Re: [ISTATALK-L] Summer food for thought

[marilyn quinn <mquinn51@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Diana Dummitt <ddummitt@xxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: ISTA Members Discussion List
<ISTATALK-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: ISTATALK-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ISTATALK-L] Summer food for thought
>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:40:09 -0500
>
>What do you think? Please share your experiences, elementary
>teachers.
>Diana
>
>DIRECT INSTRUCTION VERSUS DISCOVERY LEARNING
>In science, how is critical thinking best taught? This question may
>be
>answered by David Klahr, PhD, a psychology professor at Carnegie
>Mellon
>University, and Milena Nigam, a research associate at the University
>of
>Pittsburgh's Center for Biomedical Informatics. They have new
>evidence
>that "direct instruction" -- explicit teaching about how to
design
>unconfounded experiments -- most effectively helps elementary school
>students transfer their mastery of this important aspect of the
>scientific
>method from one experiment to another. For decades, early science
>education has emphasized "discovery learning," in which
children,
>given
>experimental materials such as springs and pulleys, marbles and
>ramps, are
>expected to "discover" scientific principles on their own. The
>approach is
>a legacy from two intellectual giants: developmental psychologist
>Jean
>Piaget and educational philosopher John Dewey. Piaget believed
>children
>locked in learning better when they learned on their own; Dewey
>sought to
>motivate students with hands-on, real-world problems. Still, science
>and
>similarly complex subjects may well require a distinct teaching
>methodology, says Klahr. His controlled studies continue to
>demonstrate
>that, at least for many of the multistep procedures used in science,
>direct instruction works and generalizes better. "No single study
>ever
>settles a debate once and for all," says James Stigler, PhD, a
>professor
>of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles and
>director of
>video studies for the Third International Mathematics and Science
>Study.
>He notes that the study's two teaching approaches exaggerated their
>real-world counterparts, limiting generalizability, but thinks the
>study
>does underscore that labs work best when integrated with explicit
>instruction in critical science concepts and methods.
>http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.html
>--
>Diana Dummitt
>University of Illinois
>51 Gerty Drive
>Champaign, IL 61820
>Phone: 217-244-0173
>Fax: 217-244-5437
>
>***********************************************************
>ISTATALK-L is hosted by the Early Childhood and Parenting
>(ECAP) Collaborative at the University of Illinois.
>http://ecap.crc.uiuc.edu/listserv/ecenet-l.html
>Contact listadmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for assistance.
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>listadmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>that states, "Please unsubscribe me from the ISTATALK-L
listserv."
>************************************************************


It entirely depends on the teacher & the students' capabilities. Highly
motivated students will probably learn better by experimenting on their own.
Students who have had very little Science experimenting will best learn by
the teacher explaining the lab to them & then having them do the lab. If
there is time, I've had some of my more capable students wonder "What if..."
& then try to figure it out. Both ways work.

Marilyn Quinn

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

***********************************************************
ISTATALK-L is hosted by the Early Childhood and Parenting
(ECAP) Collaborative at the University of Illinois.
http://ecap.crc.uiuc.edu/listserv/ecenet-l.html
Contact listadmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for assistance.

To unsubscribe, send a message to listadmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
that states, "Please unsubscribe me from the ISTATALK-L listserv."
************************************************************