Eric Mazur

918
-1

Published on

Professor Eric Mazur presents a seminar entitled "Confessions of a converted lecturer." Eric is a Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard University. Eric explains how he has adjusted his approach to teaching and how it has improved his students' performance significantly.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
918
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eric Mazur

  1. 1. Confessions of a converted lecturer University of Adelaide Brisbane, Australia, 19 January 2010
  2. 2. My message shift focus from “teaching” to helping students learn
  3. 3. Outline • Education
  4. 4. Outline • Education • Peer Instruction
  5. 5. Outline • Education • Peer Instruction • Results
  6. 6. Education
  7. 7. Education lectures focus on delivery of information
  8. 8. Education education is not just information transfer 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1990 FCI pretest
  9. 9. Education education is not just information transfer 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1990 FCI posttest
  10. 10. Education education is not just information transfer 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1990 combined
  11. 11. Education 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 1990 combined
  12. 12. Education 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 1990 combined
  13. 13. Education 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score
  14. 14. Education 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  15. 15. Education only one quarter of maximum gain realized 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score 1.00 0.23 g = Sf – Si 1 – Si R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  16. 16. Education not transfer but assimilation of information is key
  17. 17. Education conventional problems misleading 12 V 8 V 4 2 6 QP H
  18. 18. Education conventional problems misleading 12 V 8 V 4 2 6 QP H Calculate: (a) current in 2-W resistor (b) potential difference between P and Q
  19. 19. Education are the basic principles understood? S A B C H
  20. 20. Education are the basic principles understood? S A B C H When S is closed, what happens to: (a) intensities of A and B? (b) intensity of C? (c) current through battery? (d) potential difference across A, B, and C? (e) the total power dissipated?
  21. 21. Education 0 0 20 40 60 80 2 4 6 8 10 score count 0 0 20 40 60 80 2 4 6 8 10 score count conventional conceptual
  22. 22. Education 0 0 20 40 60 80 2 4 6 8 10 score average 4.9average 6.9 count 0 0 20 40 60 80 2 4 6 8 10 score count conventional conceptual
  23. 23. Education 100 80 60 40 20 conceptualproblem 100806040200 conventional problem 0
  24. 24. Education 100 80 60 40 20 conceptualproblem 100806040200 conventional problem 0 9% 52% 39%
  25. 25. So what should we do?
  26. 26. Peer Instruction Give students more responsibility for gathering information…
  27. 27. Peer Instruction Give students more responsibility for gathering information… so we can better help them assimilate it.
  28. 28. Peer Instruction Main features: • pre-class reading • in-class: depth, not ‘coverage’ • ConcepTests
  29. 29. Peer Instruction ConcepTest: 1. Question 2. Thinking 3. Individual answer 4. Peer discussion 5. Revised/Group answer 6. Explanation
  30. 30. Results is it any good?
  31. 31. Results first year of implementing PI 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1991 FCI pretest
  32. 32. Results first year of implementing PI 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1991 FCI posttest
  33. 33. Results first year of implementing PI 25 20 15 10 5 0 252015 score 1050 count 1991 combined
  34. 34. Results 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score 1.00 0.23 g = Sf – Si 1 – Si
  35. 35. Results 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score 1.00 0.23 g = Sf – Si 1 – Si
  36. 36. Results 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score 1.00 0.23 g = Sf – Si 1 – Si R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  37. 37. Results 100 80 60 40 20 changeinscore,Sf–Si(%) 100806040200 initial score, Si (%) 0 perfect score 1.00 0.23 g = Sf – Si 1 – Si 0.48 R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  38. 38. Results what about problem solving?
  39. 39. Results 25 20 15 10 5 0 1008060 exam score (%) 40200 count 1985 exam scores
  40. 40. Results 25 20 15 10 5 0 1008060 exam score (%) 40200 count 1991 exam scores
  41. 41. Results 25 20 15 10 5 0 1008060 exam score (%) 40200 count 1985/91 exam scores
  42. 42. Summary So better understanding leads to better problem solving!
  43. 43. Summary So better understanding leads to better problem solving! (but “good” problem solving doesn’t always indicate understanding!)
  44. 44. Summary Traditional indicators of success misleading
  45. 45. Summary Traditional indicators of success misleading Education is no longer about information
  46. 46. Funding: National Science Foundation for a copy of this presentation: http://mazur-www.harvard.edu http://twitter.com/eric_mazur
  47. 47. Funding: National Science Foundation for a copy of this presentation: http://mazur-www.harvard.edu http://twitter.com/eric_mazur

×