their only exposure to science in an intro class -- and most leave
without understanding how science works or with any desire to take
further courses."

REGARDING "B":
That enumeration of barriers to innovation is consistent with the
research of Henderson and Dancy (2006a,b), and with the
pathologically slow diffusion of innovation in higher education.  In
addition, students themselves are sometimes barriers to innovation.
In Hake (2007b), I omitted sections of the Ehrmann/Gilbert/McMartin
(EGM) (2007) report that discussed the anti-TEAL comments of some MIT
students, e.g. [bracketed by lines "EGM-EGM-EGM-. . . "' my insert at
". . . .  .[insert]. . . . "]:

EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM
Whatever the reason, in spring 2003, students complained wherever
they could; 150 students signed a petition to make TEAL course , at
most, an option for freshman physics. According to a story . . . .
.[LeBon  (2003)]. . . .  in "The Tech" the student newspaper, "8.02
TEAL does not provide us with the intellectual challenge and
stimulation that can be expected from a course at MIT. We feel that
the quality of our education has been compromised for the sake of
'trying something different.' We strongly advise that the traditional
8.02 course be reinstated as soon as possible."
EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM-EGM

John Belcher (2007), in a PhysLrnR post titled "Re: Student
Resistance to Teaching Improvement," wrote [bracketed by lines
"BBBBBB. . . . . ."; my insert at ". . . .[insert]. . . ."]:

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
. . . . [Larry Smith (2007) asks]. . . .  "Have people on this list
encountered student resistance to active learning techniques, and
what have they done about it?"

Yes I have, take a look at . . . . .["Improving Student Understanding
with TEAL" [Belcher (2003)]. . . . . . (the links are live) for a
blow by blow description, including links to various critical
articles in the student newspaper.

This was written just after the initial large scale outing in Spring
2003 with 500 students.  The student reception has gotten much
better, because we made a lot of changes as outlined in. . . .
.[Belcher (2003)]. . . ., but we still run about a point lower on a 7
point scale on "overall satisfaction" with the course than we did
previously in lecture recitation format.  I lectured in the lecture
recitation format in the early 90's, to great praise, from the 40% of
the students who attended lecture (I don't know what the other 60%
thought, they were not there to be asked).

On the other hand in studio format we have doubled attendance from
around 40% at the end of the term to around 80% at the end of the
term, and those additional 40% who are weighing in with their opinion
now were not there before (and wouldn't be there now, except we
actually look to see if they are coming), so I would argue at this
point that the student satisfaction is about the same as the lecture
recitation format.

What saved this program given the initial student resistance was
EVALUATION EVALUATION EVALUATION.

We had a professional evaluator, WE DID LOTS AND LOTS OF PRE TEST
POST TEST TESTING [my CAPS], and we could demonstrate convincingly
that the students were learning more -- the learning gains are double
those of lecture recitation by standard measures (for the summative
evaluation see . . . . [Dori & Belcher (2004)]. . . . . .
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

That students may not always be the best judges of teaching
effectiveness, as indicated above by Belcher, is consistent with e.g.:

a.  James Rhem's (2006) essay "The High Risks of Improving Teaching"
that drew on;

b. Patti Thorn's (2006) dissertation "Bridging the Gap Between What
Is Praised and What Is Practiced: Supporting the Work of Change as
Anatomy &Physiology Instructors Introduce Active Learning into Their
Undergraduate Classroom";

c. My own post "Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment
the Remedy?"[Hake (2002)]; and

d. The history of the case-based method as related in "Making the
Case: Professional education for the world of practice" [Garvin
(2003)] referred to in Hake (2004, 2007).

All this despite the blind faith of many university administrators
that "Student Evaluations of Teaching" can be used to gauge the
*cognitive* (as well as the affective) impact of courses.

David Garvin (2003) wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Christopher Columbus Langdell, the pioneer of the case method,
attended Harvard Law School from 1851 to 1854 - twice the usual term
of study. He spent his extra time as a research assistant and
librarian, holed up in the school's library reading legal decisions
and developing an encyclopedic knowledge of court cases. . . .

