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.
Showing posts with label Henri Poincare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henri Poincare. Show all posts
Monday, September 3, 2012
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Re: Is Physics Difficult? understanding acceleration, etc...”
Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post "Re: Is Physics Difficult? understanding acceleration, etc..." [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: Jatila van der Veen, in her post "Re: Is Physics Difficult? understanding acceleration, etc..." wrote: "To see whether students understand a concept, try having them DRAW their interpretation of a concept such as acceleration, and write a short explanation of their drawing."
Better yet, try having students *operationally* define kinematic terms such as position, velocity, and acceleration by means of drawings as in "Socratic Dialogue Inducing" (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9tSTdB . My experience has been that such student endeavor requires extensive guidance supplied by (a) the SDI lab manual, (b) fellow students during collaborative discussion, and (c) the Socratic instructor in response to students' questions or lab manual entries.
Thus SDI labs, as most other constructivist-type "Interactive Engagement" methods are *not* "minimally guided," an appellation applied by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark KSC (2006) to "constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching." KSC then proclaimed them all to be failures, contrary to the mountain of evidence for their success relative to traditional methods of instruction.
********************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gTiuwT .
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 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) [My *emphasis*.]
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 5 December 2010.]
Hake, R.R. "Re: Is Physics Difficult? understanding acceleration, etc..." online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gTiuwT . Post of 5 Dec 2010 19:58:35-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, & PhysLrnR. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
