Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/R1q22j I criticized Bishop et al.’s “A Close Examination of Jo Boaler’s Railside Report” http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c. Then in “R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform” [Hake (2013c)] at http://yhoo.it/132baYU, I criticized Bishop’s (2013b) “Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” http://bit.ly/11f8CTH (click on the html attachment).

My criticism of Bishop's proclamations led standardista (in the educational sense employed by Susan Ohanian http://bit.ly/Xe7P56) Richard P. Phelps (2013) http://bit.ly/15kFCOc to endorse direct instructionist Wayne Bishop by portraying my criticism as simply “personal animosity” in a post of that title at http://bit.ly/15iMz2m. In this post I show that Phelps makes serious errors in each of his nine objections to my criticism.
*********************************************

To access the complete 43 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph.

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

"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge."
- John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature 224: 318-324; abstract online at http://bit.ly/cNPB1d.

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 23 April 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph. Post of 22 Apr 2013 18:43:32-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

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.

Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3

Some blog followers be interested in a recent post “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Stacy Brown (2012) of the Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (RUME) list wrote at http://bit.ly/V55OTz (paraphrasing):

"Mathematics educators such as Jo Boaler (2012) http://bit.ly/R6XsuP are not the only academics who have had the misfortune of encountering attacks from Wayne Bishop. Science educators who worked with Cal Tech’s Precollege Science Initiative (CAPSI) project http://bit.ly/T9qRsv have been subjected to treatment from Bishop who called on federal funding agencies to audit several of their science projects in California in the hopes that the grant’s funds would be revoked.”

Further evidence that Traditionalist Math Warriors (TMW’s) such as Bishop, Hansen, and “Haim” are virulently opposed to ALL attempts (not just those in math education) to depart from “direct instruction”. . . . [in the sense used by the “Mathematically Correct Science Corner” http://bit.ly/bfzdZS: “drill and practice,” “non-hands-on,” “teach ’em the facts”; 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 - see Hake (2008b) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD]. . . . can be had by visiting the OPEN! archives http://bit.ly/eOTrs1 of Math-Teach, a den of TMW's. See, for example, the posts of:
(a) Bishop: click on “att1.html” near the top of the page at http://bit.ly/RBMyPZ and http://bit.ly/XoaQxx;
(b)"Haim" at http://bit.ly/RBDpHa, http://bit.ly/RTNfBB, and http://bit.ly/QmM5gb; and
(c) Hansen at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn and http://bit.ly/U4LDJx.

Hansen's response at http://bit.ly/XkAtiO to my post “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/R1q22j is typical of the pathologic excess of TMW rhetoric. Hansen wrote: “I am quite content to keep [education researchers] in check by pointing out their lack of honesty and method. These poor bastards are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . . . . Zealots full of ideology, devoid of fact or logic.. . . . Hakes and Boalers are part of the weather, albeit, the bad part. . . . . These poor bastards have been struggling for 40 years and they will struggle for another 40 years. I suspect that eventually they will move on to something other than mathematics, cause it really isn’t working out for them here. But I don’t suspect they will change their ways.”
**********************************************

To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/QuqXqo.

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
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriorsn #3,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/QuqXqo. Post of 18 Oct 2012 07:47:21-0700 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’? - 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.

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.

What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2” [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs, Ze'ev Wurman (2012) in a Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR (to access this post non-subscribers will need to click on “New User” in the upper left-hand corner and fill out a form) made the following five points (paraphrased for brevity [Ze’ev, please comment if you think I’ve failed to convey your meaning]:

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
1. My post focussed on Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because he used the word “disinterested” to mean “uninterested” (in consonance with the OED and Merriam Webster). Considering Hake’s citation of Strunk & White at http://amzn.to/OGx7jv and Follett at http://bit.ly/Nayixo, who oppose defining “disinterested” to mean “uninterested,” I'm happy that I chose OED and Merriam Webster over Strunk & White and Follett.

2. I am not surprised by Hake’s crude misinterpretations of my quite precise critique of elementary librarians vs. teachers.

3. Nor am I surprised by Hake's preference of physics-for-dummies (“Hands- and Minds-On’ in his mellifluous description).

4. But I was taken aback by Hake’s belief that my support of phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is “uninformed.” After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is NICHD’s http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk, http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA and the National Reading Panel http://bit.ly/P8AG2l. When it suits him, Hake prefers charlatanism over empirical evidence.

5. But the real issue is what all the above has to do with the issue at hand – Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because of Hansen’s use of a word Hake didn't like or know.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

In this post I comment on the above five points, indicating Wurman’s numerous errors, misrepresentations, and vacuities.
************************************************

To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/NSbCh8.

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/KwZ6m

“. . . .there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a skills-oriented traditional curriculum. . . . . .They represent different value systems. I believe that rational, reflective discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the two sides closer together. . . . . . . I am told that California schools educate one-seventh of the students in this country. There is too much at stake to continue the fighting, to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should be.”
- Judith Sowder (1998)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 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/MPsKXQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/NSbCh8. Post of 25 Aug 2012 15:56:24-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Learn, 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/SCjR4F with a provision for comments.

