If you reply to this long (12 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Bev Ferrell in an ITFORUM post of 17 October 2007 titled
"Clark- constructivist?" wrote: "I ran across . . . .["Why Minimal
Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure
of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching" by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)]. . .
. [and]. . .was wondering what your interpretation would be . . . "
Among the eight response was one to the effect that standard
categories such as those in the title of Kirschner et al. may
"prevent us from seeing into the heart of design problems and their
solutions." I agree and regard the the article by Kirschner et al.
as a failure to communicate because the terms used by them are not
operationally defined.
*************************************************
Bev Ferrell (2007), on 17 October 2007, initiated a 9-post ITFORUM
thread "Clark- constructivist?" Bev wrote:
"I ran across this article. . . . .["Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching" by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)]. . .
. a couple of months ago, also did some searches on the net and found
some interesting responses on blogs etc. when it was published. Since
everyone likes to quote Clark on media, I was wondering what your
interpretation would be of this article. . . ."
Among the eight responses, accessible at <http://tinyurl.com/2tsycy>,
was one by Andy Gibbons (2007) who wrote:
". . . . our received categories (the "-isms" we are taught) are the
wrong categories for designers and may even prevent us from seeing
into the heart of design problems and their solutions."
I completely agree. On page 6 of "Cognitive Science and Physics
Education Research: What We've Got Here Is Failure to Communicate"
[Hake (2007)], I wrote [bracketed by lines HHHHH. . . ."; see that
article for references other than Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
[An] example of what I would regard as a communication failure is
provided by the . . . . paper of Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)
with its seemingly nonsequitur title "Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching," even despite Physics Education Research
(PER) evidence reviewed by Hake (2002; 2005b; 2007a,b; in press) for
the effectiveness of all but extreme "discovery teaching."
Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006) wrote: "Klahr and Nigam (2004) in
a very important study, not only tested whether science learners
learned more via a discovery versus direct instruction route but
also, once learning had occurred, whether the quality of learning
differed. Specifically, they tested whether those who had learned
through discovery were better able to transfer their learning to new
contexts. The findings were unambiguous. Direct instruction involving
considerable guidance, including examples, resulted in vastly more
learning than discovery. Those relatively few students who learned
via discovery showed no signs of superior quality of learning."
But . . . . "direct instruction" appears to mean to Kirschner et al.
(2006) pedagogy rather similar in some respects to the "interactive
engagement" methods shown to be relatively effective by physics
education researchers, . . . . . . . . .
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And on page 5 of Hake (2007), I wrote [see that article for
references other than Klahr & Nigam (2004), Klahr & Li (2005), and
Hake (2005)]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Thus the *interpretation* of Klahr and Nigam (2004) that "direct
instruction" (as defined by KN) is superior to "discovery learning"
(as defined by KN), while consistent with KN's research, appears to
be a misinterpretation to physics education researchers (PER's) if
they use the PER definition of "direct instruction," and are unaware
of the KN definitions of "direct instruction" and "discovery
learning." Thus there appears to be a communication failure involving
different meanings for these terms.
Consistent with the above, Klahr & Li (2005), disturbed by the
misinterpretations of Klahr and Nigam (2004) in the media, wrote [my
insert at ". . . . .[insert]. . . . "; my CAPS; see that article for
references other than Hake (2005)]:
"Only when we tuned in to the recent political debate in California
about the permissible amounts of 'hands-on science' vs. 'direct
instruction' . . . . . . [Hake (2004a,b,c; 2005), Strauss (2004);
Woolf (2005)]. . . . . . did we become fully aware of how easy it is
for someone to pick up a terminology, and imbue it with whatever
meaning suits the purpose of an argument. . . . . . . One thing is
clear from all of this: it is essential for the field of education to
make much more precise use of terminology before moving on to public
debates and policy decisions. Indeed, IT IS SURPRISING THAT WHEN
EDUCATION RESEARCHERS AND SCIENCE EDUCATORS JOIN IN HEATED DEBATES
ABOUT DISCOVERY LEARNING, DIRECT INSTRUCTION, INQUIRY, HANDS-ON, OR
MINDS-ON, THEY USUALLY ABANDON ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE-THE
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION. . . . [even despite the antipositivist
vigilantes (Phillips, 2000)]. . . . The field of science cannot
advance without clear, unambiguous, operationally defined, and
replicable procedures. Education science is no exception."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"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
Gibbons, A. 2007. "Re: Clark- constructivist?" ITFORUM post of 18 Oct
2007 20:02:09-0600 ; online at <http://tinyurl.com/2qnqk8>.
Hake, R.R. 2005."Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50, 851 (2005); online at
<http://tinyurl.com/3x85l5> (256 kB).
Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. "Why Minimal
Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure
of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching," Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86;
online at
<http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf>
(176 kB).
Klahr, D. & M. Nigam. 2004. "The equivalence of learning paths in
early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and
discovery learning," Psychological Science 15(10): 661-667 (2004);
online at <http://tinyurl.com/2kho83> (388 kB). For a discussion of
the widespread misinterpretation of this paper see Hake (2005) and
Klahr & Li (2005).
Klahr, D. & J. Li. 2005. "Cognitive Research and Elementary Science
Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back,"
Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 217-238; online at
<http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/personal/pdf/Klahr_Li_2005.pdf>
(536 kB).
Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide
to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science.
Rowman & Littlefield - information at <http://tinyurl.com/ycmlvy>.
See especially Chapter 9 on "Positivism."