Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction



EvalTalk, Phys-L, and PHYSHARE, with their respective posting line
limitations of 500, 500, and 599, have all been mercifully shielded
from my recent 680-line post:

Hake, R.R. 2004. "Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction,"
online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&O=D&P=23271>.
Post of 29 Feb 2004 17:57:25-0800 to AERA-K, AP-Physics, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Teach, Math-Learn, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare, Physoc, & POD.

If you're:

(a) not interested, please hit the delete button.

(b) interested in scanning the entire post, click on the above URL

(c) interested in scanning a drastically abridged version see APPENDIX.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
APPENDIX: Abridged Version of 29 Feb 2004 post online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&O=D&P=23271>

SEVEN REASONS WHY THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD
REJECT THE CALIFORNIA CURRICULUM COMMISSION'S "Criteria For
Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials In Preparation for the
2006 Adoption" <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science>:

1. The Metzenberg/CCC oft-repeated claim that the "Criteria, if
passed, will NOT limit hands-on activities is incorrect as explained
by Woolf (2004), Dykstra (2004), Steinbok (2004b), and Hake (2004d).
That this is the case is also made clear by the reports of Galley
(2004) and Strauss (2004).

2. There is a mountain of scientific research evidence [Shavelson &
Towne (2000)], that "inquiry" or "interactive engagement" methods
are far more effective than "direct instruction" for promoting
student learning IN CONCEPTUALLY DIFFICULT AREAS [see e.g., Hake
(2004d); Doss-Hammel (2004); and the literature references in AAAS
(1993), NRC (1997, 1999, 2000), Bransford et al. (1999), and Donovan
et al. (1999)]. In contrast there is, as far as I am aware, zero
evidence for the superiority (in conceptually difficult areas of
science education) of "direct instruction" (in any of its many
guises) to "inquiry" [operationally defined by Alberts (2000)] or
"interactive engagement [operationally defined by Hake (1998a,b)]. Of
course, neither "inquiry" or "interactive engagement" methods should
be confused with the extreme "discovery learning" mode, researched by
Klahr & Nigam (2004). That research suggests that, not surprisingly,
an EXTREME "discovery learning" mode is inferior to "direct
instruction" for increasing third and fourth grade children's
effective use of the control of variables strategy, a so-called
process skill. It might be interesting for Klahr & Nigam to extend
their study to less extreme forms of "discovery learning" and to
children's acquisition of "operative knowledge" [Arons (1983)] - see
the Whitehead quote in the signature.

3. The 'Criteria" run counter to the announced intentions of Governor
Schwarznegger and Secretary of Education Riordan [see Helfand (2004)]
TO MOVE CONTROL OF TEACHING PRACTICES FROM SACRAMENTO TO LOCAL
TEACHERS, principals, and parents - in direct opposition to the
intentions of Metzenberg and the CCC.

4. It is imperative to LEAVE TEACHING OPTIONS OPEN TO THE TEACHERS IN
THE TRENCHES and NOT allow politically appointed state bureaucrats to
dictate the methods teachers must employ. Teachers, to be effective,
need to employ different approaches to fit the occasion (e.g.,
didactic lectures, coaching, and Socratic dialogue) as it arises in
the classroom. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses but in
the hands of a SKILLED TEACHER each can be made to compliment the
other methods so as to advance student learning. A skilled teacher
might LECTURE on material that can be rote memorized [but s(he) might
be better off using the Gutenberg Method [Morrison (1986), Hake
(2002)] that recognizes the invention of the printing press], COACH
skills such as typing or playing a musical instrument, and use
SOCRATIC DIALOGUE (or some other "interactive engagement" method) to
induce students to construct their conceptual understanding of
difficult counter-intuitive material such as Newton's Laws.

5. The "Criteria's is very strongly biased in favor of "direct
instruction" over 'hands-on" activities. However, neither "direct
instruction" nor "hands-on" activities have been operationally
defined in the "Criteria." This means that the CCC, in making
decisions as to what instructional materials do or do not satisfy the
"Criteria," will be able to exercise their prejudices with no
accountability to California's State Board of Education, science
teachers, principals, or parents.

6. Goldberg (2003) wrote: "Since the current proposal now restricts
methods of teaching science, it raises the question of conflicts with
standards developed by the California Teacher Credentialing
Commission following passage of SB 2042 (Alpert). These Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
are designed to align teacher preparation with state adopted content
standards. In this case, the restriction on pedagogy contained in the
current draft appears to contradict:

Standard 15: K-12 Core Academic Content and Subject Specific Pedagogy;

Standard 16: Using Technology to Support Student Learning;

Standard 17: Supporting Equity, Diversity and Access to Core Curriculum;

Standard 18: Creating a Supportive and Healthy Environment for
Student Learning;

Standard 19: Teaching English Learners; and,

Standard 20: Teaching Special Populations.

For the above reasons we believe it is important that the Commission
defer action on these proposed changes until such time as those who
will be affected have been notified and given an opportunity to
comment on this proposal."

The dictatorial CCC ignored Goldberg's message and passed the
"Criteria" on 16 January 2004. So much for the influence of
California citizens on the CCC.

7. According to the research referenced in reason #2 above, the
Metzenberg/CCC ANTI-HANDS-ON brand of "direct instruction" is, for
the most part, relatively ineffective in promoting conceptual
understanding or process skills in science as compared to "inquiry"
and "interactive engagement" methods. It is also antithetical to the
educational programs supported by:

a. most working scientists [including Nobelists such as Ken Wilson
(Wilson & Daviss 1994) and Leon Lederman (2001)], despite the
contrary implication in Metzenberg (1998),

b. most science educators,

c. the National Academy of Sciences [Alberts (2004)],

d. NRC's National Science Education Standards,

e. the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

f. the American Association of Physics Teachers,

g. the American Physical Society,

h. the American Chemical Society,

i. the National Association of Biology Teachers,

j. the National Science Foundation,

k. the National Science Teachers Association [see Wheeler (2004)],

l. the California Science Teachers Association [see Janulaw (2004)], and

m. the San Diego Science Alliance [Winter (2004)].

If you can afford to pay for expedited mail delivery, then it is
still not too late for you and/or your organization to send letters
urging the California Board of Education to REJECT THE CRITERIA at
their 10-11 March meeting. Letters should be addressed to:

State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Room 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814

so that they reach the Board on or before Wednesday, March 3, just
THREE DAYS (!!!) from today, 29 February. According to the Board's
Kathy Akana, there's no need to write to individual Board members,
since ALL letters sent to the above address will be forwarded to ALL
members of the Board with one-day service every Thursday.