[Net-Gold] Can Introductory Course Students Learn Much From Textbooks?

[David P. Dillard]

.

.



Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 08:58:28 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: richard hake <rrh...@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Net-...@yahoogroups.com
To: AER...@listserv.aera.net
Cc: Net-...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Net-Gold] Can Introductory Course Students Learn Much From Textbooks?

.

.


ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's Diane Grayson (2013) in her post "Flipped classrooms"
pointed to physicist Jim Gerhart as one who utilized what she (and the
PhysLrnRs responding to her post) ahistorically regard as the "flipped
classroom," i.e., requiring students to *read* material to be discussed in
class *before* attending the class. Sure enough, in his Millikan Award
acceptance speech Gerhart (1986) at <http://bit.ly/14qL5yS> wrote: "I
announce to my classes that I will not deliver any expository lectures on
physics, that they will have to read their texts carefully if they are to
follow what does take place in class."

.

Gerhart reiterates an ancient theme: predating or contemporary with
Gerhart's read-the-textbook-before-class method:

.

a. Over 2 centuries ago, Samuel Johnson <http://bit.ly/17PdW5Y>, via James
Boswell (1791) at <http://bit.ly/qfDXPz> said "People have nowadays . . .
got a strange opinion that everything should be taught by lectures. Now, I
cannot see that lectures can do so much good as reading the books from
which the lectures are taken. Lectures were once useful; but now, when we
can all read, and books are so numerous, lectures are unnecessary."

.

b. A half-century ago, chemist Frank Lambert (1963)
<http://bit.ly/17IbWJ0> in "Editorially Speaking: Effective Teaching of
Organic Chemistry" at <http://bit.ly/1a4rqJr> wrote: "Why do instructors
ignore the contribution of Johann Gutenberg to chemistry? Thanks to him,
we now have movable type! A few chemists can write books which are
readable. Why then do we fail to use these excellent modern texts as the
principal bases for our courses?". . . . .

.

c. Contemporary with Gerhart, the late chemist Robert Morrison (1986)
<http://bit.ly/1dLd30J> delivered his classic talk "The Lecture System in
Teaching Science" at <http://bit.ly/hLMElH>. Therein he said: "I happened
to run into Frank Lambert . . . . . He was urging what he called 'the
Gutenberg Method' of teaching - because, of course, it was based on the
fact that the printing press had been invented several hundred years ago.
Frank became my guru. I still mentally bow towards the west when this
subject comes up."

.

BUT WAIT! Gerhart, Lambert, and Morrison seem to have had evidence that
most of their students were, in fact, capable of substantial learning from
textbooks. That such learning may NOT have been the case has been
suggested by POD's Russ Hunt at <http://bit.ly/15EhNfA>; Math-EdCC's
"Haim" at <http://bit.ly/14ZoHAv>; and NAEP's Perie & Moran (2005) at
<http://1.usa.gov/18G0T1M>. The latter wrote on p. 15: "only 5 to 7
percent of 17-year-olds demonstrated performance at level 350—the ability
to learn from and synthesize specialized reading materials."

.

************************************************

.

If you reply to this long (15 kB) post please don't hit the reply button,
bane of discussion lists, unless you prune the copy of this post that may
appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire
already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

.

Diane Grayson (2013) in her PhysLrnR post "Flipped classrooms" pointed to
physicist Jim Gerhart as one who utilized what she (and the PhysLrnRs
responding to her post) ahistorically regard as the "flipped classroom,"
i.e., requiring students to *read* material to be discussed in class
*before* attending the class. Grayson wrote: "When I was a grad student at
the University of Washington, Jim Gerhart did this using low technology -
textbooks. His class was always over-subscribed."

.

[Here Grayson (and the PhysLrnRs responding to her post) depart from the
standard meaning of "flipped classroom" in which students WATCH VIDEOTAPED
LECTURES before class as succinctly set forth by Andrea Zellner (2012) in
"Flipping out? What you need to know about the Flipped Classroom," and as
explained in my post "Physics Education Research Mentioned in Article
About Obama Higher Ed Proposals" (Hake, 2013)].

.

