Some blog followers might be interested in a post “Re: How Universities Can Help to Create a Wiser World: Response to Schremmer.”
The abstract reads:
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “How Universities Can Help to Create a Wiser World” at http://bit.ly/1du3KNZ, Alain Schremmer of the MathEdCC list wrote at http://bit.ly/1lY8yzF: “I think that the show is pretty much all over. See The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. And it is not only universities. At my school, Community College of Philadelphia, mutatis mutandis, things are exactly as described by Ginsberg."
The reference is Ginsberg (2013) at http://amzn.to/K8KqxR. The book description reads in part: “Until very recently, American universities were led mainly by their faculties, which viewed intellectual production and pedagogy as the core missions of higher education. Today, as Benjamin Ginsberg warns in this eye-opening, controversial book, ‘deanlets’-- administrators and staffers often without serious academic backgrounds or experience -- are setting the educational agenda.”
**********************************************
To access the complete 53 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/K9oToO. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
Showing posts with label Alain Schremmer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alain Schremmer. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno
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.
**************************************************
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
