Changes in science teaching - and learning

The New York Times had a very nice article yesterday (1/12/2009) on new ways of teaching freshman physics. I have written previously about some of the drivers behind these new approaches (A D- in science education) . A key driver was the demonstration that students generally were learning only a small percentage (about 30%) of the concepts  that were being taught in the courses, and that this result was independent of lecture quality, class size, or institution.

The article focuses on MIT’s new method of teaching freshman physics courses, Technology Enhanced Active Learning, or TEAL .  I visited MIT last year to look at the changes, and found them to be very impressive.  The old lecture and lecture hall are gone, replaced by an interactive space where students working as groups learn from each other and from other groups, with a faculty member providing guidance and brief presentations of principles.  Data I was shown on learning were very positive, and indicated that the new methods were working very much better than the old.  Still, as I talked to some of the senior faculty in the department (i.e. my age peers), I found significant support for the old methods of teaching and learning - “they worked for you and me”.  The article notes this ongoing discussion in the department. It also notes that no other science department at MIT has changed its teaching approach.  That raises the question - have the other fields (e.g. math, chemistry, biology) looked at whether their students are really learning the concepts being taught in their courses?

Up the street from MIT at Harvard, Eric Mazur was one of the very early proponents of these new methods of teaching.  He has an article in the January 2, 2009 issue of Science (p.50, subscription required) describing his own transformation from lauded lecturer to leader of the movement away from lectures.  He also tells us what he thinks has been accomplished:

Data obtained in my class and in classes of colleagues worldwide, in a wide range of academic settings and a wide range of disciplines, show that learning gains nearly triple with an approach that focuses on the student and on interactive learning

That is a pretty good argument for interactive learning.  However, Mazur also describes the personal cost to him of the changes

So, evidence is mounting that readjusting the focus of education from information transfer to helping students assimilate materials is paying off. My only regret is that I love to lecture.

Change is hard, even when it is desired.

Comments

[Dr. Sanford Aranoff]

I cannot imagine how this can be good. The task of the professor is to explain the basic principles, using examples and counter-examples, to show how to apply the principles, to examine student misunderstandings. This does not leave time for games and clicking. See "Teaching and Helping Students Think and Do Better" on amazon.

Lloyd comments: thanks for your comments Dr Aranoff. I think few would quarrel with your general statements on teaching. However, it has often turned out to be harder than one might imagine to "examine student misunderstandings" since students turn out to be pretty good at algorithmic responses, which can disguise their lack of conceptual understanding. Active learning seems to be an effective way of forcing the discussions that lead to better conceptual learning.