In his course on contracts, he insisted that students read only
original sources-cases-and draw their own conclusions. To assist
them, he assembled a set of cases and published them, with only a
brief two-page introduction. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inducing general principles from a small selection of cases was a
challenging task, and students were unlikely to succeed without help.
To guide them, Langdell developed through trial and error what is now
called the Socratic Method: an interrogatory style in which
instructors question students closely about the facts of the case,
the points at issue, judicial reasoning, underlying doctrines and
principles, and comparisons with other cases. Students prepare for
class knowing that they will have to do more than simply parrot back
material they have memorized from lectures or textbooks; they will
have to present their own interpretations and analysis, and face
detailed follow-up questions from the instructor.

Langdell's innovations initially met with enormous resistance. MANY
STUDENTS WERE OUTRAGED (my CAPS). During the first three years of his
administration, as word spread of Harvard's new approach to legal
education, enrollment at the school dropped from 165 to 117 students,
leading Boston University to start a law school of its own. Alumni
were in open revolt.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

"The academic area is one of the most difficult areas to change in
our society. We continue to use the same methods of instruction,
particularly lectures, that have been used for hundreds of years.
Little scientific research is done to test new approaches, and little
systematic attention is given to the development of new methods.
Universities that study many aspects of the world ignore the
educational function in which they are engaging and from which a
large part of their revenues are earned.
        Richard Cyert, former president of Carnegie Mellon University,
in Tuma & Reif (1980)


REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Agarwal, A. 2003. "The Real Deal on 8.02 TEAL." The Tech 123(16) 4
April, online at
<http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N16/arun16.16c.html>.

LeBon, L.E. 2003. "Students Petition Against TEAL." The Tech 123
(14). 21 March; online at
<http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N14/14802T.14n.html>. For further
student condemnation of TEAL see Agarwal (2003).

Belcher, J.W. 2007. "Re: Student Resistance to Teaching Improvement,"
PhysLrnR post of 22 Jan 2007 06:49:56-0500; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/3459fu>.

Belcher, J.W. 2003. "Improving Student Understanding with TEAL," MIT
Faculty Newsletter XVI (2), October/November; online at
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/fnlEditedLinks.pdf>.

CTSE. 2007. "Teaching and Learning Centers in the United States,"
Center for Teaching and Scholarly Excellence (Hofstra University);
online at http://www.hofstra.edu/faculty/ctse/cte_links.cfm.  I thank
Richard Lyons's listing of online resources
<http://www.developfaculty.com/online/index.html > for this
reference.

Dori, Y.J. & J. Belcher. 2004. "How Does Technology-Enabled Active
Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of
Electromagnetism Concepts?" The Journal of the Learning Sciences
14(2), online as a 1 MB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/cqoqt>.

Ehrmann, S.C.,  S.W. Gilbert, and F. McMartin. 2007. "Factors
Affecting the Adoption of Faculty-Developed Academic Software: A
Study of Five iCampus Projects," online at
<http://www.tltgroup.org/icampus/iCampus_Assessment_Full.pdf> (2.1
MB); the executive summary and table of contents is online at
<http://www.tltgroup.org/icampus/exec_sum_icampus_assessment.pdf>
(208 kB).

Garvin, D.A. 2003. "Making the Case: Professional education for the
world of practice" Harvard Magazine, September/October; online at
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090322.html>. Thanks to MIT's
Lori Breslow and John Belcher for bringing this article to my
attention.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is
Assessment the Remedy?" online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AssessTheRem1.pdf> (72 kB).

Hake, R.R. 2004. "Re: Student resistance to changes in professional
education practice," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0410&L=pod&P=R1366&I=-3>.
Post of 1 Oct 2004 12:30:24-0700 to AERA-I, AERA-J, AP-Physics,
ASSESS, Dr-Ed, EvalTalk, PBL, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L.

Hake, R.R. 2006. "Eleven Quotes in Honor of Inertia," POD post of 13
Jun 2006 15:01:14-0700, online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606&L=pod&P=R7910&I=-3>.

Hake, R.R. 2007a. "The Myths of Innovation," (Part 1), online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=pod&O=D&P=14074>.
Post of 26 May to  AERA-A, B, C, J, L; ASSESS, Chemed-L, EdResMeth,
EvalTalk, IFETS, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD, STLHE-L, & TIPS.

Hake, R.R. 2007b. "The Myths of Innovation," (Part 2),  online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=pod&O=D&P=14654>.
Post of 28 May 2007 20:26:31 -0700 to ASSESS, POD, PhysLrnR, Phys-L,
and IFETS. Abstract only to AERA-A, B, C, J, L;  Chemed-L, EdResMeth,
EvalTalk, STLHE-L, & TIPS.

