Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply To Bracey

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

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?" [Hake (2009b) The late great Jerry Bracey wrote:

“Jay Mathews did indeed invite readers to kick sand in our faces. I suggest, however, it might be wise to read [my book] before doing such."

I agree and APOLOGIZE for kicking sand in Bracey's face by criticizing Bracey's Lesson #8: Scientifically-based Education is an Oxymoron and the Bracey/Mathews comments as given by Mathews, who may have oversimplified Bracey's position. Bracey also suggests that objections to Lesson #8 would be strengthened if a few poets could be enlisted to argue for a science of education. But a poet has already done so - myself! ;-) whose poetic prowess is proven by presentation of a perfect poem. . . . .[see signature quote].

To access the complete 12 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/kmrse2.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

A famous curmudgeon named Bracey,

Thought a science of ed was cracy,

Each student's sentient

And has her own penchant

So science won't work - prima facie.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Richard Hake (2009)

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009a. “Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply To Bracey,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/kmrse2. Post of 11 Jul 2009 16:04:43-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was also transmitted to various discussion lists.

Hake, R.R. 2009b. “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 and is also at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-scientifically-based-education.html with a provision for comments.

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

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009c). 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 at http://tinyurl.com/l37toq.

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

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

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 67 SPAM "comments" (as of 18 Dec 2009) - one of the problems of the Blogosphere.)

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 and on 2 Jul 2009 20:08:00 to Net-Gold.

Arnold Arons' Role in the History of Physics Education Research

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

ABSTRACT: Dewey Dykstra, in a PhysLrnR post “early history of PER”. . . . [PER = Physics Education Research]. . . . quoted PER pioneer Bob Fuller's account of that subject. Fuller's assessment of the role of Arons and Karplus in the history of PER is:

(a) consistent with my own that "Arnold Arons, along with Robert Karplus, can fairly be called one of the founding fathers of U.S. Physics Education Research. . . .” and

(b) inconsistent with (1) Beichner's view that Arons' only contribution to PER was his role in the formation of McDermott's PER group, and (2) the opinion of a reviewer of my AJP-rejected "The Arons Advocated Method" [Hake (2004)] that Arons' “activities did not constitute systematic investigations. . . .Therefore this claim. . . [that he's one of the a founding fathers of PER]. . . . should be removed."

I suggest that Fuller consider editing a future volume of “Reviews in Physics Education Research” so as to set the historical record straight.

To access the complete 17 kB please click on http://tinyurl.com/y968dlm.

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2004. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to theAmerican Journal of Physics on 24 April 2004; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AronsAdvMeth-8.pdf (144 kB).

Hake, R.R. 2009. "Re: Arnold Arons' Role in the History of Physics Education Research," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/y968dlm. Post of 29 Jun 2009 to AERA-D, AERA-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Net-Go, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, & POD.

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.