Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model

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

ABSTRACT: In emails to biology educators:

(a) Kathleen Fisher (2009) advocated a physics-education-reform type model (evidently sans pre/post testing) for biology education, stimulated by Henderson & Dancy's (2009) web-survey-based estimate (evidently sans pre/post testing) that 50% of college physics courses utilize “student engagement”; and

(b) Mike Klymkowsky, responding to Fisher, wrote:

“. . . .physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy (or skills), so (slavishly) following the physics model seems unlikely to address the real issues, which are the identification of topics, approaches, and assessments that can drive (and perhaps more importantly, encourage) improvements in biological literacy/competence. . . . . . . .”

I disagree with the above Klymkowsky claim that:

(1) physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy; and with subsequent claims that:

(2) physicists are teaching mostly 18th and 19th century physics that is of little relevance to non-physics majors;

(3) it's well established that “being Socratic” is more effective than lecturing;

(4) the work of Henderson and Dancy is primarily concerned with how to get other faculty to adopt more effective pedagogical approaches; and

(5) those approaches often involve superficial reform (as evidenced in part by the fact that reforms suggested by Michels et al. (1957)] are still waiting to be implemented.

To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. ”Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 . Post of 13 August 22:04:00-0000 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract was also distributed to various discussion lists.

The Elephant in the Room- Overpopulation

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

ABSTRACT: A recent LA Times report "Tackling the elephant in the room: overpopulation" calls attentions to a study "Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals" by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax of Oregon State University. Their abstract reads:

"Much attention has been paid to the ways that people's home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person's descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person's reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-today activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment."

To access the complete 7 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/krfmw9.

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “The Elephant in the Room: Overpopulation,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/krfmw9. Post of 8 Aug 2009 20:09:31-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and Physoc.

Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood

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

ABSTRACT: “Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood: Paths Toward Excellence and Equity" [Cross et al. (2009)] may be of interest to math/science educators. Since, during July 2009, there had been over 70 Math-Teach posts on the thread "Kamii's Articles on Algorithms in Arithmetic,” I searched for “Kamii” on the online version of Cross et al. (2009)] to find references to: (a) “Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's Theory” [Kamii & Housman (2000)], (b) “Measurement of length: The need for a better approach to teaching” [Kamii & Clark (1997], and (c) “The development of logico-mathematical knowledge in block building activity at ages 1-4” [Kamii, Miyakawa, & Kato (2004)].

According to her website, Constance Kamii studied under Jean Piaget, on and off for 15 years. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Kamii states that Kamii's ideas influenced the NCTM standards.

Incidentally, judging from the end-of-chapter references in Cross et al., early childhood mathematics is currently more the province of psychologists, cognitive scientists, and education specialists than mathematicians. However, mathematicians might have much to offer, witness the contributions of physicist Robert Karplus to early childhood science instruction.

To access the complete 25 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/luayng .

REFERENCES

Cross, C.T., T.A. Woods, & H. Schweingruber, eds. 2009. MathematicsLearning in Early Childhood: Paths Toward Excellence and Equity, Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics; National Academies Press; online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php record_id=12519#toc.

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/luayng and also on the Math-Teach archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1969919&tstart=0 . Post of 27 Jul 2009 16:02:41-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Teach, Net Gold, & PhysLnrR. In addition the abstract was transmitted to various discussion lists.

Re: All about constructivism

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

ABSTRACT: Doug Holton, in a "Learning Sciences and Educational Technology Group (LSET)" post titled "All about constructivism," alerted readers to the fact that Alexander Riegler has placed radical constructivist Ernst von Glasersfeld's papers on the web at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/ .

These might serve as an antidote to “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” by Kirschner et al. (2006).

Holton references responses to Kirschner et al. (2006) by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), Schmidt et al. (2007), & Kuhn (2007)], but the most definitive rejoinder is “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008)], mindlessly rejected by the Journal of Learning Sciences.

To access the complete 6 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/mb8pl2 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2008. “Language Ambiguities in Education Research,” submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August; online as ref. 54 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake .

Hake, R.R. 2009. "Re: All about constructivism," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mb8pl2. Post of 22 Jul 2009 10:30:43-0700 to AERA-L, IFETS, LSET, Net-Gold, PBL, PhysLrnR, PsychTeacher, TIPS, & WBTOLL-L.

Kirschner, P.A. , J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86; online as a 176 kB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/3xmp2m .

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.