Re: Confessions of a Public Speaker - ADDENDA

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010b)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In a previous post [Hake (2010a)] I pointed to Scott Berkun's (2009) excellent "Confessions of a Public Speaker." Later I became aware of three other valuable papers on public speaking and writing: (a) “Giving an Academic Talk'" by Berkeley computer scientist Jonathan Shewchuk (undated), (b) "How to talk Mathematics" [Halmos (1974)], and (c) "How to write Mathematics" [Halmos (1970)]. The latter two are by the late mathematician and expositor Paul Halmos .

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

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yat23vy .

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

Berkun, S. 2009. Confessions of a Public Speaker. O'Reilly Media, publisher's information, including the table of contents and a short video are at http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596802004. Note the "Browse Contents" feature. Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/y9z37ag. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. For two free chapters from the book see http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2010/free-chapters-from-confessions.

Hake, R.R. 2010a. “Re: Confessions of a Public Speaker,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yh3hujm . Post of 25 Feb 2010 08:29:05-0800 to AERA-L, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and Net-Gold. In addition, the abstract and URL for the complete post was transmitted to various discussion lists. The abstract is also online at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-confessions-of-public-speaker.html with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2010b. “Re: Confessions of a Public Speaker – ADDENDA,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yat23vy. Post of 27 Feb 2010 11:00:27-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract is also being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Halmos, P.R. 1970. “How to write Mathematics,” L'Enseignement Mathématique 16; online as a 3.4 MB pdf at http://tinyurl.com/ydmfnov.

Halmos, P.R. 1974. “How to talk Mathematics,“ Notices of AMS 21: 155-158; online at http://www.math.northwestern.edu/graduate/Forum/HALMOS.html . Summary: "My recommendations amount to this: make it simple, organized and short. Make your lecture simple (special and concrete); be sure to prove something and ask something; prepare, in detail; organize the content and adjust to the level of the audience; keep it short, and, to be sure of doing so, prepare it so as to make it flexible. Remember that you are talking in order to attract the listeners to your subject and to inform them about it; and remember that less is more."

Shewchuk, J. undated. "Giving an Academic Talk," online at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/speaking.html. Summary: “. . . .minimize words and maximize pictures. Your slides are not there to remind you what to say. Bullet points make your audience feel your talk is in bullet time."

Re: Confessions of a Public Speaker

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Presentations at professional meetings are usually soporific. For almost half a century physicists such as K.K. Darrow, Jim Garland, and David Mermin wrote articles which failed to improve the quality of talks at meetings of the American Physical Society (APS) and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). But hope springs eternal. Perhaps the insightful Scott Berkun (2009), coming out of Carnegie Mellon with a degree in Logic and Computation and a sterling record of publications, can stem the tide of mediocrity with his latest book “Confessions of a Public Speaker.”

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

To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yh3hujm

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

Berkun, S. 2009. Confessions of a Public Speaker. O'Reilly Media, publisher's information, including the table of contents and a short video are at http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596802004. Note the "Browse Contents" feature. Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/y9z37ag. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. For two free chapters from the book see http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2010/free-chapters-from-confessions.

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Confessions of a Public Speaker,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yh3hujm. Post of 25 Feb 2010 08:29:05-0800 to AERA-L, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, and Net-Gold. The abstract is being sent to the following discussion lists: AERA-A, AERA-B, AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-GS, AERA-J, AERA-K, ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, CTP-L, EdResMeth, EvalTalk, IFETS, LearningSciences, PBL, Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD, PsychTeacher, STLHE-L, TeachEdPsych, TeamLearning, TIPS, TrDev-L, & WBTOLL-L.

Re: Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Stimulated by a physicist's request for information on “Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards” [Shelley, Yore, & Hand, eds. (2009a) - hereafter “SYH]”, I mined the internet for information on the SYH's: I - editors; II - contents, subject & author indices; III - theme; IV - treatment of Randomized Control Trials; and V - allusions to Physics Education Research. The resultant information, relayed in this post, may be of interest to some discussion-list subscribers.

