Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply to Eubanks

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2009)]

The abstract reads:

********************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?" David Eubanks (DE) expressed 4 objections, as listed below followed by my responses (RH):

------------------------------------------

(1)

DE: "Surely, the science of learning cannot be compared to something like physics."

RH: The science of learning can and has been compared with physics, with the science of learning being classed as (a) harder, (b) about the same, and (c) less developed, than physics.

------------------------------------------

(2)

DE: "Sweeping the uniqueness problem away is convenient for building theories of cause and effect, but in no way removes the fundamental problem."

RH: Despite the fact that each student is unique, scientific methods have been used in physics to show that interactive engagement (IE) pedagogies featuring active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors, yield about a two-standard-deviation superiority over traditional methods in class averaged normalized gains g(ave) on valid and consistently reliable tests of conceptual understanding developed by disciplinary experts.

------------------------------------------

(3)

DE: "We can agree to call statistical correlations 'science', but it's a long way from having a predictive theory that deals directly with physical reality."

RH: The results of "2" above are derived from what psychometricians call "quasi-experiments" with control groups (the traditional courses) and are NOT merely “statistical correlations." Although those results, by themselves, do not give rise to a predictive theory, they (a) have now been substantiated in about 25 other physics-education research papers, and (b) are consistent with what's known about brain functioning.

------------------------------------------

(4)

DE: ". . . the assessment profession over-promises what it can deliver, and emphasizes the wrong kind of techniques-namely reductionism and logical positivism--which results in a lot of confusion."

RH: As far as I know, physics education researchers, at least, have never published any promises. Nevertheless, their research has partially stimulated the reform of a tiny fraction of introductory physics courses in the U.S., including large enrollment courses at Harvard, North Carolina State University, MIT, University of Colorado, and California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo; and all without reductionism, logical positivism, and confusion.

********************************************

To access the complete 42 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply to Eubanks,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq . Post of 14 Jul 2009 16:22:55-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.

Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2009)]

The abstract reads:

*************************************

ABSTRACT: Jerry Bracey in his book Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality listed what he regarded as 10 lessons from the “Eight-Year Study” of 1942, in which more than 30 high schools in the 1930s were encouraged to try non-traditional approaches to teaching. Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews then (a) repeated Bracey's 10 lessons along with comments by Bracey and by himself, and (b) bravely invited his readers to kick sand in the faces of Bracey and himself by letting him know which of the Bracey/Mathews comments were most inane.” Taking Mathews at his word, in my view the most inane Bracey/Mathews comments center around Bracey's Lesson #8 that SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EDUCATION IS AN OXYMORON. If this lesson is correct then it would appear that the following authors all have their heads buried in the sand: David Hestenes (1979), Edward (Joe) Redish (1999), Richard Shavelson & Lisa Towne (2002) and members of the National Academy's "Committee on Scientific Principles for education research," Paula Heron & David Meltzer (2005), Carl Wieman (2007), and Richard Hake (2007).

*************************************

To access the complete 24 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/n9cyjy .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/n9cyjy . Post of 7 Jul 2009 17:03:51-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.

Re: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title. The abstract reads:

********************************************

ABSTRACT: Stephen Black, in a TIPS (Teaching in the Psychological Sciences) post of 3 July 2009 called attention to Christina Hoff Sommers' (2009) provocative Chronicle article "Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship" at http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i40/40sommers.htm .

In the ensuing discussion: (a) Paul Brandon pointed out that, although he respects her work, Hoff Sommers is “slightly right-wing” and paid by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); (b) Allen Esterson then responded that Hoff Sommers' work ”should be treated on its merits, regardless of whether her socio-political views are right or left of centre!”

I agree with Esterson and point out that, as indicated in Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME) [Hake & Mallow (2008)] and by Esterson, the persistent errors in of some of the feminist literature have been repeatedly pointed out by many non-AEI-sponsored authors from all sectors of the socio-political spectrum, e.g.: Almeder et al. (2003), Esterson (2006), Holton (1993), Koertge (1998), Newton (1997), Patai & Koertge (2003), & Tobias et al. (2002).

********************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/qfc6t6 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. & J.V. Mallow. 2008. "Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME)," over 700 Annotated References & 1000 URL's: Part 1 - All references in alphabetical order; Part 2 - Some references in subject order; both online at ref. 55 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/, and on this blog at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/gender-issues-in-sciencemath-education.html .

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Re: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/qfc6t6 . Post of 5 Jul 2009 to AERA-L. The abstract only was transmitted to various other discussion lists.

Sommers, C. H. 2009. "Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship," Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 June; online at http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i40/40sommers.htm , with five comments - the last by Hake - at http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,61347.0.html as of 9 July 2009 10:54:00-0700.

Re: Change or Die: Scholarly E-Mail Lists, Once Vibrant, Fight for Relevance #2

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post [Hake (2009c)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

*********************************************

ABSTRACT: Jeffrey Young in his “Chronicle of Higher Education” report “Change or Die: Scholarly E-Mail Lists, Once Vibrant, Fight for Relevance,” investigated the validity of historian T. Mills Kelly's argument that the “time of scholarly e-mail lists has passed as professors migrate to blogs, wikis, Twitter, and social networks like Facebook.”

