Physics Education Researchers Respond to “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors”

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Physics Education Researchers Respond to ‘Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors’ ” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************
ABSTRACT: Indicated below are reactions of three physics education researchers to evidence [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/QuqXqo that science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler http://bit.ly/R6XsuP, have been “Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors” (double asterisks **. . . .** surrounding URL’s indicate that access may require “obtaining a new Listserv password”):

1. John Belcher at **http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6** wrote "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at http://bit.ly/XkAtiO: "These poor bastards [the Hakes and Boalers] are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . ." Although Hansen's comments are certainly laughable, Belcher may have cause to cry - as co-author of the influential "How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts?" http://bit.ly/fbOeA8, Belcher's largely to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN. Therefore Belcher could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c hit list.

2. Antti Savinainen at **http://bit.ly/RdtbdU** wrote (liberally paraphrasing): “All this reminds me of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming http://bit.ly/XEw3U1. Scientific debate is fine, but it should take place in peer-reviewed journals, not in newspapers or personal websites as described in the above book and is the case for Bishop/Clopton/Milgram.”

3. William Robertson at **http://bit.ly/XAO5qj** wrote, regarding Savinainen’s “peer reviewed journals”: “anyone who thinks the peer review process in journals is divorced from scientific and personal biases is naive, and has likely never gone through the process.” I agree but reluctantly concede that peer review is probably necessary but certainly not sufficient to promote the integrity of the literature.
***********************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 21 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Physics Education Researchers Respond to ‘Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors’, ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf. Post of 21 Oct 2012 13:59:06-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.