Mobilization for Math/Science Education - Role of Higher Education

For an earlier version of this post see Hake (2009).

According to Stephanie Lee's (2009) Inside Higher Ed report " 'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education," Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation, said:

 

"The quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately begins with solid instruction at the K-12 level. While higher education remains  strong, it is clear it cannot continue without a strong foundation."

Taking issue with Gregorian, "Steve" in his comment "Higher Education Responsibility" at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study#Comments wrote: 

"From experience I know that the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately DOES NOT begin with solid instruction at the K-12 level, it begins with the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities. For far too long higher education has 'passed the buck' by not producing qualified teachers."

RIGHT ON, STEVE! The NSF's (1996) report "Shaping the Future" put it this way [my insert at ". . . . [insert]. . . ."]:

 

"Many faculty in SME&T. . . .[Science, Mathematics, Engineering, &  Technology]. . . at the postsecondary level continue to blame the  schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly. . . .[but not conspicuously]. . . .the higher educationcommunity has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principalsin the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers."

In consonance with the above, physicist Don Langenberg (2001, p. 23), (at the time) Chancellor of the University of Maryland System, put it succinctly:

"Although we in higher education are very skillful at ignoring the obvious, it is gradually dawning on some of us that we bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this sad situation [the state of K-12 education]."

 

How sad is the state of K-12 education in the U.S.? According Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009):

 

"The consequences of our scattered approach. . . .[to K-12 education]. . . .are obvious - low standards by international comparisons, mediocre student performance (especially in eighth and twelfth grades), huge inequalities in curricular opportunities, and loss of future job possibilities. . . . Today the performance gap between the most and least proficient students in the United States is among the highest of all OECD countries [OECD (2007)]. Unless the American education system begins to prepare all of its students for post-secondary education and the changing workplace, disturbing trends in international comparisons will only worsen."

A point that I failed to make in the earlier version [Hake (2009)] of this post:

That the “performance gap between the most and least proficient students in the United States  is among the highest of all OECD countries” may well be associated with the fact that (quoting Berliner (2005), “poverty in the US is greater and of longer duration than in other rich nations.”

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

Berliner, D.C. 2005. "Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform" Teachers College Record, August 02, online at  http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0508-116-EPRU[1].pdf  (852 kB).

BHEF. 2001. Business - Higher Education Forum (a partnership of the American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business), Winter, "Sharing Responsibility: How Leaders in Business and Higher Education Can Improve America's Schools" online as a 248 kB pdf at  http://tinyurl.com/lhenqd .

Hake, R.R. 2009. "Mobilization for Math/Science Education - Role of  Higher Education," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at  http://tinyurl.com/ntu4tv .  Post of 13 Jun 2009 16:49:08-0700 to AERA-L, ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EDDRA, EdResMeth,  EvalTalk, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physoc, POD, & RUME.

 

Lee, S. 2009."'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education" Inside Higher Ed, 11 June; online at  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study .

 

NSF. 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, A Report on its Review of Undergraduate Education by the Advisory Committee to the NSF, chaired by Melvin George, online at  http://tinyurl.com/m93862 .  Also online as a Google book preview at  http://tinyurl.com/n72qh7 . This report is one of the few that emphasizes the crucial role of higher education in determining the quality of K-12 education.

 

OECD. 2007. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, "PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World," online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/28/39722597.pdf  (360 kB).

 

Schmidt, W.H., R. Houang, & S. Shakrani. 2009. "International Lessons About National Standards," online as a 180 kB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/lqtaj9 .

 

Mobilization for Math and Science Education: Anyone for $100 Billion?

For an earlier version of this post see Hake (2009). 

Stephanie Lee (2009) in an Inside Higher Ed report of 11 June wrote [bracketed by lines "LLLLL. . . . . . "; my insert at “. . . .[insert]. . . .”]:

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL                                                   

Math and science education throughout the country must improve dramatically if America hopes to compete in the 21st century, according to a study released Wednesday. The report, conducted by the Carnegie Corporation of New York . . . . . .[and the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) for the Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics & Science Education ] . . . . ., outlines a comprehensive and ambitious plan to advance math and science learning. The main objectives include establishing high and common assessment standards in those subjects across all 50 states, as well as aggressively recruiting and supporting teachers.

