Piaget’s Stages? #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Piaget's Stages? #2” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Eric Nelson’s (2014a) post “Piaget's Stages?” of 7 August 2014 on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/1orXcKo initiated a thread which on 12 August 07:36-0700 had grown to 23 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/nG318r .

[NOTE: To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://bit.ly/nG318r and then clicking on “Subscribe or Unsubscribe.” If you're busy, then subscribe using the “NOMAIL” option under “Miscellaneous.” Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!]

In one of the 23 posts, now updated and placed online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Y8ZumO, I point to generally laudatory opinions on Piaget's work by experts Philip Adey, John Anderson, Howard Gardner, Alan Kay, Anton Lawson, Robert Sternberg, Ernst von Glasersfeld, and David Klahr.

In addition, aside from his initializing post, Nelson (2014b,c) made two other contributions at http://bit.ly/1ouGsSQ and http://bit.ly/1uP1Zp7 in which he pointed to the work of Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC) as the definitive word from cognitive science on pedagogical methods. However, not everyone would agree with Nelson’s tribute to KSC, as I indicated in “Vague Labels for Pedagogical Methods Should Be Supplemented with Operational Definitions and Detailed Descriptions” [Hake (2014b)] at http://bit.ly/1jPnKxo .
*********************************************


To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.

“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 Poincaré (1905)


REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 14 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Piaget's Stages? #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Poincaré, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis, Walter Scott Publishing; online at http://bit.ly/9hVfA8 thanks to the “Mead Project.” A Wikipedia entry on Poincaré is at http://bit.ly/b4jGVS.

Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent essay “Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” [Hake (2013b)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: The conclusion of my response “Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/10k3iN3 to David Klahr's (2012) “Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?” at http://bit.ly/WmqHMj is (see the complete post for the references):

“A. Klahr’s (2012) Fig. 1 histogram and the research of Chen & Klahr (1999) and Klahr & Nigam (2004) suggest that if one’s goal is the enhancement of a process skill such as the “Control of Variables Strategy” (CVS) among elementary-school students then (s)he should probably consider utilizing Klahr’s direct-instruction-like “Training-Probe (TP)” pedagogy rather than discovery-learning-like “No Training - No Probe (NTNP)” method with near zero teacher guidance.

B. Hake's (2012) Fig. 1 [histogram taken Hake (1998a)], its corroboration by others listed in Hake (2008), and the high positive correlation of post-test conceptual FCI and problem-solving MB tests, suggest that if one’s goal is the enhancement of conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability among high-school or undergraduate students then (s)he should probably consider utilizing discovery-learning-like “Interactive Engagement” pedagogy rather than direct-instruction-like “Traditional' pedagogy.”
**************************************************

To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 01 April 2013.]

Hake, R.R. 2013a. “Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” APS News 22(4), April, online at http://bit.ly/10k3iN3. [Response to Klahr (2012).]

Hake, R.R. 2013b. “Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa. Post of 01 April 16:00-0700 to Net-Gold, AERA-K, and AERA-L. [Evidently due to a change in LISTSERV software AERA-K and AERA-L no longer carry HOT Links such as those on Net-Gold!] The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Klahr, D. 2012. “Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?” APS News 21(11), December; online at http://bit.ly/WmqHMj.

Responses to David Klahr’s Criticism of Inquiry Science

Some blog might be interested in a recent post “Responses to David Klahr’s Criticism of Inquiry Science” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*************************************************
ABSTRACT: David Klahr’s (2012) APS News back-page essay “Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?” at http://bit.ly/WmqHMj initiated two long threads on the PhysLrnR list: (a) “Klahr in Dec. APSNEWS” at http://bit.ly/VsSA9u, and (b) “Klahr In APS” at http://bit.ly/YdVI3q [respectively 51 and 67 posts as of 17 Feb 2013; to gain access you may need to obtain a password by clicking on “Log in required” and then typing your email address into a slot].

Unfortunately, none of these posts addressed Joe Bellina’s lead question at http://bit.ly/W28x1k: “HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF RESPONDING?” [My CAPS.]