Young concludes, on the contrary, that email lists remain ”a key tool that just about everyone opens every day. As long as that's true, the trusty e-mail list will be valuable to scholars of all stripes.”

Young's conclusion is consistent with (a) “Academic Discussion Lists: Faculty Lounges, Collective Short-Term Working Memories, Or Academic Journals?” [Hake (2009a)]; (b) “Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs” [Hake (2009b)]; and (c) "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists: List Addresses and URL's for Archives & Search Engines" [Hake (2007)]. I have copied Young's valuable essay into the OPEN! archives of AERA-L.

*********************************************

To access the complete 24 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/l37toq .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2007. "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists: List Addresses and URL's for Archives & Search Engines," online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ADL-L.pdf (640 kB), or as ref. 49 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake. This will soon be updated so as to include TeamLearning-L, TrDev-L, the new address for TeachEdPsych, and a pointer to lists on H-Net. See the ADDENDUM for a critique of academic discussion lists.

Hake, R.R. 2009a. “Academic Discussion Lists: Faculty Lounges, Collective Short-Term Working Memories, or Academic Journals?” online at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/05/academic-discussion-lists-faculty.html with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2009b. “Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs,” 30 March; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Over200EdSciBlogsU.pdf (2.6 MB). ). The abstract is also at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/03/over-two-hundred-education-science.html with a provision for comments. (Please disregard the 13 commercial comments from "fdfdf".)

Hake, R.R. 2009c. “Re: Change or Die: Scholarly E-Mail Lists, Once Vibrant, Fight for Relevance #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/l37toq . Post of 2 Jul 2009 17:28:53-0700 to AERA-L.

Mobilization for Math/Science Education - Role of Higher Education

For an earlier version of this post see Hake (2009).

According to Stephanie Lee's (2009) Inside Higher Ed report " 'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education," Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation, said:

 

"The quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately begins with solid instruction at the K-12 level. While higher education remains  strong, it is clear it cannot continue without a strong foundation."

Taking issue with Gregorian, "Steve" in his comment "Higher Education Responsibility" at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study#Comments wrote: 

"From experience I know that the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately DOES NOT begin with solid instruction at the K-12 level, it begins with the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities. For far too long higher education has 'passed the buck' by not producing qualified teachers."

RIGHT ON, STEVE! The NSF's (1996) report "Shaping the Future" put it this way [my insert at ". . . . [insert]. . . ."]:

 

"Many faculty in SME&T. . . .[Science, Mathematics, Engineering, &  Technology]. . . at the postsecondary level continue to blame the  schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly. . . .[but not conspicuously]. . . .the higher educationcommunity has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principalsin the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers."

In consonance with the above, physicist Don Langenberg (2001, p. 23), (at the time) Chancellor of the University of Maryland System, put it succinctly:

"Although we in higher education are very skillful at ignoring the obvious, it is gradually dawning on some of us that we bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this sad situation [the state of K-12 education]."

 

How sad is the state of K-12 education in the U.S.? According Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009):

 

"The consequences of our scattered approach. . . .[to K-12 education]. . . .are obvious - low standards by international comparisons, mediocre student performance (especially in eighth and twelfth grades), huge inequalities in curricular opportunities, and loss of future job possibilities. . . . Today the performance gap between the most and least proficient students in the United States is among the highest of all OECD countries [OECD (2007)]. Unless the American education system begins to prepare all of its students for post-secondary education and the changing workplace, disturbing trends in international comparisons will only worsen."

A point that I failed to make in the earlier version [Hake (2009)] of this post:

That the “performance gap between the most and least proficient students in the United States  is among the highest of all OECD countries” may well be associated with the fact that (quoting Berliner (2005), “poverty in the US is greater and of longer duration than in other rich nations.”

REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Berliner, D.C. 2005. "Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform" Teachers College Record, August 02, online at  http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0508-116-EPRU[1].pdf  (852 kB).

BHEF. 2001. Business - Higher Education Forum (a partnership of the American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business), Winter, "Sharing Responsibility: How Leaders in Business and Higher Education Can Improve America's Schools" online as a 248 kB pdf at  http://tinyurl.com/lhenqd .

Hake, R.R. 2009. "Mobilization for Math/Science Education - Role of  Higher Education," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at  http://tinyurl.com/ntu4tv .  Post of 13 Jun 2009 16:49:08-0700 to AERA-L, ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EDDRA, EdResMeth,  EvalTalk, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physoc, POD, & RUME.

 

Lee, S. 2009."'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education" Inside Higher Ed, 11 June; online at  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study .

 

NSF. 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, A Report on its Review of Undergraduate Education by the Advisory Committee to the NSF, chaired by Melvin George, online at  http://tinyurl.com/m93862 .  Also online as a Google book preview at  http://tinyurl.com/n72qh7 . This report is one of the few that emphasizes the crucial role of higher education in determining the quality of K-12 education.

