I have decided that my formal academic training is somewhat of an obstacle. It functions somewhat like a conscience. It is that little voice in the back of my head reminding me that it is inappropriate to be a promoter without having solid evidence to back claims I may find advantageous to advocate. This is probably the one issue that troubles me the most when I read many blogs related to my personal interests. I don’t mind bloggers promoting ideas associated with personal profit motives (e.g., books, speaking or consultant fees) because I do believe individuals with good ideas should be compensated for their knowledge and skills. However, those in such situations do have a responsibility to seriously consider the evidence for and against the positions they accept fees for promoting. In my world view, this is about science and not promotion.
Many participatory or constructivist positions on education (this covers a great deal of ground) are contrasting themselves with something. This alternative is described in a variety of ways – the traditional approach, the instructivist approach, the lecture approach, instructor centered, etc. – and as a hold over from another time requiring different skills (an assembly line mentality). Clearly, occupations have changed and require different skills or at least a change in the skills that are emphasized. Clearly, information can often be conveniently accessed from external sources and need not be stored in personal memory. The issue is not so much that performance in changing times requires more sophisticiation and a different set of skills, but how best to develop these skills. There are many proposals that essentially suggest that new skills require different learning experiences and some of these proposals have come from me. What that little voice in my head keeps reminding me is that I should be able to offer sound emprical support when I make such claims.
This concern comes and goes with me. At present the topic is more salient because I am teaching a graduate educational psyçhology course and engaging students in the consideration of constructivism. I have always felt this unease when presenting/discussing this topic noting that the “research base” in the reading assignments I use seem weak in contrast to the references available for other topics. My personal preparation for these discussions also engages me with challenging positions taken by very well respected scholars (a partial list appears at the end of this entry). Why is it that the blogs I read seem unaware of these contrary positions and seem unable to respond in kind by offering empirical support for the positions they advocate?
As if by magic, one blog I follow (EdTechDev) has posted an entry that at least seems to acknowledge my concern. D Holton seems to be thinking along similar lines in recognizing this unacknowledged challenge.
I sometimes wish there would be an opportunity to get these folks together in the same room and make them deal with each other. One problem with reading what people have to say is that individuals are free to ignore core issues and continue to harp on personal perspectives. If the blogosphere is to move causes forward by “churning ideas”, part of the process must require a more direct approach to considering the data presented by contrasting positions. So, I guess this is a challenge – how about a little more effort directed toward reading what the position being put down has to offer and a commitment to offer up a strong refutation (e.g., Hake).
– – – –
Chall, J. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in classrooms. New York: Guilford Press.
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.
