Another Definitive Report 'Proving' That Discovery Learning Fails in Science/Math!

If you have an hour or two, you may want to skim through the technical jargon in a recent piece in the Educational Psychologist (2006) with the 21-word title:
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching.
If your browser can open pdf documents it will view directly or you may have to save it to your desktop.
This is of course one of the hottest topics in education (see Joanne Jacobs, edspresso and John Dewey) and I've also been addressing this issue indirectly through my own classroom examples. Here's the problem as I see it. Those who want all aspects of discovery learning (and its 17000 other names) to disappear will always cite uses of this approach in black-and-white extremist terms. That is, describing a classroom setting in which students are given a problem to work on with little or no prior instruction or explanation and the students are left entirely to their own devices for much of the classroom period to reinvent knowledge from the ground up. The research piece in question does something like this. It talks in general terms about how the learning measured in such classrooms fall short of the learning in 'direct-instruction' control groups as if there are numerous extreme examples of both kinds of environments.
I would argue that any of us on the frontlines could write our own research entitled, "Why Minimal Interaction With Your Students Does Not Work!"
Here's what I have observed from over 35 years in education from my own instruction and being in hundred of other classrooms watching highly effective and somewhat less effective lessons:
Any teacher of middle school or high school students who expects our current generation of students to sit passively for more than a few minutes while information is being hurled at them will have some issues with classroom management! Of course, the number of minutes is directly proportional to the skills, abilities, motivation, maturity and proximity of the student to the end of the marking period (and the college admissions process)! However, even my AP group will zone out if I stay in lecture mode for more than 15 -20 minutes. Yes, I know that the college professors reading this are silently screaming that these students better 'get their act together' for those college lecture halls and they had better learn how to take notes and stop whining. However, having taught at the college level also, I don't recall a majority of these 'mature' young men and women staying focused throughout the 1 1/2-2 hour presentation and that was a long time ago!
Here's the point if you haven't already exited from this polemic:
EFFECTIVE LESSONS ARE NOT ONE-DIMENSIONAL! EFFECTIVE LESSONS USE A VARIETY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY TECHNIQUES THAT INCLUDE DIRECT INSTRUCTION WHILE MAXIMIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF STUDENTS VIA QUESTIONING AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCOVERY.
Anyone who wants to disprove some educational theory or any other theory for that matter can do so by taking extreme examples that are out of context and out of touch with the real world. For example: Let's disprove the Theory of Parenting that states "Listening to your child is part of effective parenting" by examining models in which parents are NEVER firm, NEVER make decisions and allow their child to make all decisions and learn from them ALL THE TIME! Yup, that's real. Actually, some of you reading this are probably saying, "Yeah, that's what's wrong with society today -- all those darn parents who overindulge and and give their kid everything they want!" But you're missing the point. Effective parents and effective teachers DO LISTEN TO THEIR CHILDREN AND THEN MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS! In other words they do both.
The most effective lessons I observe often (not ALWAYS!) begin by hooking the students with a provocative question or a demonstration at the beginning to catch their eye. These lessons also connect new learnings to prior learnings, e.g., they review and/or provide a context for the Laws of Exponents by beginning with concrete numerical examples with which students can quickly identify. In another post, I described how an Algebra I teacher distributed a worksheet containing 20 or more numerical examples of exponential expressions which students had to evaluate on their calculator. They were then asked to group several examples and describe what they had in common and to formulate a generalization. This was not an honors class. Having set the stage for the general rules, this outstanding educator then DIRECTLY provided the rules both orally and on the chalkboard in the clearest of terms, then provided several guided exercises (worked-out examples) and then had students do a few Try These. She asked numerous questions and walked among the rows observing and guiding. How would you rate that lesson?
I continue to be offended and deeply disturbed by researchers who attempt to draw conclusions about any method of instruction by commenting on and observing only extreme examples! Any comments? More to follow...