Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in Introductory College Physics” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: Jane Jackson of the PhysLrnR list has called attention to the Science article “Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation” (Miyake et al., 2010) at http://bit.ly/1cGmBKQ. The abstract reads, in part: “The current study tested the effectiveness of a psychological intervention, called ‘values affirmation,’ in reducing the gender achievement gap in a college-level introductory physics class. [It] reduced the male-female performance and learning difference substantially and elevated women's modal grades from the C to B range. . . . . A brief psychological intervention may be a promising way to address the gender gap in science performance and learning.” In addition to the elevation of women's modal grades, Miyake et al., showed that the “values affirmation” intervention substantially increased women’s end-of semester scores on the Force Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE).
However, PhysLrnR’s alert Antti Savinainen (2013) pointed to:
a. The fact the results of Miyake et al. (2010) were not fully replicated in a follow-up study “Replicating a Self-Affirmation Intervention to Address Gender Differences: Successes and Challenges” [Kost-Smith et al. (2011)] at http://bit.ly/17qrMHG. They wrote: “. . . . we find similar patterns [to Miyake et al., 2010 for] exams and course grades, but do not observe these patterns [for] the FMCE.”
b. The scholarly review “The gender gap on concept inventories in physics: what is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap” by Madsen, McKagan, & Sayre (2013) at http://bit.ly/14O57cz. Their abstract reads in part: “Based on our analysis of 24 published articles comparing the impact of 34 factors that could potentially influence the gender gap, no single factor is sufficient to explain the gap. Several high-profile studies that have claimed to account for or reduce the gender gap have failed to be replicated in subsequent studies, suggesting that isolated claims of explanations of the gender gap should be interpreted with caution. For example, claims that the gender gap could be eliminated through interactive engagement teaching methods or through a ‘values affirmation exercise’ were not supported by subsequent studies. . . . . . . the gender gap is most likely due to the combination of many small factors, rather than due to any one factor that can be easily modified.”
************************************************
To access the complete 25 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/19nKqCl.
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
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
“A paper that does not have references is like a child without an escort walking at night in a big city it does not know: isolated, lost, anything may happen to it.”
- Bruno Latour (1987).
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 August 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in Introductory College Physics,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/19nKqCl. Post of 16 Aug 2013 18:02:49-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Antti Savinainen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antti Savinainen. Show all posts
Friday, August 16, 2013
Sunday, October 21, 2012
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.
***********************************************
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.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Re: Entropy again
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Re: Entropy again”[Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: Antti Savinainen in his Phys-L post “Entropy again” wrote that:
(a) he was about to teach entropy at the high school level but realized that the syllabus statement “entropy is a system property that expresses the degree of disorder in the system” was not a satisfactory characterization of entropy; and
(b) “it would be interesting to hear ideas on how to define or characterize entropy at an introductory level.”
Antti pointed to 4 references on entropy by Denker, Lambert, and Leff that he regarded as “useful, or at least interesting.” I add 6 more references to Antti’s list and then quote portions of Denker’s response to Antti, in which Denker advocates the “probabilistic approach” to entropy and severely criticizes the “spreading metaphor” of Lambert and Leff.
Henri Poncare wrote: “When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. FOR A DEFINITION TO BE OF ANY USE, IT MUST TEACH US TO MEASURE FORCE; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.”
Likewise, in discussions of entropy it would seem worthwhile to specify HOW ENTROPY CAN BE MEASURED. Leff (2012) does so in the context of the “spreading metaphor.” I wonder if Denker could explain how his favored “probabilistic approach” specifies how to physically MEASURE entropy in real substances?
************************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zVixYk.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”
John Dewey “Morals Are Human,” Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Jan 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Entropy again,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zVixYk. Post of 7 Jan 2012 14:51:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..
Leff, H. 2012. “Removing the Mystery of Entropy and Thermodynamics - Part I,” Phys. Teach. 50(1): 28-31; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/wLy3En. Parts II-V will be published in Phys. Teach 50 (2012).
************************************************
ABSTRACT: Antti Savinainen in his Phys-L post “Entropy again” wrote that:
(a) he was about to teach entropy at the high school level but realized that the syllabus statement “entropy is a system property that expresses the degree of disorder in the system” was not a satisfactory characterization of entropy; and
(b) “it would be interesting to hear ideas on how to define or characterize entropy at an introductory level.”
Antti pointed to 4 references on entropy by Denker, Lambert, and Leff that he regarded as “useful, or at least interesting.” I add 6 more references to Antti’s list and then quote portions of Denker’s response to Antti, in which Denker advocates the “probabilistic approach” to entropy and severely criticizes the “spreading metaphor” of Lambert and Leff.
Henri Poncare wrote: “When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. FOR A DEFINITION TO BE OF ANY USE, IT MUST TEACH US TO MEASURE FORCE; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.”
Likewise, in discussions of entropy it would seem worthwhile to specify HOW ENTROPY CAN BE MEASURED. Leff (2012) does so in the context of the “spreading metaphor.” I wonder if Denker could explain how his favored “probabilistic approach” specifies how to physically MEASURE entropy in real substances?
************************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zVixYk.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”
John Dewey “Morals Are Human,” Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Jan 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Entropy again,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zVixYk. Post of 7 Jan 2012 14:51:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..
Leff, H. 2012. “Removing the Mystery of Entropy and Thermodynamics - Part I,” Phys. Teach. 50(1): 28-31; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/wLy3En. Parts II-V will be published in Phys. Teach 50 (2012).
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Is a Valid and Reliable Concept Test as Impossible as Perpetual Motion?
Some Blog followers might be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2010b)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a post "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky" [Hake (2010a)] I wrote ". . . once arduous qualitative and quantitative research by disciplinary experts has culminated in a valid and reliable concept test I think it should be password protected." Marion Brady quipped "Yes. Certainly. Along with password protection for perpetual motion and eternal life, which are likely to appear simultaneously." But Marion's apparent belief in the impossibility of a valid and reliable concept test is contradicted by the evidence [see e.g., Halloun & Hestenes (1985a), Savinainen & Scott (2002), and Hake (2010b)].
************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/38equwj .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]
Hake, R.R. 2010a. "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/26r8bhh . Post of 4 Jun 2010 15:56:17-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were distributed to various discussion lists and are also online at with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2010b. "Is a Valid and Reliable Concept Test as Impossible as Perpetual Motion?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/38equwj . Post of 5 Jun 2010 14:59:29 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a post "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky" [Hake (2010a)] I wrote ". . . once arduous qualitative and quantitative research by disciplinary experts has culminated in a valid and reliable concept test I think it should be password protected." Marion Brady quipped "Yes. Certainly. Along with password protection for perpetual motion and eternal life, which are likely to appear simultaneously." But Marion's apparent belief in the impossibility of a valid and reliable concept test is contradicted by the evidence [see e.g., Halloun & Hestenes (1985a), Savinainen & Scott (2002), and Hake (2010b)].
************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/38equwj .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]
Hake, R.R. 2010a. "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/26r8bhh . Post of 4 Jun 2010 15:56:17-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were distributed to various discussion lists and are also online at
Hake, R.R. 2010b. "Is a Valid and Reliable Concept Test as Impossible as Perpetual Motion?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/38equwj . Post of 5 Jun 2010 14:59:29 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
