Those who dislike long posts (14 kB), references, cross-posting, or
who have no interest in Piaget are urged to hit the DELETE button.
In response to my post "Has Piaget Gone Down For the Long Count?"
[Hake (2005a)], Barbara Millis, in her POD post of 5 Sep 2005 titled
"Piaget? - Other Sources" wrote [bracketed by lines "MMMMMMMM. . .;
my inserts at ". . .[ . . . ]. . . "
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I would recommend that anyone wanting to keep up with the latest
research on K-12 teaching and learning (with strong implications for
those of us in higher education) invest in Bransford, et al. . .
.[2000]. . ., "How Students Learn" and a follow-up volume on "How
Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the
Classroom.". . .[ Donovan & Bransford (2005)]. . . Both
research-based books contain a wealth of classroom-based experiences
useful for K-12 and university professors. I am finishing a review
of the latter book for the "National Teaching and Learning Forum
(NTLF). . . [<http://www.ntlf.com/>]. My key frustration is
distilling 615 pages of pure "gold" into an 800-word review
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
In my opinion Donovan & Bransford (2005) (D&B) is at most 18-karat
gold, since a search of the book at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10126.html> for "physics" shows that
the editors and the "Committee On How People Learn" appear to be
oblivious of physics education research and development DONE BY
PHYSICISTS other than Andrea diSessa (1982), Jim Minstrell, and Pam
Kraus. The latter two authored D&B's Chapter 11 "Guided Inquiry in
the Science Classroom." In particular, D&B appear to ignore (a) most
of the extensive guided-inquiry research and development referenced
in McDermott & Redish (1999), and (b) the landmark work of Halloun &
Hestenes (1985a,b), which demonstrated how student *higher-level*
learning can be *directly* measured and which has contributed
substantially to the improvement of physics instruction in grades
9-16.
However, to their credit D&B include:
(a) references to Piagetian instruction [Kalchman (2001), Wollman
(1977), Wollman & Lawson (1977)], even despite the fact that Kieran
Egan, author of "Getting it Wrong from the Beginning: Our
progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean
Piaget," is on the "Committee for How Students Learn."
(b) a nice story in Chapter 13 that helps students understand
number-system place value, taken from Kieran Egan's (1998) book
"Teaching as Story Telling."
Barbara Millis wrote: "I would recommend that anyone wanting to keep
up with the latest research on K-12 teaching and learning (with
strong implications for those of us in higher education) invest in
[Bransford, et al. [2000] and Donovan & Bransford (2005)].
A facet of the implications for higher education that's seemingly
ignored by most university faculty was emphasized 29 years ago by
Arons & Karplus (1976), who wrote [my **emphasis**]:
A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K
If our suggested inference is correct [that only 1/3 of college
freshman have arrived at what Piaget. . . [see, e.g. Inhelder &
Piaget (1958), Inhelder et al. (1987)]. . . called the "formal
operational" level], it seems to us that **explicit awareness of the
problem and measures to attack it, must begin in the colleges and
universities. These institutions educate the teachers for the
educational system with which we are concerned.** They must provide
leadership in converting it from a passive one that merely allows
"sui generis" development of a small fraction to one that actively
assists the intellectual development of the far larger proportion of
the population that we have every reason to believe is fully capable
of abstract logical reasoning.
A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K-A&K
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
REFERENCES
Arons, A.B. & R. Karplus. 1976. "Implications of Accumulating Data on
Levels of Intellectual Development," Am. J. Phys. 44: 396. Reprinted
Fuller (2002). See also McKinnon & Renner (1971). For a discussion of
Arons's concern with intellectual development see Hake (2004).
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. 2000. "How people
learn: brain, mind, experience, and school." Nat. Acad. Press; online
at <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html>. This is
an update of the earlier 1999 edition.
diSessa, A. 1982. "Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of
knowledge-based learning." Cognitive Science 6(2): 37-75.
Donovan, S.M. & J.D. Bransford, eds. 2005. "How Students Learn
History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom." Nat. Acad.
Press; online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10126.html>.
Egan, K. 1989. "Teaching as story telling." University of Chicago
Press. For Egan's homepage presentation of the introduction see
<http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kegan/TaST.html>.