Hake, R.R. 2007c. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online as ref. 43
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To appear as a chapter in
"Evaluation of Teaching and Student Learning in Higher Education," a
Monograph of the American Evaluation Association
<http://www.eval.org/>.

Henderson, C. and M. Dancy. 2006a. "Physics Faculty and Educational
Researchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of
Innovations," submitted in April 2006 to Am. J. Phys. (Physics
Education Research Section); online at
<http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/ 
DivergentExpectationsSubmitted.pdf>
(224 KB).

Henderson, C. & M. Dancy. 2006b. "Barriers to the Use of
Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Dual Role of Individual
and Situational Characteristics," submitted in October 2006 to
Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research; online at
<http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/ 
SituationalPaperSubmitted.pdf>
(184 KB).

Heron, P.R.L. & D.E. Meltzer. 2005. "The future of physics education
research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns," Am. J.
Phys. 73(5): 459-462; online at
<http://www.physicseducation.net/docs/Heron-Meltzer.pdf> (56 kB).

ISETL. 2007. International Society for Exploring Teaching and
Learning, information online at  <http://www.isetl.org/index.cfm>.

ISSOTL. 2007. International Society for  Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, information online at  <http://www.issotl.org/>,

Kariuki, J. 2007. "Re: The Myths of Innovation." IFETS post of 27 May
2007 16:16:15 +0200. IFETS = International Forum of Educational
Technology & Society <http://ifets.ieee.org/>, endorsed by IEEE
Technical Committee on Learning Technology <http://lttf.ieee.org/>.
Evidently IFETS runs on a LITE version of LISTSERV software with NO
archives of the standard LISTSERV type, as benefits, e.g. POD at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/archives/pod.html>.

Klein, K.J. & A.P. Knight. 2005. "Innovation implementation:
Overcoming the challenge," Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 14(5): 243-246; freely online at
<http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/cdir/14/5>.  The abstract
reads: "In changing work environments, innovation is imperative. Yet,
many teams and organizations fail to realize the expected benefits of
innovations that they adopt. A key reason is not innovation failure
but implementation failure-the failure to gain targeted employees'
skilled, consistent, and committed use of the innovation in question.
. . .[or in the case of education, to gain students' use of the
innovation]. . . . We review research on the implementation process,
outlining the reasons why implementation is so challenging for many
teams and organizations. We then describe the organizational
characteristics that together enhance the likelihood of successful
implementation, including a strong, positive climate for
implementation; management support for innovation implementation;
financial resource availability; and a learning orientation."

   Meltzer, D. 2007. "Links to United States Physics Education Research
Groups," online at <http://www.physicseducation.net/links/index.html>.

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan Award Lecture 1998: Building a Science
of Teaching Physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/millikan.htm>.

Rhem, J. 2006. "The High Risks of Improving Teaching," National
Teaching and Learning Forum 15(6), online to subscribers at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v15n6/risks.htm>. If your
institution doesn't have a subscription, then, in my opinion, it
should. Rhem's essay was also disseminated by Rick Reis's "Tomorrow's
Professor" list as Msg.#760 at
<http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/760.html> of 20 Nov 2006.

Smith, L. 2007. "Re: Student Resistance to Teaching Improvement,"
PhysLrnR post of 20 Jan 2007 11:08:49-0700; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2s8moe>.

SOTL. 2007. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, information online
at
<http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/sub.asp? 
key=21&subkey=72&topkey=21>.

Stokstad, E. 2001. "Reintroducing the Intro Course." Science 293:
1608-1610, 31 August, abstract online at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5535/1608>.
"Physicists are out in front in measuring how well students learn the
basics, as science educators incorporate hands-on activities in hopes
of making the introductory course a beginning rather than a finale.
Figuring out what works is vitally important to the country, say U.S.
educators. Each year, hundreds of thousands of U.S. students get
their only exposure to science in an intro class--and most leave
without understanding how science works or with any desire to take
further courses."

Thorn, P.M.2003). "Bridging the gap between what is praised and what
is practiced: supporting the work of change as anatomy & physiology
instructors introduce active learning into their undergraduate
classroom. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin;
online at  <http://hdl.handle.net/2152/1013>.

Tuma, D.T. & F. Reif, eds. 1980. "Problem Solving and Education:
Issues in Teaching and Research," Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701
fax:   607-436-3081

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"