The perils of teaser-style abstracts

Eric Mazur is my hero (see also here). But I wonder about this abstract:

A growing number of physics teachers are currently turning to instructional technologies such as wireless handheld response systems—colloquially called clickers. Two possible rationales may explain the growing interest in these devices. The first is the presumption that clickers are more effective instructional instruments. The second rationale is somewhat reminiscent of Martin Davis’ declaration when purchasing the Oakland Athletics: “As men get older, the toys get more expensive.” Although personally motivated by both of these rationales, the effectiveness of clickers over inexpensive low-tech flashcards remains questionable. Thus, the first half of this paper presents findings of a classroom study comparing the differences in student learning between a Peer Instruction group using clickers and a Peer Instruction group using flashcards. Having assessed student learning differences, the second half of the paper describes differences in teaching effectiveness between clickers and flashcards.

Is it really the best choice to keep the answer hidden in this way? Suspense is great, but an abstract should tell you the answer, no?

P.S. I tried took a look at the paper but the link didn’t work. If anybody finds out whether clickers worked better, please let me know…

3 thoughts on “The perils of teaser-style abstracts

  1. If you click on the PDF itself, a popup window asks for your e-mail address and allows you to d/l it.

    "These data show that clickers do not provide any additional learning benefit to students. Previous users of clickers in university classrooms have reported benefits such as increased rates of attendance and decreased rates of attrition.4 However, no data were found in this study to support the claim that clickers increase conceptual learning or exam performance." (pp 3-4)

    But I was quick skimming, and that's not the end of the paper.

  2. It uses javascript, which may be the problem, to go to a <a>download request page.

    If the abstract doesn't tell me what I want to know I tend to flick back from the end (probably comes from being left-handed, plus a liking for diagrams). It has a one-para-plus-take-home-message conclusion:

    "Clickers are usually used in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning. From a
    teaching perspective, clickers have a number of very practical advantages: they allow
    instructors to get precise real-time feedback and store students’ responses to
    ConcepTests. Furthermore, using clickers draws attention to PI and requires instructors to
    shift their focus toward conceptual instruction. From a learning perspective, using PI with
    clickers does not provide any significant learning advantage over low-tech flashcards. PI
    is an approach that engages students and challenges them to commit to a point of view
    that they can defend.

    The pedagogy is not the technology by itself."

  3. It should be noted that the paper is not authored by Mazur. The author is Professor N. Lasry of Abbott College, Montreal Canada, and Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Cambridge MA. He is a post-doc in Eric Mazur's group at Harvard. The item is published in The Physics Teacher — April 2008 — Volume 46, Issue 4, pp. 242-244. The abstract can be found by searching at the PT site.

Comments are closed.