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]

[Physltest] [Phys-L] Will NCLB Promote Direct Instruction of Science?



If you respond to this long (17 kB) post, please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the original message normally contained in
your reply down to a few lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire
post yet again on suffering list subscribers.

In a previous post "Robert Sternberg's Critique of NCLB" [Hake
(2004a)], I wrote [bracketed by line "HHHHHHH. . . ."]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Sternberg's seventh reason that the NCLB is failing is:
"7. THE ASSUMPTION THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THE THREE R's IS SUPREME. . . .
Children, more and more, are being deprived of learning in art,
music, history and social sciences, physical education, special
programs for the gifted, and the like."

Sternberg overlooks the fact that children are currently being
deprived of learning in the NATURAL sciences, as teachers and schools
struggle to meet NCLB standards in the 3 R's. According to
information at the USDE site
<http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/science/science.html> STUDENTS'
SCIENCE PROGRESS WILL NOT BE MEASURED UNTIL 2007. IMHO, a higher
priority needs to be placed on diminishing the appalling science
illiteracy of the general population (and its leaders) [Hake (2000)]
if we are to solve the monumental science-intensive problems
(economic, social, political, and environmental) that beset us.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Sean Cavanagh cogently discusses the possible impact of NCLB's post
2006 testing of science progress on K-12 science teaching in two
recent Education Week reports:

(a) "NCLB Could Alter Science Teaching" Cavenagh (2004a) [copied into
the AERA-L archives as Hake (2004c)],

(b) "Research-Council Studies to Explore Teaching and Testing of Science"
Cavenagh (2004b) [copied into the AERA-L archives as Hake (2004d)],

Cavenagh (2004a) writes [bracketed by lines "CCCCCCCCCCCCCC. . . .
."; my CAPS]:

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Over the years . . . . . some researchers and educators have
challenged the argument for hands-on [science] learning. They
maintain that A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD APPROACH - KNOWN AS DIRECT
INSTRUCTION - HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HELP STUDENTS LEARN SCIENCE MORE
EFFECTIVELY. Soon, schools across the country could face a new,
powerful incentive to consider that mode of instruction, some
observers suggest. Beginning in 2007, the federal No Child Left
Behind Act will require districts to test students in science, a
mandate that curriculum and instruction officials say could force
schools to consider cutting back on some of the in-class experiments
many teachers value.

With those changes coming, new attention is being paid to methods of
teaching science, and what works best. The National Research Council
is conducting a series of studies aimed at exploring topics such as
the role of the laboratory in science classrooms and how states
should assess students' knowledge in the subject. . . .[See Cavenagh
(2004b)]

That renewed interest was also obvious with the release of a widely
distributed study . . . [Klahr & Nigem (2004)] . . . conducted by
researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of
Pittsburgh, which was detailed at a national science "summit"
<http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/05/05042004a.html>
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education earlier this year. The
study found that students taught through direct instruction were more
likely on average to become "experts" in designing scientific
experiments - an important step in the development of
scientific-reasoning skills - than those taught through what is often
called discovery learning.

Moreover, the students who showed expertise in designing those
experiments through direct instruction performed just as well as
those who developed similar expertise through discovery paths on a
separate test of their broader scientific judgment-countering some
previous claims that direct instruction produces weaknesses in that
area.

While David Klahr, one of the study's two authors, believes that
complex science lessons often require a more direct type of
instruction, he also cautions against too rigid an adherence to
either method by teachers or administrators. "It depends on what's
being taught," Mr. Klahr, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon,
said in an interview.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

I agree with David Klahr's caution that the appropriate method of
science instruction depends on what's being taught. Teachers, to be
effective, need to use different approaches (e.g., didactic lectures,
coaching, collaborative discussions, and Socratic dialogue) to fit
the classroom occasions and diverse natures of their students. Each
method has its strengths and weaknesses for each type of student, but
in the hands of a **skilled teacher** each can be made to compliment
the other methods so as to advance EVERY student's learning. A
skilled teacher might LECTURE on material that can be rote memorized,
COACH skills such as typing or playing a musical instrument, and use
SOCRATIC DIALOGUE or COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS (or some other
"interactive engagement" method) to induce students to construct
their conceptual understanding of difficult counter-intuitive
material such as Newton's Laws.

However, my interpretation of Klahr's research is rather different
than that of direct instruction zealots such as Mathematically
Correct <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/> or
Math-Teach's Wayne Bishop. Mathematically Correct at
<http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm> hot-links a report on
Klahr's research, thereby implying that it supports their brand of
drill and practice. Bishop (2004), in reference to Adelson's (2004)
report on Klahr's research, opined: "Deliberate, direct instruction
is more effective yet again. Surprise, surprise. Replicate a
replicable experiment and you get the same results. It's the
scientific approach."

Although there's a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrating the
relative effectiveness of "inquiry" or "interactive engagement"
methods in science education [for references see Hake (2004e)]; as
far as I am aware, there's ZERO evidence for the superiority (in
conceptually difficult areas of science education) of "direct
instruction."

Of course, neither "inquiry" nor "interactive engagement" should be
confused with the extreme "discovery learning" mode, researched by
Klahr & Nigam (2004). Their research suggests that, not surprisingly,
an EXTREME mode of "discovery learning," in which there is almost no
teacher guidance, 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 more guided
forms of "discovery learning" and to children's acquisition of
"operative knowledge" [Arons (1983)].

