Overview of the Impact of Activity-Based

Overview of the Impact of Activity-Based

Teaching Strategies on Learning Science*

Heide M. Doss-Hammel, San Diego State University

Center for Research in Mathematics & Science Education.

The California Curriculum Commission recently passed the 1/16/04 draft Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials that do not allow instructional materials to be adopted if they require the use of more than 25% of hands-on instructional time to cover the California State Science Standards. No supporting evidence was provided to back up this decision, which is in opposition to over 30 years of research on learning [1-4, 6-34], and the instructional reform movement that is well established across the country [see for example 1-4]. It is at odds with curricula and programs advocated by national science and education organizations comprising hundreds of thousands of scientists and science educators [5].

______

*The reference is: Doss-Hammel, H.M. 2004. "Hands-On Research Summary," online

http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/index.html> I welcome comments and suggestions directed to <>

© Heide M. Doss-Hammel, February 2004. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, and the copyright and its date appear. To disseminate otherwise, to republish, or to place at another website (instead of linking to < http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/index.html > requires written permission.

Three compilations that embody the most substantive research in the fields of science education and learning are constructed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science for All Americans [1] and Benchmarks for Science Literacy [2], and The National Research Council (NRC) in National Science Education Standards [3]. NRC makes the strong stance that students should be active learners, which requires hands-on and minds-on inquiry based classes [3]. Benchmarks by AAAS is very well referenced. Their reviews of the past 30 years of research in cognitive studies around the world indicate

that “…students’ lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of ideas in science is often masked by their ability to memorize the right words.” [2] This is readily observed in the video Private Universe, produced by the education group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which illustrates by interviews of Harvard graduates and faculty that early misconceptions persist about the origin of the seasons and the phases of the moon [6].

AAAS and the National Science Teachers Association provided the following position statements in an article appearing in Physics Today, 2001 [7]:

"Elementary science classes must include activity-based, hands-on experiences for all children. A minimum of 60 percent of the science instruction time should be devoted to hands-on activities, the type of activities where children are manipulating, observing, exploring, and thinking about science using concrete materials."

"Teachers, regardless of grade level, should promote inquiry-based instruction and provide classroom environments and experiences that facilitate students' learning of science."

"Elementary school students learn science best when they are involved in first-hand exploration and investigation and inquiry/process skills are nurtured."

Kober, from the Council for Educational Development and Research, states 25% of instructional time spent on active learning is not enough [8]. The North Central Regional Education Council states the current level of instructional time spent on active learning in the typical classroom must be increased [9].

Cognitive psychologists [10-12] and education researchers [13-34] agree that based on over 30 years of evidence, active engagement is more affective for deep, sustained conceptual understanding. Hake [27a,b] showed in a large trial of over six thousand students, that an interactive-engagement curriculum resulted in an average normalized gain of almost two standard deviations above traditional methods The pool of evidence supporting active learning continues to grow [28-34].

A recent publication by Belcher [29] reveals that replacement of the traditional passive student lecture/recitation mode by an active learning method doubled the normalized gains in introductory electromagnetism courses at MIT. Belcher further states that this “replicates the results of many studies obtained at other universities, including Harvard [35].”

Further supporting evidence can be found at various websites that summarize current research. For example, references [32,33] list a number of studies in which increased understanding was found using active learning approaches. One study listed (Expeditionary Learning by Outward Bound) provides substantial evidence of their success [34]. A small sampling of the success of their program using an active learner pedagogy involving inquiry based methods, shows that after 2 years, two of the three schools advanced from "well below average" to "well above the district average" on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. One elementary school raised its average score from the 39th to the 80th percentile. After four years in the program, student scores were "above the district average in almost every area." Separate analyses showed similar test score gains in ELOB programs in Denver, Boston, and Portland, Maine. [32,34].

REFERENCES

[1] American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS; see also Project 2061, online at <http://www.project2061.org/default_flash.htm .

[2] AAAS Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. <http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolintro.htm

[3] National Research Council, (2003). National Science Education Standards, Washington DC: National Academy Press. <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html

[4] National Science Resources Center, (1997). Science For All Children: A Guide to Improving Elementary Science Education in Your School District, National Academy Press, Washington; online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4964.html>.

