Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? - Response to Camp” [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction” (aka “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education - Response to Camp”) [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/PWS8aj, Paul Camp at http://bit.ly/Sn9OmP (non-subscribers may need to fill out a form to gain access) made 4 points:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Camp quoted Klahr as quoted in a CMU (1998) press release “Carnegie Mellon Researchers Say Direct Instruction, Rather Than ‘Discovery Learning’ Is Best Way To Teach Process Skills In Science” at http://bit.ly/QoB9RX that advertised Chen & Klahr (1999) http://bit.ly/OXCT1h.
Of course, the press release should have placed “Direct Instruction” in quotes to indicate Chen & Klahr’s own restricted meaning of that phrase.
Camp might not have been misled by CMU (1998) if he had been aware of (or not dismissed) the final section “CAUTION: WHAT'S IN A NAME?” in “Cognitive Research and Elementary Science Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back” [Klahr & Li (2005)] at http://bit.ly/Q2ls3d (scroll down and click on the title).
Klahr & Li wrote [my CAPS]: “In hindsight, we may have muddied the interpretation of our findings by incorporating popular terminology like ‘direct instruction’ and ‘discovery learning’ into articles and public presentations of Chen & Klahr (1999) and Klahr & Nigam (2004) http://bit.ly/UuSw4d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One thing is clear from all this: IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE FIELD OF EDUCATION TO MAKE MORE PRECISE USE OF TERMINOLOGY before moving on to public debates and policy decisions. Indeed it is surprising that when education researchers and science educators join in heated debates about discovery learning, direct instruction, inquiry, hands-on, or minds-on, they usually abandon one of the foundations of science - THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION. The field of science cannot advance without clear, unambiguous, operationally defined, and replicable procedures. Education science is no exception
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Camp then wrote: “I see nothing particularly objectionable. . . .[[in CMU (1998)]]. . . . and certainly nothing that sounds like ‘drill and practice’.”
SO WHAT? Camp has evidently missed the point of Hake (2012a) that:
(a) education catch words such as “direct instruction” and “discovery learning” mean different things to different people; and
(b) most of those who attack the Benezet Method don’t define “direct instruction” as does Klahr. Instead most of them subscribe to the meaning of “direct instruction” implied by Mathematically Correct’s website http://bit.ly/beOVtu : " 'DRILL AND PRACTICE,' 'non-hands-on,' 'teach 'em the facts'. "
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. Camp wrote: “I don't have time to track down everything [Hake writes], even if I had the inclination. All I can say is if what [he] didn't properly represent [his] views, perhaps [he] should have revised it. My responsibility ends with reading what [he] wrote.”
I agree with Camp's opinion that his responsibility ends with reading what I wrote. But the COMPLETE version of “what I wrote” is in my complete post at http://bit.ly/PWS8aj. For Camp to criticize my view on the basis of only the necessarily abbreviated abstract without bothering to read my complete post is, I think, (in Camp’s words - see below) “ethically borderline.”
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. Camp wrote: “And, by the way, I don't appreciate having my words converted into shouting that I didn't do. That's ethically borderline.”
In the ASKII medium of discussion lists where italics are usually suppressed, one can attempt emphasis by, e.g., “*emphasis*” or “EMPHASIS”. My experience is that there’s not enough emphasis in “*emphasis*” so I prefer “EMPHASIS”. Camp’s opinion that “EMPHASIS” is "shouting" is, in my opinion NONSENSE!! (Oops, there I go again!).
*************************************************
To access the complete 22 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/P5wNzs.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
“The true meaning of a term is found by observing what a man. . . .[[or woman]]. . . . does with it, not what . . . . . [[s(he)]]. . . . . . . says about it.”
- P.W. Bridgman (1927, 1960)
“When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.”
- Henri Poincare (1905)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Sept 2012.
Bridgman, P.W. 1960. Logic of Modern Physics. Macmillan. First published in 1927. Amazon.com information at http://bit.ly/NWaIyU. An excerpt is online at http://bit.ly/RQDfHh. A Wikipedia entry on Bridgeman is at http://bit.ly/OTs5mh.
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’ ” (aka “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education - Response to Camp”) online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/PWS8aj . Post of 3 Sep 2012 13:20:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/OIVVtI with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? - Response to Camp,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/P5wNzs. Post of 6 Sep 2012 16:58:09-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Poincare, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis, Walter Scott Publishing; online at http://bit.ly/9hVfA8 thanks to the Mead Project. A Wikipedia entry on Poincare is at http://bit.ly/b4jGVS.
Showing posts with label Benezet Method. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benezet Method. Show all posts
Friday, September 7, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
What's the Meaning of “Direct Instruction”?
