[net-gold] Re: Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Net-Gold @ Nabble" <ml-node+3172864-337556105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:34:08 -0500 (EST)
.
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:10:41 -0800
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: PHYSLRNR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Re: Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?
If you reply to this long (16 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In a 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)].
**********************************************
The abstract of my post of 22 Jul 2009 titled "Re: All about
constructivism" [Hake (2009)], read (slightly edited):
"Doug Holton (2009), in a Learning Sciences and Educational
Technology Group (LSET) post titled 'All about constructivism,'
alerted readers to the fact that Alexander Riegler has placed radical
constructivist Ernst von Glasersfeld's papers on the web at
<http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/>. These and Holton's
commentary might serve as antidotes to 'Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching' by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark [KSC (2006)].
Holton references responses to KSC (2006) by Hmelo-Silver et al.
(2007), Schmidt et al. (2007), & Kuhn (2007)], but, in my biased
opinion, the most definitive rejoinder to KSC (2006) is 'Language
Ambiguities in Education Research' [Hake (2008)], mindlessly rejected
by the 'Journal of Learning Sciences.' "
For a recent continuation of the debate engendered by KSC (2006) see
"Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure" [Tobias & Duffy
(2009)]. The information at <http://tinyurl.com/y9xpear> provided by
the publisher, Routledge, includes the Table of Contents and this
description of the book [bracketed by "RRRRR. . . ."; slightly
edited]:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
"Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?" brings together
leading thinkers from both sides of the hotly debated controversy
about constructivist approaches to instruction. Although
constructivist theories and practice now dominate the fields of the
learning sciences, instructional technology, curriculum and teaching,
and educational psychology, they have also been the subject of sharp
criticism regarding sparse research support and adverse research
findings. This volume presents: (a) the evidence for and against
constructivism; (b) the challenges from information-processing
theorists; and (c) commentaries from leading researchers in areas
such as text comprehension, technology, as well as math and science
education, who discuss the constructivist framework from their
perspectives.
Chapters present detailed views from both sides of the controversy. A
distinctive feature of the book is the dialogue built into it between
the different positions. Each chapter concludes with discussions in
which two authors with opposing views raise questions about the
chapter, followed by the author(s)' responses to those questions; for
some chapters there are several cycles of questions and answers.
These discussions, and concluding chapters by the editors, clarify,
and occasionally narrow the differences between positions and
identify needed research.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
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," Chapter 15, pp. 291-310, wherein Klahr emphasizes the
importance of "operationally defined" definitions in science
education. Here "operationally defined" [see, e.g. Holton & Brush
(2001), Phillips (2000)] means that any term "T" denoting some
pedagogical method, is specified in terms of rigorous operations for
distinguishing "T" from other methods U, V, W, X. The importance of
operational definitions was also underscored in: (a) "Direct Science
Instruction Suffers a Setback in California - Or Does It?" [Hake
(2004); (b) "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?"[Hake (2005)], and (c) "Language Ambiguities
in Education Research" [Hake (2008)].
Klahr wrote [bracketed by lines "KKKKK. . . . "; see Klahr's article
for references other than Hemlo-Silver et al. (2007), Kirschner et
al. (2006), Klahr et al. (2007), Kuhn (2007), and Schmidt et al.
(2007)]:
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Over the past 20 years or so, and culminating in the critique
(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006) and debate at the 2007 AERA
meeting that motivated this volume, there have been extensive and
heated exchanges among education researchers, learning scientists,
and science educators about "discovery learning," "direct
instruction," "authentic inquiry," and "hands-on science"(Adelson,
2004; Begley, 2004; EDC, 2006; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007;
Janulaw, 2004; Klahr, Triona, & Williams, 2007; Kuhn, 2007; Ruby,
2001; Strauss, 2004; Tweed, 2004; Schmidt, Loyens, van Gog, & Paas,
2007).
However, these arguments typically fail to establish a common
vocabulary to define the essential aspects of the types of
instruction being compared. I believe that in order to advance our
ability to create effective instructional procedures, our field needs
to become much more precise in the terminology it uses to describe
instructional contexts and procedures, before moving on to advocacy
about curriculum design. IN THE AREA OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, MORE THAN
OTHERS, IT IS PARTICULARLY TROUBLING-AND IRONIC-THAT THESE DEBATES
OFTEN ABANDON ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE: THE OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION. BUT A SCIENTIFIC FIELD CANNOT ADVANCE WITHOUT CLEAR,
UNAMBIGUOUS, AND REPLICABLE PROCEDURES. [My CAPS]
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
The true meaning of a term is found by observing what a man does with
it, not what he says about it.
