[net-gold] Re: Metastudy on Impact of Inquiry in K-12
- 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: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:47:01 -0500 (EST)
.
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:40:19 -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: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12
If you reply to this very long (33 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: Joe Bellina (2010), in a post "Metastudy on impact of
inquiry 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).
***************************************
Joe Bellina (2010) in his post "Metastudy on impact of inquiry in
k-12" wrote [my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . . ]:
'This paper. . . . .[[Minner, Levy, & Century (2009) plus its seven
auxiliary Technical Reports, referenced in this post (but not in
Minner et al.) as EDC (2006a,b,c,d,e; 2009a,b)]]. . . ., should be
of interest to all who are concerned about the effectiveness of
student centered guided inquiry instruction."
The abstract of Minner et al. (2009) 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."
In this post I shall forego ;-) curmudgeonly comments on the
advisability, as I see it, for K-12 education researchers to follow
the lead of physicists Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b) and *directly*
measure students' learning through pre/post testing [even despite the
rampant pre/post paranoia (Hake, 2006a, 2010a) that plagues some
Psychologists, Education specialists, and Psychometricians (PEP's)],
using (a) valid and consistently reliable "Conceptual Inventories";
and (b) traditional courses as controls.
Conceptual Inventories developed through arduous quantitative and
qualitative research by disciplinary experts are currently being used
to improve undergraduate - and some high-school - courses in science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines (but not
psychology!). For references see, e.g.: (1) Hake (2008a,b; 2010a,b;
(2) "Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM
Undergraduate Education" [National Academies (2008)]; and (3) the
Wikipedia Entry on "Concept Inventories" at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory>.
[I note that Arizona State University's exemplary "Modeling
Instruction Program" <http://modeling.asu.edu/> in which student
learning has been rigorously evaluated by pre/post testing, and which
"was designated in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Education as one of
two exemplary programs in K-12 Science Education out of 27 programs
evaluated," is *not* included :-( in the "Bibliography of Studies
Included in the Final Inquiry Synthesis Project Analyses" [The
Inquiry Synthesis Project (2009b)].
Instead of the above niggling criticism of the monumental
mixed-methods-research effort of Minner et al. (2009), I'll focus on
a crucial question that Minner et al. sought to answer:
"WHAT *IS* "STUDENT-CENTERED
GUIDED-INQUIRY INSTRUCTION"?? ........................................ (1)
in order to address their self-imposed and very difficult research question:
"WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF INQUIRY SCIENCE
INSTRUCTION ON K-12 STUDENT OUTCOMES?" ..................(2)
Minner, Levy, & Century (2009), after working towards an answer to
"(1)", rightfully add another voice to the chorus bemoaning the
importance of OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS in educational research, even
despite the "antipositivist vigilantes" [Phillips (2000); Phillips &
Burbules (2000), Hake (2006b)].
Minner, Levy, & Century (2009, page 3) cogently explain [bracketed by
lines "MLC-MLC-MLC-. . . . . . "; see that article for the references
other than Anderson (2007); EDC (2006b) - called by Minner et al.
"The Inquiry Synthesis Project (2006b)"; and Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark (2006); my insert at ". . . . [[insert]]. . . ."]:
MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC
The term inquiry has figured prominently in science education, yet it
refers to at least three distinct categories of activities - what
scientists do (e.g., conducting investigations using scientific
methods), how students learn (e.g., actively inquiring through
thinking and doing into a phenomenon or problem, often mirroring the
processes used by scientists), and a pedagogical approach that
teachers employ (e.g., designing or using curricula that allow for
extended investigations). However, whether it is the scientist,
student, or teacher who is doing or supporting inquiry, the act
itself has some core components. The NRC describes these core
components from the learner's perspective as ''essential features of
classroom inquiry'' (NRC, 2000, p. 25) including:
(1) Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.
(2) Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop
and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented
questions.
(3) Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address
scientifically oriented questions.
(4) Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative
explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding.
(5) Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.
The National Science Education Standards would add one more to this
list: learners design and conduct investigations (NRC, 1996). There
is more consensus regarding what students should learn about
scientific inquiry than how teachers should instruct students
(Anderson, 2007). For example, within each of the features of
classroom inquiry listed above, there can be varying degrees of
direction from the teacher. The amount of direction and
decision-making done by the teacher versus the student has produced
distinctions such as open and guided inquiry (NRC, 2000). However,
these distinctions are often poorly articulated by scholars and
practitioners alike.