More than 70 organizations from a variety of sectors, including government, schools, philanthropies and businesses, have lent their support to the recommendations of the study, titled The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy. . . . . .[Carnegie-IAS (2009)]. . . . . Higher education organizations include the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges and the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education.............................................                

With the economy sinking into a recession and state budgets continuing to shrink, pinning down funding for education reform grows trickier by the day. But Phillip Griffiths . . . . [Professor of Mathematics and Past Director, Institute for Advanced Study  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_A._Griffiths ]. . . ., chair of the commission that produced the study says that the money is out there -- mainly in the form of the $100 BILLION IN EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STIMULUS AID. . . . . .[Lederman (2009)]. . . . for public schools and colleges signed by President Obama in February. It just has to be spent efficiently, Griffiths said."

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

At Carnegie-IAS (2009) it is stated that (bracketed by lines "CCCCC. . . . .":

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                                                    

The 'opportunity equation' means transforming education in the United States so that every student reaches higher levels of mathematics and science learning. The nation's capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the global economy depend on a broad foundation in math and science, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility for young people that lie at the heart of the American dream. [The report] challenges the nation to:

a. establish common standards for the nation in mathematics and science-standards that are fewer, clearer, and higher-along with high-quality assessments,

b. improve math and science teaching-and our methods for recruiting and preparing teachers and for managing the nation's teaching talent, and

c. redesign schools and systems to deliver excellent, equitable math and science learning.

This is a moment of urgency and opportunity, a chance for the United States to close the gap between the current state of educational achievement and the educational system our future demands. The world has shifted dramatically - and an equally dramatic shift will be needed in our schools. Download the report, or read it online for more examples of promising practices, resources, and opportunities for action. . . . . . [The 72 page full report is online at http://www.opportunityequation.org/TheOpportunityEquation.pdf (5.5 MB).]"

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

There is a provision for comments at Lee's Inside Higher Ed article at  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study#Comments .

REFERENCES

Carnegie-IAS. 2009."The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy," online at http://www.opportunityequation.org/ .                                                                                                               

Hake, R.R. 2009.  Mobilization for Math and Science Education: Anyone for $100 Billion? online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1953405&tstart=30  . Post of 11 Jun 2009 09:17:54-0700 to ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EDDRA, EvalTalk, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physoc, POD, & RUME. 

Lederman, D. 2009. "The Final Stimulus Bill” Inside Higher Ed, 13 February; online athttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/13/stimulus .

Lee, S. 2009. "'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education" Inside Higher Ed, 11 June; online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study .

 

 

 

National Education Standards for the United States?

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent post “National Education Standards for the United States?” [Hake (2009)].  The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT:  The “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI), aimed at developing National Education Standards (NES) for the U.S., has recently been widely reported in the media, the Academic Discussion List sphere (ADLsphere), and the Blogosphere. Thus far, the reaction to the CCSSI & NES has been mostly negative [e.g., Brady, Clement, Haim, Horton, Ohanian, Marshak, Meier, Taylor, and Urner; with a few positive exceptions [Derbes, Korsunsky, Weingarten]. Adding to the positive are Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009) who, in a report “International Lessons About National Standards”: (a) make  the case for NES in the U.S., based on an in-depth study of NES in 10 other countries: Russia, France, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and the Netherlands, which “are making significant improvement in mathematics and science achievement and operate along a spectrum of national and local educational control”; (b) distill from their international study one important lesson: "It's NOT true that national standards portend loss of local control," plus four recommendations for the U.S. national standards effort; and (c) conclude: “We know what the standards of top-achieving nations look like. They are focused, coherent, and rigorous. And they're that way because the systems themselves are focused and coherent. It's time to get on the national standards bandwagon. . . . . The process of establishing national standards will surely require time, patience, and a great deal of compromise. But we postpone the inevitable at our peril.”

****************************************

To access the complete 37 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla .

REFERENCES  

Hake, R.R. 2009. “National Education Standards for the United States?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla. Post of 9 Jun 2009 14:44:42-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. 

