On 24 October 2010 I transmitted the abstract and a link to a
Net-Gold post titled "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston?
#2." Because the AERA discussion-list server was down during the
period 22-25 October 2010, that post failed to appear on the AERA-L
archives at <http://bit.ly/cuxhel>.
As of today, 26 October 2010, the AERA-L archive server is back in
operation. I've transmitted to both AERA-L and Net-Gold an improved
and expanded version "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston?
#3" [Hake (2010)] of the previous post.
The abstract reads, as before:
ABSTRACT: In "Coming Up for Air: But Is It Oxygen or Phlogiston? A
Response to Taber's Review of 'Constructivist Instruction: Success Or
Failure?' "<http://bit.ly/cYnNrg>, David Klahr extols the lucidity of
Keith Taber's review "Constructivism and Direct Instruction as
Competing Instructional Paradigms: An Essay Review of Tobias & Duffy
(2009)" <http://bit.ly/cFZ8CO>, but then makes four claims that
diverge from the tenor of Taber's review, the first three of which
(1) "When Theories Compete, There Is Ultimately A Winner,"
(2) "Operational Definitions Are Crucial," and
(3) "Multi-Attribute Comparisons Are Possible."
In my view, taking the above claims in order:
(1') In areas that are conceptually difficult (e.g., Newtonian
mechanics) the winner is "Interactive Engagement" ("IE" -
"constructivist"-like) over "Traditional" ("T" -
"instructionist"-like) pedagogy - both "IE" and "T" as *operationally
defined* in Hake (1998, <http://bit.ly/d16ne6>),
(2')"Education Research Employing Operational Definitions Can Enhance
The Teaching Art" [Hake (2010), <http://bit.ly/aGlkjm>], and
(3') Convincing multi-attribute comparisons <http://bit.ly/9kORMZ>
have shown an approximately two-standard deviation superiority in
average normalized gains <g> for "IE" over "T" courses.
"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003)
"There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the
sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that
encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own
learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer
of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional
lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty
of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future.
. . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the
elements of scientific teaching by university science departments
could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate
society and a reinvigorated research enterprise."
Robert DeHaan (2005)
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 24-26 October 2010; URL's shortened
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. "The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education," Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):
253-269; the abstract and first page are online at
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Educational Research: Fresh Air or Phlogiston? #3"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/apCkPA>. Post
of 26 Oct 2010 12:10:04 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The link to
this post is being transmitted to a few discussion lists, including
Phys-L and PHYSOC. The link and the abstract are online on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/araHaL> with a provision for
Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at
<http://bit.ly/9izfFz>. A summary is online to all at