If you reply to this long (10 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: Cognitive scientists Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC)
argue that the limitations of working memory make "direct
instruction" *effective*. But physics education researcher (PER)
Carl Wieman (CW) argues that the limitations of working memory make
passive-student lectures, which most PER's regard as an exemplar of
"direct instruction," *ineffective*. This apparent paradox can be
resolved by realizing that KSC and CW employ totally different
meanings for the term "direct instruction."
*********************************************
In their article "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not
Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,
Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching," cognitive
scientists (CS's) Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC) (2006) argue that
the limitations of working memory make "direct instruction"
*effective*.
On the other hand, in his article "Why Not Try a Scientific Approach
to Science Education?" physics education researcher (PER) Carl Wieman
(CW) (2007) argues that the limitations of working memory make
passive-student lectures, which most PER"s regard as an exemplar of
"direct instruction," *ineffective*.
KSC (2006) write:
"Working memory has two well-known characteristics: When processing
novel information, it is very limited in duration and in capacity. We
have known at least since Peterson and Peterson (1959) that almost
all information stored in working memory and not rehearsed is lost
within 30 sec and have known at least since Miller (1956) that the
capacity of working memory is limited to only a very small number of
elements. That number is about seven according to Miller, but may be
as low as four, plus or minus one [see, e.g., Cowan (2001)].
Furthermore, when processing rather than merely storing information,
it may be reasonable to conjecture that the number of items that can
be processed may only be two or three, depending on the nature of the
processing required."
CW (2007) writes:
"These results. . . .[indicating the ineffectiveness of
passive-student lectures]. . . . do indeed make a lot of sense and
probably are generic, based on one of the most well-established-yet
widely ignored-results of cognitive science: the extremely limited
capacity of the short-term working memory. The research tells us that
the human brain can hold a maximum of about seven different items in
its short-term working memory and can process no more than about four
ideas at once. Exactly what an 'item' means when translated from the
cognitive science lab into the classroom is a bit fuzzy. But the
number of new items that students are expected to remember and
process in the typical hour-long science lecture is vastly greater.
So we should not be surprised to find that students are able to take
away only a small fraction of what is presented to them in that
format."
According to the academic-reference-supplying (!!) Wikiquote
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr>, Neils Bohr said:
**************************************
1. "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some
hope of making progress."
2. "Two sorts of truth: trivialities, where opposites are obviously
absurd, and profound truths, recognised by the fact that the opposite
is also a profound truth."
**************************************
As discussed in "Cognitive Science and Physics Education Research:
What we've got here is a failure to communicate" [Hake (2007)],
progress can be made (even if "profound truths" aren't uncovered), by
recognizing that "What we've got here is a failure to communicate":
a. KSC evidently define "direct instruction" to mean instruction
which is substantially guided, therefore similar to what some PER's
call "Interactive Engagement" (IE), i.e., [those] methods "designed
at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through
interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on
(usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through
discussion with peers and/or instructors" [Hake (1998a)].
b. On the other hand, CW, and most PER's, would probably equate
"direct instruction" with passive-student lectures and *not* with IE
methods.
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>
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Cowan, N. 2001. "The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A
reconsideration of mental storage capacity," Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 24: 87-114; abstract online at
<http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/46/index.html>,
preprint of full article in HTML is online at
<http://tinyurl.com/2fpse>
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1): 64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB) - a crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).
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>. The quote "What
we've got here is a failure to communicate" is from the classic 1967
movie "Coolhand Luke" - see e.g.,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_we've_got_here_is_failure_to_communicate>.
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).
Miller, G. A. 1956. "The magical number seven, plus or minus two:
Some limits on our capacity for processing information."
Psychological Review 63: 81-97; online as a 96 kB pdf at
<http://tinyurl.com/3b5rat>.
Peterson, L. & M. Peterson 1959. "Short-term retention of individual
verbal items," Journal of Experimental Psychology 58: 193-198; online
as a 244 kB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/35cbe8>.
Wieman, C. 2007. "Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science
Education?" Change Magazine, September/October; online at
<http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Wieman-Change_Sept-Oct_2007.pdf>
(804 kB). See also Wieman & Perkins (2005).
Wieman, C. & K. Perkins. 2005. "Transforming Physics Education,"
Phys. Today 58(11): 36-41; online at
<http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/papers/PhysicsTodayFinal.pdf>
(292 kB).
|
