The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: [math-learn] Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,251
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
[math-learn] Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team
Posted: Mar 23, 2012 7:18 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (14.3 K)

Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in "Yet More From
the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team" [Hake (2012). The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: Laura McCullough, in a post to the "Physics Education
Research Topical Group" (PERTG) discussion list pointed to "Putting
Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided
Instruction [Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller (2012) at
<>]. The same authors are responsible for "Why
Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the
Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential,
and Inquiry-Based Teaching" at <>.

As a warning to those who would attempt to make sense of the latest
pronouncements of the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team, I quote the
abstract of "Language Ambiguities in Education Research" [Hake (2008)
at <>, part of which reads:

"Language ambiguities hinder development of education research and
sometimes misrepresent its findings to both the education community
and the general public. For example, in 2004 Klahr & Nigam
demonstrated the superiority of what *they defined* as "direct
instruction" over what *they defined* as "discovery learning." But
their research was widely misinterpreted as showing that "direct
instruction" *in all its various forms* was superior to "discovery
learning" *in all its various forms*. Then, in 2006, Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark not only reinforced that misconception, but also
added to the general misunderstanding by identifying constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching
methods as all "minimally guided," and proclaiming all of them to be
failures. . . . . . .[but] the "knowledge-based constructivism" of
Resnick & Hall at <> is *not* "minimally guided"
and instructional methods consistent with it are *not* failures, as
judged by the assessment literature.

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on <>.

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)
Links to Articles: <>
Links to SDI Labs: <>
Blog: <>
Academia: <>
Twitter <!/rrhake>

"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
- Wood & Gentile (2003)

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <> and accessed on 20 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. "Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team" on
the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <>. Post of 20 Mar
2012 15:20:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to
the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion
lists and are on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <>
with a provision for comments.

Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at
<>. A summary is online to all at

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.