Science Education in Texas #3

My previous post "Science Education in Texas #2 [Hake (2009)], generated zero response, except for:

 a.  PhysLrnR http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html,  and

 b. AP-Physics http://lyris.collegeboard.com/read/?forum=ap-physics ,

where, as of 31 May 2009 09:28:00-0700, there were, respectively 1 and 19 responses. . . .[Later: 0n 2 June 15:40:00-0700 the number of AP-Physics responses had risen to 67 !! , not counting about 7 posts with slight changes in the subject line.]  

Nevertheless, for those who are interested in the Texas Science Standards (TSS) and their potential to become the de facto U.S. science standards, I recently discovered that Zen Faulkes http://doctorzen.net/, Associate Professor in Biology at The University of Texas-Pan American, has kept a running record on the TSS on his blog at http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/search/label/Texas%20science%20standards .

His latest post, dated 28 May 2009, is titled "McLeroy's out."

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University                             24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367                                             Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of  Deventer,                                                   The Netherlands.                                                                               rrhake@earthlink.net                                               http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/                  http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/                          http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/

Science Education in Texas #4

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent post “Science Education in Texas #4” [Hake (2009)].  The abstract reads:

 ABSTRACT: The National Center for Science Education (NCSE http://ncseweb.org/ ) reported that (a) “the Texas Senate voted NOT to confirm Don McLeroy in his post as chair of the Texas state board of education on 28 May 28 2009,” and (b) according to the Houston Chronicle "there is speculation in the Capitol and within the Texas Education Agency that Gov. Rick Perry might elevate Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, to lead the board.” Dunbar is the author of One Nation Under God that advocates more religion in the public square.  According to a Dallas Morning News report by Christy Hoppe (2006), Gov. Rick Perry "believes that non-Christians are doomed."

To access the 7 kB complete post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/ph4qzz .

REFERENCES   

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Science Education in Texas #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/ph4qzz . Post of 2 Jun 2009 12:58:43-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. 

Science Education in Texas #2

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent post “Science Education in Texas #2” [Hake (2009)].  The abstract reads:

*************************************************

ABSTRACT:  In response to my post “Science Education in Texas,” John (Texas) Clement stated that the resignation of Chris Comer, Texas Education Agency's director of science curriculum, was old news and cited a 2007 report by Steven Schafersman, President of the Texas Citizens for Science.  I quote an even more complete and up-to-date report by Sandhya Bathija (2009), which indicates that (a) Chris Comer's lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency was dismissed on 31 March 2009 by a George-W-Bush-appointed U.S. District Judge; and (b) Texas school board  activists may well prevail in infusing creationism and intelligent design into Texas schools, as well as schools throughout the U.S.  The latter because many publishers tend to cater to the curriculum mandates of Texas, evidently the second-largest state purchaser of textbooks in the U.S.

*************************************************

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/nb3bem .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Science Education in Texas #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/nb3bem . Post of 28 May 2009 21:01:29 -0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, & PhysLrnR.

Academic Discussion Lists: Faculty Lounges, Collective Short-Term Working Memories, or Academic Journals?

ABSTRACT: Should Academic Discussion Lists (ADL's) be like faculty lounges, collective short term working memories, or academic journals? Here is an edited and expanded version of a post of 18 May 2009 to AERA-H wherein I argue that ADL's might best serve as both faculty lounges and collective short-term working memories. The inclusion of the latter would justify the academic protocol that characterizes communications such as this one, even though such protocol may chill those who prefer faculty-lounge-type conversations.

I. Introduction
In response to my post "Team-Based Learning" [Hake (2009a)], Michael Sweet (2009), of the TeamLearning-L list wrote:

 ". . . .E-mail listservs are not academic journals, and I fear that your laudable desire to follow academic protocol might in fact have a 'chilling effect' upon the collegial conversations you hope to inspire. This is more of a 'faculty lounge' than a conference floor. . . . ."

In "Over Two-Hundred Education and Science Blogs" [Hake (2009b)], I discussed the Academic Discussion List Sphere (ADLsphere) and Blog Sphere (Blogosphere): Appendix A indicates some strengths and weaknesses of each, and Appendix B considers those spheres as harbingers of a collective short-term working memory, as advocated for the Blogoshere by physicist Michael Nielsen (2008).

