JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PBL Archives


PBL Archives

PBL Archives


PBL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PBL Home

PBL Home

PBL  October 2007

PBL October 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching?

From:

Richard Hake <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Problem Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:25:41 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

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

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

"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 [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Ferrell, B. 2007. "Re: Clark- constructivist?" ITFORUM post of 17 Oct 
2007 16:38:54-0600; online at <http://tinyurl.com/33rqfv>.

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).

Hake, R.R. 2007. "Cognitive Science and Physics Education Research: 
What We've Got Here Is Failure to Communicate," submitted to the 
"Journal of Learning Sciences" on 10 October 2007; online at 
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/CS&PER-JLS7.pdf> (588 KB) and 
as ref. 51 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

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."

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
February 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
May 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
November 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
November 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
September 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
May 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
March 2013
January 2013
October 2012
September 2012
March 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
January 2009
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager