Thread by @Dek0h

So, I was at the @researchEDDub conference in @sccdublin a little while ago, and it was a very enjoyable day. Lots of great ideas and thought-provoking discussions, with polished presentations and eloquent speakers. 1/13

After I think the 4th talk I sat in on, I noticed a couple of recurring themes. The 1st was that inquiry/discovery/problem-solving is ineffective, and that direct instruction is king. The 2nd theme was that “to be creative…first one needs to extensive domain knowledge” 2/13

As @researchEd is all about evidence-informed education, the same single source for these claims was put up by speaker after speaker. Paul Kirschner’s “seminal” 2006 (yep, 13 years old) paper.... 3/13

...which apparently shows the “failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”. 4/13 researchgate.net/publication/27…

Now that’s a seriously wide net, I thought to myself. This paper takes these quite distinct approaches and shoves them all in the same basket. And beats them all with one big stick. But, for example, inquiry-based learning has got nothing to do with “discovery learning”. 5/13

Luckily, many education researchers around the world took notice of this sweeping statement at the time. Here is just one paper that addresses the flaws in Kirschner's argument. 6/13
researchgate.net/publication/27…

And so, one after the other, some @researchEd speakers spoke to the same message. Inquiry is rubbish, and we should get back to good old-fashioned didactic teaching. Unless students have been given the pre-requisite knowledge, then they won’t be able to think, it seems. 7/13

Down with constructivism, they all chanted in unison. Why this false dichotomy? Good practicing teachers know that it is neither one nor the other that leads to effective learning. It is the measured use of both. (Scott et al, 2018) 8/13

Instruction on a “just in time” basis after a period of perplexity, productive struggle, during a problem-solving session, leads to deep understanding and retention. (Tieg et al 2018) 9/13

Sure, drilling is important, but exercise alone does not result in good learning. Passively receiving content is not enough. Students DO create, construct their knowledge in effective learning. Nature of Science, History, Politics, Philosophy, IS inquiry. (Lederman, 2013). 10/13

So, when @C_Hendrick started to tell us that when he was a lad, HIS teachers never gave him any envelopes with card sorts in, was he *really* saying that T&L was better in the good old days? When all we did was sit passively and absorbed by listening and reading? 11/13

I came away from @researchEdDub wondering if I had witnessed a coordinated attack on progressive education. While I had also heard many great ideas, perspectives, and conversations, I couldn't shake off the feeling that I had just attended a populist rally. 12/13

If we are going to argue about this, is it too much to ask for a more nuanced, informed approach, instead of a polarised, oversimplified one presented without the details of evidence? Surely we can do better than that. 13/13