Chemed-L, Phys-L, and Physhare, with their respective
limitations of 150, 300, and 599, have all been mercifully shielded
from my recent 730-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=18509>.
Post of 24 Feb 2004 17:45:19-0800 to AERA-K, AP-Physics, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, FYA-List, Math-Teach, Math-Learn, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare, & 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 paraphrase see the APPENDIX.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
APPENDIX [Abstract of Hake (2004)]
The CA State Board of Education meets on 10-11 March 2004 to decide
the fate of the CCC's "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science
Instructional Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption,"
online as a 40kB pdf at <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science>.
According to lines 105-109 of the direct-instruction oriented
"Criteria" providers of instructional materials to the state of
California must provide:
"A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials with HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES composing no more than
20 to 25 percent of science instructional time (as specified in the
California ScienceFramework). Additional hands-on activities may be
included, but *mustnot be essential for complete coverage of the
California Science Standards for the intended grade level(s),* *must
be clearly marked as optional,* and must meet all other evaluation
criteria."
As explained by Woolf (2004a), Dykstra (2004), Steinbok (2004), and
Hake (2004b), the practical effect of Lines 105-109 will almost
certainly result in prohibiting local schools and school districts
from using state funds to purchase K-8 science materials or texts
that do not fit the direct-instruction mold so favored by Metzenberg
(1998, undated, 1999), Wurman, the CCC, and the Mathematically
Correct crowd.
One reason, yet again, is that publishers, judging from
theirdeplorable records [see, e.g. Hubitz et al. (2001)], will tend
to maximize their bottom lines by printing materials for CA (and the
rest of the U.S) which satisfy ONLY the bare minimum required by CA,
namely materials with no more than 25% hands-on material.
A second reason, as emphasized by Woolf (2004a) and Woolf and Hake
(2004), is that lines 105-109 will eliminate the adoption of all
hands-on inquiry-based instructional materials - including those used
by many districts in the state and including all NSF-funded K-8
instructional materials, since these instructional materials use more
than 25% of instructional time for hands-on inquiry based activities.
I have seen no counters to the above two reasons as to why the
Criteria WILL limit hands-on instruction by Wurman, Metzenberg, or
members of the CCC, who continually and misleadingly maintain that
the Criteria WILL NOT limit hands-on activity [Metzenberg (2004),
Wurman (2004b]. According to Strauss (2004), Rae Belisle [executive
director of the California Board of Education], evidently as confused
as Metzenberg and Wurman, said (ingenuously): "there was no intent to
mandate a maximum amount of hands-on learning."
There is, of course, a mountain of evidence that inquiry or
interactive engagement methods are far more effective than direct
instruction for promoting student learning in conceptually difficult
areas.
It can only be hoped that 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 . . . the CCC - is not the usual empty rhetoric of
California politicians. In my view, 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
they must employ.
I agree with the Christine Bertrand (2004), executive director of the
California Science Teachers Association <http://www.cascience.org/>,
that the lines in the "Criteria":
"A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials with HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES composing no more than
20 to 25 percent of science instructional time . . . ."
would be better replaced by:
"A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials using a variety of research-based pedagogical
strategies (as specified in the California Science Framework)."