Some subscribers to TIPS and AERA-TEP-SIG128 might be interested in a post "Re: Less Than Positive Review of Inquiry Based Learning" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************** ABSTRACT: Sharon Begley (2010), in her provocative Newsweek article "Second-Class Science Education Research Gets an F" displays a distaste for reform pedagogy along with tendencies to oversimplify and overgeneralize that were all evident in her earlier Wall Street Journal report "The Best Ways to Make Schoolchildren Learn? We Just Don't Know" [Begley (2004a)]. Begley (2004a) reported on Klahr & Nigam's (2004) claim for the superiority for 3rd and 4th grade children of what *they defined* as "direct instruction" to what *they defined* as "discovery learning" in "The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning." Although Klahr and Nigam were careful to operationally define their own very restricted meanings of "direct instruction" and "discovery learning," Begley's report could be interpreted to imply that "direct instruction" *in all its various forms* is superior to "discovery learning" *in all its various forms* insofar a student learning is concerned. In close parallel, now Begley (2010) has reported Cobern et al.'s (2010) claim for the equivalent effects on 8th grade student learning of what *they defined* as "direct instruction" to what *they defined* as "inquiry learning" in ""Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science." Although Cobern et al. were careful to operationally define their own very restricted meanings of "direct instruction" and "inquiry learning," Begley's report could be interpreted to imply that "direct instruction" *in all its various forms* is equivalent to "inquiry learning" *in all its various forms* insofar a student learning is concerned. As for Begley's title "Second-Class Science Education Research Gets an F," not everyone agrees that all science education research is either second class or receives an "F," even despite Begley's (2010) claim that "the scientific basis for specific curricular materials, and even for general approaches such as how science should be taught, is so flimsy as to be a national scandal," directly contrary to the evidence-based opinions of scientists William Wood & James Gentile (2003), Robert DeHaan (2005), and Joel Michael (2006) in the signature quotes. To access the complete post please click on <http://tinyurl.com/24rj2wz> . Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII) <rrh...@earthlink.net> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> <http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com> <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake> **************************************** REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.] Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Less Than Positive Review of Inquiry Based Learning," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/24rj2wz>. Post of 17 May 2010 17:05:22-0700 to AERA-L and NetGold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also online at <http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/05/re-less-than-positive-review-of-inquiry.html> with a provision for comments. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2707 or send a blank email to leave-2707-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
