[net-gold] Re: Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn Something From One Another?
- 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>, "Net-Gold @ Nabble" <ml-node+3172864-337556105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:54:24 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Re: Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education
Communities Learn Something From One Another?
If you reply to this long (18 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: Julie Vargas, daughter of B.F. Skinner and President of the
B.F. Skinner Foundation
<http://www.bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/Home.html>, commented on my post
"Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities Learn
Something From One Another?" [Hake (2010)] as follows (quoted with
permission; my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . ."):
1. [In "Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching " (Vargas, 2009)] I
quote [Eric Mazur]. . . . . . What I didn't know was that his work
was being touted as "constructivist-oriented" "Interactive
Engagement."
2. I don't see [Mazur's] work as like Direct Instruction. . . . [[in
this post I give various conflicting meanings of the vague term
"direct instruction"]]. . . . As described in his book he just poses
practical multiple-choice questions following a mini-lecture (usually
a third of the lecture hour) students first answer and then discuss
among themselves and answer again as he walks around listening to
their explanations. There is no choral responding.
3. I'm not sure [Mazur's method] is like Precision Teaching either.
I didn't see any fluency exercises, nor student graphing.
4. But [Mazur's method] is definitely BEHAVIORAL in asking for
student responding, adjusting according to how they do answer, and in
the objectives being stated in clear terms that require "applying"
the principles to every day life in addition to just memorizing them.
**********************************
I recently transmitted to Julie Vargas the abstract and link to my
post "Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education Communities
Learn Something From One Another?" [Hake (2010)].
As most subscribers to SClistserv are aware Julie Vargas
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Vargas> is the daughter of B.F.
Skinner and President of the "B.F. Skinner Foundation"
<http://www.bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/Home.html>.
Julie Vargas replied (quoted with permission) [bracketed by lines
"VVVVVV. . . . ."; my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]] . . . ." ]:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
I was aware of Mazur's work: An article in "Science News" alerted
me and when in Boston I went to see him and he gave me a copy of his
book (complete with CD). In my 2009 book "Behavior Analysis for
Effective Teaching," . . . . .[[(Vargas, 2009)]]. . . . . . I quote
him. . . . . .[[Note Vargas's cogent discussion of Mazur's method on
pages 194-195, accessible by searching for "Mazur" at Amazon.com's
"Look Inside" feature at <http://tinyurl.com/yc8hz2y>]]. . . . . What
I didn't know was that his work was being touted as
"constructivist-oriented" "Interactive Engagement."
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
As for touting Mazur's work as "constructivist-oriented" "Interactive
Engagement" see e.g., "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods:
A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses" (Hake, 1998a,b).
"Interactive Engagement" courses are operationally defined in Hake
(1998a) as "those designed at least in part to promote conceptual
understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on
(always) and hands-on (usually). . . .[[but not always - witness
Mazur's "Peer Instruction"]]. . . . activities that yield immediate
feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors."
My search for "physics" in "Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching"
[Vargas (2009)], using Amazon.com's "Look Inside feature at
<http://tinyurl.com/yc8hz2y>, suggests that she is unaware of physics
education research (other than Mazur's) - see e.g., "The future of
physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical
concerns" [Heron & Meltzer (2005)]. But that's no discredit to Vargas
- most academics (including physicists) are oblivious of physics
education research.
Vargas then went on to write:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
I don't see [Mazur's] work as like Direct Instruction. . . . .
.[[contrary to the claim of Joshua Garner (2010); for various
meanings of the term "direct instruction" see below)]. . . . As
described in his book he just poses practical multiple-choice
questions following a mini-lecture (usually a third of the lecture
hour) students first answer and then discuss among themselves and
answer again as he walks around listening to their explanations.
There is no choral responding.. . . . [[see definition "d" of "direct
instruction" according to the "Association of Direct Instruction"
[ADI (2004)] below]]. . . . .
I'm not sure it is like Precision Teaching either. I didn't see any
fluency exercises, nor student graphing.