For example, the way in which ''minimally guided instruction' '-
said. . . . [by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)]]. . . . . to
be synonymous with constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based instruction - was defined by
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) IS NOT THE WAY THAT MOST
INQUIRY-ORIENTED PRACTITIONERS OR RESEARCHERS WOULD DESCRIBE THESE
KINDS OF INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES - which do have instructional
guidance throughout the learning process (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, &
Chinn, 2007).
However, IT IS PRECISELY THE LACK OF A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE
DEFINING FEATURES OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES THAT HAS
HINDERED SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENT IN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY ON
DETERMINING EFFECTS OF DISTINCT PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES. . . . . [[My
CAPS.]]. . . . . Therefore, in the Classifying Inquiry Science
Instruction subsection, we will present a conceptual framework and
definition of inquiry instruction used in this research. This
framework was built upon the findings from reviewing several
resources (EDC (2006b), one of which was the National Science
Education Standards. A diversity of resources were necessary since
there was not consensus in the literature about the specific
components of inquiry science instruction; therefore, looking for
similarities across existing ''definitions'' of inquiry was necessary
to develop the OPERATIONAL DEFINITION. . . . . [[My CAPS.]]. . . . .
articulated in our framework. This framework . . . . [[see page 6,
Table 1 "Inquiry science instruction conceptual framework"]]. . . . .
integrates all of the aspects of inquiry noted above but is more
functionally specified.
MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC-MLC
The "lack of a shared understanding of the defining features of
various instructional approaches" and the lack of *operational
definitions* for various pedagogical approaches has also been
bemoaned by, e.g. :
1. Century (2004) in "Better Science Instruction Requires Clear
Definitions." Century wrote [bracketed by lines "CCCCCC. . . . . .";
my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . ."]:
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Thanks go to Sara L. Ford, the teacher quoted in the final paragraphs
of your front-page article on science instruction "NCLB Could Alter
Science Teaching" . . . .[[Cavenaugh, 2004)]]. . . , for articulating
a fundamental flaw in the debate between direct instruction and
discovery learning. Her suggestion that individuals are too quick to
label these instructional approaches cuts to the heart of one of the
most critical challenges for science education researchers and their
practitioner colleagues today: WE HAVE NO SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE
TERMS WE USE-"DIRECT INSTRUCTION," "INQUIRY," "DISCOVERY LEARNING,"
AND "HANDS-ON"-IN OUR DEBATES OF EFFECTIVE SCIENCE INSTRUCTION. . . .
. [My CAPS.]. . . ..
FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE AT THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION, IN
NEWTON, MASS., HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING A SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH THAT
SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, "WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY SCIENCE
INSTRUCTION ON STUDENT OUTCOMES?" . . . . [My CAPS.] . . . . We are
synthesizing all research conducted on this topic since 1984, and
have so far reviewed more than 1,000 documents. One of the greatest
challenges of our work has been finding a way to describe "inquiry"
that accommodates the many ways it has historically been, and
continues to be, used and understood.
Even when those in the field acknowledge that there are varied
understandings of terms, as was done in your recent article. . . .
[[[Cavenaugh, 2004)]]. . . . ., we continue to debate the relative
merits of these instructional approaches as though our failure to
clearly articulate terms did not matter. Our group has seen first
hand what one would hope would be obvious: Clarifying terms does
matter. WITHOUT CLEAR DEFINITIONS, WE WILL JUST TALK PAST EACH OTHER
AND WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AND ISN'T EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION.
[My CAPS]
At best, DEBATES USING UNDEFINED TERMS ARE UNPRODUCTIVE . . . . [My
CAPS.] . . . . ,. At worst, they undermine our ability to build a
body of knowledge in the field.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
2. Klahr & Li (2005) in "Cognitive Research and Elementary Science
Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back." They
wrote: "ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM ALL OF THIS: IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE
FIELD OF EDUCATION TO MAKE MUCH MORE PRECISE USE OF TERMINOLOGY
BEFORE MOVING ON TO PUBLIC DEBATES AND POLICY DECISIONS. [My CAPS.]
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.
3. Anderson (2007) in "Inquiry as an organizing theme for science
curricula." Anderson wrote: "Such conversation. . . . [[about
'inquiry']] . . . . will be much more profitable. . . .if we
recognize that 'INQUIRY' IS AN IMPRECISE WORD. [My CAPS.] Using the
word in a conversation about science education is a bit like using
the word 'romance' in a conversation about human relationships. It
has different meanings in varied contexts, and is hard to guess what
particular meaning a given speaker has in mind when the word is used.