Consistent with Grayson's point that Gerhart practiced the
read-before-class version of the "flipped classroom," in his Millikan
Award acceptance speech Gerhart (1986) wrote [bracketed by lines "GGGGG. .
. . ."] :

.

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

.

I am convinced that lectures in physics – at least, typical didactic
lectures – are next to useless. Preparing fine lectures is wonderful for
the teacher, but delivering them to students is not instructive. They
leave the student passive, not engaged in learning. They do not help the
student learn to do physics – they encourage slavish note-taking and
memorization

.

But what else can you do in a room with hundreds of students? At first,
it is hard to realize that just because the class period is called a
lecture period, the instructor doesn't need to lecture. It's hard to fact
the fact that a good textbook does a better job of exposition than the
best lecturer. It's hard to admit the fact that expository lectures
become an excuse for students not reading the textbook at all.

.

I ANNOUNCE TO MY CLASSES THAT I WILL NOT DELIVER ANY EXPOSITORY LECTURES
ON PHYSICS, THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO READ THEIR TEXTS CAREFULLY IF THEY ARE
TO FOLLOW WHAT DOES TAKE PLACE IN CLASS. . . . . .[[My CAPS.]]. . . . In
our age this always stuns students. Likely no teacher ever before has
actually required them to study their text. They are filled with
apprehension, but most soon learn that their years of reading instruction
had a purpose. They manage to read their texts carefully. They even
accept the strange notion that they may be held responsible for things
never mentioned in the lecture hall.

.

The lecture abandoned, what replaces it? I use performance as my standard
for judging students. But performance in what? I have had to detail my
expectations clearly. I have to work out exactly what I expected my
students to be able to do as a result of their study. Furthermore I have
to tell them very clearly what they will be expected to do. Some of you
will recognize here the fad of some years ago – the behavioral objective.
Around 1970 this idea was carried to asinine extremes by semiliterate
practitioners. But there is merit in the idea if you aren't doctrinaire
about it. My students are supplied with objectives – quite detailed for
the liberal arts students, more sketchy for the calculus-based students.

.

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

.

Gerhart reinterates an ancient theme: predating or contemporary with
Gerhart's read-the-textbook-before-class method:

.

a. Over 2 centuries ago, Samuel Johnson <http://bit.ly/17PdW5Y>, via James
Boswell (1791), said "People have nowadays . . . got a strange opinion
that everything should be taught by lectures. Now, I cannot see that
lectures can do so much good as reading the books from which the lectures
are taken. Lectures were once useful; but now, when we can all read, and
books are so numerous, lectures are unnecessary."

.

b. A half-century ago, chemist Frank Lambert (1963)
<http://bit.ly/17IbWJ0> in "Editorially Speaking: Effective Teaching of
Organic Chemistry" wrote: "Why do instructors ignore the contribution of
Johann Gutenberg to chemistry? Thanks to him, we now have movable type! A
few chemists can write books which are readable. Why then do we fail to
use these excellent modern texts as the principal bases for our courses?".
. . . .

.

c. Contemporary with Gerhart, the late chemist Robert Morrison (1986)
<http://bit.ly/1dLd30J> delivered his classic talk "The Lecture System in
Teaching Science" [bracketed by lines "MMMMM . . . . ."]:

.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

.

The bell rings ...(at the start of an organic chemistry class)...and the
professor shuffles his dog-eared notes - they're twenty, even thirty years
old, but they're just as good as the day he first wrote them. The
students come to attention, notebooks open and pencils poised; they're
ready to go. The professor clears his throat, and the pencils move. He
says "Good Morning," and the pencils begin to move in earnest. Then he
turns toward the blackboard and starts to talk. As he talks, he writes.
As he writes, the students write. Whenever he writes, they write .... (at
the end of the lecture).... he picks up his precious lecture notes, and
goes out. The students, tired but happy, rise up and follow after him.
Their heads are empty but their notebooks are full. Their necks are a
little tired; it's like being at a vertical tennis match: board, notebook,
board, notebook. But other than that, everything is all right. Any
student will tell you, "I never had any trouble with the course until the
first examination." . . . . . . . . .

.