Most of the contributors to SYH are skeptical of the U.S. Dept. of Education's enthronement of Randomized Control Trials (RCT's) as the “Gold Standard” of education research, consistent with the views of most evaluation experts.

On the other hand, the authors contributing to SYH appear to be either dismissive or oblivious of physics education research, inconsistent with the generally positive opinions of most observers.

For example, Millar and Osborne(2009) make the following erroneous claims (paraphrasing): “No standard or commonly agreed outcome measures exist for any major topic. Published assessment tools such as the 'Force Concept Inventory' have not been subjected to the kind of rigorous scrutiny of factorial structure and content validity that would be standard practice for measures of attainment or learning outcome in other subject areas.”

Despite SYH's cavalier dismissal of physics education research, I think some discussion-list subscribers might consider scanning a begged, borrowed, or stolen copy of SYH, before paying Springer's piratical $215 for a personal copy.

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

To access the complete 45 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yhhbu72.

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

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yhhbu72 . Post of 22 Feb 2010 14:04:43-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract is being sent to various discussion lists.

Millar, R. & J. Osborne. 2009. “Research and Practice: A Complex Relationship?” Chapter 3, pages 41-62, of Shelley et al. (2009a). Surprisingly, the Google book preview of Shelley et al. (2009a) at http://tinyurl.com/yddphh3 contains all of pages 41-62. To see click repeatedly on the “>” at the top of the first page to go to page vi and then click on chapter 3.

Shelley, M.C., L.D. Yore, & B. Hand, eds. 2009a. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards.” Springer, publisher's information at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2447682464446x2/. Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/yf7efra, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. Barnes & Noble information at http://tinyurl.com/y8n9pe9. An expurgated (teaser) version is online as a Google “book preview” at http://tinyurl.com/yddphh3.

Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, FREE Online Books

Some blog followers might be interested in the post “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, FREE Online Books)” [Hake (2010b)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Some subscribers may not be aware of the FREE online book “Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air” [MacKay (2009)] dedicated to “those who will not have the benefit of two billion years' accumulated energy reserves,” and favorably reviewed by John Roeder (2009) and David Hafemeister (2010). This post:

(a) contains brief excerpts from those reviews;

(b) lists three other free online books that may be of interest: "Teaching Physics With the Physics Suite" (Redish, 2003)], "Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn't How It Could Be" (Tobias & Baffert, 2009), and “Educational Psychology” (Seifert & Sutton, 2009);

(c) quotes from Steven Pearlstein (2010) on trends in publishing and James Koch (2006) on escalating college textbook prices; and

(d) references “Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs” (Hake, 2009b) for references on OPEN ACCESS, internet usage, the Academic Discussion List Sphere (ADLsphere) and the Blogosphere.

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

To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31840.

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

Hake, R.R. 2010a. “Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air, FREE Online Books,” online on the Physoc archives at http://tinyurl.com/yb6h8ew. Post of 8 Feb 2010 21:43:39-0600 to AP-Physics, Phys-L, Physhare, and PhysLrnR (submitted to the moderator). To access the archives of PHYSOC one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

Hake, R.R. 2010b. “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, FREE Online Books,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31840. Post of 9 Feb 2010 09:05:16-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. For a preliminary and less refined version of this post see Hake (2010a).

MacKay, D.J.C. 2009. “Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air,” online at http://www.withouthotair.com. To download a high-resolution copy of the entire book click on http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf (49.2 MB) - Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008. This (as well as the low resolution version) displays color and has the advantage of accommodating MacKay's expectation “to further update some of the numbers in this book as I continue to learn about sustainable energy.”

Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (was Girls and Boys math scores)

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title [Hake (2010b)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In a previous post “Re: “Girls and Boys math scores” [Hake (2010a)], I pointed to Jim Clark's (2010) TIPS (Teaching in the Psychological Sciences) discussion-list reference to “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis” [Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn (2010)], that showed no overall difference in averages between males and females on measures of math achievement. However, I neglected to mention Clark's reference to “The science of sex differences in science and mathematics” [Halpern, Benbow, Geary, Gur, Hyde, & Gernsbacher (2007a)], who wrote: “Stanley, who studied mathematically precocious youth for decades, explained that 25 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the SAT-M at age 13. Now the ratio is only 2.8:1, which is a precipitous drop that has not been widely reported in the news media. According to Stanley, 'It's gone way down as women have had the opportunity to take their math earlier' (quoted in Monastersky (2005). . . . For further references in this area see “Gender Issues in Science/Math Education [Mallow & Hake (2008)].

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

To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31814 .

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

Else-Quest, N.M., J.S. Hyde, & M.C. Linn. 2010. “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 136 (1): 103-127; online http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf (160 kB).

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

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part1.pdf (8.5 MB);

*Part 2 - Some References in Subject Order

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part2.pdf (4.8 MB).

Because periodic updates of GISME necessitate changing the URL's, an address that will always work is "Reference 55 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/." The abstract is also online at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/gender-issues-in-sciencemath-education.html with a provision for comments.

Part 2 subjects are:

a. Affirmative Action;

b. Constructivism: Educational and Social;

c. Drivers of Educational Reform and Gender Equity: Economic Competitiveness and Preservation of Life on Planet Earth;

d. Education and the Brain;

e. Gender and Spatial Visualization;

f. Harvard [Ex-] President Summers' Speculation on Innate Gender Differences in Science and Math Ability;

g. Hollywood Actress Danica McKellar's Book "Math Doesn't Suck";

h. Interactive Engagement;

i. International Comparisons;

j. Introductory Physics "Curriculum S" (for Synthesis);

k. Is There a Female Science? - Pro & Con;

l. Schools Shortchange Girls (or is it Boys?)

m. SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL ABILITY: FACT OR ARTIFACT;

n. Status of Women at MIT.

Hake, R.R. 2010a. “Re: Girls and Boys math scores,” online on the OPEN! TIPS archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40fsulist.frostburg.edu/msg00123.html . Post of 06 Feb 2010 20:15:51-0800 to Math-Learn, Math-Teach, PhysLrnR, & TIPS.

Hake, R.R. 2010b. “Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (was Girls and Boys math scores)” online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31814 . Post of 7 Feb 2010 3:22 pm EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract is also being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Halpern, D.F., C.P. Benbow, D.C. Geary, R. Gur, J.S. Hyde, & M.A. Gernsbacher. 2007a. “The science of sex differences in science and mathematics,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8: 1-51; contains a large set of references; online at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/ScienceSexDifferences.pdf (880 kB).

Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12 - Response to Wurman

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In the abstract of a previous post “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” [Hake (2010)], I wrote: “Joe Bellina (2010), in a post 'Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12' ALERTED subscribers to ‘Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002’ [Minner, Levy, & Century (2009)].”

Ze'ev Wurman (2010), evidently misunderstanding the above, responded (paraphrasing) “Would Hake care to speculate as to the reasons Joe BELLINA RESTRICTED HIS RESEARCH to 1984-2002 and ignored the last 7 years of rather fruitful studies in this area?”

Ze'ev apparently did not scan the abstract of Minner et al. (2009) in which the authors give the following reasons for restricting their research (not Bellina's) to data from 1984 to 2002 (paraphrasing): “[That timeframe] was selected to continue a line of synthesis work last completed in 1983 by Bredderman (1983) and by Shymansky et al. (1983), and to accommodate a practicable cutoff date given the research project timeline, which ran from 2001 to 2006.”

If Ze'ev and others suspect that Minner et al. may have cherry picked 1984-2002 so as to “focus on data from periods that suited their theses,” then to make a case they would need to provide data outside the 1984-2002 period that conflicts with Minner et al.'s indication of “a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based instructional practices.”

