In the spring 2010 experiment, Carl Wieman and his colleagues followed two nearly identical physics classes. 250 students were taught the usual way, three hours a week for 11 weeks and then, at the 12th week the experiment began. One class stuck with the traditional, well-regarded professor in lecture mode where are the second class was taught by two of Wieman’s grad students using the interactive method. When they say ‘interactive’ that meant no lecturing, short, small-group discussions, in-class ‘clicker’ quizzes, demonstrations and question-and-answer sessions with the teachers getting real-time graphic feedback on what the students were learning and what they weren’t getting.
With almost identical test scores before the change, the students learning through an interactive style but with inexperienced educators out performed the traditional, well-regarded professor lead group. I say out performance, in the 12 question quiz post quiz they lead with an average of 74 percent versus 41 percent. In fact, to sub salt in the wounds, the best scores in the traditional lecture class were below average for the interactive class, oh, and attendance was up 20% and attention higher in the interactive class.
Now to be explicit here, the two graduate students are co-authors of the study, they knew what they were doing was part of the research but then again so did the well-regarded professor. It is as it says in the title, its not the teacher, but the method that matters. With that, can we review the way we pay our educators?
*Wieman wisely declined to identify the veteran professor, who was a willing participant. Just for the record, Wieman is a Nobel prize winner, if that kind of thing impresses you? It impresses me.
[qr_code_display]