To attempt to smooth out the knot, I would say that I was not meaning that
we cannot look for external evidence of internal engagement, just that to
demand verbal interaction and to do so as if nothing is going on when this
is not immediately present and without gauging the verbal behavior itself
for the quality and quantity of the apparent interaction is to miss why we
wanted the interaction in the first place. I believe that when someone
talks there is not always interaction and when someone does not talk there
is not always no interaction.
Clearly, _external_ evidence is _all_ we have, but the issue then becomes
what does this external evidence _mean_ to _us_ and should we restrict it
as to type and when it occurs. The original discussion was about people
speaking up in class, as I recall, and I was maintaining that just because
someone does not happen to say something, does not mean that they are
making no changes or additions to their understanding.
Later, when I said that so little happens during typical lecture, I was not
specifically referring to external signs of interaction at the time of the
lecture. What I am referring to is evidence of change in the ideas one
apparently has at one's disposal as a result of the lecture (plus other
traditional instructional activities) compared to the ideas one apparently
had available before the lecture. In research in physics learning, we
conduct individual interviews and administer paper-and-pencil diagnostics
to collect evidence of the notions, ideas, conceptions students appear to
be using both before and after instruction. Such diagnostic methods have
been used on at least hundreds and thousands of students, respectively.
What we find is that on the whole, under traditional physics instruction
(lectures plus demonstrations of problem solving and lab), no significant
change in underlying conceptions about the physical world occurs. This is
the case whether the post-"test" follows the unit of instruction
immediately, is at the end of the semester, or years later. Again, I
cannot say what happens in people's minds, but when 99+% of the thousands
of students appear not to change their notions, then I am in a position to
posit why not. I am even more in this position when some forms of
non-traditional instruction appear to result in a much larger percentage of
students making a significant addition to the bank of available conceptions
or beliefs about physical phenomena by the same measures.
These non-traditional forms do seem to differ from traditional forms of
physics instruction in that there are more external signs of interaction at
the time of class. BUT, this does not mean that we must force each
individual into an outward show of "interaction" for its own sake.
Instead, we need to make it impossible for someone to sit all class long in
an environment in which no interaction, no meaning-making/negotiation, is
going on.
So for me an interactive classroom session is one in which students are
free and safe to engage in the making/negotiation of what is for them new
meaning and in which some (hopefully, many or most, if not all) actually do
engage by 'speaking' to each other in class. ('speaking' could also be
'writing' to each other as we do on e-mail.)
Does this help make my thinking more clear to you?
Dewey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++