Sowder, J.T. 1998. “What are the ‘Math Wars’ in California All About? Reasons and Perspectives,” Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as a 98 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/O6R9If, thanks to Professor Bowen Brawner of Tarleton State University.

What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Hansen” at http://bit.ly/NxE6kB, I paraphrased Hansen's answers at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn to David Bressoud's question at http://bit.ly/MrAuyZ : “Why doesn’t the existence of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) together with documentation of their effectiveness guarantee their widespread adoption?” as follows:

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The physicists’ research based instructional strategies [RBIS]:

1. appear very compromised, designed as they are for only academically uninterested terminal students;

2. lack the essentials for academically interested students: rigor, detail, development, and challenge;

3. claim to be “successful,” but here the accepted notion of “success” is replaced with something entirely different;

4. doomed because they don’t produce advocates.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I then argued that THE ABOVE FOUR ANSWERS ARE BLATANTLY INCORRECT.

[Note: I think Hansen's slightly corrected four paraphrased answers at http://bit.ly/PfeOn4 are also blatantly incorrect.]

In response, Ze’ev Wurman in a Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/Px8qKf excused himself from any detailed analysis of Hansen’s answers with this vague statement: “Hake then tries to reject Hansen’s arguments. Unsuccessfully as far as I am concerned, but that is neither here nor there.” Instead Wurman concentrated on nitpicking my offhand criticism of Hansen’s misuse of disinterested to mean uninterested. Accordingly, this post is in two parts:

PART I: “Hansen’s Use of Disinterested to Mean Uninterested Is a Linguistic Atrocity,” for those interested in linguistics;

PART II. “Wurman’s Long Record of Uninformed Arguments in Favor of Bad Educational Ideas,” for those interested in education: Examples – Wurman’s advocacy of:
A. Diverting K-12 Funding From Librarians to Teachers,
B. Direct Instruction Over Hands- and Minds-On Pedagogy,
C. Phonics Over Whole Language for Reading Instruction.
*********************************************

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

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

“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”
- John Dewey “Morals Are Human,” Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bitly.com/ and accessed on 23 August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..

Re: What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? #2

Some blog followers might be interested in “Re: What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? #2” [Hake (2012b). The abstract reads:

*********************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What’s the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’?” [Hake (2012a) at http://bit.ly/FOp16Y, Jack Rotman of the MathEdCC list wrote (paraphrasing):

“For those who look at direct instruction as an ‘automatic bad thing’, I would point you to the results of the largest educational research project every conducted in this country – ‘Project Follow Through.’ Start at ‘OVERVIEW: The Story Behind Project Follow Through’ [Grossen (1995/96)] to get some information.”

Contrary to Bonnie Grossen’s glowing account of “Project Follow Through,” Ellen Condliffe Lagemann (2000) in An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research wrote [my italics]:

"Some experiments ended inconclusively. One of these was the 'planned variation' strategy used in implementing Project Follow Through in the late 1960s . . . . . . . Although the Follow Through experiment seemed promising at first, to the surprise of many observers the variables involved were so difficult to identify and control that less was learned than anticipated. Even if one could identify gains and associate them with one rather than another plan for the delivery of Follow Through services, one could not be sure that those gains were a consequence of the Follow Through program as opposed to a better teacher or some other variable. Partly as a result of such problems scholars scrutinizing the same data, reached different conclusions. . . . . . as education researcher David K. Cohen (1970) concluded, all the Follow Through experiment really demonstrated was that power in education was so decentralized that the controls necessary for experimentation were virtually impossible to maintain."
*********************************************************

To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/FPZ8my.

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

“But the important distinction is really not between the hard and the soft sciences. Rather, it is between the hard and the easy sciences. Easy-to-do science is what those in physics, chemistry, geology, and some other fields do. Hard-to-do science is what the social scientists do and, in particular, it is what we educational researchers do. In my estimation, we have the hardest-to-do science of them all! We do our science under conditions that physical scientists find intolerable.”
David Berliner (2002)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 March 2012.]
Berliner, D. 2002. “Educational research: The hardest science of all,” Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online as a 49 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/GAitqc.

Hake, R.R. 2012a. “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. This post initiated a thread on MathEdCC that had grown to 19 posts at http://bit.ly/GCmxwt on 20 March 10:05-0700. 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/znXSXn with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What's the Meaning of ‘Direct Instruction’? #2 ” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/FPZ8my. Post of 19 Mar 2012 14:24:12-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also 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.

Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From? #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From? #2” [Hake (2011b)].

The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?" [Hake (2011a)], Baker Mitchell of the SClistserv list wrote (paraphrasing): “We are in danger of getting tangled in nomenclature. . . there is a body of practice known as ‘Direct Instruction’ (big D, big I) that is based in large part on interactive engagement (little i, little e) and enjoys great success in its teaching.”