My survey of data in “Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in California - Or Does It?” [Hake (2004)] showed that ALL the data, including that outside the 1984-2002 period, was generally consistent with the pro-inquiry assessment of Minner et al. (2009).

Not surveyed was “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006)]. But that paper, despite its misleading title, does not counter the theses of Minner et al. (2009), as explained in e.g., “Language Ambiguities in Education Research” [Hake (2008b)].

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

To access the complete 26 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31796 .

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

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779. Post of 3 Feb 2010 8:40 am EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract was also transmitted to various discussion lists and appears at http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-metastudy-on-impact-of-inquiry-in-k.html with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2008b. “Language Ambiguities in Education Research,” submitted to the Journal of Learning Sciences on 21 August but mindlessly rejected; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/LangAmbigEdResC.pdf (1.2 MB) and as ref. 54 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake. David Klahr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klahr wrote to me privately (quoted by permission): “I liked the paper. I think it's very thoughtful and nuanced. However it is tough going, even for someone as familiar with the issues (and as favorably cited by you) as I am. It's a shame that it was rejected, but I wonder if the reviewer just wasn't up to the very careful reading necessary to really follow your arguments all the way through. Even though I know this area quite well, obviously, I did have to really focus to fully understand the distinctions you were making.”

Minner, D.D. , A.J. Levy, & J. Century. 2009. “Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Early View (Articles online in advance of print); online to subscribers at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123205106/PDFSTART.

Wurman, Z. 2010. "Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12," post of 4 Feb 2010 13:23:52 -0800 to AP-Physics, Biopi-L, EvalTalk, Physhare, and Physoc; online on the PHYSOC archives at http://tinyurl.com/ycfzdlp. To access the archives of PHYSOC one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Joe Bellina (2010), in a post "Metastudy on impact of in k-12" alerted subscribers to Inquiry-Based Science Instruction - What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002 [Minner, Levy, & Century (2009)]. Their abstract reads in part (slightly edited):

"The goal of the Inquiry Synthesis Project was to synthesize findings from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 to address the research question, "What Is The Impact Of Inquiry Science Instruction On K-12 Student Outcomes?". . . . . Various findings across 138 analyzed studies INDICATE A CLEAR, POSITIVE TREND FAVORING INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES [my CAPS], particularly instruction that emphasizes student active thinking and drawing conclusions from data. Teaching strategies that actively engage students in the learning process through scientific investigations are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than are strategies that rely on more passive techniques, which are often necessary in the current standardized-assessment laden educational environment."

Leaving aside my own niggling criticism of their monumental mixed-methods-research effort, Minner et al., even despite the "antipositivist vigilantes," rightfully add another voice to the chorus bemoaning the lack of operational definitions for various pedagogical approaches. Among other choristers are: Century (2004), Klahr & Li (2005), Anderson (2007), Hake (2008), Strand-Cary & Klahr (2008), and Klahr (2009).

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

To access the complete 33 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12” online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31779. Post of 3 Feb 2010 8:40 am EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.

Psychology Readings for Mathematicians

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Mathematics educator Wayne Bishop (2010) stated that in his college years “ed psych and sociology were two of the most useless, objective-evidence-free, courses that [he] was obligated to take.” Bill Marsh (2010) responded that Bishop owed himself and others “a little good reading in good psychology,” suggesting the works of Eleanor or J.J. Gibson, George Miller of “Magic Number Seven” fame, Peter Bryant, Robbie Case, and Catherine Sophian.

In this post I:

(a) list two other suggestions - Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood [Cross et al. (2009)] and “Psychology's role in mathematics and science education” [Newcombe et al. (2009)]; and

(b) break with discussion-list protocol by listing some academic references to works by the authors suggested by Marsh.

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

To access the complete 17 kB post please click on

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31770.

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Psychology Readings for Mathematicians (was Important Website for Mathematics Educators)” online at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31770. Post of 1 Feb 7:51pm EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.