But it is definitely BEHAVIORAL in asking for student responding,
adjusting according to how they do answer, and in the objectives
being stated in clear terms that require "applying" the principles to
every day life in addition to just memorizing them . . . .[[In my
opinion, one could also claim that in all these respects it's
consistent with cognitive science, see e.g., "How people learn:
brain, mind, experience, and school" (Bransford et al. (2000)]]. . .
..
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Regarding various conflicting meanings of "direct instruction" in
"Language Ambiguities in Education Research" [Hake (2008)] I wrote
[bracketed by lines "HHHH. . . . ."; see that article for references
other than ADI (2010), Bransford et al. (2000), Englemann & Carnine
(1982), and Hake (1998a,b; 2002; 2004)].
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Although operational definitions are uncommon in the educational
literature, in Hake (2004) I indicated my own guesses as to what
various groups have meant by "direct instruction":
(a) MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT SCIENCE CORNER
<http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm> : "drill and
practice," "non-hands-on," "teach 'em the facts" [Metzenberg (1998)],
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.
(b) PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCHERS: traditional *passive-student*
lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem sets.
(c) KLAHR & NIGAM (2004): . . .instruction in which "the goals, the
materials, the examples, the explanations, and the pace or
instruction are all teacher controlled," but in which *hands- on
activities are featured." At least this is Klahr & Nigam's (KN's)
definition of what they call "*extreme* direct instruction" (extreme
DI), possibly having in mind the reasonable idea of a continuum of
methods from extreme DI to extreme "discovery learning" (DL). In
extreme DL, according to Klahr & Nigam, there is "no teacher
intervention beyond the suggestion of a learning objective: no
guiding questions, and no feedback about the quality of the child's
selection of materials, explorations, or self assessments." I suspect
that Klahr & Nigam might classify "interactive engagement" methods
(Hake (1998a,b; 2002) and "inquiry methods" [NRC (1996, 1997, 1999,
2000), Donovan et al. (1999), Bransford et al. (2000), Donovan &
Bransford (2005), Duschl et al. (2007)] as somewhere along a
continuum ranging from extreme DI to extreme DL, since "interactive
engagement" and "inquiry" methods both involve various degrees of
judicious teacher intervention so as to guide students' conceptual
understanding, problem solving abilities, and process skills towards
those of professionals in the field.
(d) ASSOCIATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION [ADI (2010)]: (1) teaching by
telling (as contrasted by teaching by implying), or (2) instructional
techniques based on choral responses, homogeneous grouping, signals,
and other proven instructional techniques, or (3) specific programs
designed by Siegfried Engelmann and his staff. Direct Instruction
programs incorporate the above "2" coupled with carefully designed
sequences, lesson scripting, as well as responses to anticipated
children's questions as expounded in Englemann & Carnine (1982). . .
. [[there's now a revised edition Englemann & Carnine (1992)]]. . . .
. .
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
Honorary Member, ARFU (Academic Reference Freaks United)
<rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<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>.]
ADI. 2010. Association of Direct Instruction; online at
<http://www.adihome.org/>. See also ADI (1995-96).
ADI. 1995-96. Association of Direct Instruction, "Focus: What Was
That Project Follow Through?" Effective School Practices 15(1),
Winter; online at <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/151toc.htm>.
***********************************
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. 2000. "How people
learn: brain, mind, experience, and school." Nat. Acad. Press; online
at <http://tinyurl.com/apbgf>. Regarding "behaviorism" Bransford et
al. wrote [see that book for the references; bracketed by lines
"BBBB. . . "]:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
A limitation of early behaviorism stemmed from its focus on
observable stimulus conditions and the behaviors associated with
those conditions. This orientation made it difficult to study such
phenomena as understanding, reasoning, and thinking-phenomena that
are of paramount importance for education. Over time, radical
behaviorism (often called "Behaviorism with a Capital B") gave way to
a more moderate form of behaviorism ("behaviorism with a small b")
that preserved the scientific rigor of using behavior as data, but
also allowed hypotheses about internal "mental" states when these
became necessary to explain various phenomena (e.g., Hull, 1943;
Spence, 1942).