 

OECD. 2007. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, "PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World," online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/28/39722597.pdf  (360 kB).

 

Schmidt, W.H., R. Houang, & S. Shakrani. 2009. "International Lessons About National Standards," online as a 180 kB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/lqtaj9 .

 

Mobilization for Math and Science Education: Anyone for $100 Billion?

For an earlier version of this post see Hake (2009). 

Stephanie Lee (2009) in an Inside Higher Ed report of 11 June wrote [bracketed by lines "LLLLL. . . . . . "; my insert at “. . . .[insert]. . . .”]:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL                                                   

Math and science education throughout the country must improve dramatically if America hopes to compete in the 21st century, according to a study released Wednesday. The report, conducted by the Carnegie Corporation of New York . . . . . .[and the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) for the Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics & Science Education ] . . . . ., outlines a comprehensive and ambitious plan to advance math and science learning. The main objectives include establishing high and common assessment standards in those subjects across all 50 states, as well as aggressively recruiting and supporting teachers.

More than 70 organizations from a variety of sectors, including government, schools, philanthropies and businesses, have lent their support to the recommendations of the study, titled The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy. . . . . .[Carnegie-IAS (2009)]. . . . . Higher education organizations include the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges and the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education.............................................                

With the economy sinking into a recession and state budgets continuing to shrink, pinning down funding for education reform grows trickier by the day. But Phillip Griffiths . . . . [Professor of Mathematics and Past Director, Institute for Advanced Study  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_A._Griffiths ]. . . ., chair of the commission that produced the study says that the money is out there -- mainly in the form of the $100 BILLION IN EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STIMULUS AID. . . . . .[Lederman (2009)]. . . . for public schools and colleges signed by President Obama in February. It just has to be spent efficiently, Griffiths said."

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

At Carnegie-IAS (2009) it is stated that (bracketed by lines "CCCCC. . . . .":

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                                                    

The 'opportunity equation' means transforming education in the United States so that every student reaches higher levels of mathematics and science learning. The nation's capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the global economy depend on a broad foundation in math and science, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility for young people that lie at the heart of the American dream. [The report] challenges the nation to:

a. establish common standards for the nation in mathematics and science-standards that are fewer, clearer, and higher-along with high-quality assessments,

b. improve math and science teaching-and our methods for recruiting and preparing teachers and for managing the nation's teaching talent, and

c. redesign schools and systems to deliver excellent, equitable math and science learning.

This is a moment of urgency and opportunity, a chance for the United States to close the gap between the current state of educational achievement and the educational system our future demands. The world has shifted dramatically - and an equally dramatic shift will be needed in our schools. Download the report, or read it online for more examples of promising practices, resources, and opportunities for action. . . . . . [The 72 page full report is online at http://www.opportunityequation.org/TheOpportunityEquation.pdf (5.5 MB).]"

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

There is a provision for comments at Lee's Inside Higher Ed article at  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study#Comments .

REFERENCES

Carnegie-IAS. 2009."The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy," online at http://www.opportunityequation.org/ .                                                                                                               

Hake, R.R. 2009.  Mobilization for Math and Science Education: Anyone for $100 Billion? online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1953405&tstart=30  . Post of 11 Jun 2009 09:17:54-0700 to ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EDDRA, EvalTalk, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physoc, POD, & RUME. 

Lederman, D. 2009. "The Final Stimulus Bill” Inside Higher Ed, 13 February; online athttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/13/stimulus .

Lee, S. 2009. "'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education" Inside Higher Ed, 11 June; online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study .

 

 

 

National Education Standards for the United States?

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent post “National Education Standards for the United States?” [Hake (2009)].  The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT:  The “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI), aimed at developing National Education Standards (NES) for the U.S., has recently been widely reported in the media, the Academic Discussion List sphere (ADLsphere), and the Blogosphere. Thus far, the reaction to the CCSSI & NES has been mostly negative [e.g., Brady, Clement, Haim, Horton, Ohanian, Marshak, Meier, Taylor, and Urner; with a few positive exceptions [Derbes, Korsunsky, Weingarten]. Adding to the positive are Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009) who, in a report “International Lessons About National Standards”: (a) make  the case for NES in the U.S., based on an in-depth study of NES in 10 other countries: Russia, France, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and the Netherlands, which “are making significant improvement in mathematics and science achievement and operate along a spectrum of national and local educational control”; (b) distill from their international study one important lesson: "It's NOT true that national standards portend loss of local control," plus four recommendations for the U.S. national standards effort; and (c) conclude: “We know what the standards of top-achieving nations look like. They are focused, coherent, and rigorous. And they're that way because the systems themselves are focused and coherent. It's time to get on the national standards bandwagon. . . . . The process of establishing national standards will surely require time, patience, and a great deal of compromise. But we postpone the inevitable at our peril.”

****************************************

To access the complete 37 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla .

REFERENCES  

Hake, R.R. 2009. “National Education Standards for the United States?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla. Post of 9 Jun 2009 14:44:42-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.