If you object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through inter- and
intra-disciplinary barriers, please hit "delete" now. And if you
respond to this long (8 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.
Last August 2004 at the Sacramento meeting of the American
Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) I gave a talk "Direct Science
Instruction Suffers a Setback in California - Or Does It?" [Hake
(2004a)].
Then in posts of Nov 2004 [Hake (2004b)] and Jan 2005 [Hake (2005a)],
I discussed the possibility that NCLB science-achievement testing in
K-12 under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) might promote
California's Direct Science Instruction throughout the entire nation.
More recently, in a talk "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote
Direct Instruction of Science?" [Hake (2005b)] at the March meeting
of the American Physical Society (APS) in Los Angeles, I reiterated
the substance of above posts.
The abstract of the APS talk [Hake (2005b)] reads:
"The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires testing in science
achievement starting in 2007. Will such testing tend to propagate
California's Direct Science Instruction (DSI) [Hake (2004a)]
throughout the entire nation? After discussing the evidence for the
superiority of "interactive engagement" or "guided inquiry" methods
over DSI in conceptually difficult areas of science, I indicate seven
reasons why NCLB might promote DSI, and one reason - possible
*effective* intervention by the National Research Council - why it
might not."
My seven reasons for why NCLB might promote Direct Science
Instruction (DSI) are [see that article for the references]:
1. Most interactive engagement and guided inquiry methods have not
been tested in randomized control trials (RCT's), the highly
contested "gold standard" of the U.S. Dept. of Education (USDE) and
its "What Works Clearinghouse" <http://www.w-w-c.org/>.
2. The heavily publicized [Adelson (2004), Begley (2004a,b),
Cavenaugh (2004a,b), Tweed (2004a,b), USDE (2004)] research of Klahr
and Nigam (2004) is widely misinterpreted as demonstrating the
general superiority of DSI.
3. It's easier to test for rote memorized material implanted by DSI than for
conceptual understanding of science and its methods induced by interactive
engagement methods, as witness the inept questions on California's
STAR physics exam [Woolf (2005a,b,c), Hake (2005c).
4. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) is evidently bereft of
advisors from physical sciences, relying for advice on psychologists,
psychometricians, statisticians, economists, sociologists,
administrators, medical specialists, policy analysts, and education
specialists, most with a proclivity towards "Random Control Trials"
(RCT's).
5. Douglas Carnine (2000), dean of Direct Instructionists, is a
member of the Technical Advisory Group for the "What Works
Clearinghouse."
6. Psychologist Grover Whitehurst, director of the U.S. Education
Department's Institute of Education Sciences
<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html?exp=0>),
evidently believes that "In science education, there is almost
nothing of proven efficacy" Begley [(2004b)].
7. Campbell's Law [Campbell (1975), Nichols & Berliner (2005)]: "The
more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision
making, the more
subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will
be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to
monitor."
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Will NCLB Promote Direct Instruction of Science?"
online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=phys-l&O=D&P=16592>.
Post of 11 Nov 2004 21:03:44-0800 to AP-Physics, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare. Later sent to AERA-C, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J, AERA-K,
AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk, & Math-Learn.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Will the NCLB Tend to Propagate California's
Direct Science Instruction Throughout the Entire Nation?" online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=aera-l&P=R1893&I=-3>.
Post of 14 Jan 2005 17:58:55-0800 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, APPhysics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, & STLHE-L.