Egan, K. 2004. "Getting it Wrong from the Beginning: Our
progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean
Piaget." Yale University Press. For Egan's homepage presentation of
the introduction and reviews see
<http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kegan/wrongindex.html>, and the discussion in
Hake (2005c).
Fuller, R.G., ed. 2002. "A Love of Discovery: Science Education - The
Second Career of Robert Karplus." Kluwer. This is a valuable resource
containing seminal papers of Karplus and his colleagues.
Hake, R.R. 2004. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to the
"American Journal of Physics" on 24 April 2004; online as reference
31 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly as a 144
kB pdf by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AronsAdvMeth-8.pdf>.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Has Piaget Gone Down For the Long Count? (was
Piaget)" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=pod&O=A&P=2834>. Post
of 5 Sep 2005 08:30:25-0700 to AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H,
AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, Dewey-L, Dr-Ed, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare,
PhysLrnR, POD, STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS. I quote the
comments on Piaget of seven modern-day experts - educator Philip
Adey; cognitive scientists John Anderson, Howard Gardner, & Robert
Sternberg; computer pioneer Alan Kay; biologist Anton Lawson; and
philosopher Ernst von Glasersfeld. I state: "it would appear that . .
. far from being 'down for the long count,' Piaget's work is still
justifiably influential among cognitive scientists and scholars in
several disciplines, e.g., biology, education, philosophy, and
physics."
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Re: Has Piaget Gone Down For the Long Count?"
online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=pod&O=A&P=4932>. Post
of 7 Sep 2005 14:37:13 -0700 to AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H,
AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Phys-L, Physhare, PhysLrnR, POD, STLHE-L,
TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS. The abstract reads: "It is argued that the
misidentification of the Socrates of Plato's Meno with the true
historical Socrates as researched by Gregory Vlastos is probably a
factor in the sad neglect by teachers of effective Socratic pedagogy."
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Piaget & Dewey: Down for the Count?" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=pod&O=D&P=7030>. Post
of 8 Sep 2005 17:33:4-0700 to AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H,
AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, Dewey-L,
Dr-Ed, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, PhysLrnR, POD,
STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS. See also the earlier posts [Hake
(2005a,b)] that preceded this post. The abstract reads: I argue that
the criticism of Piaget by Catherine Scott in a recent AERA-D post is
problematic, and close with three questions: (1) Does Kieran Egan
("Getting it Wrong from the Beginning: Our progressivist inheritance
from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget") or anyone else
give any solid evidence for such criticism?; (2) Would anyone, care
to comment on Kieran Egan's opinion that (a) both Dewey and Piaget
were "wrong from the start," and (b) heavily influenced by Herbert
Spencer?" ;(3) If Dewey was and is WRONG, why is Dewey-like pedagogy
so seemingly successful in introductory physics education?
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53:1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test, precursor to the "Force Concept Inventory."
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about motion." Am.
J. Phys. 53:1056-1065; online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>."
Inhelder, B. & J. Piaget. 1958. "Growth of logical thinking from
childhood to adolescence: an essay on the construction of formal
operational structures." Basic Books.
Inhelder, B., D. de Caprona, and A. Cornu-Wells, eds. 1987. "Piaget
Today." Erlbaum.
Kalchman, M. 2001. "Using a neo-Piagetian framework for learning and
teaching mathematical functions." Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Toronto.
McDermott, L.C. & E.F. Redish. 1999. RL-PER1: Resource letter on
physics education research. Am. J. Phys. 67(9):755-767; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.
McKinnon, J.W. & J.W. Renner. 1971. "Are colleges concerned with intellectual
development?" Am. J. Phys. 39: 1047-1052.
Millis B, 2005. "Piaget? - Other Sources," POD post of 5 Sep 2005
19:02:34-0700; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=pod&P=R3149&I=-3>.
Wollman, W. 1977. "Controlling variables: A neo-Piagetian
developmental sequence," Science Education 61: 385-391.
Wollman, W., and A. Lawson, A. 1977. "Teaching the procedure of
controlled experimentation: A Piagetian approach," Science Education
61: 57-70.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