II. The ADLsphere as Both a Faculty Lounge and a Collective Short-Term Working Memory
I agree with Michael Sweet that "listservs are not academic journals." They cannot, of course, serve as permanent academic memories as do peer-reviewed journals, both print and online. But I disagree with Michael's implication that listservs [more generally ADL's, since LISTSERV is a trademark of  L-Soft  http://www.lsoft.com/]  should only be like faculty lounges. Rather, I think their best use might be as both faculty lounges and collective short-term working memories.  

As faculty lounges plus collective short-term working memories, the use in ADL's of both casual conversation and academic protocol could be justified, even though either might distress the devotees of the other.  

III. What's Wrong With the ADLsphere as Only a Faculty Lounge?
In Section A1b, p. 33, of "Over Two-Hundred Education and Science Blogs" [Hake (2009b)], I listed:

Some Weaknesses of the ADLsphere :

A. Little Collaborative Development of Ideas
In the ADDENDUM to "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists [Hake (2007)], I wrote (slightly edited):

"in my opinion, many Academic Discussion Lists fail [paraphrasing Roschelle and Pea (1999) 'to move beyond forums. . . . [such as faculty lounges]. . . .for exchanging tidbits and opinions to structures which rapidly capture knowledge-value and foster rapid accumulation and growth of the community's capability. . . . providing tool to allow contributors to share partially completed resources, and enable others to improve upon them.' "

B. Some List Owners:

1. Utilize antediluvian software that does not provide useful archives and/or search engines.

2. Regard cross-posting as sinful rather than synergistic, evidently wishing their lists to remain in-bred and isolated, outstanding examples being EdStat, ITFORUM, and PsychTeacher -  see, e.g.: "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" [Hake (2005a)].

3.  Do not recognize the "fair use" provision of U.S. Copyright Law as provided for in Section 107, Title 17,  according to which copyrighted material (including discussion list posts) can be distributed, if it's done so without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  For more information see at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml .

4. Close the archives of their lists to non-subscribers, thus impeding the flow of information between their lists and the the outer world of the web - see the lower part of Fig. 1 of Hake (2009b).  Such blockage is sometimes justified on the grounds that it prevents harvesting of email addresses by SPAM'ers, but for lists running on  LISTSERV software, such harvesting can be prevented by the simple strategy of requiring log-in by list subscribers before addresses are 

unmasked - as is the case for e.g., all the AERA lists, Eval-Talk, & TeamLearning-L  :-), but not PhysLrnR :-( . 

C. Some Subscribers:

1. ignore common-sense posting suggestions [Hake (2005b)] that would facilitate efficient communication; a prime example: hitting the reply button so as to inflict an entire multi-kB already-archived post yet again on all subscribers.  

2.  are unfamiliar with the technical and social aspects of ADL's as addressed by Dan MacIsaac (2000) in his valuable article "Communities of on-line physics educators." A cursory Google search failed to uncover counterparts of MacIsaac's article for other disciplines;

3.  fail to utilize academic references or to even notice such references in posts (except to inveigh against them as "busywork" [Eckel (2003)];

4.  do not take advantage of hot-linking, that precious gift of physicist-turned-computer-scientist Tim Berners-Lee that allows material to be brought to the reader's screen with the click of a mouse;  

5.  appear reticent to engage in discussions of educational research, development, or assessment; as is especially evident on the AERA lists, save for AERA-D and AERA-GS - see e.g., “Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists More Active?” [Hake (2005c)].

6.  fail to take responsibility for their postings by hiding behind pseudonyms.

D.  Most Subscribers:  fail to search the archives before posting - therefore the same material is often discussed over and over de novo with little increase in collective understanding from year to year.

IV. The Advantages of the Blogosphere and the ADLsphere as Collective Short-term Working Memories - Encapsulated in Four Quotes                                                                  

A.  "...we use working memory to help create new ideas, and there seems to be no limit to those ideas. They just pour out of us.  The power of this limited part of the brain is almost inexhaustible.                                                                                                                                              James Zull (2003, p. 183)