If the word is to continue to be useful we will have to press for
clarity when the word enters a conversation and not assume we know
the intended meaning."
4. Hake (2008a) in "Language Ambiguities in Education Research." I
wrote [: "BUT WAIT! What do Klahr & Nigam (2004); Kirschner, Sweller,
and Clark (2006); and other education researchers, instructors,
administrators, activists, and policy makers *mean* by 'discovery
learning,' and what do they *mean* by 'direct instruction'? In
criticisms [Hake (2004, 2005) of the California Curriculum
Commission's anti-hands-on 'Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science
Instructional Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption,' I
OPINED THAT POPULAR PEDAGOGIC TERMS SUCH AS 'DISCOVERY LEARNING,'
'DIRECT INSTRUCTION,' 'HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES,' 'ACTIVE LEARNING,'
'COOPERATIVE LEARNING,' 'INQUIRY,' AND 'INTERACTIVE ENGAGEMENT,'
SHOULD BE *OPERATIONALLY DEFINED* [see, e.g. Holton & Brush (2001),
Phillips (2000)], even despite the 'antipositivistic vigilantes'
[Phillips (2000), Phillips & Burbules (2000)]. More generally,
rigorous operations should be defined for distinguishing pedagogic
method X from other methods Y, Z, A, B, C, . . ."
5. Strand-Cary & Klahr (2008) in "Developing elementary science
skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence." They
wrote: "CLEAR OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS ARE USEFUL [my CAPS] within
studies (i.e., one can go beyond arbitrary labels to determine
exactly what kinds of procedures and measures were used), but also
facilitate cross study comparisons and help determine whether studies
should be compared to each other at all."
6. Klahr (2009) in "To Every Thing There is a Season, and a Time to
Every Purpose Under the Heavens: What About Direct Instruction."
Klahr wrote [bracketed by lines "KKKKK. . . . "; see Klahr's article
for references other than Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) and
EDC (2006b); my insert at ". . . .[[insert]]. . . ."]:
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, 2006b; 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)
"In the course of coming into contact with empirical material,
physicists have gradually learned how to pose a question properly.
Now proper questioning often means that one is more than half the way
towards solving the problem."
Werner Heisenberg (1958).
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>. All
URL's were accessed on 28-30 January 2010.]
Abel, S. & N. Lederman, eds. 2007. "Handbook of Research on Science
Education." Lawrence Erlbaum; publisher's information at
<http://tinyurl.com/yehgwls>. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/ycyadtv>. A severely truncated version is online
as a Google book preview at <http://tinyurl.com/yc9lylx>.
Anderson, R.D. 2007. "Inquiry as an organizing theme for science
curricula," in Abel & Lederman (2007, pp. 807-830). A severely
expurgated version of Anderson's chapter is online in as Google book
preview at <http://tinyurl.com/yc29324> (click on "Page 807 >").
Bellina, J. 2010."Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12," online on
the OPEN Phys-L archives at
<https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2010/1_2010/msg00255.html>.
Post of 17 Jan 2010 22:10:00-0500 to Chemed-L,
generalscience@xxxxxxxxx, physicalscience@xxxxxxxxx, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR, & science@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bridgman, P.W. 1960. "Logic of Modern Physics." McMillan. First
published in 1927. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/y8tnz3s>.
Cavanagh, S. 2004. "NCLB Could Alter Science Teaching," Education
Week 24(11): 12-13, 10 November; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2n4mrd>, scroll to the APPENDIX.
Century, J.R. 2004. "Better Science Instruction Requires Clear
Definitions," Education Week 24(15): 32, 8 December; online to
subscribers at <http://tinyurl.com/ydq25fj>.
EDC. 2006a. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #1: Generating the Synthesis Sample of
Studies; online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport1.pdf>
(156 kB). Here and below in the EDC Technical Report references, I
have corrected Minner et al.'s (2009) URL's by replacing their "/ /"
with "//". (Inclusion of the former in the URL yields a "not found"
panel on my computer.)
EDC. 2006b. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #2: Conceptualizing Inquiry Science
Instruction; online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport2.pdf> (132 kB).
EDC. 2006c. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #3: Operationalizing the
Inclusion/Exclusion Coding Process; online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport3.pdf> (112 kB).
EDC. 2006d. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #4: Report-Study Reconciliation Process;
online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport4.pdf> (108 kB).
EDC. 2006e. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #5: Operationalizing the Inquiry Science
Instruction Coding Process; online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport5.pdf> (116 kB).
