Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction

[Larry Woolf <Larry.Woolf@GAT.COM>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Ze'ev Wurman
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction

> In other words, the issue is NOT "hands-on" activities but
> rather student engagement and interaction, a.k.a. "active 
> learning", which California not only does not limit, but 
> actively encourages. Furthermore, with all of Hake's 
> interminable list of references, I saw nothing yet which 
> argues that fully 100% of hands-on is necessary, or that 25% 
> of hands-on is insufficient.
>
> In any case, I suggest Messrs. Hake et al. stop flooding
> everyone with political missives misrepresenting the 
> California situation and re-read their own words.

If California actually encourages "active learning" as you claim, then why
do the California draft Criteria for Instructional Materials effectively
preclude California's teachers from purchasing any NSF-funded K-8 materials
or any other inquiry based instructional materials? Instead, the draft
Criteria will only allow narrowly focused textbooks customized for the
California Criteria.

See:
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science/scicriteria04.pdf>
Items 2,4,5,7 in category 1

And why did the previous Criteria eliminate all inquiry based instructional
materials from being adopted if the framers of this document wanted teachers
the option of purchasing/using the best available "active learning"
materials? <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science/SBEaction.pdf>

Larry Woolf
General Atomics
San Diego, CA 92121
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org>
<http://www.ga.com>