When 'direct instruction' just becomes poor instruction
Keith S. Taber
An experiment that has been set up to ensure the control condition fails, and so compares an innovation with a substandard teaching condition, can – at best – only show the innovation is not as bad as the substandard teaching
One of the things which angers me when I read research papers is examples of what I think of as 'rhetorical research' that use unethical control conditions (Taber, 2019). That is, educational research which sets up one group of students to be taught in a way that is clearly disadvantages them to ensure the success of an experimental teaching approach,
"I am suggesting that some of the experimental studies reported in the literature are rhetorical in the … sense that the researchers clearly expect to demonstrate a well- established effect, albeit in a specific context where it has not previously been demonstrated. The general form of the question 'will this much-tested teaching approach also work here' is clearly set up expecting the answer 'yes'. Indeed, control conditions may be chosen to give the experiment the best possible chance of producing a positive outcome for the experimental treatment."
Taber, 2019, p.108
This irks me for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that researchers have been prepared to (ab)use learners as 'data fodder' and subject them to poor learning contexts in order to have the best chance of getting positive results for the innovation supposedly being 'tested'. However, it also annoys me as this is inherently a poor research design (and so a poor use of resources) as it severely limits what can be found out. An experiment that compares an innovation with a substandard teaching condition can, at best, show the innovation is not as ineffecitive as the substandard teaching in the control condition; but it cannot tell us if the innovation is at least as effective as existing good practice.
This irritation is compounded when the work I am reading is not some amateur report thrown together for a predatory journal, but an otherwise serious study published in a good research outlet. That was certainly the case for a paper I read today in Research in Science Education (the journal of the Australasian Science Education Research Association) on problem-based learning (Tarhan, Ayar-Kayali, Urek & Acar, 2008).
Rhetorical studies?
Genuine research is undertaken to find something out. The researchers in this enquiry claim:
"This research study aims to examine the effectiveness of a [sic] problem-based learning [PbBL] on 9th grade students' understanding of intermolecular forces (dipole- dipole forces, London dispersion forces and hydrogen bonding)."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.285
But they choose to compare PbBL with a teaching approach that they expect to be ineffective. Here the researchers might have asked "how does teaching year 9 students about intermolecular forces though problem-based learning compared with current good practice?" After all, even if PbBL worked quite well, if it is not quite as effective as the way teachers are currently teaching the topic then, all other things being equal, there is no reason to shift to it; whereas if it outperforms even our best current approaches, then there is a reason to recommend it to teachers and roll out associated professional development opportunities.
Of course, that over-simplifies the situation, as in education, 'all other things' never are equal (every school, class, teacher…is unique). An approach that works best on average will not work best everywhere. But knowing what works best on average (that is, taken across the diverse range of teaching and learning contexts) is certainly a very useful starting point when teachers want to consider what might work best in their own classrooms.
Rhetorical research is poor research, as it is set up (deliberately or inadvertently) to demonstrate a particular outcome, and, so, has built-in bias. In the case of experimental studies, this often means choosing an ineffective instructional approach for the comparison class. Why else would researchers select a control condition they know is not suitable for bringing about the educational outcomes they are testing for?
Problem-Based Learning in a 9th Grade Chemistry Class
Tarhan and colleagues' study was undertaken in one school with 78 students divided into two groups. One group was taught through a sequence based on problem-based learning that involved students undertaking research in groups, gently supported and steered by the teacher. The approach allowed student dialogue, which is believed to be valuable in learning, and motivated students to be active engaged in enquiry. When such an approach is well judged it has potential to count as 'scaffolding' of learning. This seems a very worthwhile innovation – well worth developing and evaluating.
Of course, work in one school cannot be assumed to generalise elsewhere, and small-scale experimental work of this kind is open to major threats to validity, such as expectancy effects and researcher bias – but this is unfortunately always true of these kinds of studies (which are often all educational researchers are resourced to carry out). Finding out what works best in some educational context at least potentially contributes to building up an overall picture (Taber, 2019). 1
Why is this rhetorical research?
I consider this rhetoric research because of the claims the authors make at the start of the study:
"Research in science education therefore has focused on applying active learning techniques, which ensure the affective construction of knowledge, prevent the formation of alternate conceptions, and remedy existing alternate conceptions…Other studies suggest that active learning methods increase learning achievement by requiring students to play a more active role in the learning process…According to active learning principles, which emphasise constructivism, students must engage in researching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, analysis and synthesis during construction of their knowledge."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, pp.285-286
If they genuinely believed that, then to test the effectiveness of their PbBL activity, Tarhan and colleagues needed to compare it with some other teaching condition that they are confident can "ensure the affective construction of knowledge, prevent the formation of alternate conceptions, and remedy existing alternate conceptions… requir[e] students to play a more active role in the learning process…[and] engage in researching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, analysis and synthesis during construction of their knowledge." A failure to do that means that the 'experiment' has been biased – it has been set up to ensure the control condition fails.
Unethical research?
