What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue SUPPL. 3, 2013, Pages 14075-14080

  Klahr, David ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; PEDAGOGICS; PRIMARY SCHOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; TEACHING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; SCIENCE; TEACHING;

EID: 84887654334     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212738110     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bazerman C (2000) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Univ of Wisconsin Press, Madison).
2. Lagemann EC (2000) An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
3. Klein D (2007) A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship. Journal of the British Society for the History of Mathematics 22(1):22-33.
4. Anderson K (2000, June 18) The reading wars: Understanding the debate over how best to teach children to read (book review) LA Times.
5. Handelsman J, et al. (2004) Education. Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670):521-522.
6. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academies Press, Washington).
7. Sweller J, Kirschner PA, Clark R (2007) Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educ Psychol 42(2):115-121.
8. Mayer RE (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Am Psychol 59(1):14-19.
9. Gil-Pérez D, et al. (2002) Defending constructivism in science education. Sci Educ 11(6):557-571.
10. Tobias S, Duffy TM, eds (2009) Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? (Taylor and Francis, London).
11. Klahr D (2009) "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens": What about direct instruction? Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? eds Tobias S, Duffy TM (Taylor and Francis, London).
12. Jonassen D (2009) Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? eds Tobias S, Duffy TM (Taylor and Francis, London), pp 13-33.
13. Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H, Huang T-Y, Lee Y-H (2007) A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. J Res Sci Teach 44(10):1436-1460.
14. Furtak EM, Seidel T, Iverson H, Briggs DC (2012) Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 82:300-329.
15. Case R (1974) Structures and strictures: Some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognit Psychol 6:544-573.
16. Klahr D (2000) Exploring Science: The Cognition and Development of Discovery Processes (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
17. Klahr D, Simon HA (1999) Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychol Bull 125:524-543.
18. DeBoer GE (1991) A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice (Teachers College Press, New York).
19. Duschl R (1990) Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development (Teachers College Press, New York).
20. Murnane RJ, Raizen SA, eds (1988) Improving Indicators of the Quality of Science and Mathematics Education in Grades K-12 (National Academy Press, Washington).
21. National Research Council (1995) National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington).
22. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999) Overview and key findings across grade levels. Highlights from TIMSS: The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Dept of Educ, Washington). Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999081.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2012.
23. National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. Accessed September 26, 2012.
24. Chen Z, Klahr D (1999) All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Dev 70(5):1098-1120.
25. Matlen B, Klahr D (2013) Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children' s acquisition and transfer of experimentation skills. Instr Sci 41(3):621-634.
26. Toth EE, Klahr D, Chen Z (2000) Bridging research and practice: A cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cogn Instr 18(4):423-459.
27. Strand-Cary M, Klahr D (2008) Developing elementary science skills: instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cogn Dev 23:488-511.
28. Klahr D, Nigam M (2004) The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effect of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychol Sci 15(10):661-667. (Pubitemid 39443233)
29. Siler SA, Klahr D, Price N (2013) Investigating the mechanisms of learning from a constrained preparation for future learning activity. Instr Sci 41(1):191-216.
30. Newell A (1990) Unified Theories of Cognition (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
31. Nathan MJ, Alibali MW (2010) Learning sciences. WIREs Cogn Sci 1(3):329-345.
32. Klahr D (2010) Coming up for air: But is it oxygen or phlogiston? A response to Taber's review of constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Educ Rev 13(13):1-6.
33. Taber KS (2010) Constructivist pedagogy is superior-it is a matter of definition. ADL Newsletter for Educators and Educational Researchers. (October). Available at http://research.adlnet.gov/newsletter/academic/201010. htm#Klahr2010. Accessed September 26, 2012.
34. Cobern WW, et al. (2012) Active Learning in Science: An Experimental Study of the Efficacy of Two Contrasting Modes of Instruction. Available at www.wmich.edu/way2go/docs/Article-way2goWEBSITE.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2012.
35. Adelson R (2004) Instruction versus exploration in science learning. APA Monit 35(6):34.
36. Begley S (December 10, 2004) The best ways to make schoolchildren learn? We just don't know. Wall Street Journal, Section B, p. 1.
37. Begley S (December 17, 2004) To improve education, we need clinical trials to show what works. Wall Street Journal, p B1.
38. Bower B (2009) Think like a scientist. Sci News 175(13):20.
39. Brown, E.A. (August 30, 2011) Experts review psychology of science teaching. Educ Daily 44(149):1, 3.
40. Cavanagh S (2004) NCLB could alter science teaching. Educ Week 24(11): 1, 12-13.
41. Crane E (March 1, 2005) The science storm: Some say direct instruction works best, while others argue for the discovery learning method. Surprisingly, the two camps are very close to being on the same team. District Admin 41(3):46.
42. Dittmann M (2004) Studying ways to improve education: A two-year program has selected 13 fellows to conduct school-based research with leaders in the field. APA Monit 35(8):52.
43. Ezarik M (2004) Stand and deliver...or let them discover? District Admin 40(11):59
44. Klahr D (2005) A science study's author responds to critics. Educ Week 24(16):36.