P.W. Bridgman (1927, 1960)
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Bridgman, P.W. 1960. "Logic of Modern Physics."McMillan. First
published in 1927. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/y8tnz3s>.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., R.G. Duncan, and C.A. Chinn. 2007. "Scaffolding
and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)," Educational Psychologist
42(2): 99-107; online as a 96 kB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/2zy783>.
Hake, R.R. 2004. "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" AAPT Announcer 34(2): 177; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DirInstSetback-041104f.pdf>
(420 KB). A pdf version
of the slides shown at the meeting is also available at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AAPT-Slides.pdf> (132 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2005."Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50, 851 (2005); online at
<http://tinyurl.com/3x85l5> (256 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2008. "Language Ambiguities in Education Research,"
submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August but
mindlessly rejected; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf> (1.2 MB)
and as ref. 54 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
Hake, R.R. 2009. "Re: All about constructivism," online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/mb8pl2>. Post of 22 Jul 2009
10:30:43-0700 to AERA-L, IFETS, LSET, Net-Gold, PBL, PhysLrnR,
PsychTeacher (rejected), TIPS, & WBTOLL-L. The abstract is online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/12/re-all-about-constructivism.html>
with a provision for comments.
Holton, D. 2009. "All about constructivism" Learning Sciences and
Educational Technology Group (LSET) post of 17 July 11:43 pm; online
at <http://tinyurl.com/mbmpqf>.
Holton, G. & S.G. Brush. 2001. "Physics the Human Adventure: From
Copernicus to Einstein and Beyond." Rutgers University Press, pp.
161-162. Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/yhz6xqa>. A
minimally useful Google "book preview" is online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2nfts6>. Operational definitions are discussed in
Chapter 12 "On the Nature of Concepts."
Kirschner, P.A. , J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. "Why Minimal
Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure
of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching." Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86;
online as a 176 kB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/3xmp2m>. For a response
to Hemlo-Silver et al. (2007), Kuhn (2007), and Schmidt et al. (2007)
see Sweller et al. (2007).
Klahr, D. 2009. "To Every Thing There is a Season, and a Time to
Every Purpose Under the Heavens," in Tobias & Duffy (2009); online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>. See also
Stand-Cary & Klahr (2008).
Klahr, D., L.M. Triona, & C.Williams. 2007. "Hands On What? The
Relative Effectiveness of Physical vs. Virtual Materials in an
Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children," Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 44:183-203; online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>. Klahr et
al. conclude that "Given the fact that, on several different
measures, children were able to learn as well with virtual as with
physical materials, the inherent pragmatic advantages of virtual
materials in science may make them the preferred instructional medium
in many hands-on contexts." Compare the similar conclusion for
undergraduates by physics education researchers Wieman et al. (2008).
Kuhn. D. 2007. "Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right
Question?" Educational Psychologist 42(2): 109-113; online at
<http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cogtech/publications/kuhn_ep_07.pdf>
(56 kB).
Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide
to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science."
Rowman & Littlefield; publisher's information at
<http://tinyurl.com/ycmlvy>.
Schmidt, H.G., S.M.M. Loyens, T. van Gog, & F. Paas. 2007.
"Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive
Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),"
Educational Psychologist 42(2): 91-97; online as a 72 kB pdf at
<http://tinyurl.com/2uxf6z>.
Strand-Cary, M. & D. Klahr. 2008. "Developing elementary science
skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence," in
Cognitive Development 23(4), a special issue on "Scientific reasoning
- where are we now?" Guest editors Beate Sodian and Merry Bullock;
online at <http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>.
Sweller, J. , P.A. Kirschner, & R.E. Clark. 2007. "Why Minimally
Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries,"
Educational Psychologist 42(2): 115-121; online as a 76 kB pdf at
<http://tinyurl.com/2v4led>.
Tobias, Sigmund & T.M. Duffy. 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>.
Wieman, C.E., K.K. Perkins, & W.K. Adams. 2008. "Oersted Medal
Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What
works, what doesn't, and why." Am. J. Phys. 76(4&5)): 393-399; online
as a 1.1 MB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/yz3jylf>. Wieman et al.
conclude "This work has shown that a well-designed interactive
simulation can be an engaging and effective tool for learning
physics." [Wieman is a 2001 Physics Nobelist.]
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Re: Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? - David P. Dillard
