The Gates Tip Line includes a recent post in which the host asks for replies to a teachers negative analysis of Prensky’s comments (I did not see the phrase “engage me or enrage me”, but this is the type of comment that Prensky uses). The host was disappointed with the lack of response to the request for responses to the teacher. I attempted to add a comment, but the options appear to require that you identify yourself through a commercial blog service or OpenID. I will add my comment here. By the time I read the comments, some had already made the effort to reply. I have excerpted one comment I would like to address:
The teacher’s statements above fly in the face of what the last two decades of psychological research have found (which (surprise!) support constructivist models of learning rather than a transmission model of education!). ‘Guide on the side,’ not ‘sage on the stage.’ As much as possible, discovery- and inquiry-based learning rather than lecture and regurgitation.
I don’t like phrases like “regurgitation”. These discussions should be about data and sound judgment. We can leave the defamatory phrases to the politicians. If you mean memorization, say so. I do agree that education should attempt to require more than memorization. Lecturing, like books, is an information delivery system. Hopefully, learners are capable of using information, however they encounter it, as the starting point for learning. The constructivist model, as I understand it, suggests we all understand by attempting to interpret experiences (including lectures I assume) based on our existing personal knowledge.
I would sincerely like to be made aware of the research mentioned here (please provide references). If you have followed my recent and past comments, I have not read what I consider quality research supporting the “child-centered” position. I have read many books and articles on the topic and I have myself added to this material, but these are not research papers. As I have said, I can direct you to reviews of research by Sweller; Chall; Mayer; and Lesgold that are quite critical. You have to consult these reviews for the specific studies that are available. So, there are many studies arguing the negative side of this debate.
Perhaps this is a matter of differences in definition – constructivism and child-centered are difficult to operationalize. I am not attempting to bait anyone here, but since blog hosts are appealing to general readership for help and information. If we can switch the discussion to the data, please help by offering references the rest of us can review. I have already read negative reviews, where are the positive studies?????
Chall, J. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom. Guilford.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
Lesgold, A. (2001). The nature and methods of learning by doing. American Psychologist, 56(11), 964-973.
Mayer, R. (2001). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