B. “Even Albert Einstein needed help occasionally. Einstein's greatest contribution to science was his theory of gravity, often called the general theory of relativity. He worked on and off on this theory between 1907 and 1915, often running into great difficulties. By 1912, he had come to the astonishing conclusion that our ordinary conception of geometry, in which the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, is only approximately correct, and a new kind of geometry is needed to correctly describe space and time. This was a great surprise to Einstein, and also a great challenge, since such geometric ideas were outside his expertise. Fortunately for Einstein and for posterity, he described his difficulties to a mathematician friend, Marcel Grossman. Grossman said that many of the ideas Einstein needed had already been developed by the mathematician Bernhard Riemann. It took Einstein three more years of work, but Grossman was right, and this was a critical point in the development of general relativity. . . . . . . is it possible to scale up this conversational model, and build an online collaboration market to exchange questions and ideas, a sort of collective working memory  for the scientific community?"                                                                                                                                         Michael Nielsen (2008)

C. "The culture of science includes the continual interaction, exchange,evaluation, and criticism we make of each other's views. This produces a kind of emergent phenomenon I refer to as a 'community consensus knowledge base' or more briefly, a community map."                               Joe Redish (1999)

D. "It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge."                            John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature 224 (5217): 324.  See      also Ziman (2000).

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

Eckel, E. 2003. “Re: The bad effects of physics first.” PhysLrnR post of 23 Nov 2003 08:06:45- 0500; online at http://tinyurl.com/2dtoac .

Hake, R.R. 2005a. “Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?” Post of 1 Nov 2005 08:37:12-0800 to ITFORUM and AERA-L; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives  at  http://tinyurl.com/2m59v4 .

Hake, R.R. 2005b. “Fourteen Posting Suggestions,” online at http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=pod&P=R12861&I=-3  . Post of 23 Jul 2005 11:38:29-0400 to AERA-C, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H, AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, PhysLrnR, POD, STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS. For a guide to discussion lists see Hake (2007). For a defense of cross-posting see Hake (2005a).

Hake, R.R. 2005c. “Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists More Active?” online at http://tinyurl.com/2s3b9k. Post of 11 Jun 2005 11:44:58-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H, AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-TchEdPsych, and PhysLrnR.

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 additions such as TeamLearning-L,  TrDev-L, and the new address for TeachEdPsych.

Hake, R.R. 2009a.  “Team-Based Learning,” online on the OPEN! AERA-I archives at http://tinyurl.com/qp8nwm . Post of 15 May 2009 to AERA-I, Net-Gold, PhysLrnR, and TeamLearning-L. Abstract only to AERA-A, AERA-B, AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J,  AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, DrEd, EdResMeth, EvalTalk, IFETS, LRNAAST-L, Math-Teach, PBL, Phys-L, POD, RUME, STLHE-L, TeachEdPsych, TIPS, TrDev-L, & WBTOLL-L.  The *potential* readership of this post is about 16,000.  Doubtless Larry Michaelsen will note a huge spike in the sales of his books on Team Learning  http://teambasedlearning.apsc.ubc.ca/?page_id=34   ;-).  

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

MacIsaac, D.L. 2000. "Communities of on-line physics educators," Phys. Teach. 38(4): 210-213; online at http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/PHYS-L/TPTApr00art.pdf (196 kB). Discusses technical and social aspects of discussion lists and gives reference information on four major physics education lists: Phys-L, Physhare-L, PhysLrnR, and TAP-L.

Nielsen, M. 2008. “The Future of Science: Building a Better Collective Memory” APS News, 17(10). The full version appears on Nielsen's blog at http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=448. Note the 87 (as of 20 May 2009) responses and counter responses following Nielsen's article. Such informed and extended discussion is rare in the ADLsphere.

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html .

Roschelle, J & R. Pea. 1999. "Trajectories from Today's WWW to a Powerful Educational Infrastructure," Educational Researcher, June-July: 22-25, 43; online as a pdf at http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=120; see also http://www.stanford.edu/~roypea/HTML1%20Folder/articles.html.  

Sweet, M.  2009. “Re: Team-Based Learning (was Re: TBL and Conceptests),” TeamLearning-Lpost of 15 May 2009 21:38:36-0500; online at http://tinyurl.com/qjt8nv. 

Ziman, J. 2000. Real Science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.  Publisher's information at http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521893107. See especially Sec. 9.3 "Codified knowledge," pages 258-266."

 

Zull, J.E. 2003.  The Art of Changing the Brain.  Stylus;  publisher's information at  http://www.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=44780. A Google book preview is online at http://tinyurl.com/oo6vqp.