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: What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? - Response to Camp
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
What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? - Response to Camp
Posted: Sep 7, 2012 4:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (9.1 K)

Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in a recent
discussion-list post "What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? -
Response to Camp" [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "What's the Meaning of 'Direct
Instruction" (aka "The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8
Education - Response to Camp") [Hake (2012a)] at
<>, Paul Camp at <>
(non-subscribers may need to fill out a form to gain access) made 4

1. Camp quoted David Klahr as quoted in a CMU (1998) press release
"Carnegie Mellon Researchers Say Direct Instruction, Rather Than
'Discovery Learning' Is Best Way To Teach Process Skills In Science"
at <> that advertised Chen & Klahr (1999)

Of course, the press release should have placed "Direct Instruction"
in quotes to indicate Chen & Klahr's own restricted meaning of that

Camp might not have been misled by CMU (1998) if he had been aware of
(or not dismissed) the final section "CAUTION: WHAT'S IN A NAME?" in
"Cognitive Research and Elementary Science Instruction: From the
Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back" [Klahr & Li (2005)] at
<> (scroll down and click on the title).

Klahr & Li wrote [my CAPS]:

"In hindsight, we may have muddied the interpretation of our
findings by incorporating popular terminology like 'direct
instruction' and 'discovery learning' into articles and public
presentations of Chen & Klahr (1999) <> and Klahr
& Nigam (2004) <>. . . . . One thing is clear
MORE PRECISE USE OF TERMINOLOGY before moving on to public debates
and policy decisions. Indeed it is surprising that when education
researchers and science educators join in heated debates about
discovery learning, direct instruction, inquiry, hands-on, or
minds-on, they usually abandon one of the foundations of science -
THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION. The field of science cannot advance
without clear, unambiguous, operationally defined, and replicable
procedures. Education science is no exception."

2. Camp then wrote: "I see nothing particularly objectionable. . .
.[[in CMU (1998)]]. . . . and certainly nothing that sounds like
'drill and practice'."

SO WHAT? Camp has evidently missed the point of Hake (2012a) that:

(a) education catch words such as "direct instruction" and "discovery
learning" mean different things to different people; and

(b)most of those who attack the Benezet Method don't define "direct
instruction" as does Klahr. Instead most of them subscribe to the
meaning of "direct instruction" implied by Mathematically Correct's
website <>: " 'DRILL AND PRACTICE,'
'non-hands-on,' 'teach 'em the facts'."

3. Camp wrote: "I don't have time to track down everything [Hake
writes], even if I had the inclination. All I can say is if what [he]
didn't properly represent [his] views, perhaps [he] should have
revised it. My responsibility ends with reading what [he] wrote."

I agree with Camp's opinion that his responsibility ends with reading
what I wrote. But the COMPLETE version of "what I wrote" is in my
complete post at <>. For Camp to criticize my
view on the basis of only the necessarily abbreviated abstract
without bothering to read my complete post is, I think (in Camp's
words - see below) "ethically borderline."

4. Camp wrote: "And, by the way, I don't appreciate having my words
converted into shouting that I didn't do. That's ethically

In the present ASKII medium where italics are usually suppressed, one
can attempt emphasis by, e.g., "*emphasis*" or "EMPHASIS". My
experience is that there's not enough emphasis in "*emphasis*" so I
prefer "EMPHASIS". Camp's opinion that "EMPHASIS" is "shouting" is,
in my opinion NONSENSE!! (Oops, there I go again!).

To access the complete 22 kB post please click on <>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <>
Links to SDI Labs: <>
Academia: <>
Blog: <>
Twitter: <>
GooglePlus: <>

"The true meaning of a term is found by observing what a man. . .
.[[or woman]]. . . . does with it, not what . . . . . [[s(he)]]. . .
. . . . says about it."
- P.W. Bridgman (1927, 1960)

"When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and
this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely
sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to
*measure* force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary
that it teach us what force is *in itself*, nor whether it is the
cause or the effect of motion."
- Henri Poincare (1905)

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <> and accessed on 07 Sept 2012.
Bridgman, P.W. 1960. "Logic of Modern Physics." Macmillan. First
published in 1927. information at <>.
An excerpt is online at <>. A Wikipedia entry on
Bridgeman is at <>.

Hake, R.R. 2012a. "What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction' " (aka
"The Effective But Forgotten Benezet Method of K-8 Education -
Response to Camp") online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at
<>. Post of 3 Sep 2012 13:20:41-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <> with a provision for

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "What's the Meaning of 'Direct Instruction'? -
Response to Camp," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<>." Post of 6 Sep 2012 16:58:09-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
distributed to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <> with a provision for

Poincare, H. 1905. "Science and Hypothesis," Walter Scott Publishing;
online at <> thanks to the Mead Project. A
Wikipedia entry on Poincare is at <>.

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.