Thus far the only response in APS News to Klahr (2012) is a letter in the Feb 2013 issue “Criticism of Inquiry-based Learning Strikes Home” at http://bit.ly/ZghL0e from physicist Robert Ehrlich (2013)], which supports Klahr's criticism of Inquiry Science. Ehrlich http://bit.ly/VWihiQ is an inveterate Physics Education Research (PER) basher - see e.g., my response to his careless commentary in “Comment on ‘How do we know if we are doing a good job in physics teaching’ by Robert Ehrlich” [Hake (2002)] at http://bit.ly/R4UZkt.
*************************************************

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/11PpLqs.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 Feb 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Responses to David Klahr’s Criticism of Inquiry Science,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/11PpLqs. Post of 17 Feb 2013 16:13:16-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? - Response to Camp

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.

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.

Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction” [Hake (2012c)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Google Donates One Million Dollars to Local Schools” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/KMcNNw, I stated (paraphrasing): “The research reported in ‘Interactive-engagement (IE) vs traditional (T) methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses’ [Hake (1998a)] at http://bit.ly/9484DG strongly suggests that the ‘Explicit Direct Instruction’ (EDI) doesn't work nearly as well as IE in promoting conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability.”

In response Philip Freeman wrote (paraphrasing): “It’s possible that there is a linguistic issue here. . . . what this group calls “EDI” includes use of many of the approaches that Physics Education Research endorses. . . . . in talking to those in different contexts it is important to be careful about assumptions that words mean the same thing they do to us.”

I agree completely. In “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)] at http://bit.ly/bHTebD I wrote (paraphrasing): “Language ambiguities hinder development of education research and sometimes misrepresent its findings to both the education community and the general public. . . . . Such communication problems might be reduced if, quoting Klahr and Li (2005) at http://bit.ly/apA7es, ‘those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded -isms.’ ”

After considering operational definitions for “Interactive Engagement” (IE) and “Explicit Direct Instruction” (EDI), I stick by my statement “that the research reported in Hake (1998a) strongly suggests that EDI doesn't work nearly as well as IE in promoting conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability.”
***************************************************

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LdSe1e.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 June 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Google Donates One Million Dollars to Local Schools,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/KMcNNw. Post of 17 Jun 2012 14:45:21-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at http://bit.ly/KdQZZF with a provision for comments. See also Hake (2012b).

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “Gates Foundation Dispenses 400 Million/Year to Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Mmc1aB. Post of 18 Jun 2012 10:33:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were also transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/NKPfwR with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012c. “Interactive Engagement vs Explicit Direct Instruction,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/LdSe1e. Post of 19 Jun 2012 17:28:00-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’ ?

Some blog followers might be interested in “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? ” [Hake (2012b). The abstract reads:

*******************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Re: Khan's Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton's Second Law” [Hake (2012a) at http://bit.ly/AiO4oY], I quoted Domenico Rosa's statement: “All the hits that Khan's videos are getting are indicative of the hunger for direct instruction.”

In response, Physoc’s Jim Huddle asked “What is ‘direct instruction’. ”

In “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD] I listed four different meanings for “direct instruction” commonly found in the educational literature, that of:

1. the “Mathematically Correct Science Corner” at http://bit.ly/bfzdZS: drill and practice, non-hands-on, teach ’em the facts;

2. Physics Education Researchers: traditional passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem sets;

3. Klahr & Nigam (2004): “the goals, materials, examples, explanations, and pace of instruction are all teacher controlled, but in which hands-on activities are featured (K & N call this extreme direct instruction);

4. Association Of Direct Instruction [ADI (2004)]: (a) teaching by telling (as contrasted by teaching by implying), or (b) instructional techniques based on choral responses, homogeneous grouping, signals, and other proven instructional techniques, or (c) specific programs designed by Siegfried Engelmann and his staff.

Domenico Rosa was probably using “direct instruction” as defined in “1” above (please correct me if I'm wrong).
*******************************************

To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/FOp16Y.


