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.

Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: A recent thread “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” on the “Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education” (RUME) list has discussed an article by Sweller, Clark, & Kirschner (SCK) (2010) titled “Teaching General Problem-Solving Skills is Not a Substitute for, or a Viable Addition to, Teaching Mathematics” http://bit.ly/i7wori and published in the November 2010 issue of Notices of the AMS.

Math-problem guru Alan Schoenfeld wrote: “Sweller and colleagues set up a straw man, the notion of ‘general problem solving’ as a counterpoint to mathematical knowledge [but] there are techniques of mathematical problem solving, and there’s plenty of evidence that students can learn them, so the opposition Sweller and colleagues use to frame their paper is nonsensical. . . . .”

Sweller and colleagues have previously set up straw men - the title of their tract “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” http://bit.ly/duJVG4 invokes the straw men “Minimal Guidance” and “Failure” but critics of Sweller et al. point out that these methods are generally neither: (a) “un-guided or minimally guided,” nor (b) “failures.”

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

To access the complete 23 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/etl0dc .

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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 08 December 2010.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/etl0dc . Post of 8 Dec 2010 19:58:52-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.