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education - Response to Camp” [Hake (2012b)], which might better have been titled “WHAT'S THE MEANING OF 'DIRECT INSTRUCTION'?” The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD, I listed as one of the reasons that the Benezet Method http://bit.ly/926tiM is virtually forgotten is “the opposition of those who favor ‘direct instruction’ (i.e., ‘drill and practice’) in the early grades.”
PhysLrnR’s Paul Camp responded: “THAT'S NOT WHAT DIRECT INSTRUCTION REFERS TO AND YOU KNOW IT.”
Camp evidently thinks “direct instruction” has some commonly accepted meaning. But had Camp bothered to scan my complete 21 kB post at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD, he might have noticed my emphasis on the ambiguity of that term and my guess as to its operational meaning to those who oppose the Benezet Method. Therein I wrote:
“The ambiguous phrase ‘direct instruction’ is used [here] in the ‘Mathematically Correct’ http://bit.ly/beOVtu sense discussed in ‘Language Ambiguities in Education Research’ (Hake, 2008) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD: “ ‘DRILL AND PRACTICE,’ ‘non-hands-on,’ ‘teach ’em the facts’ (Metzenberg, 1998) at http://bit.ly/9rGbSj (scroll down to just above “AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy”), and ‘non-discovery-learning,’ where ‘discovery learning’ means setting students adrift either in aimless play or ostensibly to discover on their own, say, Archimedes’ principle or Newton’s Second Law.”
In “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” I indicate my guesses as to what the following groups have meant by “direct instruction”: (a) Mathematically Correct, (b) physics education researchers, (c) Klahr & Nigam (2004) in “The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning” http://bit.ly/9jzh39 (the CMU server was down on 03 Sept 2012 but will probably recover), and (d) Association Of Direct Instruction http://www.adihome.org/.
*********************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/PWS8aj.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
"When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion."
- Henri Poincare
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 Sept 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD. Post of 02 Sep 2012 15:28:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ORLO6e with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education – Response to Camp,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/PWS8aj. Post of 3 Sep 2012 13:20:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD, I listed as one of the reasons that the Benezet Method http://bit.ly/926tiM is virtually forgotten is “the opposition of those who favor ‘direct instruction’ (i.e., ‘drill and practice’) in the early grades.”
PhysLrnR’s Paul Camp responded: “THAT'S NOT WHAT DIRECT INSTRUCTION REFERS TO AND YOU KNOW IT.”
Camp evidently thinks “direct instruction” has some commonly accepted meaning. But had Camp bothered to scan my complete 21 kB post at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD, he might have noticed my emphasis on the ambiguity of that term and my guess as to its operational meaning to those who oppose the Benezet Method. Therein I wrote:
“The ambiguous phrase ‘direct instruction’ is used [here] in the ‘Mathematically Correct’ http://bit.ly/beOVtu sense discussed in ‘Language Ambiguities in Education Research’ (Hake, 2008) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD: “ ‘DRILL AND PRACTICE,’ ‘non-hands-on,’ ‘teach ’em the facts’ (Metzenberg, 1998) at http://bit.ly/9rGbSj (scroll down to just above “AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy”), and ‘non-discovery-learning,’ where ‘discovery learning’ means setting students adrift either in aimless play or ostensibly to discover on their own, say, Archimedes’ principle or Newton’s Second Law.”
In “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” I indicate my guesses as to what the following groups have meant by “direct instruction”: (a) Mathematically Correct, (b) physics education researchers, (c) Klahr & Nigam (2004) in “The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning” http://bit.ly/9jzh39 (the CMU server was down on 03 Sept 2012 but will probably recover), and (d) Association Of Direct Instruction http://www.adihome.org/.
*********************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/PWS8aj.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
"When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion."
- Henri Poincare
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 Sept 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD. Post of 02 Sep 2012 15:28:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ORLO6e with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education – Response to Camp,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/PWS8aj. Post of 3 Sep 2012 13:20:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Faculty Try Innovative Teaching Methods, But Don't Stick With It” at http://bit.ly/O3fctt, PhysLrnR’s John (Texas) Clement wrote (paraphrased for brevity): “Not sticking with innovative teaching methods is an old story - e.g., the Benezet Method of K-8 education http://bit.ly/926tiM, was yanked because of parental complaints.”
While it's possible that “parental complaints” may have contributed to the ouster in 1938 of Louis Paul Benezet http://bit.ly/ifjAv9 from his superintendency of the Manchester NH Schools, I think the primary reasons that the Benezet Method of K-8 Education is virtually forgotten are:
(a) the failure of the education community to appreciate the significance of the ground-breaking Benezet/Berman experiment of the 1930's http://bit.ly/PUGosU;
(b) the failure of universities and colleges to educate teachers capable of implementing Benezet's Method http://bit.ly/w9M6dc; and
(c) the opposition of those who favor “direct instruction” (i.e., “drill and practice”) in the early grades http://bit.ly/Pup0Nb.
**********************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/SbTiWD.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“. . .I will look primarily at our traditions and practices of early schooling through the age of twelve or so. There is little to come after, whether of joys or miseries, that is not prefigured in these years.”
David Hawkins http://bit.ly/fjHU9b (2001, p. 3)
“Benezet’s experience that sixth graders with no prior instruction could catch up with students with three years of prior instruction deserves attention. If that is so, one can reasonably claim that the school time spent on arithmetic during grades 3, 4, and 5 is wasted.”
- Andrew Gleason http://bit.ly/hKxteu (1986?)
“[Hassler Whitney http://bit.ly/eCiTGy] opposed formal instruction in arithmetic in the early grades, repeatedly citing a little-known study by Louis P. Benezet (1935a, 1935b, 1936), superintendent of schools in Manchester, New Hampshire, who managed to get several schools In his system to abandon all formal instruction in arithmetic prior to seventh grade. After a year's instruction, the students’ arithmetic test scores were at the level of those of comparable students who had undergone regular instruction. Whitney saw the Benezet study as justifying his argument that too many mathematics teachers were focusing on the passing of tests rather than what he called ‘meaningful goals.’ He was particularly disturbed by national reports calling for more mathematics to be taught earlier in school.”
- International Commission on Mathematical Instruction: ICME (2012)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 Sept 2012.
Gleason, A.M. 1986?. “Delay the Teaching of Arithmetic ?” unpublished, online as a 12 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/PPTx8f. The late Andrew Gleason http://bit.ly/hKxteu was Hollis Chair of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Harvard University.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD. Post of 02 Sep 2012 15:28:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Hawkins, D. 2001. The Roots of Literacy. University of Colorado Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/h3cbtf. A perceptive review by Helen and Joseph Featherston is at http://bit.ly/OITjdS.
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Faculty Try Innovative Teaching Methods, But Don't Stick With It” at http://bit.ly/O3fctt, PhysLrnR’s John (Texas) Clement wrote (paraphrased for brevity): “Not sticking with innovative teaching methods is an old story - e.g., the Benezet Method of K-8 education http://bit.ly/926tiM, was yanked because of parental complaints.”
While it's possible that “parental complaints” may have contributed to the ouster in 1938 of Louis Paul Benezet http://bit.ly/ifjAv9 from his superintendency of the Manchester NH Schools, I think the primary reasons that the Benezet Method of K-8 Education is virtually forgotten are:
(a) the failure of the education community to appreciate the significance of the ground-breaking Benezet/Berman experiment of the 1930's http://bit.ly/PUGosU;
(b) the failure of universities and colleges to educate teachers capable of implementing Benezet's Method http://bit.ly/w9M6dc; and
(c) the opposition of those who favor “direct instruction” (i.e., “drill and practice”) in the early grades http://bit.ly/Pup0Nb.
**********************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/SbTiWD.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“. . .I will look primarily at our traditions and practices of early schooling through the age of twelve or so. There is little to come after, whether of joys or miseries, that is not prefigured in these years.”
David Hawkins http://bit.ly/fjHU9b (2001, p. 3)
“Benezet’s experience that sixth graders with no prior instruction could catch up with students with three years of prior instruction deserves attention. If that is so, one can reasonably claim that the school time spent on arithmetic during grades 3, 4, and 5 is wasted.”
- Andrew Gleason http://bit.ly/hKxteu (1986?)
“[Hassler Whitney http://bit.ly/eCiTGy] opposed formal instruction in arithmetic in the early grades, repeatedly citing a little-known study by Louis P. Benezet (1935a, 1935b, 1936), superintendent of schools in Manchester, New Hampshire, who managed to get several schools In his system to abandon all formal instruction in arithmetic prior to seventh grade. After a year's instruction, the students’ arithmetic test scores were at the level of those of comparable students who had undergone regular instruction. Whitney saw the Benezet study as justifying his argument that too many mathematics teachers were focusing on the passing of tests rather than what he called ‘meaningful goals.’ He was particularly disturbed by national reports calling for more mathematics to be taught earlier in school.”
- International Commission on Mathematical Instruction: ICME (2012)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 Sept 2012.
Gleason, A.M. 1986?. “Delay the Teaching of Arithmetic ?” unpublished, online as a 12 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/PPTx8f. The late Andrew Gleason http://bit.ly/hKxteu was Hollis Chair of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Harvard University.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/SbTiWD. Post of 02 Sep 2012 15:28:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Hawkins, D. 2001. The Roots of Literacy. University of Colorado Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/h3cbtf. A perceptive review by Helen and Joseph Featherston is at http://bit.ly/OITjdS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
