Experience and Educationis the best concise statement on education ever published by John Dewey, the man acknowledged to be the pre-eminent educational theorist of the twentieth century. Written more than two decades after Democracy and Education(Dewey's most comprehensive statement of his position in educational philosophy), this book demonstrates how Dewey reformulated his ideas as a result of his intervening experience with the progressive schools and in the light of the criticisms his theories had received. Analysing both "traditional" and "progressive" education, Dr. Dewey here insists that neither the old nor the new education is adequate and that each is miseducative because neither of them applies the principles of a carefully developed philosophy of experience. Many pages of this volume illustrate Dr. Dewey's ideas for a philosophy of experience and its relation to education. He particularly urges that all teachers and educators looking for a new movement in education should think in terms of the deeped and larger issues of education rather than in terms of some divisive "ism" about education, even such an "ism" as "progressivism." His philosophy, here expressed in its most essential, most readable form, predicates an American educational system that respects all sources of experience, on that offers a true learning situation that is both historical and social, both orderly and dynamic.

经验与教育 = Experience and education

Preparing the books to read every day is enjoyable for many people. However, there are still many people who also don't like reading. This is a problem. But, when you can support others to start reading, it will be better. One of the books that can be recommended for new readers is experience and education. This book is not kind of difficult book to read. It can be read and understand by the new readers.

Experience and Education.

creased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes—although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.

/pdf/active-learning-increases-student-performance-in-science-3j0c6wu4k5.pdf

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

This study examines the evidence for the effectiveness of active learning. It defines the common forms of active learning most relevant for engineering faculty and critically examines the core element of each method. It is found that there is broad but uneven support for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and problem-based learning.

/pdf/does-active-learning-work-a-review-of-the-research-2erhef7d09.pdf

Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research

A survey of pre/post-test data using the Halloun–Hestenes Mechanics Diagnostic test or more recent Force Concept Inventory is reported for 62 introductory physics courses enrolling a total number of students N=6542. A consistent analysis over diverse student populations in high schools, colleges, and universities is obtained if a rough measure of the average effectiveness of a course in promoting conceptual understanding is taken to be the average normalized gain 〈g〉. The latter is defined as the ratio of the actual average gain (%〈post〉−%〈pre〉) to the maximum possible average gain (100−%〈pre〉). Fourteen “traditional” (T) courses (N=2084) which made little or no use of interactive-engagement (IE) methods achieved an average gain 〈g〉T-ave=0.23±0.04 (std dev). In sharp contrast, 48 courses (N=4458) which made substantial use of IE methods achieved an average gain 〈g〉IE-ave=0.48±0.14 (std dev), almost two standard deviations of 〈g〉IE-ave above that of the traditional courses. Results for 30 (N=3259) of the a...

/pdf/interactive-engagement-versus-traditional-methods-a-six-308kycdryk.pdf

Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses

One of the more dramatic demonstrations of the failure of introductory mechanics courses occurred in 1985 when Halloun and Hestenes2 (HH) published a careful study of pre/post testing of 560 Arizona State University students enrolled in both calculus and non-calculus-based courses. HH used their Mechanics Diagnostic2a (MD) test, 36 multiple-choice questions assessing students’ ability to discriminate between the applicability of scientific concepts and naive alternatives in common physical situations. A typical MD test question is shown below:

/pdf/interactive-engagement-vs-traditional-methods-in-mechanics-1w0zpskpis.pdf

Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction*

In an American Educational Research Association (Division D)* mailing list posting of 22 Feb 1999 of the above title John Reece wrote: "I am looking for some good references on the analysis of gain/change scores The type of scenario I’m interested in is either an experimental or quasiexperimental pre-test/intervention/post-test design I’m particularly interested in the issues surrounding the use of ANCOVA versus direct analysis of gain scores"

/pdf/analyzing-change-gain-scores-2flqldd4zo.pdf

Analyzing change/gain scores*†

In a 1998 meta-analysis I showed that “interactive engagement” (IE) courses could yield average normalized pre-toposttest gains in conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics that were about two standard deviations greater than traditional (T) courses Then in 2002 I wrote a paper based on my meta-analysis entitled “Lessons From the Physics Education Reform Effort” There, among other things, I offered six lessons on “interactive engagement” that I had hoped might stimulate more effective high school and university education Today five years latter, it may be worthwhile to review and update those lessons with an eye to the present status of education reform in physics and ther disciplines o

http://www.lajpe.org/sep07/HAKE_Final.pdf

Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort

What I cannot create I do not understand. Richard Feynman Let us visit the university physics lab of Fig. 1. Why are the instructors asking questions? Why are the students talking so much? Why are they engrossed in seemingly childish activities?

Richard R. Hake

Papers

Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses

Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction*

Analyzing change/gain scores*†

Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort

Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory