Re: Less Than Positive Review of Inquiry Based Learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title. The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT: Sharon Begley (2010), in her provocative Newsweek article "Second-Class Science Education Research Gets an F" displays a distaste for reform pedagogy along with tendencies to oversimplify and overgeneralize that were all evident in her earlier Wall Street Journal report “The Best Ways to Make Schoolchildren Learn? We Just Don't Know” [Begley (2004a)].

Begley (2004a) reported on Klahr & Nigam's (2004) claim for the superiority for 3rd and 4th grade children of what they defined as “direct instruction” to what they defined as “discovery learning” in “The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning.” Although Klahr and Nigam were careful to operationally define their own very restricted meanings of “direct instruction” and “discovery learning,” Begley's report could be interpreted to imply that “direct instruction” in all its various forms is superior to “discovery learning” in all its various forms insofar a student learning is concerned.

In close parallel, now Begley (2010) has reported Cobern et al.'s (2010) claim for the equivalent effects on 8th grade student learning of what they defined as "direct instruction” to what they defined as "inquiry learning" in "Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science." Although Cobern et al. were careful to operationally define their own very restricted meanings of “direct instruction” and “inquiry learning,” Begley's report could be interpreted to imply that “direct instruction” in all its various forms is equivalent to “inquiry learning” in all its various forms insofar a student learning is concerned.

As for Begley's title "Second-Class Science Education Research Gets an F," not everyone agrees that all science education research is either second class or receives an "F," even despite Begley's (2010) claim that "the scientific basis for specific curricular materials, and even for general approaches such as how science should be taught, is so flimsy as to be a national scandal," directly contrary to the evidence-based opinions of scientists William Wood & James Gentile (2003), Robert DeHaan (2005), and Joel Michael (2006) in the signature quotes.

****************************************

To access the complete 42 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/24rj2wz .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net>

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

REFERENCES [Tiny URL’s courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Less Than Positive Review of Inquiry Based Learning," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/24rj2wz . Post of 17 May 2010 17:05:22-0700 to AERA-L and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to various discussion lists.