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 » mathedcc

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

Topic: Responses to Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) and the Response to
Those Responses

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
Responses to Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) and the Response to
Those Responses

Posted: Mar 28, 2012 11:57 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (5.5 K)

Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in "Responses to
Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) and the Response to Those Responses"
[Hake (2012). The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: The recent article "Putting Students on the Path to
Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction" [Clark, Kirschner, &
Sweller (2012)] at <> stimulated my post "Yet
More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team" at <>

1. Pointed to my response "Language Ambiguities in Education
Research" at <> to "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, and Clark (KSC )(2006)
at <>];

2. Initiated a thread on the March archives of PhysLrnR
<> which had grown to 14 posts on 23 March 2012,
one of which was by:

3. Noah Podolefsky who called attention to the response of
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn (2007) at <> to KSC
(2006), and included Hmelo-Silver et al.'s complete abstract.
Following Podolefsky, I call attention (with complete abstracts) to
the response of:

a. Schmidt, Loyens, van Gog, & Paas (2007) at <>
to (KSC) (2006);

b. Kuhn (2007) at <> to KSC (2006);

c. Sweller, Kirschner, Clark (2007) at <> to
Silver, Duncan, & Chinn (2007); Schmidt, Loyens, van Gog, & Paas
(2007); and Kuhn (2007).

As a counter to Sweller et al.s (2007) emphasis on the importance of
Randomized Control Trials (RCT's) in education research, see e.g.,
"Re: Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold Standard of
Educational Research?" [Hake (2005a,b) at <> and

To access the complete 17 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>

"There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the
sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that
encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own
learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer
of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional
lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty
of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future."
Robert DeHaan (2005)

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <> and accessed on 23 March 2012.]
DeHaan, R.L. 2005. "The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education," Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):
253-269; an abstract is online at <>. The
complete article was formerly online as a 152 kB pdf at
<> but on 23 March 2012 that site had been
temporarily disabled.

Hake, R.R. 2012. "Responses to Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) and
the Response to Those Responses" " on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<>. Post of 23 Mar 2012 12:59:25 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

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.