However, beyond such material, I get thoroughly confused by an inability to distinguish proven knowledge, accepted wisdom, and pure pseudo-science. It seems that a lot of educational research is done by anecdote rather than by controlled blind large group studies.
Thanks Mark for initiating this thread. There needs to be more discussion of the pedagogy so that Squeak/etoys can be optimised as a learning tool.
For more criticism of Constructivism/ionism you could also read (though I strongly support constructionism): http://scil.stanford.edu/about/staff/bios/PDF/Cog_Effects_Prog (will open with Acrobat) ON THE COGNITIVE EFFECTS OF LEARNING COMPUTER PROGRAMMING ROY D. PEA and D. MIDIAN KURLAND and http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching Paul A. Kirschner
Controlled blind large studies are rarely done. This is because the lab rabbits are real kids and there are real ethical concerns. We are stuck with anecdote and assertion for the large part. We need to critically examine all this, as there is little hard evidence.
It would be good if we could examine the large amount of teaching with Game Maker. It has been used back to 2002 and, at least in Australia, there are hundreds of schools using it. The pedagogy of Game Maker and etoys is similar. This large body of data has never been properly examined because it is just ad hoc use by teachers which has never been attached to a university research program
Tony
Tony Forster wrote:
Controlled blind large studies are rarely done. This is because the lab rabbits are real kids and there are real ethical concerns. We are stuck with anecdote and assertion for the large part. We need to critically examine all this, as there is little hard evidence.
For better or for worse, our society uses real kids for blind (and even double blind) trials of medical treatments.
The ethics of a pendulum swinging from 'new math' to 'new new math' to 'back to basics' and on, based each time on anecdote, are, to the naive observer, as great a cause for concern as giving two matched groups of children differing curricula for a couple of years. Perhaps saying that ruins my chances of influencing education, but instead of advocating such trials, and dismissing current research methods, my next step is to understand how, as a society, we should interpret an anecdotal study.
What are the benchmarks a study must meet to be considered good evidence to support making a change (to the learning environment, the learning methods, and even the learning objectives, or even just to an individual lesson plan?) Educators like yourself work hard on these studies to get them through peer review, or incorporated in government policy, and often aim for to be utterly dispassionate. So, how should a concerned parent (or administrator or politician) work with teachers in their community to separate the wheat from the chaff.
squeakland@lists.squeakfoundation.org