Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in the post "Re:
Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12 - Response to Wurman" [Hake
(2010b)]. The abstract reads:
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: In the abstract of my post "Re: Metastudy on impact of
inquiry in k-12" [Hake (2010a)], I wrote: "Joe Bellina (2010), in a
post 'Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12' ALERTED subscribers to
'Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter?
Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002' [Minner, Levy,
& Century (2009)]."
Ze'ev Wurman (2010), evidently misunderstanding the above, responded
(paraphrasing) "Would Hake care to speculate as to the reasons Joe
BELLINA RESTRICTED HIS RESEARCH to 1984-2002 and ignored the last 7
years of rather fruitful studies in this area?"
Ze'ev apparently did not scan the abstract of Minner et al. (2009) in
which the authors give the following reasons for restricting *their*
research (*not* Bellina's) to data from 1984 to 2002 (paraphrasing):
"[That timeframe] was selected to continue a line of synthesis work
last completed in 1983 by Bredderman (1983) and by Shymansky et al.
(1983), and to accommodate a practicable cutoff date given the
research project timeline, which ran from 2001 to 2006."
If Ze'ev and others *suspect* that Minner et al. may have cherry
picked 1984-2002 so as to "focus on data from periods that suited
their theses," then to make a case they would need to provide data
outside the 1984-2002 period that *conflicts* with Minner et al.'s
indication of "a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based
instructional practices."
My survey of data in "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" [Hake (2004)] showed that ALL the data,
including that outside the 1984-2002 period, was generally
consistent with the pro-inquiry assessment of Minner et al. (2009).
Not surveyed was "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not
Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,
Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching" [Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark (2006)]. But that paper, despite its misleading
title, does *not* counter the theses of Minner et al. (2009), as
explained in e.g., "Language Ambiguities in Education Research"
[Hake (2008b)].
*************************************************
Hake, R.R. 2008b. "Language Ambiguities in Education Research,"
submitted to the "Journal of Learning Sciences" on 21 August but
mindlessly rejected; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf> (1.2 MB)
and as ref. 54 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. David Klahr
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klahr> wrote to me privately
(quoted by permission): "I liked the paper. I think it's very
thoughtful and nuanced. However it is tough going, even for someone
as familiar with the issues (and as favorably cited by you) as I am.
It's a shame that it was rejected, but I wonder if the reviewer just
wasn't up to the very careful reading necessary to really follow your
arguments all the way through. Even though I know this area quite
well, obviously, I did have to really focus to fully understand the
distinctions you were making."
Minner, D.D. , A.J. Levy, & J. Century. 2009. "Inquiry-Based Science
Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research
Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Early View (Articles online in advance of print); online to
subscribers at
<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123205106/PDFSTART>.
Wurman, Z. 2010. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12," post
of 4 Feb 2010 13:23:52-0800 to AP-Physics, Biopi-L, EvalTalk,
Physhare, and Physoc; online on the PHYSOC archives at
<http://tinyurl.com/ycfzdlp>. To access the archives of PHYSOC one
needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html> and then clicking on
"Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a
subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!