In my post "Reyna Defends NCLB" [Hake (2006)], I wrote (slightly edited):
"I have read neither Carlson & Levin (2005) nor Reyna's (2005)
Chapter 1 in that book, but judging from Lang's (2005) report,
Reyna's outlook appears to be diametrically opposed to my own, as
indicated in "Will the NCLB Tend to Propagate California's Direct
Science Instruction Throughout the Entire Nation?" [Hake (2004a)],
and "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of
Science?"[Hake (2005)]."
Given that NCLB will require K-12 testing in science starting in 2007, some
TIPS subscribers might be interested in the five reasons "A-E" I give
in Hake (2004a) for why NCLB may tend to propagate California's
direct science instruction throughout the entire nation [**see that
post for the references other than Hake (2004b)**]:
A. It's easier to test for rote memorized material implanted by
Direct Instruction than for conceptual understanding of science and
its methods induced by guided inquiry methods.
B. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) appears bereft of advisors
from the physical sciences. For example, as far as I am aware, no
physical scientists are members of the USDE's:
1. Advisory board
<http://www.excelgov.org/index.php?keyword=a432fbc71d7564>
for the "Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy"
<http://www.excelgov.org/index.php?keyword=a432fbc34d71c7>.
2. Technical Advisory Group
<http://www.w-w-c.org/whoweare/memberlist.html> for the What
Works Clearinghouse <http://www.w-w-c.org/>.
C. Douglas Carnine, a prominent advocate of Direct Instruction [see.
e.g., Carnine (2000)] is a member of the above Technical Advisory
Group of the What Works Clearinghouse. Carnine played a leading role
in undermining effective math instruction in California [see, e.g.
Schoenfeld (2003)] and, I suspect, is now poised to attempt the same
on a national scale for the 3 R's and for science instruction.
D. The U.S. Department of Education's (USDE's) national science "summit"
<http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/05/05042004a.html> in 2004
showcased a report by cognitive scientists Klahr & Nigam (2004) that
is erroneously heralded by Direct Instruction (DI) zealots [e.g.
Mathematically Correct's Science Corner
<http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm>, Wayne Bishop
(2004)]as demonstrating that DI is a GENERALLY effective method of
science instruction [for the counter see Hake (2004b)]. For
discussions of Klahr & Nigam (2004) see e.g., Adelson (2004);
Cavenaugh (2004a,b); Begley (2004a,b); Tweed (2004a,b); Hake
(2004g,h,i)]
E. Sharon Begley (2004b) quotes Grover Whitehurst (director of the
U.S. Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences
<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html?exp=0>): "IN
SCIENCE EDUCATION, THERE IS ALMOST NOTHING OF PROVEN EFFICACY."
Unfortunately, psychologist Whitehurst appears to be woefully
ignorant of the voluminous scientific research evidence [for
discussions of what constitutes "scientific research evidence" in
education see Shavelson & Towne (2000) & Burkhardt & Schoenfeld
(2003)] that "hands-on guided-inquiry methods" [commonly called
"inquiry" or "interactive engagement" methods] are far more effective
than "direct instruction" for promoting student learning IN
CONCEPTUALLY DIFFICULT AREAS [for reviews see e.g., Hake (2004b);
Doss-Hammel (2004); Lowery (2003); and the literature references in
AAAS (1993, 2004), NRC (1996; 1997a,b; 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003),
Bransford et al. (1999), and Donovan et al. (1999).
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>
"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
Carlson, J.S. & J.R. Levin, eds. 2005. "The No Child Left Behind
Legislation: Educational Research and Federal Funding: Psychological
Perspectives on Contemporary Educational issues." Information Age
Publishing, Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/d9vhd>.
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Will the NCLB Tend to Propagate California's
Direct Science Instruction Throughout the Entire Nation?" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=pod&O=D&P=12783>.
Post of 14 Jan 2005 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J,
AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, Edstat-L,
EvalTalk, Math-Learn,
Math-Teach, Phys-L, Physhare, PhysLrnR, POD, & STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" AAPT Announcer 34(2): 177; online as
reference 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download
directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DirInstSetback-041104f.pdf> (420 KB)
[about 160 references and 180 hot-linked URL's]. A pdf version of the
slides shown at the meeting is also available at ref. 33 or can be
downloaded directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AAPT-Slides.pdf> (132 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2005. "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851 (2005); APS March
Meeting, Los Angles, CA. 21-25 March; online as ref. 36 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by
clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf> (256 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2006."Reyna Defends NCLB" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0601&L=pod&F=&S=&P=5423>.
Post of 6 Jan 2006 to AERA-B, AERA-L, ASSESS, EDDRA, EvalTalk,
Math-Learn, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physhare, POD, TeachingEdPsych, & TIPS.
Lang, S.S. 2005. "No Child Left Behind Act can improve schools,
Cornell professor asserts in new book," Cornell University Chronicle,
online at
<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec05/no.child.laws.ssl.html>.
Reyna, V. 2005. "The 'No Child Left Behind Act' and Scientific
Research," Chapter 1 of Carlson & Levin (2005).
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
