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 (15 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 his EvalTalk post of 5 April 2005, Michael Scriven wrote
[bracketed by lines "SSSSSS. . . .":
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Richard; it would have been good to give the one reason for hope . .
.[that NCLB science achievement testing will not promote direct
instruction]. . . a paragraph of its own, not just half a line!
A. The National Research Council, despite (or perhaps because of) its
lack of understanding of serious evaluation design, is not blind to
the demonstrations of efficacy provided by the research on the highly
interactive approach to (most notably) physics instruction.
Let's all follow true scientific method and light a candle (or even
three--isn't that triangulation?), for the lonely Consideration A."
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Leaving aside the National Research Council's (NRC's) understanding
of serious evaluation design, I hasten to point out that the post
[Hake (2005a)] to which Michael responded contained only the barest
outline of the complete 23-page article "Will the No Child Left
Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of Science?" Hake (2005b).
In the latter I light several candles (not all of them devotional) to
the one lonely reason for hope that California's direct science
instruction [Hake (2004)] will not propagate throughout the U.S. -
effective intervention by the NRC and its "Center for Education"
<http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/>.
For those who are averse to downloading Adobe Acrobat pdf's, or whose
computers do not contain the FREE Adobe Reader (available at
<http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html>), I herewith
post from Hake (2005b):
Section V. "IS THERE ANY HOPE THAT NCLB WILL NOT PROMOTE DSI
THROUGHOUT THE NATION?":
According to Cavenaugh (2004b), the NRC's Center for Education,
directed by Martin Orland, is overseeing three studies aimed at
exploring how students learn most effectively in science, and how it
is best taught and tested. The studies were stimulated by the NCLB's
planned testing of science achievement to commence in 2007.
1. One study is to provide states with "practical advice" about how
to design tests that will ask students to demonstrate a broad range
of skills in science, without encouraging states or districts to
scale back their curricula in the subject. Meryl Bertenthal, a senior
program officer in the NRC's Center for Education is the study's
director . . . [according to
<http://infocusmagazine.org/4.1/new.html> the study is chaired by
Mark Wilson, professor of policy, organization, measurement, and
evaluation in the Graduate School of Education at the University of
California - Berkeley].
2. A second project is focused on increasing understanding of how
students learn science, with a particular emphasis on kindergarten
through 8th grade. The committee working on that project will examine
existing research, identify areas in which new research is needed,
and determine what that body of work suggests about how science
subjects should be taught. . .[according to
<http://infocusmagazine.org/4.3/new.html> the chair of the study is
Richard Duschl, professor of science education at Rutgers University].
3. The third study will look at the role that science laboratories
should play in the high school classroom. That question has drawn
renewed interest among teachers, administrators, and researchers
recently, partly because of speculation that the No Child Left Behind
Act's testing requirements may compel some districts to scale back
classroom experimentation in favor of more direct forms of
instruction.
I hope that the NRC's expert science-education committees can switch
the USDE's Direct Instruction juggernaut onto the guided inquiry (NOT
discovery) track advised by the NRC (1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2003) itself.
Prospects for such redirection seem at least possible after NRC's
publication of Donovan & Pellegrino (2003). The latter appreciate the
most convincing evidence (Section II) for the superiority of guided
inquiry methods in promoting students' conceptual understanding:
pre/post-testing research BY DISCIPLINARY EXPERTS using valid and
consistently reliable research-based tests [see e.g. Halloun &
Hestenes 1985a,b)] and reasonably well matched control groups - the
traditional courses. Previous NRC's expert science education
committees [e.g., McCray et al. (2003), Labov (2003)] appeared to be
oblivious of such evidence (Hake 2003a,b).
"Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and
memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always
effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of
reflection and ingenuity."
John Dewey "Morals Are Human," Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207:
REFERENCES
NOTE: "beckered" references [see e.g., Cavenaugh (2004b)] are those
that I have copied into open and relatively permanent discussion-list
archives, following the lead of mathematician Jerry Becker. I think
such circulation constitutes "fair use" of copyrighted material under
Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Donovan, M.S. & J. Pellegrino, eds. 2003. Learning and Instruction: A
SERP Research Agenda, National Academies Press; online at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10858.html>.
FLAG. 2003. "Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide; online at
<http://www.flaguide.org/>: ". . . offers broadly applicable,
self-contained modular classroom assessment techniques (CAT's) and
discipline-specific tools for STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics] instructors interested in new approaches to
evaluating student learning, attitudes and performance. Each has been
developed, tested, and refined in real colleges and universities
classrooms." Assessment tools for physics and astronomy (and other
disciplines) are at <http://www.flaguide.org/tools/tools.php>.
Hake, R.R. 2003a. "NRC's CUSE: Stranded on Assessless Island?" online
at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=pod&F=&S=&P=391>.
Post of 3 Aug 2003 12:52:16-0700 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, and POD; That post was later sent to AERA-D,
STLHE-L, Phys-L, and Biolab.
Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Spare Me That Passive-Student Lecture," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=pod&O=D&P=947>. Post
of 1 Oct 2003 17:07:48-0700 to AERA-D, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Biloab, FYA,
Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Math-Teach, and POD.
Hake, R.R. 2004. "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). The
history of the rise and apparent setback of DSI in California offers
yet another example that evidence and logic are of little value in
reforming education [Hake (2005c).
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Seven Reasons Why The NCLB Might Promote Direct
Instruction of Science in the U.S. and One Reason Why It Might Not,"
online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1107>.
Post of 4 Apr 2005 15:03:45-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, and STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Will Evidence and Logic Reform Education? (was
California standards test in physics)," online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=phys-l&P=R1541>.
Post of 3 Feb 2005 11:29:26-0800 to AERA-D, AERA-H, AERA-K, AERA-L,
AP-Physics, ASSESS, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare,
POD.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53:1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the Mechanics
Diagnostic test, precursor to the widely used Force Concept Inventory
[Hestenes et al. (1992)].
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P Mosca, D. Hestenes. 1995. "Force Concept
Inventory" (Revised, 1995); online (password protected) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Available in English,
Spanish, German, Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, and Russian.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory." Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158. For the slightly revised 1995
version see Halloun et al. (1995).
McCray, R.A., R.L. DeHaan, J.A. Schuck, eds. 2003. "Improving
Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics: Report of a Workshop" Committee on Undergraduate STEM
Instruction," National Research Council, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10711.html>.
Physicists/astronomers attending the workshop were Paula Heron,
Priscilla Laws, John Layman, Ramon Lopez, Richard McCray, Lillian
McDermott, Carl Wieman, Jack Wilson, and (believe it or not) FLAG
waver Mike Zeilik.
NRC. 1997a. "Introducing the National Science Education Standards,"
Booklet, National Academy Press; online in HTML at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5704.html>.
NRC. 1997b. "Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook," National
Academy Press; online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html>.
This is oriented towards postsecondary education, but its message
that "guided inquiry' and "interactive engagement" methods are
generally more effective than direct instruction applies to K-12. See
especially Chapter 2, "How Teachers Teach:
Specific Methods."
NRC. 1999. "Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for
Education Research and Its Utilization," National Academy Press;
online in HTML at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6488.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's (2000) forward: "A Scientists Perspective on Inquiry" for a
good operational definition of "inquiry."
NRC. 2001. "Classroom Assessment and the "National Science Education
Standards," National Academy Press; online in HTML at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9847.html>.