"In most educational research experiments of [this] type…potential harm is likely to be limited to subjecting students (and teachers) to conditions where teaching may be less effective, and perhaps demotivating. This may happen in experimental treatments with genuine innovations (given the nature of research). It can also potentially occur in control conditions if students are subjected to teaching inputs of low effectiveness when better alternatives were available. This may be judged only a modest level of harm, but – given that the whole purpose of experiments to test teaching innovations is to facilitate improvements in teaching effectiveness – this possibility should be taken seriously."
Taber, 2019, p.94
The same teacher taught both classes: "Both of the groups were taught by the same chemistry teacher, who was experienced in active learning and PbBL" (p.288). This would seem to reduce the 'teacher effect' – outcomes being effected because the teacher of one one class being more effective than that of another. (Reduce, rather than eliminate, as different teachers have different styles, skills, and varied expertise: so, most teachers are more suited to, and competent in, some teaching approaches than others.)
So, this teacher was certainly capable of teaching in the ways that Tarhan and colleagues claim as necessary for effective learning ("active learning techniques"). However, the control condition sets up the opposite of active learning, so-called passive learning:
"In this study, the control group was taught the same topics as the experimental group using a teacher-centred traditional didactic lecture format. Teaching strategies were dependent on teacher expression and question-answer format. However, students were passive participants during the lessons and they only listened and took notes as the teacher lectured on the content.
The lesson was begun with teacher explanation about polar and nonpolar covalent bonding. She defined formation of dipole-dipole forces between polar molecules. She explained that because of the difference in electronegativities between the H and Cl atoms for HCl molecule is 0.9, they are polar molecules and there are dipole-dipole forces between HCl molecules. She also stated that the intermolecular dipole-dipole forces are weaker than intramolecular bonds such as covalent and ionic bonding. She gave the example of vaporisation and decomposition of HCl. She explained that while 16 kJ/mol of energy is needed to overcome the intermolecular attraction between HCl molecules in liquid HCl during vaporisation process of HCl, 431 kJ/mol of energy is required to break the covalent bond between the H and Cl atoms in the HCl molecule. In the other lesson, the teacher reminded the students of dipole-dipole forces and then considered London dispersion forces as weak intermolecular forces that arise from the attractive force between instantaneous dipole in nonpolar molecules. She gave the examples of F2, Cl2, Br2, I2 and said that because the differences in electronegativity for these examples are zero, these molecules are non-polar and had intermolecular London dispersion forces. The effects of molecular size and mass on the strengths of London dispersion forces were discussed on the same examples. She compared the strengths of dipole-dipole forces and London dispersion forces by explaining the differences in melting and boiling points for polar (MgO, HCl and NO) and non-polar molecules (F2, Cl2, Br2, and I2). The teacher classified London dispersion forces and dipole- dipole as van der Waals forces, and indicated that there are both London dispersion forces and dipole-dipole forces between polar molecules and only London dispersion forces between nonpolar molecules. In the last lesson, teacher called attention to the differences in boiling points of H2O and H2S and defined hydrogen bonds as the other intermolecular forces besides dipole-dipole and London dispersion forces. Strengths of hydrogen bonds depending on molecular properties were explained and compared in HF, NH3 and H2O. She gave some examples of intermolecular forces in daily life. The lesson was concluded with a comparison of intermolecular forces with each other and intramolecular forces."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.293
Lecturing is not ideal for teaching university students. It is generally not suitable for teaching school children (and it is not consistent with what is expected in Turkish schools).
This was a lost opportunity to seriously evaluate the teaching through PbBL by comparing with teaching that followed the national policy recommendations. Moreover, it was a dereliction of the duty that educators should never deliberately disadvantage learners. It is reasonable to experiment with children's learning when you feel there is a good chance of positive outcomes: it is not acceptable to deliberately set up learners to fail (e.g., by organising 'passive' learning when you claim to believe effective learning activities are necessarily 'active').
Isn't this 'direct instruction'?
Now, perhaps the account of the teaching given by Tarhan and colleagues might seem to fit the label of 'direct teaching'. Whilst Tarhan et al. claim constructivist teaching is clearly necessary for effective learning, there are some educators who claim that constructivist approaches are inferior, and a more direct approach, 'direct instruction', is more likely to lead to learning gains.
