TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Team-Based Learning

TEAMLEARNING-L@LISTS.UBC.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Richard Hake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:42:26 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Reply-To:
Richard Hake <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (108 lines)
Some subscribers to TeamLearning might be interested in the post "Re: 
Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12 - Response to Wurman" [Hake 
(2010b)].  The abstract reads:

*************************************************
ABSTRACT: In the abstract of my post "Re: Metastudy on impact of 
inquiry in k-12" [Hake (2010a)], I wrote: "Joe Bellina (2010), in a 
post 'Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12' ALERTED subscribers to 
'Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? 
Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002' [Minner, Levy, 
& Century (2009)]."

Ze'ev Wurman (2010), evidently misunderstanding the above, responded 
(paraphrasing) "Would Hake care to speculate as to the reasons Joe 
BELLINA RESTRICTED HIS RESEARCH to 1984-2002 and ignored the last 7 
years of rather fruitful studies in this area?"

Ze'ev apparently did not scan the abstract of Minner et al. (2009) in 
which the authors give the following reasons for restricting *their* 
research (*not* Bellina's) to data from 1984 to 2002 (paraphrasing): 
"[That timeframe] was selected to continue a line of synthesis work 
last completed in 1983 by Bredderman (1983) and by Shymansky et al. 
(1983), and to accommodate a practicable cutoff date given the 
research project timeline, which ran from 2001 to 2006."

If Ze'ev and others *suspect* that Minner et al. may have cherry 
picked 1984-2002 so as to "focus on data from periods that suited 
their theses," then to make a case they would need to provide data 
outside the 1984-2002 period that *conflicts* with Minner et al.'s 
indication of "a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based 
instructional practices."

My survey of data in "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in 
California - Or Does It?" [Hake (2004)] showed that ALL the data, 
including that outside the 1984-2002  period, was generally 
consistent with the pro-inquiry assessment of Minner et al. (2009).

Not surveyed was "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not 
Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, 
Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching" [Kirschner, 
Sweller, & Clark (2006)].  But that paper, despite its misleading 
title, does *not* counter the theses of Minner et al. (2009), as 
explained  in e.g.,  "Language Ambiguities in Education Research" 
[Hake (2008b)].
*************************************************

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31796>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<[log in to unmask]>
<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. 2010a. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12" online 
at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779>. Post of 3 
Feb 2010 8:40 am PST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract 
was also transmitted to various discussion lists and appears at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-metastudy-on-impact-of-inquiry-in-k.html> 
with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2010b. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12 - 
Response to Wurman,"  online at 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31796>. Post  of 5 
Feb 5 2010 4:33 pm PST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR.   The 
abstract was also transmitted to various discussion lists and appears 
at 
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-metastudy-on-impact-of-inquiry-in-k_05.html> 
with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2008b. "Language Ambiguities in Education Research," 
submitted to the "Journal of Learning Sciences" on 21 August but 
mindlessly rejected; online at 
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf> (1.2 MB) 
and as ref. 54 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. David Klahr 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klahr> wrote to me privately 
(quoted by permission): "I liked the paper.  I think it's very 
thoughtful and nuanced.  However it is tough going, even for someone 
as familiar with the issues (and as favorably cited by you) as I am. 
It's a shame that it was rejected, but I wonder if the reviewer just 
wasn't up to the very careful reading necessary to really follow your 
arguments all the way through.   Even though I know this area quite 
well, obviously, I did have to really focus to fully understand the 
distinctions you were making."

Minner, D.D. , A.J. Levy, & J. Century. 2009. "Inquiry-Based Science 
Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research 
Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002," Journal of Research in Science 
Teaching, Early View (Articles online in advance of print); online to 
subscribers at 
<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123205106/PDFSTART>.

Wurman, Z. 2010. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12," post 
of 4 Feb 2010 13:23:52-0800 to AP-Physics, Biopi-L, EvalTalk, 
Physhare, and Physoc; online on the PHYSOC archives at 
<http://tinyurl.com/ycfzdlp>.  To access the archives of PHYSOC one 
needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on 
<http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html> and then clicking on 
"Join or leave the list (or change settings)."  If you're busy, then 
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a 
subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any 
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2