Posts

Comments

Get Posts by E-mail

Bloggers In The Media

  1. John Burk on the physics of Angry Birds. [Charlotte Observer]
  2. Frank Noschese on Khan Academy. [MSNBC]
  3. Me on applied math problems using multimedia. [NBC]

Featured Comments

Jay:

Check and mate.

Richard Hake:

The anonymous “Jay” links to the totally vacuous paper “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner et al. (2006)] and then states “Check and Mate.” [..] Anyone who thinks s(he) can even Check, let alone Mate, with that paper must be woefully ignorant of the literature – see e.g., Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), Kuhn (2007), Schmidt et al. (2007), and Tobias & Duffy (2009).

JimP:

Holy Cow! Richard Hake just commented. There is physics education research royalty lurking around here.

10 Responses to “Bloggers In The Media”

  1. on 28 Sep 2011 at 11:08 amJason Dyer

    Go team mathscibloggers!

    Clearly, I need to be blogging about sexier topics.

  2. on 28 Sep 2011 at 5:03 pmJay

    http://tinyurl.com/6c38e8k

    Check and mate.

  3. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:58 pmDan Meyer

    *topples king*

  4. on 28 Sep 2011 at 9:14 pmBowen Kerins

    Why are there only two choices between “direct instruction” and “unguided instruction”? It’s not surprising to me that “pure discovery learning” doesn’t yield a ton of fruit by itself. That doesn’t mean throw it out altogether.

    If there were one best way to teach every student, we’d already be doing that, and there would be a lot less debate about how and what to teach…!

  5. on 29 Sep 2011 at 3:21 amBen Blum-Smith

    Nice! But don’t let them call you “former”!

  6. on 29 Sep 2011 at 2:34 pmAlison Nardini

    Hi, I’m a pre-service math education students and recently saw this post that referenced the physics of angry birds.

    I recently had the opportunity to create a mathematics lesson introducing students to piecewise functions using Angry Birds and Geogebra.

    The students had three geogebra files, one for each bird, with an image of the bird’s flight path. The students made graphs to represent the flight paths of the red bird, yellow bird, and blue bird. They were introduced to the notion of a piecewise function after completing the graph for the yellow bird and then were asked to find, graph, and write down their piecewise functions in the proper form for the blue bird.

    The lesson plan, worksheet, and materials used can be found on my class website: http://nardinitech.weebly.com/tech-project.html

    I received some feedback from my classmates and teacher on how to improve it but i would love to get some feedback from actual teachers on the lesson and how to improve it.

    Thanks!

  7. on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:33 amJane Jackson

    Regarding comments #2 and #4.

    Yes, much better choices than direct instruction and discovery (minimally guided) learning exist. One is Modeling instruction, which is guided inquiry structured by modeling principles.

    I co-direct the Modeling Instruction Program at Arizona State University (ASU). Frank Noschese (interviewed by MSNBC about his well-considered blog critique of the Kahn Academy) uses Modeling Instruction. A physics course is re-organized into a small set of basic scientific models, thus making the course coherent and revealing the structure of physics. I quote physics professor David Hestenes of ASU, a founder of Modeling Instruction: “Scientists explore the physical world for REPRODUCIBLE PATTERNS, which they represent by MODELS and organize into THEORIES according to LAWS.” [My caps.] David Hestenes wrote also: “Modeling is about making and using scientific descriptions (models) of physical phenomena and processes. Modeling Instruction is an inquiry method for teaching science by actively engaging students in all aspects of scientific modeling.”

    Modeling Instruction is research-based. It is validated in high school physics, with a large effect size (0.9). You can read research articles, evaluation reports, doctoral dissertations, testimonies by teachers, and many useful classroom resources for teachers at http://modeling.asu.edu .

    Modeling Instruction is a grass-roots movement by teachers nationwide. It has spread fast to high school chemistry. Teachers of 8th and 9th grade physical science have learned it, and recently biology teachers. Fifty Modeling Workshops, most three weeks long, were offered at 26 locations nationwide in summer 2011, due to teacher efforts in organizing them. 800 teachers participated. See http://modeling.asu.edu/MW_nation.html for a location near you; or email me at jane.jackson@asu.edu .

  8. on 30 Sep 2011 at 12:27 pmRichard Hake

    The anonymous “Jay” links to the totally vacuous paper “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner et al. (2006)] and then states “Check and Mate,” evidently with regard to Frank Noschese’s criticism of the Kahn Academy and his support of Modeling at his website http://bit.ly/mSiJ4f .

    Anyone who thinks s(he) can even Check, let alone Mate, with that paper must be woefully ignorant of the literature – see e.g., Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), Kuhn (2007), Schmidt et al. (2007), and Tobias & Duffy (2009).

    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)
    rrhake@earthlink.net
    http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
    http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
    http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
    http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

    REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 30 Sept. 2011.]

    Hmelo-Silver, C.E., R.G. Duncan, and C.A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 99-107; online as a 96 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/aKUD5s.

    Kirschner, P.A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86; online as a 176 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/duJVG4 .

    Kuhn, D. 2007. “Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right Question?” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 109-113; online as a 56 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/ekxUvD (56 kB).

    Schmidt, H.G., S.M.M. Loyens, T. van Gog, & F. Paas. 2007. “Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 91-97; online as a 72 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/9uwVc8.

    Tobias, Sigmund & T.M. Duffy. 2009. “Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?” Routledge, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/doVuHS. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/nybW9F. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

  9. on 01 Oct 2011 at 2:45 amJimP

    Holy Cow! Richard Hake just commented. There is physics education research royalty lurking around here.

  10. […] The Twitterverse comes through with more details.  @jybuell refers to a comment by Richard Hake on @ddmeyer‘s blog, which refers to a previous response to Kirschner and Swell by […]