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.

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.

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.

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 Science/Math Education Shift from Teaching to Learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “The Science/Math Education Shift from Teaching to Learning” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

*******************************************
ABSTRACT: This post is a slight expansion and improvement of an earlier post “Anatomy Education.” The revision was stimulated by the interesting 11-post POD thread “Re: Open inquiry is bad? (in some intro tech courses)” at http://bit.ly/miR63T, especially Anton Tolman’s (2011) emphasis on John Tagg’s (2003) important book The Learning Paradigm College.

Robin Hopkins in a POD post “SHIFT IN THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE” wrote: “I'm interested in the shift that is required of traditional anatomists as the medical school moves toward a curriculum that requires anatomy to be taught/learned in ways that are more aligned with the clinical application of anatomy than simply ‘knowing’ anatomy (usually for tests).”

If the tests are of the usual classroom type then they require only the regurgitation of memorized material rather than higher-order learning such as the understanding of scientific concepts. I suspect that that higher-order learning is required for the effective clinical application of anatomy just as it is for the successful pursuit of science/math professions generally.

In my opinion, THE MAJOR SHIFT IN SCIENCE/MATH EDUCATION IS THE SHIFT “FROM TEACHING TO LEARNING: A NEW PARADIGM FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION” [Barr & Tagg (1995), Tagg (2003)].

But unknown to most of academia, education researchers have developed “Concept Inventories” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory that can be used in formative pre/post testing to gauge the impact of courses on students' learning and understanding of scientific concepts. At least in physics such testing demonstrates that “Interactive Engagement” (IE) courses result in course-averaged normalized learning gains g(ave) that are about two-standard deviations above those of “Traditional” (T) passive-student lecture courses [Hake (1998a,b; 2008)].

I give 31 hot-linked references to some of the relevant literature.
*******************************************

To access the complete 24 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/ijJeCm.

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 22 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. “The Science/Math Education Shift from Teaching to Learning” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/ijJeCm. Post of 22 Jun 2011 08:13:15-0700 to AERA-L and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete 24 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

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.

Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston? #3

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston? #3" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In "Coming Up for Air: But Is It Oxygen or Phlogiston? A Response to Taber's Review of 'Constructivist Instruction: Success Or Failure?' " http://bit.ly/cYnNrg , David Klahr extols the lucidity of Keith Taber's review “Constructivism and Direct Instruction as Competing Instructional Paradigms: An Essay Review of Tobias & Duffy (2009)” http://bit.ly/9NlULx, but then makes four claims that diverge from the tenor of Taber's review, the first three of which are:

(1) "When Theories Compete, There Is Ultimately A Winner,"

(2) "Operational Definitions Are Crucial," and

(3) "Multi-Attribute Comparisons Are Possible."

In my view, taking the above claims in order:

(1') In areas that are conceptually difficult (e.g., Newtonian mechanics) the winner is "Interactive Engagement" ("IE" - "constructivist"-like) over "Traditional" ("T" - "instructionist"-like) pedagogy - both "IE" and "T" as *operationally defined* in Hake (1998, http://bit.ly/d16ne6 ),

(2')"Education Research Employing Operational Definitions Can Enhance The Teaching Art" [Hake (2010), http://bit.ly/aGlkjm ], and

(3') Convincing multi-attribute comparisons http://bit.ly/9kORMZ have shown an approximately two-standard deviation superiority in average normalized gains g(ave) for "IE" over "T" courses.

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

To access the complete post please click on http://bit.ly/apCkPA .

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

“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)

REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 24 October 2010; URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ .]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston? #3" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/apCkPA . Post of 26 Oct 2010 12:10:04 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. An earlier less complete version "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston? #2" was transmitted to Net-Gold on 24 October 2010 and the abstract and link to the earlier Net-Gold post were transmitted to various discussion lists.

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.

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 .