When Boyd and I brought out our first edition in 1959, we were faced with
the question of what to do with our class time .... It seemed ridiculous
to go into class and simply repeat what was already available in the
book..... Then at Atlantic City I happened to run into FRANK LAMBERT ....
he was then teaching at Occidental College in California. He was giving a
talk on this very subject. He WAS URGING WHAT HE CALLED "THE GUTENBERG
METHOD" OF TEACHING - BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT
THE PRINTING PRESS HAD BEEN INVENTED SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AGO.. . . .
.[[My CAPS.]]. . . . Frank became my guru. I still mentally bow towards
the west when this subject comes up..... I found that other people had
thought about this problem . . . .(such as). . . . George Atkinson [who]
wrote an article called "Stop Talking and Let the Students Learn to Learn"
. . . . . [[(Atkinson, 1970)]]. . . . . He refers to the use of what he
calls Bound Optimally Organized Knowledge, known by the acronym of BOOK .
. . . .

.

What does the Gutenberg Method involve? Simply this. You assign the
students portions of the textbook to study before they come to class. When
they come into the classroom, they are already acquainted with the
material . . . . . You don't waste your time doing what Frank Lambert
calls "presenting a boardfull of elegantly organized material to questions
that the students have not asked."

.

. . . . .The students have read the material, they have thought about it,
and they have questions to ask about it. You answer these questions, or,
better still, try to get them to answer their own questions, or get other
students to give the answers. You ask questions. You have a discussion.
If they're slow to come alive, you take up points that you know give the
students trouble. You lead them through difficult problems. The entire
class hour becomes like those few golden moments at the end of an
old-fashioned lecture when a few students manage to rise above the system
and gather around your desk.

.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

.

BUT WAIT! Gerhart, Lambert, and Morrison seem to have had evidence that
most of their students were, in fact, capable of substantial learning from
textbooks. That such learning may NOT have been the case has been
suggested by POD's Russ Hunt; MathEdCC's "Haim"; and NAEP's Perie & Moran.

.

Hunt (2013) wrote: "I wonder that it's so seldom asked why handing people
texts isn't a reasonable substitute for lecturing? Because students don't
read all that well? Isn't _that_ the problem, really (and one we should
be addressing)? If I can help my students become more capable of learning
by reading things, it seems to me I've done more to make them capable of
continuing to learn than I do by leaving them dependent on lectures (how
many, do you think, they'll hear after leaving university?)"

.

"Haim" (2013) wrote (after repeating the above Samuel Johnson quote): "In
the matter of the utility of lectures, Richard Hake and Samuel Johnson
seem to have hit the nail on the head. Certainly in mathematics, and in
the sciences I would bet, it is famously impossible to get students to
read their textbooks. This seems understandable since it has been
estimated that not more than 20% of the population can read at a high
enough level to make sense of college level writing. . . . . . . [["Haim":
can you reference that estimate?]]. . . . . . . The 20% figure also fully
explains why every attempt to make textbooks more approachable and more
interesting has failed to produce the desired result. In an age when many
more than 20% of the population attend post-secondary education, it is a
foregone conclusion that the lecture is here to stay. And, dare I say it,
it is clear that the 'flipped classroom' has no future."

.

NAEP's Perie & Moran (2005) on page 15 of "NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic
Progress" wrote: "The ability to interrelate ideas and make
generalizations (level 250) was demonstrated by 80 percent of 17-year-olds
in 2004, which was not measurably different from 1999 or 1971. Performance
at or above level 300—understanding complicated information—was
demonstrated by 38 percent of 17- year-olds in 2004, which was not
measurably different from the percentages in 1999 or 1971. Across all of
the assessment years, ONLY 5 TO 7 PERCENT OF 17-YEAR-OLDS DEMONSTRATED
PERFORMANCE AT LEVEL 350—THE ABILITY TO LEARN FROM AND SYNTHESIZE
SPECIALIZED READING MATERIALS." [My CAPS.]

.

.

.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University Links to
Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0> Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI)
Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M> Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm> Blog:
<http://bit.ly/9yGsXh> GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE> Google Scholar:
<http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3> Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52> Facebook:
<http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>

.

.

.


