Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team

Some blog followers might be interested in “Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*******************************************************
ABSTRACT: Laura McCullough, in a message to the “Physics Education Research Topical Group” (PERTG) pointed to “Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction” [Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller (2012) at http://bit.ly/GDjqO5]. The same authors are responsible for “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” at http://bit.ly/duJVG4.

As a warning to those who would attempt to make sense of the latest pronouncements of the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller team, I quote the abstract of “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)] at http://bit.ly/bHTebD, part of which reads:

“Language ambiguities hinder development of education research and sometimes misrepresent its findings to both the education community and the general public. For example, in 2004 Klahr & Nigam demonstrated the superiority of what they defined as “direct instruction” over what they defined as “discovery learning.” But their research was widely misinterpreted as showing that “direct instruction” in all its various forms was superior to “discovery learning” in all its various forms. Then, in 2006, Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark not only reinforced that misconception, but also added to the general misunderstanding by identifying constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching methods as all “minimally guided,” and proclaiming all of them to be failures. . . . . . .[but] the “knowledge-based constructivism” of Resnick & Hall at http://bit.ly/hIMgFL is not “minimally guided” and instructional methods consistent with it are not failures, as judged by the assessment literature.
******************************************************

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/GBNwrP.

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

Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake


“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”
- Wood & Gentile (2003)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 20 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/GBNwrP. Post of 20 Mar 2012 15:20:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.