[5] The National Science Education Standards, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Foundation, and the National Science Teachers Association. As per [32] Woolf, L. http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/> K-12 Science Education. Lawrence Woolf 1/16/04 testimony to the California Curriculum Commission regarding hands-on science limitation

[6] Schneps, M.H. & P.M. Sadler. (1985). Private Universe Project. Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science Education Department; online at
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/sed/resources/privateuniv.html>.

[7] R. Lopez, & T. Schultz. (2001) Two Revolutions in K-8 Science Education, Physics Today 54, 9. http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p44.html

[8] N. Kober, (1992). Ed Talk What We Know About Science Teaching and Learning, Council for Educational Development and Research. http://www.serve.org/publications/edsci.htm

[9] R.A. Knuth, B.F. Jones, and S. Baxendale, (1991). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, What Does Research Say About Science. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/3science.htm

[10] For example, Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/notice.html

[11] Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). “Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences",7, 271-311; an abstract is online at <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/lst/jls/vol7no3_4.html#Article1>.

[12] Vosniadou, S., Brewer, W., (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cognit. Psychol. 24, 535.

[13] Arons, A.B. (1972). Toward wider public understanding of science, Am. J. Phys. 41(6): 769-782.

[14] Arons, A.B. (1974). Toward wider public understanding of science: Addendum, Am. J. Phys. 42(2): 157-158

[15] L. C. McDermott, (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned — Closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301.

[16] E. Redish, (1994). The Implication of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics, Am. J. Phys. 62, 796

[17] J. P. Mestre, in Teacher Enhancement for Elementary and Secondary Science and Mathematics: Status, Issues, and Problems, S. J. Fitzsimmons, L. C. Kerpelman, eds., Abt Associates, Cambridge, Mass.

[18] McDermott, L.C. & E.F. Redish. (1999). RL-PER1: Resource letter on physics education research. Am. J. Phys. 67(9):755-767; <http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html

[19] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, (1985). The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055. <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html

[20] I.Halloun and D. Hestenes, (1985). Common Sense Concepts about Motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056-1065 (1985) <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html

[21] J. A. Shymansky, L. V. Hedges, G. Woodworth, (1990) A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 127.

[22] Karplus, R. (1974). Three Guidelines for Elementary School Science, SCIS Newsletter. 20, Lawrence Hall of Science, Spring. In Fuller (2002) pages 67-69.

[23] R. Karplus, (1977). Science Teaching Development and the Development of Reasoning, J. Res. in Sci. Ed. 14, 169.

[24] Karplus, R. (1981). Response by the Oersted Medalist: Autonomy and Input, Am. J. Phys. 49(9): 811-814. In Fuller (2002), pages 90-95.

[25] Fuller, R.G. (2003). 'Don't Tell Me, I'll Find Out' Robert Karplus – A Science Education Pioneer, Journal of Science Education and Technology 12(4): 359-362; currently <http://journals.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=476103

[26] Schneider, L. S. and Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(6), 503-517.

[27a] Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online as ref. 24 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

[27b] Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses, online as ref. 25 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. A crucial companion paper to [27a].

[28] Hestenes, D. et al. (2000). FINDINGS of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994-00) This is one section in the Final Report submitted to the National Science Foundation in fall 2000 for the Teacher Enhancement grant entitled Modeling Instruction in High School Physics. David Hestenes, Professor of Physics at Arizona State University, was Principal Investigator. Extensive information about the Project is at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu.>

[29] Belcher, J.W. (2003) Improving Student Understanding with TEAL [TEAL = Technology Enhanced Active Learning], Vol. XVI No. 2 October/November 2003 The MIT Faculty Newsletter: < http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/fnlEditedLinks.pdf

[30] Redish, E.F. (2003) Teaching Physics With the Physics Suite. John Wiley.

[31] Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. <http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric-toc.htm

[32] The George Lucas Educational Foundation website summarizes a number of recent studies that show increased student performance using active learning approaches, and provides in depth information as well. <http://www.glef.org/php/article.php?id=Art_887&key=037

[33] Thomas, J. W., (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. <http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf

[34] Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound Organization; online at <http://www.elob.org/evidence/index.html

[35] Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69: 970-977; online at < http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/publications.php >.

- 3 -