EDC. 2009a. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #6: Operationalizing the Coding of
Research Rigor, Context, and Study Findings; online at
<http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport6.pdf> (164 kB).
EDC. 2009b. " The Inquiry Synthesis Project, Center for Science
Education, Technical Report #7: Bibliography of Studies Included in
Final Inquiry Synthesis Project Analyses; online at <http:/
/cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/pdfs/technicalReport7.pdf> (136
kB).
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. 2006a. "Possible Palliatives for the Paralyzing Pre/Post
Paranoia that Plagues Some PEP's," Journal of MultiDisciplinary
Evaluation, Number 6, November, online at
<http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/41/50>
[PEP's = psychologists, education specialists, and psychometricians.]
This even despite the admirable anti-alliteration advice at
psychologist Donald Zimmerman's site
<http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/> to "Always assiduously and
attentively avoid awful, awkward, atrocious, appalling, artificial,
affected alliteration."
Hake, R.R. 2006b. "Is the 'Scientific Method' the Same as
'Positivism' ?" online on the OPEN! AERA-D archives at
<http://tinyurl.com/yzxyl9v>. Post of 26 Sep 2006 12:35:55-0700 to
AERA-D, HOPOS-L, IFETS, PhysLrnR, and POD.
Hake, R.R. 2008a. "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>. 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. 2008b. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008)]. A
pre-publication version of that chapter is online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB).
Hake, R.R. 2010a. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf> (2.5 MB) and
as ref. 43 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To appear as a chapter in
"Evaluation of Teaching and Student Learning in Higher Education"
[Hake (in preparation)], a Monograph of the American Evaluation
Association <http://www.eval.org/>. A severely truncated version is
online at Hake (2006a).
Hake, R.R. 2010b. "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 sent to various
discussion lists. The abstract is also online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-constructivist-instruction-success.html>
with a provision for comments.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test (omitted from the online version), precursor to the
widely used "Force Concept Inventory" [Hestenes et al. (1992)].
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. (1992). "Force Concept
Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30(3): 141-158; online (except for the test
itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The 1995
revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes is online (password
protected) at the same URL, and is currently available in 16
languages: Chinese, Czech, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
Italian, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Slovak,
Swedish, & Turkish.
Heisenberg, W. 1958, 2007. "Physics & Philosophy: The Revolution in
Modern Sciences." Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Evidently first
published in 1958 - originally published as "Physik und
Philosophie.") Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/yd45csz>. Note the searchable "Look Inside"
feature.
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."
Kelly, A.E., R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek. 2008. "Handbook of Design
Research Methods in Education: Innovations in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Learning and Teaching." Routledge.
Publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/4eazqs>; Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/5n4vvo>.
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 at <http://tinyurl.com/3xmp2m> (176 kB).
Klahr, D. & M. Nigam. 2004. "The equivalence of learning paths in
early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and
discovery learning," Psychological Science 15(10): 661-667; online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>.
Klahr, D. & J. Li. 2005. "Cognitive Research and Elementary Science
Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back,"
Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 217-238; online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>.
Klahr, D. 2009. "To Every Thing There is a Season, and a Time to
Every Purpose Under the Heavens: What About Direct Instruction" In
Tobias & Duffy (2009); online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pubs.htm>.
Minner, D.D. , A.J. Levy, & J. Century. 2009. "Inquiry-Based Science
Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research
Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Early View (Articles online in advance of print); online at
<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123205106/PDFSTART>.
Some Chemed-L and Phys-L subscribers have reported troubles in
downloading this report, but others (including myself) have had no
problem.
National Academies. 2008. "Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising
Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education": Commissioned Papers at
<http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Commissioned_Papers.html>.
Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded Social Scientist's Bestiary: a guide
to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science."
Rowman & Littlefield - information at <http://tinyurl.com/ycmlvy>.
Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/ydm5utt>. See
especially Chapter 9 on "Positivism."
Phillips, D.C. & N.C. Burbules. 2000. "Postpositivism and Educational
Research." Rowman & Littlefield; publisher's information at
<http://tinyurl.com/yncvls >. Amazon.com information
<http://tinyurl.com/yelju39>. See especially "Mistaken accounts of
positivism," pp. 11-14.
Strand-Cary, M. & D. Klahr. 2008. "Developing elementary science
skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence," in
Cognitive Development 23(4): 488-511, 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>.
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>. See also the commentary by Hake (2010b).
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Re: Metastudy on Impact of Inquiry in K-12 - David P. Dillard