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


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Re: Khan's Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton’s Second Law,” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/yPSjFE. Post of 16 Mar 2012 09:11:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/wEdup7 with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? ” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/FOp16Y. Post of 16 Mar 2012 13:59:51-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Operational Definitions

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Operational Definitions” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

****************************************
ABSTRACT: Alan Bender (2011), in a POD post “Open inquiry is bad? (in some intro tech courses),” wrote (paraphrasing) : “I wonder how the terms ‘learning centered’ and ‘instruction centered’ tend to be understood, particularly by those who hear them for the first times. . . . . What definitions for such phrases might promote more thought about paradigms/ideologies?”

In my opinion, “OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS” might promote more thought about paradigms/ideologies and attendant ambiguous phrases such as “learning centered,” “instruction centered,” “active learning,” “direct instruction,” “inquiry,” “open inquiry,” “student centered,” “learning centered,” “discovery,” etc., etc., etc. . . .

See e.g.: “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)] at http://bit.ly/bHTebD , and “Education Research Employing Operational Definitions Can Enhance the Teaching Art” [Hake (2010)] at http://bit.ly/aGlkjm.
****************************************

To access the complete 7 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/l1ADtf.

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

“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 22 June 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Operational Definitions,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/l1ADtf. Post of 22 Jun 2011 19:19:14-0700
to POD, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 7 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

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.

What's Direct Instruction? (was Re: NCLB Worries Scientists) #2

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

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

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: NCLB Worries Scientists," which included reference to "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of Science?" [Hake (2005)], Chemed-L's “Scitch” wrote (paraphrasing): " 'Direct Instruction' has a very specific meaning in K-12 education, is not 'pure lecture,' and has been defined by John Hattie (2008) in 'Visible Learning'." I disagree with Scitch that there is any general agreement in K-12 or elsewhere on the meaning of either "Direct Instruction" or "direct instruction." Instead, I agree with Klahr and Li that “those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research [should] focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded '-isms.' ”

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

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/32728 .

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. "What's Direct Instruction? (was Re: NCLB Worries Scientists) #2" online on the OPEN! NetGold archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/32728 . Post of 10 May 2010 19:22-0700 to NetGold.

Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title (transmitted to about 30 discussion lists on 16 March 2010) regarding Eric Mazur's http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/ engaging talk "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" at the University of Maryland on 11 November 2009. (I thank Joan Middendorf of Indiana University for calling my attention to Eric's talk.)

The abstract reads:

“I thought I was a good teacher until I discovered my students were just memorizing information rather than learning to understand the material. Who was to blame? The students? The material? I will explain how I came to the agonizing conclusion that the culprit was neither of these. It was my teaching that caused students to fail! I will show how I have adjusted my approach to teaching and how it has improved my students' performance significantly.”

That talk is now on UTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI ; and the abstract, slides, and references - sometimes obscured in the UTube talk - are at http://tinyurl.com/ybc53jw as a 4 MB pdf.

As of 16 March 2010, Eric's talk had been viewed by some 12,800 UTube fans!

In contrast, serious articles in the education literature, often read only by the author and a few cloistered academic specialists, usually create tsunamis in educational practice equivalent to those produced by a pebble dropped into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

For other commentary critical of the passive-student lecture - staple of U.S. higher education - see e.g.:

a. “Scholars at a Lecture” [Hogarth ((1822)];

b. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science" [Morrison (1986)] - a MUST-READ all-time classic!;

c. “Science Lectures: A relic of the past? [Mazur (1996)];

d. "The College Lecture, Long Derided, May Be Fading” [Honan (2002)];

e. "Re: The college lecture may be fading" [Hake (2002)];

f. “Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing” [Hake (2007)];

g. "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" [Rimer (2009)];

h. "Farewell, Lecture?" [Mazur (2009)].

Yes, I'm aware of the seemingly lecture-friendly:

1. “A time for telling” [Schwartz & Bransford (1998)];

2. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)].

Regarding Schwartz & Bransford (1998), their abstract ends: ”. . .the results indicate that there is a place for lectures and readings in the classroom IF STUDENTS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENTIATED DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE TO USE THE EXPOSITORY MATERIALS IN A GENERATIVE MANNER.” [My CAPS.]