That we “are in danger of getting tangled in nomenclature” is the theme of my article “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)] at http://bit.ly/bHTebD, rejected by the insular editors of the Journal of Learning Sciences.

I stress the fact that the operational definitions provide a means of avoiding nomenclatural entanglement by language ambiguities.
***********************************************

To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/kj94oT.

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. . . [[or Direct Instruction]].. . . is the cause of motion. . . .[[or learning]]. . . . 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 . . . .[[or Direct Instruction]]. . . ; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force. . . [[or Direct Instruction]]. . . . is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion. . . .[[or learning]]. . . ."
Henri Poincare (1905)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 June 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iHzGwm. Post of 26 Jun 2011 15:07:50-0700 to Math-Teach, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 19 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/izN28y with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From? #2,” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/kj94oT. Post of 28 Jun 2011 15:29:54-0700 to SClistserv, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 13 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Poincare, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis, Walter Scott Publishing; online at http://bit.ly/9hVfA8 thanks to the Mead Project. Amazon.com information on a 1952 version by Dover is at http://amzn.to/d1w47d with a searchable “Look Inside” feature. A Wikipedia entry on Poincare is at http://bit.ly/b4jGVS.

Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

***************************************
ABSTRACT: Joshua Fisher (2011) in his Math-Teach post “A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” wrote (paraphrasing): “How does one enable middle school kids to know the formula for the area of a sphere as required by the standards? . . . .So just give it to ‘em, right? Yet, my supervisor tried to avoid this consequence. My question is . . . . ‘What is the incentive to promote Not Telling over Telling?’ ”

For physics education, Fisher’s last question might be better posed as “What is the incentive to promote ‘Interactive Engagement’ (IE) over ‘Direct Instruction’ (DI).” The answer is that over 40-years worth of physics education research has demonstrated that IE is far more effective in promoting students' conceptual understanding of physics than DI.

I suspect that a similar statement might be made for math education, but except for the work of Jerry Epstein (2007) at http://bit.ly/bqKSWJ, there's been little, if any, pre- to post-course testing of math concepts. Thus math educators have little information on the relative effectiveness of IE and DI courses in promoting conceptual understanding.
***************************************

To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/iHzGwm.

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

“…I point to the following unwelcome truth: much as we might dislike the implications, research is showing that didactic exposition of abstract ideas and lines of reasoning (however engaging and lucid we might try to make them) to passive listeners yields pathetically thin results in learning and understanding - except in the very small percentage of students who are specially gifted in the field.”
Arnold Arons in Teaching Introductory Physics (p. vii, 1997)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 June 2011.]
Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: A Question: Where Does Current Reform Come From?” AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iHzGwm. Post of 26 Jun 2011 15:07:50-0700 to Math-Teach, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 19 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4” [Hake (2011c)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In my post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” http://bit.ly/eh6sge, I suggested over 30 references that might have helped to alleviate his near zero knowledge of physics education research. In his response http://bit.ly/fjJAdl Hansen demonstrated that he had either not bothered to read or had not understood the recommended references. In this post I give six excerpts quoted from Hansen's (2011) reply, along with my responses to the nonsensical assertions Hansen makes in each of those excerpts.

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

To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/hBhrJw.

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

“If you try to introduce people. . . . .[[such as Hansen]]. . . to a paradigm shift, they will hear what you have to say and then interpret your words in terms of their old paradigm. What does not fit, they will not hear.”

Myron Tribus (2001)

“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)

“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”

Robert DeHaan (2005)

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 April 2011.]

DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ifvkSz, with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/efQg1g, with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hBhrJw. Post of 22 Apr 2011 14:11:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Hansen, R. 2011. “Re: ‘The 'Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/fjJAdl. Post of April 17 to Math-Teach & Math-Learn.

Tribus, M. 2001. “Quality in Education According to the Teachings of Deming and Feuerstein,” online as a 78 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/hwcbjn. A Wikipedia entry on Myron Tribus is athttp://bit.ly/g5uGEk.

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.

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: NCLB Worries Scientists

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

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

ABSTRACT: Michael Martin, in an EDDRA2 post titled "NCLB Worries Scientists" wrote (paraphrasing): "The 23 April 2010 issue of 'Science' contains a special section 'Science, Language, and Literacy' http://tinyurl.com/2b4evld , wherein it becomes clear that the current emphasis on achievement testing in the United States is crippling science and other subjects. . . . The editorial http://tinyurl.com/24kxbbg by Bruce Alberts laments that the very idea of science has become a subject 'where students memorize facts about the natural world and, if they are lucky, perform an experiment or two.'" As an adjunct to Michael's valuable post, I reference the literacy-related articles in Science's special issue, and quote their abstracts or summaries, modestly omitting mention of my own 2005 article "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of Science?" http://tinyurl.com/3x85l5 .

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

To access the complete 15 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/254nm35 .

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: NCLB Worries Scientists," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/254nm35 . Post of 1 May 2010 11:59:06-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and the link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.