Consistent with the above, Adelson (2004) writes: "Psychologist Rich
Shavelson, professor of education and (by courtesy) psychology at
Stanford University, notes that totally unguided discovery of the
type used in [Klahr's] study is rarely used in the classroom. Still,
he says, "This study uses a strong research design. I'd like to see a
replication with [the more typical] guided discovery. Plus, the
extent to which results would travel to classrooms with varying
teacher quality, opportunity to learn, et cetera, has yet to be found
out."

Regarding "Research-Council Studies to Explore Teaching and Testing
of Science" Cavenagh (2004b), it might be hoped that NRC's expert
science education committees will steer the U.S. Dept. of Education
away from promoting direct instruction, the antithesis of the NRC's
own recommendations for inquiry methods [NRC (1995, 2000, 2003].

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>


REFERENCES
Adelson, R. 2004. "Instruction versus exploration in science
learning: Recent psychological research calls 'discovery learning'
into question," Monitor On Psychology, 35(6):34; online at
<http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.html>.

Arons, A.B. 1983. "Achieving Wider Scientific Literacy," Daedalus,
Spring. Arons wrote: "Researchers in cognitive development describe
two principle classes of knowledge: figurative (or declarative) and
operative (or procedural). "Declarative knowledge" consists of
knowing "facts," for example, that the moon shines by reflected
sunlight, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun . . . .
"operative knowledge", on the other hand, involves understanding the
source of such declarative knowledge (How do we know the moon shines
by reflected sunlight? Why do we believe the earth and planets
revolve around the sun when appearances suggest that everything
revolves around the earth? . . . .) and the capacity to use, apply,
transform, or recognize the relevance of the declarative knowledge to
new or unfamiliar situations.

Bishop, W. 2004. "Direct Instruction in Science" Math-Teach post of
26 Jul 2004 07:43:03-0700; online at
<http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach/quunphelthee/5.1.0.14.2.20040726073633.04440bd8@exchange.calstatela.edu>.

Cavanagh, S. 2004a. "NCLB Could Alter Science Teaching," Education
Week 24(11): 1, 12-13, November 10; online at
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/11/10/11science.h24.html> and also .

Cavanagh, S. 2004b. "Research-Council Studies to Explore Teaching and
Testing of Science," Education Week 24(11): 12-13, November 10.
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/11/10/11nrc.h24.html>.

Hake, R.R. 2000. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science
Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2): 105; online as ref. 11 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. Based on an earlier libretto
with the leitmotiv: "The road to U.S. science literacy begins with
effective university science courses for pre-college teachers." The
opera dramatizes the fact that the failure of universities throughout
the universe to properly educate pre-college teachers is responsible
for our failure to observe any signs of either terrestrial or
extraterrestrial intelligence.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Re: The college lecture may be fading," post of 21
Aug 2002 15:34:25-0700 to various discussion lists; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=phys-l&P=R17115>. Excerpts from
Morrison (1986) are included.

Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Robert Sternberg's Critique of NCLB," online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=1106.
Post of 8 Nov 2004 21:33:59-0800 to AERA-G, AERA-L, AERA-K, ASSESS,
EvalTalk, Math-Learn, & PhysLrnR. Later sent to AERA-C, AERA-H, &
AERA-J.

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Robert Sternberg's Dozen Reasons Why the NCLB is
Failing Our Schools," AERA-L post of 6 Nov 2004 12:34:59-0800; online
at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=964>.

Hake, R.R. 2004c. "NCLB Could Alter Science Teaching," AERA-L post of
10 Nov 2004 13:17:18 -0800, online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=1219>.

Hake, R.R. 2004d. "NRC to Explore Teaching and Testing in Science."
AERA-L post of 10 Nov 2004 15:00:39-0800, online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=1328>.

Hake, R.R. 2004e. "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" AAPT Announcer 34(2): 177; online as
reference 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download
directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DirInstSetback-041104f.pdf> (420 KB)
[about 160 references and 180 hot-linked URL's]. A pdf version of the
slides shown at the meeting is also available at ref. 33 or can be
downloaded directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AAPT-Slides.pdf> (132 kB). See
also Hake (2004f).

Hake, R.R. 2004f. "Re: Direct Instruction in Science," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407&L=pod&O=A&P=14775>.
Post of 29 Jul 2004 to Math-Teach, AERA-C, AERA-K, AP-Physics,

Klahr, D. & M. Nigam. 2004. "The equivalence of learning paths in
early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and
discovery learning." In press at Psychological Science; online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/papers.html>.

NRC. 1995. National Research Council, "National Science Education
Standards," National Academy Press; online at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html>.

NRC. 2000. "Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A
Guide for Teaching and Learning," National Academy Press; online in
HTML at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html>. See especially Bruce
Alberts' (2000) Forward: "A Scientists Perspective on Inquiry" for a
good operational definition of "inquiry."

NRC. 2003. "What Is the Influence of the National Science Education
Standards?: Reviewing the Evidence," A Workshop Summary, National
Academy Press; online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10618.html>.

Sternberg, R.J. 2004. "Good Intentions, Bad Results: A Dozen Reasons
Why the No Child Left Behind Act is Failing Our Schools," Education
Week, 27 October, online at
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/10/27/09sternberg.h24.html>.
This article has been copied into Hake (2004b).
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l