Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” [Hake (2012a) at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3, Clyde Greeno at http://bit.ly/RW0fFF wrote that his statement that the six principles which, according to Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, p. 2: “underlie all scientific inquiry (including educational research)” are “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” was simply an observation that those six principles in no way suffice as criteria (i.e., are both necessary and sufficient) for distinguishing scientific from non-scientific educational research.
Greeno continued “Tragically, much of educational research now can use the NRC report as a basis for so polluting the name of ‘scientific educational research’ that distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest will be a very cumbersome task.”
I wonder if Greeno would consider assisting the math community in “distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest” by setting forth his own necessary and sufficient conditions for “genuine scientific research”?
BTW, I attempted to address the two crucial questions: (a) “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’?” and (b) “What's ‘Scientific’?” in a 75 kB post “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’? What’s ‘Scientific’?” [Hake (2012b)] at http://bit.ly/Ujaogk containing over 100 references and over 180 hot-linked URL’s, but, as far as I know, no substantive responses were forthcoming.
**********************************
To access the complete 8 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w.
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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w. Post of 7 Nov 2012 13:49:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Clyde Greeno. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clyde Greeno. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
****************************************
ABSTRACT: MathEdCC’s Alain Schremmer at http://bit.ly/VNUvPV opined that: (a) research in mathematics education does not exist; (b) physics cannot be taught as lecture only; (c) Hake (2002b) at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV disagreed with Greeno (2002a) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 because Hake is unfamiliar with math education and thinks its problems are similar to those in physics education.
I argue in opposition to the above that:
(a) Research in mathematics education does exist, see e.g., the 18 entries preceded by double asterisks ** in the REFERENCE list of my complete post at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
(b) Physics has been taught essentially as lecture only (where taught does not mean learned), witness the fourteen “traditional” (T) courses (N = 2084) in Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG.
(c) I disagreed with Greeno, not because of my unfamiliarity math education, but because Greeno denounced as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” the six guiding principles suggested in Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, as underlying all education research; whereas I think those principles are consistent with the nature of science as I have experienced it and as has been explained by Ziman (2002) at http://bit.ly/VtdoHR.
****************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
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
“He . . . .[or she]. . . . that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Edmund Burke (1790)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 Nov 2012.]
Burke, E. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Available as a 2006 edition by Dover; Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/c4wbfS. Online at http://bit.ly/fjYUfD thanks to Questia. See also the Wikipedia entry at http://bit.ly/hMaGfn.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3. Post of 6 Nov 2012 11:12:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
****************************************
ABSTRACT: MathEdCC’s Alain Schremmer at http://bit.ly/VNUvPV opined that: (a) research in mathematics education does not exist; (b) physics cannot be taught as lecture only; (c) Hake (2002b) at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV disagreed with Greeno (2002a) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 because Hake is unfamiliar with math education and thinks its problems are similar to those in physics education.
I argue in opposition to the above that:
(a) Research in mathematics education does exist, see e.g., the 18 entries preceded by double asterisks ** in the REFERENCE list of my complete post at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
(b) Physics has been taught essentially as lecture only (where taught does not mean learned), witness the fourteen “traditional” (T) courses (N = 2084) in Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG.
(c) I disagreed with Greeno, not because of my unfamiliarity math education, but because Greeno denounced as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” the six guiding principles suggested in Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, as underlying all education research; whereas I think those principles are consistent with the nature of science as I have experienced it and as has been explained by Ziman (2002) at http://bit.ly/VtdoHR.
****************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
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
“He . . . .[or she]. . . . that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Edmund Burke (1790)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 Nov 2012.]
Burke, E. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Available as a 2006 edition by Dover; Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/c4wbfS. Online at http://bit.ly/fjYUfD thanks to Questia. See also the Wikipedia entry at http://bit.ly/hMaGfn.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3. Post of 6 Nov 2012 11:12:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Friday, October 26, 2012
In Defense of the NRC's Scientific Research in Education
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “In Defense of the NRC's Scientific Research in Education” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” [Hake (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z I listed the one-line headings of the “six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry (including education research)” as set down in the “Executive Summary” of the NRC’s Scientific Research in Education [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV.