This has been a lively debate, but often the various commentators use terminology differently and argue across each other (Taber, 2010). The proponents of direct instruction often criticise teaching that expects learners to take nearly all the responsibility for learning, with minimal teacher support. I would also criticise that (except perhaps in the case of graduate research students once they have demonstrated their competence, including knowing when to seek supervisory guidance). That is quite unlike genuine constructivist teaching which is optimally guided (Taber, 2011): where the teacher manages activities, constantly monitors learner progress, and intervenes with various forms of direction and support as needed. Tarhan and colleagues' description of their problem-based learning experimental condition appears to have had this kind of guidance:
"The teacher visited each group briefly, and steered students appropriately by using some guiding questions and encouraging them to generate their hypothesis. The teacher also stimulated the students to gain more information on topics such as the polar structure of molecules, differences in electronegativity, electron number, atom size and the relationship between these parameters and melting-boiling points…The teacher encouraged students to discuss the differences in melting and boiling points for polar and non-polar molecules. The students came up with [their] research questions under the guidance of the teacher…"
Tarhan, et al., 2008, pp.290-291
By contrast, descriptions of effective direct instruction do involve tightly planned teaching with carefully scripted teacher moves of the kind quoted in the account, above, of the control condition. (But any wise teacher knows that lessons can only be scripted as a provisional plan: the teacher has to constantly check the learners are making sense of teaching as intended, and must be prepared to change pace, repeat sections, re-order or substitute activities, invent new analogies and examples, and so forth.)
However, this instruction is not simply a one-way transfer of information, but rather a teacher-led process that engages students in active learning to process the material being introduced by the teacher. If this is done by breaking the material into manageable learning quanta, each of which students engage with in dialogic learning activities before preceding to the next, then this is constructivist teaching (even if it may also be considered by some as 'direct instruction'!)
By contrast, the lecture format adopted by Tarhan's team was based on the teacher offering a multi-step argument (delivered over several lessons) and asking the learners to follow and retain an extensive presentation.
"The lesson was begun with teacher explanation …
She defined …
She explained…
She also stated…
She gave the example …
She explained that …
the teacher reminded the students …
She gave the examples of …
She compared…
The teacher classified …
and indicated that …
[the] teacher called attention to …
She gave some examples of …"
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.293
This is a description of the transmission of information through a communication channel: not an account of teaching which engages with students' thinking and guides them to new understandings.
Ethical review
Despite the paper having been published in a major journal, Research in Science Education, there seems to be no mention that the study design has been through any kind of institutional ethical review before the research began. Moreover, there is no reference to the learners or their parents/guardians having been asked for, or having given, voluntary, informed, consent, as is usually required in research with human participants. Indeed Tarhen and colleagues refer to the children as the 'subjects' of their research, not participants in their study.
Perhaps ethical review was not expected in the national context (at least, in 2008). Certainly, it is difficult to imagine how voluntary, informed, consent would be obtained if parents were to be informed that half of the learners would be deliberately subject to a teaching approach the researchers claim lacks any of the features "students must engage in…during construction of their knowledge".
PbBL is better than…deliberately teaching in a way designed to limit learning
Tarhan and colleagues, unsurprisingly, report that on a post-test the students who were taught through PbBL out-performed these students who were lectured at. It would have been very surprising (and so potentially more interesting, and, perhaps, even useful, research!) had they found anything else, given the way the research was biased.
So, to summarise:
- At the outset of the paper it is reported that it is already established that effective learning requires students to engage in active learning tasks.
- Students in the experimental conditions undertook learning through a PbBL sequence designed to engage them in active learning.
- Students in the control condition were subject to a sequence of lecturing inputs designed to ensure they were passive.
- Students in the active learning condition outperformed the students in the passive learning condition
Which I suggest can be considered both rhetorical research, and unethical.
Read about rhetorical experiments
Read about unethical control conditions
Work cited:
- Taber, K. S. (2010). Constructivism and direct instruction as competing instructional paradigms: An essay review. Education Review, 13(8), 1-44. [Download the article here]
- Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational Theory (pp. 39-61). New York: Nova [Download the chapter here]
- Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. doi:10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058 [The author's manuscript version is available for download.]
- Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R. O., & Acar, B. (2008). Problem-Based Learning in 9th Grade Chemistry Class: 'Intermolecular Forces'. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9050-0
Note:
1 There is a major issue which is often ignored in studies of his type (where a pedagogical innovation is trialled in a single school area, school or classroom). Finding that problem-based learning (or whatever) is effective in one school when teaching one topic to one year group does not allow us to generalise to other classrooms, schools, country, educational level, topics and disciplines.
Indeed, as every school, every teacher, every class, etc., is unique in some ways, it might be argued that one only really finds out if an approach will work well 'here' by trying it out 'here' – and whether it is universally applicable by trying it everywhere. Clearly academic researchers cannot carry out such a programme, but individual teachers and departments can try out promising approaches for themselves (i.e., context-directed research, such as 'action research').
We might ask if there is any point in researchers carrying out studies of the type discussed in this article, there they start by saying an approach has been widely demonstrated, and then test it in what seems an arbitrarily chosen (or, more likely, convenient) curriculum and classroom context, given that we cannot generalise from individual studies, and it is not viable to test every possible context.
However, there are some sensible guidelines for how series of such studies into the same type of pedagogic innovation in different contexts can be more useful in (a) helping determine the range of contexts where an approach is effective (through what we might call 'incremental generalisation'), and (b) document the research contexts is sufficient detail to support readers in making judgements about the degree of similarity with their own teaching context (Taber, 2019).
Read about replication studies
Read about incremental generalisation