In response, I wrote in “Re: Constructivism in the APB classroom” [Hake (2008a)]:

“But judging from the abysmally low pre-to-post test average normalized gains on tests of conceptual understanding for traditional high-school and college mechanics courses (Hake (1998a,b)], it would appear that the traditional learning strategy given to students by instructors for learning physics . . . . does NOT supply students with 'sufficiently differentiated domain knowledge to use the expository materials in a generative manner' [a loose translation from the psychologize might be: ‘sufficient conceptual understanding to benefit from the lecture.’ “

Regarding Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006), as indicated in "Language Ambiguities in Education Research" [Hake (2008b)], their failure to operationally define pedagogical terms hinders any meaningful interpretation of their paper. Quoting Klahr and Li (2005) “we suggest that those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research should focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded '-isms.' ”

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

Hake, R.R. 1998a. “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf (84 kB).

Hake, R.R. 1998b. “Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses,” online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf (108 kB). A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://tinyurl.com/y8kddm6 . Post of 21 Aug 2002 15:34:25-0700 to Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and POD.

Hake, R.R. 2007. “Re: Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing,” online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://tinyurl.com/yftrgmt . Post of 20 Feb 2007 15:45:37-0800 to Chemed-L, PhysLrnR, & POD.

Hake, R.R. 2008a. “Re: Constructivism in the APB classroom,” online on the OPEN! AERA-K archives at http://tinyurl.com/yj556qd .

Hake, R.R. 2008b. “Language Ambiguities in Education Research,” submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August 2008 but mindlessly rejected; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf (1.2 MB).

Hogarth, W. 1822. “Scholars at a Lecture,” online at http://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/hogarth_william_scholarsatalecture.htm .

Honan, W.H. 2002. "The College Lecture, Long Derided, May Be Fading,” New York Times, August 14, 2002; online at http://tinyurl.com/yjsanjf .

Kirschner, P.A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86; online at http://tinyurl.com/3xmp2m (176 kB).

Klahr, D. & J. Li. 2005. “Cognitive Research and Elementary Science Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 217-238; online as a 536 kB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/2b62uk (536 kB).

Mazur, E. 1996. “Science Lectures: A relic of the past? Physics World 9: 13-14; online at http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazur_22862.pdf (1 MB).

Mazur, E. 2009. "Farewell, Lecture?" Science 323 (5919): 50-51, 2 January; online to subscribers at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5910/50 . Free toall at http://tinyurl.com/sbys4 .

Morrison, R.T. 1986. "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," in Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number 1, Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian R. Rice). The College Center for Curricular Thought: The University of Chicago, October 18-19, 1989; online at http://entropysite.oxy.edu/morrison.html, thanks to Gutenberg lecture pioneer Frank Lambert. (The Gutenberg lecture method recognizes the invention of the printing press!)

Rimer, S. 2009. "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard," New York Times, 12 January; online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?_r=1? (with 74 comments as of 15 March 2010).

Schwartz, D. L. & J. D. Bransford, 1998. "A time for telling," Cognition & Instruction 16(4): 475-522; an abstract is online at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3233709.

Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12 - Response to Wurman

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

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

ABSTRACT: In the abstract of a previous post “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” [Hake (2010)], I wrote: “Joe Bellina (2010), in a post 'Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12' ALERTED subscribers to ‘Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002’ [Minner, Levy, & Century (2009)].”

Ze'ev Wurman (2010), evidently misunderstanding the above, responded (paraphrasing) “Would Hake care to speculate as to the reasons Joe BELLINA RESTRICTED HIS RESEARCH to 1984-2002 and ignored the last 7 years of rather fruitful studies in this area?”

Ze'ev apparently did not scan the abstract of Minner et al. (2009) in which the authors give the following reasons for restricting their research (not Bellina's) to data from 1984 to 2002 (paraphrasing): “[That timeframe] was selected to continue a line of synthesis work last completed in 1983 by Bredderman (1983) and by Shymansky et al. (1983), and to accommodate a practicable cutoff date given the research project timeline, which ran from 2001 to 2006.”