In response, Math Education Guru http://bit.ly/SeJcCL Clyde Greeno (2012) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 denounced the six principles as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science,” on the basis of their one-line headings, evidently not bothering to scan the book Scientific Research in Education or even the paragraph-long elaborations of the six principles in the “Executive Summary.” In this post I juxtapose for each of NRC’s six one-line headings (a) Greeno’s criticism, and (b) NRC’s one-paragraph elaboration, and invite readers to judge the validity of Greeno' criticisms. Greeno ended his critique with: (a) “I am amazed that the NRC would allow such a publication,” and (b) “[The World is] more than anxious to learn of whatever educational research efforts qualify as being genuinely ‘scientific.’ ”
Regarding (a) above, I am amazed that Greeno would denounce the NRC’s six guiding principles on the basis of what he (often mistakenly) perceives them to mean from their one-line headings. Regarding (b) above, he and other skeptics might consider scanning: (1) “The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns” [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at http://bit.ly/axznvY; (2) “A Developmental History of Physics Education Research” [Cummings (2011) at http://bit.ly/TkBMOi; (3) “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB); and (4) and “Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics” [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at http://bit.ly/O35gtB.
********************************************
To access the complete 46 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VtXvAV.
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
“Education is not rocket science, it’s much harder.”
- George Nelson, astronaut, astrophysicist, and former director of the AAAS Project 2061, as quoted by Redish (1999)
“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”
- Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Oct 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “In Defense of the NRC’s ‘Scientific Research in Education,’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV. Post of 26 Oct 2012 17:04:49-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Redish, E.F. 1999. “Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online as a 258 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/KMqgIx.
Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.
********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” [Hake (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z I listed the one-line headings of the “six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry (including education research)” as set down in the “Executive Summary” of the NRC’s Scientific Research in Education [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV.
In response, Math Education Guru http://bit.ly/SeJcCL Clyde Greeno (2012) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 denounced the six principles as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science,” on the basis of their one-line headings, evidently not bothering to scan the book Scientific Research in Education or even the paragraph-long elaborations of the six principles in the “Executive Summary.” In this post I juxtapose for each of NRC’s six one-line headings (a) Greeno’s criticism, and (b) NRC’s one-paragraph elaboration, and invite readers to judge the validity of Greeno' criticisms. Greeno ended his critique with: (a) “I am amazed that the NRC would allow such a publication,” and (b) “[The World is] more than anxious to learn of whatever educational research efforts qualify as being genuinely ‘scientific.’ ”
Regarding (a) above, I am amazed that Greeno would denounce the NRC’s six guiding principles on the basis of what he (often mistakenly) perceives them to mean from their one-line headings. Regarding (b) above, he and other skeptics might consider scanning: (1) “The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns” [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at http://bit.ly/axznvY; (2) “A Developmental History of Physics Education Research” [Cummings (2011) at http://bit.ly/TkBMOi; (3) “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB); and (4) and “Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics” [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at http://bit.ly/O35gtB.
********************************************
To access the complete 46 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VtXvAV.
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
“Education is not rocket science, it’s much harder.”
- George Nelson, astronaut, astrophysicist, and former director of the AAAS Project 2061, as quoted by Redish (1999)
“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”
- Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Oct 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “In Defense of the NRC’s ‘Scientific Research in Education,’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV. Post of 26 Oct 2012 17:04:49-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Redish, E.F. 1999. “Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online as a 258 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/KMqgIx.
Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Khan’s Video Lectures: Educational Failures or Harbingers of Educational Success?
Some blog followers might be interested in “Khan’s Video Lectures: Educational Failures or Harbingers of Educational Success?” [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a “60 Minutes” program of 11 March 2012 titled “Khan Academy: The Future of Education?” http://bit.ly/FPnIFH, Bill Gates said: “There's a website that I’ve just been using with my kids - Khan Academy - this one guy doing some unbelievable 15 minute tutorials.” . . . . Then host Sanjay Gupta exclaimed: “That's right, Bill Gates, one of the smartest and richest men in the world, was using Sal Khan’s free videos to teach his own kids!”