For William Hogarth's (1736) <http://bit.ly/15Esohg> skewering of the
lecture method see "Scholars at a Lecture" <http://bit.ly/18sWPDm>.

.

.


REFERENCES [URLs shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 06 Sept.
2013.]

.

.

.


Atkinson, G.F. 1970. "Stop Talking and Let the Students Learn to Learn,"
J. Chem. Educ.47(8): 561-2, August; online at <http://bit.ly/17HPvDK>.

.

Boswell, J. 1791. "Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D," online at
<http://bit.ly/qfDXPz>.

.

Gerhart, J. 1986. " 'Handling numbers,' James B. Gerhart's acceptance
speech for the 1985 Millikan Lecture Award presented by the AAPT,
Flagstaff, Arizona, 19 June 1985," Am. J. Phys. 54(6): 493-500; online to
subscribers at <http://bit.ly/14qL5yS>.

.

Grayson, D. 2013. "Flipped classrooms," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/15qxO9G>. Post of 02 Sep 2013 19:58:00+0200 to
PhysLrnR. To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe : - ( ,
but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/nG318r>
and then clicking on "Join or Leave PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a
subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time,
while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

.

"Haim" 2013. "Re: Physics Education Research Mentioned in Article About
Obama Higher Ed Proposals," online on the OPEN! MathEdCC archives at
<http://bit.ly/14ZoHAv>. Post of 28 Aug. 11:19 pm to MathEdCC. (The Math
Forum fails to specify the time zone.)

.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," online on the
OPEN! POD archives at <http://bit.ly/176jzd7>. Post of 21 Aug 2002
15:34:25-0700 to POD and various other discussion lists. Excerpts from
Morrison (1986) are given.

.

Hake, R.R. 2007. "Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing," online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1dMm0b6>. Post of 16 Feb 2007
22:05:16-0800 to AERA-L and several other discussion lists.

.

Hake, R.R. 2013. "Physics Education Research Mentioned in Article About
Obama Higher Ed Proposals" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/150Y0rk>. Post of 27 Aug 2013 18:40:06-0400 to AERA-L and
Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed
to various discussion lists and are on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/15hvuAI> with a provision for comments.

.

Hunt, R. 2007. "Re: 'Change' article, 'In Defense of Lecturing,' " online
on the OPEN! POD archives at <http://bit.ly/15EhNfA>. Post of 14 Feb 2007
15:05:43-0400 to POD.

.

Lambert, F.L. 1963. "Editorially Speaking: Effective Teaching of Organic
Chemistry," J. Chem. Ed. 40: 173-174; online as a 1.7 mB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/1a4rqJr> See also Lambert (2006).

.

Lambert, F.L. 2006. "My Discovery of the 'Gutenberg Method', " online at

<http://bit.ly/176sWtr>.

.

Morrison, R.T. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in
"Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number 1,
Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian R.
Rice). The College Center for Curricular Thought: The University of
Chicago, October 18-19, 1989; online at <http://bit.ly/hLMElH>. For a
discussion see "Re: The college lecture may be fading" [Hake 2002)].

.

Perie, M. & R. Moran. 2005. "NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three
Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics (NCES
2005-464)," U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC; online as a 3 MB
pdf at <http://1.usa.gov/18G0T1M>.

.

Zellner, A. 2012. "Flipping out? What you need to know about the Flipped
Classroom" Inside Higher Ed, 21 Feb; in Gradhacker, a Blog from GradHacker
and MATRIX: The Center for Humane Arts, Letters and Social Sciences
Online; online at <http://bit.ly/14vMuHP>. Zellner wrote [my CAPS]: "The
traditional model of the lecture and learning cycle has long been to
deliver the lecture during class and to send students home to do homework
and perhaps engage in a discussion or two afterwards. The flipped
classroom flips this model on its head: through lecture capture software,
LECTURES CAN BE CAPTURED ON VIDEO FOR STUDENTS TO WATCH AT HOME, freeing
up class time for hands-on learning activities and discussion." But see
the Samuel Johnson (via Boswell) signature quote above. Johnson doubtless
rolls in his grave at the thought that in the 21st Century *videos* are
evidently replacing *reading*.


.


.