If Ze'ev and others suspect that Minner et al. may have cherry picked 1984-2002 so as to “focus on data from periods that suited their theses,” then to make a case they would need to provide data outside the 1984-2002 period that conflicts with Minner et al.'s indication of “a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based instructional practices.”

My survey of data in “Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in California - Or Does It?” [Hake (2004)] showed that ALL the data, including that outside the 1984-2002 period, was generally consistent with the pro-inquiry assessment of Minner et al. (2009).

Not surveyed was “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)]. But that paper, despite its misleading title, does not counter the theses of Minner et al. (2009), as explained in e.g., “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008b)].

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

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31796 .

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

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779. Post of 3 Feb 2010 8:40 am EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract was also transmitted to various discussion lists and appears at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-metastudy-on-impact-of-inquiry-in-k.html with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2008b. “Language Ambiguities in Education Research,” submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August but mindlessly rejected; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf (1.2 MB) and as ref. 54 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake. David Klahr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klahr wrote to me privately (quoted by permission): “I liked the paper. I think it's very thoughtful and nuanced. However it is tough going, even for someone as familiar with the issues (and as favorably cited by you) as I am. It's a shame that it was rejected, but I wonder if the reviewer just wasn't up to the very careful reading necessary to really follow your arguments all the way through. Even though I know this area quite well, obviously, I did have to really focus to fully understand the distinctions you were making.”

Minner, D.D. , A.J. Levy, & J. Century. 2009. “Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Early View (Articles online in advance of print); online to subscribers at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123205106/PDFSTART.

Wurman, Z. 2010. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12," post of 4 Feb 2010 13:23:52 -0800 to AP-Physics, Biopi-L, EvalTalk, Physhare, and Physoc; online on the PHYSOC archives at http://tinyurl.com/ycfzdlp. To access the archives of PHYSOC one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Joe Bellina (2010), in a post "Metastudy on impact of in k-12" alerted subscribers to Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002 [Minner, Levy, & Century (2009)]. Their abstract reads in part (slightly edited):

"The goal of the Inquiry Synthesis Project was to synthesize findings from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 to address the research question, "What Is The Impact Of Inquiry Science Instruction On K-12 Student Outcomes?". . . . . Various findings across 138 analyzed studies INDICATE A CLEAR, POSITIVE TREND FAVORING INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES [my CAPS], particularly instruction that emphasizes student active thinking and drawing conclusions from data. Teaching strategies that actively engage students in the learning process through scientific investigations are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than are strategies that rely on more passive techniques, which are often necessary in the current standardized-assessment laden educational environment."

Leaving aside my own niggling criticism of their monumental mixed-methods-research effort, Minner et al., even despite the "antipositivist vigilantes," rightfully add another voice to the chorus bemoaning the lack of operational definitions for various pedagogical approaches. Among other choristers are: Century (2004), Klahr & Li (2005), Anderson (2007), Hake (2008), Strand-Cary & Klahr (2008), and Klahr (2009).

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

To access the complete 33 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779. Post of 3 Feb 2010 8:40 am EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.

Re: Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In a previous post "Re: All about constructivism" [Hake (2009)], I pointed to Doug Holton's (2009) valuable post “All about constructivism,” regarding the debate engendered by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark's (2006) provocative “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.”

For a recent continuation of that debate see Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? [Tobias & Duffy (2009)]. The publisher's information at http://tinyurl.com/y9xpear includes the “Table of Contents” and a description of the book, stating that it ”brings together leading thinkers from both sides of the hotly debated controversy about constructivist approaches to instruction.”

An especially insightful contribution is David Klahr's (2009) “To Every Thing There is a Season, and a Time to Every Purpose Under the Heavens,” wherein Klahr emphasizes the importance of operational definitions in science education, as was also underscored in “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)].

To access the complete 16 KB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yb9443e .

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

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yb9443e. Post of 17 Jan 2010 17:10:41-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.

Tobias, Sigmund & T.M. Duffy, eds. 2009. Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?Routledge; forward by Robert J. Sternberg; publisher's information at http://tinyurl.com/y9xpear. Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/ye8y5xp. For a severely truncated version see the Google Book preview at http://tinyurl.com/yaffdma .