In a post of 16 March “Khan’s Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton's Second Law" [Hake (2012a)]," I criticized Khan's “unbelievable” video lectures on those subjects as EDUCATIONAL FAILURES. However, they may also be HARBINGERS OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS.
MathEdCC’s perceptive Clyde Greeno put the optimistic perspective as follows (paraphrasing and generalizing Clyde’s “math” to “education”):
“. . . .apart from Khan’s presentations, the instructional technology that he has developed can greatly expedite national and personal efforts to improve teaching and learning. . . . Khan was an engineering student who was reared through the American traditional public perceptions of what ‘education’ is and how teaching should be done. . . . . Khan did NOT write the educational scripts . . . . and must not be blamed for their educational flaws. In fact (unlike so many ‘experts’), Khan might still be educable . . . . or responsive to enlightened guidance for improving the quality of his video library . . . . from those who can offer something better than complaints. The ‘harnessing’ challenge is clear: use the same instructional-media technology to do what should be done . . . . perhaps even by educating Kahn.”
*********************************************************
To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/FPFWXZ.
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
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake
“Today with the help of over fifty. . . .[[or is it “fifteen”??]]. . . million dollars, most from the Gates Foundation and Google, Khan has been able to hire, with competitive salaries, some of the most talented engineers and designers in the country. . . . . The team is working to create software they hope will transform the way math is taught in American classrooms.”
From “60 Minutes” http://bit.ly/FPnIFH at 5:30 min – “Khan Academy: The Future of Education?”
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Re: Khan's Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton’s Second Law,” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/yPSjFE. Post of 16 Mar 2012 09:11:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were also transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff”" at http://bit.ly/wEdup7 with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “Khan’s Video Lectures: Educational Failures or Harbingers of Educational Success?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/FPFWXZ. Post of 18 Mar 2012 15:23:26 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************************
ABSTRACT: In a “60 Minutes” program of 11 March 2012 titled “Khan Academy: The Future of Education?” http://bit.ly/FPnIFH, Bill Gates said: “There's a website that I’ve just been using with my kids - Khan Academy - this one guy doing some unbelievable 15 minute tutorials.” . . . . Then host Sanjay Gupta exclaimed: “That's right, Bill Gates, one of the smartest and richest men in the world, was using Sal Khan’s free videos to teach his own kids!”
In a post of 16 March “Khan’s Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton's Second Law" [Hake (2012a)]," I criticized Khan's “unbelievable” video lectures on those subjects as EDUCATIONAL FAILURES. However, they may also be HARBINGERS OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS.
MathEdCC’s perceptive Clyde Greeno put the optimistic perspective as follows (paraphrasing and generalizing Clyde’s “math” to “education”):
“. . . .apart from Khan’s presentations, the instructional technology that he has developed can greatly expedite national and personal efforts to improve teaching and learning. . . . Khan was an engineering student who was reared through the American traditional public perceptions of what ‘education’ is and how teaching should be done. . . . . Khan did NOT write the educational scripts . . . . and must not be blamed for their educational flaws. In fact (unlike so many ‘experts’), Khan might still be educable . . . . or responsive to enlightened guidance for improving the quality of his video library . . . . from those who can offer something better than complaints. The ‘harnessing’ challenge is clear: use the same instructional-media technology to do what should be done . . . . perhaps even by educating Kahn.”
*********************************************************
To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/FPFWXZ.
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
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake
“Today with the help of over fifty. . . .[[or is it “fifteen”??]]. . . million dollars, most from the Gates Foundation and Google, Khan has been able to hire, with competitive salaries, some of the most talented engineers and designers in the country. . . . . The team is working to create software they hope will transform the way math is taught in American classrooms.”
From “60 Minutes” http://bit.ly/FPnIFH at 5:30 min – “Khan Academy: The Future of Education?”
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Re: Khan's Video Lectures on Acceleration and Newton’s Second Law,” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/yPSjFE. Post of 16 Mar 2012 09:11:07-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were also transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff”" at http://bit.ly/wEdup7 with a provision for comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. “Khan’s Video Lectures: Educational Failures or Harbingers of Educational Success?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/FPFWXZ. Post of 18 Mar 2012 15:23:26 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
