PART 1
In his PhysLrnR post of 14 Jan 2004 of the above title, Robert Cohen
(2004) wrote (bracketed by lines "CCCCCCCC. . . .":
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Jerome [Epstein (2004)] and John [Clement (2004)] are arguing that
people interpret "hands-on" without recognizing that "guided inquiry"
is necessary. I agree with that sentiment but I don't think that is
the problem in California. Rather, I am arguing that the problem is
that people interpret "hands-on" (and "guided inquiry" for that
matter) as "discovery", where students are given a task and not told
anything about [it], expecting them to "discover" things on their own
that took major scientists many years to discover.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
What IS "the problem in California"?
The previous Woolf & Hake (2004) comments on the California draft
"Criteria For Evaluating Science Instructional Materials for
Kindergarten through Grade Eight"
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science> indicated that the "Criteria"
require that hands-on activities must:
(a) compose no more than 20 to 25 percent of science instructional
time (lines 97-103),
(b) include suggestions for how to adapt them to "direct instruction"
(lines 271-273),
(c) have a "Program organization that supports the PRE-TEACHING of
the science content embedded in them" (lines 140-141).
A keyword search of the "Criteria" for "hands-on" yields no other
substantive hits on "hands-on."
Thus the "Criteria" indicate the reservations of the CCC towards
hands-on activities, but yield no information as to whether or not
the CCC is:
(a) confusing "hands-on activities" with "discovery" (as inferred by Cohen), or
(b) does not realize that "guided inquiry" is necessary (as alleged
by Clement and Epstein).
(2) the "California Science Framework"
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/downloads.html> yields hits which
give zero or else conflicting information on the CCC's attitude
towards and interpretation of "hands-on activities":
PAGE 11: "Hands-on activities may compose up to a maximum of 20 to 25
percent of the science instructional time in kindergarten through
grade eight. Instruction is de-signed and sequenced to provide
students with opportunities to reinforce foundational skills and
knowledge and to revisit concepts, principles, and theories
previously taught. In this way student progress is appropriately
monitored."
PAGE 12: "Metersticks, weight holders, hooked weights, and pivoted
sup-ports are commercially available for students to make
straightforward investigations of the operation of levers. These or
other hands-on laboratory activities using first-, second-, and
third-class levers in simple equipment will make the 'law of the
lever' more real than will solving a set of mathematical proportion
problems or merely identifying the parts of a lever from drawings or
pictures.
PAGE 278: "Taught effectively, science courses may be engaging for
high school students. Some principles are best pretaught explicitly
through direct instruction, then demonstrated with a hands-on
activity that reinforces the teaching. Students may easily discover
other principles by themselves, and teachers should not rob them of
that pleasure. The teacher must be certain that every investigative
activity reinforces content and sound thinking.
PAGE 301: "In an effort to create focused science instructional
materials, publishers are asked to concentrate on the content as
described in the Standards. They are encouraged to include hands-on
investigations and experimentation."
PAGE 304: "Programs should provide teachers with a variety of
instructional approaches which might include, but are not limited to,
direct instruction, assigned reading, demonstrations, hands-on, and
inquiry-based investigations."
Thus it appears that none of above discussed documents offer clues
that might settle the case of Cohen vs. Clement & Epstein.
But wait, this case may not need the attention of the Supreme Court.
In an earlier post [Hake (2003a] I pointed out that biologist Stan
Metzenberg
<http://www.csun.edu/~hfbio002/grad/faculty/smetzenberg.htm> of the
California State University at Northridge appears to be spearheading
the anti-hands-on movement of the California Curriculum Commission
(CCC). Perhaps a clue as to his interpretation of "hands-on activity"
can be found in Metzenberg's (1998a,b) testimony before the U.S.
House of Representatives. The closing paragraphs of Metzenberg
(1998b) are [bracketed by lines "MMMMMMMM. . . ."]:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
The authors of the national documents. . .[AAAS (1993) "Benchmarks of
Science Literacy" and NRC (1996) National Science Education Standards
(NSES)]. . . might argue that they are building understanding in the
students, while the California Standards ask simply for knowledge of
isolated facts. To quote from page 20 of the NSES: "Emphasizing
active science learning means shifting emphasis away from teachers
presenting information and covering science topics. The perceived
need to include all the topics, vocabulary, and information in
textbooks is in direct conflict with the central goal of having
students learn scientific knowledge with understanding."
I vehemently disagree with their approach, because understanding is
built only upon a solid foundation of knowledge of facts. The
American Federation of Teachers has also been a strong advocate of
this position: "Whether it is social studies, science, math, or
English, a solid education is built on knowledge. Students who don't
acquire substantial content knowledge in school will suffer later,
both in their personal lives and in their careers. Furthermore, it is
impossible to successfully use a skill, say scientific reasoning,
without learning some science concepts and content."
This is something that would be acknowledged by nearly every working
scientist, but is an anathema to the educational reform movement. The
California Standards are significantly different from the national
standards because they were developed in a committee chaired by one
of the most notable scientists of our century, Glenn T. Seaborg, who
co-discovered ten transuranium elements (including seaborgium which
was recently named after him) and was awarded the Nobel Prize in
1951. I would recommend that the NSF consider his contributions very
carefully, and reject the tenets of the educational reform movement.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I infer from the above that to Metzenberg (and perhaps the entire
CCC) "hands-on activity" means any "active science learning" that
interferes with students building up "a solid foundation of knowledge
of facts." Thus, assuming Metzenberg's attitude dominates the CCC,
the CCC's reservations regarding hands-on activities are:
(a) simply due to their belief that such activities are inimical to
students building up a knowledge of facts, and
(b) not explained by either Cohen or Clement & Epstein.
Metzenberg appears to be oblivious of evidence [e.g., Karplus (1974,
1977, 1981); Arons (1972, 1974); Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b);
McDermott & Redish (1999); Hake (1998a,b; 2002); Crouch & Mazur
(2001); Fagen et al. (2002); Redish (2003); Belcher (2003)] showing
that interactive engagement of K-16 students in heads-on (always) and
hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through
discussion with peers and/or instructors produces much larger gains
in conceptual understanding and problem solving than those achieved
by traditional passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic
problem sets.
Paraphrasing Metzenberg's testimony to the House, I would recommend
that the CCC consider the evidence above as garnered from three
decades of science education research and reject the ill-founded
anti-hands-on tenets of the draft "Criteria."