In the late 1950s, the complexity of understanding humans and their
environments became increasingly apparent, and a new field emerged-
cognitive science. From its inception, cognitive science approached
learning from a multidisciplinary perspective that included
anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, developmental psychology,
computer science, neuroscience, and several branches of psychology
(Norman, 1980, 1993; Newell and Simon, 1972). New experimental tools,
methodologies, and ways of postulating theories made it possible for
scientists to begin serious study of mental functioning: to test
their theories rather than simply speculate about thinking and
learning (see, e.g., Anderson, 1982, 1987; deGroot, 1965, 1969;
Newell and Simon, 1972; Ericsson and Charness, 1994), and, in recent
years, to develop insights into the importance of the social and
cultural contexts of learning (e.g., Cole, 1996; Lave, 1988; Lave and
Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Rogoff et al., 1993).
The introduction of rigorous qualitative research methodologies have
provided perspectives on learning that complement and enrich the
experimental research traditions (Erickson, 1986; Hammersly and
Atkinson, 1983; Heath, 1982; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Marshall and
Rossman, 1955; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Spradley, 1979).
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
***********************************
Engelmann, S. & D. Carnine. 1992. "Theory of Instruction: Principles
and Applications," revised edition, ADI PRESS. Publisher's
information at <http://tinyurl.com/yk2eojn>. Barnes & Noble
information at <http://tinyurl.com/ydxhbgd>. The first addition was
published in 1982.
Garner, J. 2010. "Re: Confessions of a Converted Lecturer #2,"
SClistserv post of 20 Mar 2010 18:54:50-0700; online on the OPEN!
SClistserv archives at <http://tinyurl.com/y8o6mge>. Garner wrote:
"By applying simple behavioral psychology principles in a college
physics class student performance increased. . . . duh. . . . by the
end of the video. . . . [[Mazur 2010)]]. . . . I said to myself,
'Gee this guy is using direct instruction and active student
responding (in an around-about way)."
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB). A
crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods,"
"Proceedings of the UNESCO ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics," Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec.; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84
kB). [UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization; ASPEN = ASian Physics Education Network.]
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). See also Hake (2005).
Hake, R.R. 2005."Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851; 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/%7Ehake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf> (1.2 MB)
and as ref. 54 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/%7Ehake>. David
Klahr <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klahr> wrote to me
privately (quoted by permission): "I liked the paper. I think it's
very thoughtful and nuanced. However it is tough going, even for
someone as familiar with the issues (and as favorably cited by you)
as I am. It's a shame that it was rejected, but I wonder if the
reviewer just wasn't up to the very careful reading necessary to
really follow your arguments all the way through. Even though I know
this area quite well, obviously, I did have to really focus to fully
understand the distinctions you were making."
Hake. R.R. 2010. "Could 'Precision Teaching' and the Wider Education
Communities Learn Something From One Another?" online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/ye5rrnq>. Post of 25 Mar 2010
11:47:54-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract was also sent to
various discussion lists and is online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/03/
could-precision-teaching-and-wider.html>
with a provision for comments.
Heron, P.R.L. & D.E. Melzer. 2005. "The future of physics education
research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns." Am. J.
Phys. 73(5): 390-394; online at
<http://www.physicseducation.net/docs/Heron-Meltzer.pdf> (57 kB).
Vargas, J. 2009. "Behavior Analysis for Effective Teaching. "
Routledge, publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/yzbzurp>.
Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/yc8hz2y>. Note the
searchable "Look Inside" feature. An expurgated "Google Book Preview"
is online at <http://tinyurl.com/yh7lpxk>. Vargas discusses the
following aspects of the semi-log "Standard Celeration" chart"
(SCchart) of "counts" vs time (use the ">" at the top of the page to
scroll through the pages): (a) Lindsley's development of "Precision
Teaching" and the SCchart on pages 126 and 127; (b) "counts" as a
measure of behavior at the top of page 103; (c) interpretation of the
SCchart on page 132. If I understand the "Standard Celeration" chart
correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially the
behavorists' version of a kinematics semilog plot of speed (time rate
of change of position) "v" vs time "t". Hence "Celeration" from the
"celeration" part of the kinematics "acceleration."
.
Other related posts:
