Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/R1q22j I criticized Bishop et al.’s “A Close Examination of Jo Boaler’s Railside Report” http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c. Then in “R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform” [Hake (2013c)] at http://yhoo.it/132baYU, I criticized Bishop’s (2013b) “Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” http://bit.ly/11f8CTH (click on the html attachment).
My criticism of Bishop's proclamations led standardista (in the educational sense employed by Susan Ohanian http://bit.ly/Xe7P56) Richard P. Phelps (2013) http://bit.ly/15kFCOc to endorse direct instructionist Wayne Bishop by portraying my criticism as simply “personal animosity” in a post of that title at http://bit.ly/15iMz2m. In this post I show that Phelps makes serious errors in each of his nine objections to my criticism.
*********************************************
To access the complete 43 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph.
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
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
"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: 318-324; abstract online at http://bit.ly/cNPB1d.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 23 April 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph. Post of 22 Apr 2013 18:43:32-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Showing posts with label James Milgram. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Milgram. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Friday, October 19, 2012
Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!”
Some blog might be interested in a recent post “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy at http://bit.ly/PfqJqt wrote (liberally paraphrasing and drastically condensing): “Judging from his posts on the over 40-post Math-Teach thread ‘Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop’ at http://bit.ly/Ty9tbf, Robert Hansen is wrong in his claim that ‘Education Research’ is not ‘Scientific Research.’ "
To which Hansen at http://bit.ly/RHESbF responded with the following statement (paraphrasing) of which the 2nd and 3rd sentences are blatantly false (as I indicate in this post): “In scientific research, conclusions are tested repeatedly by many different researchers. In educational research, they are not. One does a study, claims success, publishes it and that is the end of it.”
The National Academies' Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV suggests six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry, including education research: (1) Pose Significant Questions That Can Be Investigated Empirically, (2) Link Research to Relevant Theory, (3) Use Methods That Permit Direct Investigation of the Question, (4) Provide a Coherent and Explicit Chain of Reasoning, (5) Replicate and Generalize Across Studies, and (6) Disclose Research to Encourage Professional Scrutiny and Critique.
In my opinion, Jo Boaler's research - see the material at http://bit.ly/R6XsuP & http://joboaler.com/ and Boaler & Staples (2008) at http://bit.ly/R8FGsG - satisfies all the above criteria, whereas the unpublished, undated, and referenceless denunciation of Boaler's research by Bishop, Clopton, & Milgram at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c does not.
*********************************************
To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Vdj88z.
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 [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Oct 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z. Post of 19 Oct 2012 13:11:11-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
*********************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy at http://bit.ly/PfqJqt wrote (liberally paraphrasing and drastically condensing): “Judging from his posts on the over 40-post Math-Teach thread ‘Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop’ at http://bit.ly/Ty9tbf, Robert Hansen is wrong in his claim that ‘Education Research’ is not ‘Scientific Research.’ "
To which Hansen at http://bit.ly/RHESbF responded with the following statement (paraphrasing) of which the 2nd and 3rd sentences are blatantly false (as I indicate in this post): “In scientific research, conclusions are tested repeatedly by many different researchers. In educational research, they are not. One does a study, claims success, publishes it and that is the end of it.”
The National Academies' Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV suggests six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry, including education research: (1) Pose Significant Questions That Can Be Investigated Empirically, (2) Link Research to Relevant Theory, (3) Use Methods That Permit Direct Investigation of the Question, (4) Provide a Coherent and Explicit Chain of Reasoning, (5) Replicate and Generalize Across Studies, and (6) Disclose Research to Encourage Professional Scrutiny and Critique.
In my opinion, Jo Boaler's research - see the material at http://bit.ly/R6XsuP & http://joboaler.com/ and Boaler & Staples (2008) at http://bit.ly/R8FGsG - satisfies all the above criteria, whereas the unpublished, undated, and referenceless denunciation of Boaler's research by Bishop, Clopton, & Milgram at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c does not.
*********************************************
To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Vdj88z.
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 [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Oct 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z. Post of 19 Oct 2012 13:11:11-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Re: Casualty of the Math Wars
Some blog followers be interested in a recent post “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Scott Jaschik (2012), in his exemplary Inside Higher Ed report “Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/V1ZSL2 wrote (paraphrasing):
“Jo Boaler http://bit.ly/R6XsuP, a full professor at Stanford University argues that new approaches - group work, real-life examples, and solving problems students can relate to - have the potential to transform the way students interact with mathematics. Traditional methods, which emphasize students learning key principles and facts, have resulted in schools in which too many students feel early on that they just ‘don’t get math,’ and shy away from the subject. So why does Boaler feel under siege?
On 12 Oct 2012 she posted on her own website ‘When Academic Disagreement Becomes Harassment and Persecution’ at http://bit.ly/Wpel7t , an account of what she terms unfair personal and professional attacks in an unpublished critique ‘A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report’ at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c by James Milgram of Stanford University and Wayne Bishop of CalState-L.A.
Of her critics, Keith Devlin http://bit.ly/P503sg director of the Human Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute at Stanford, said ‘I suspect they fear her because she brings hard data that threatens their view of how children should be taught mathematics.’ He said that the criticisms of Boaler reach ‘the point of character assassination.’
Alan Schoenfeld http://bit.ly/NGfW62 of the University of California at Berkeley, a past president of the American Educational Research Association and past vice president of the National Academy of Engineering, said ‘The discussion of Boaler’s work ‘fits into the context of the math wars, which have sometimes been argued on principle, but in the hands of a few partisans, been vicious and vitriolic.’ He said that he is on a number of informal mathematics education networks, and that the response to Boaler’s essay ‘has been swift and, most generally, one of shock and support for Boaler.’ One question being asked, he said, is why Boaler was investigated and no university has investigated the way Milgram and Bishop have treated her.
*************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/R1q22j.
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
***************************
“Let the war rage.” - Wayne Bishop
“Can't we all just get along?” - Rodney King
***************************
The above two quotes were cited by Alan Schoenfeld (2004) in his essay "The Math Wars."
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/R1q22j . Post of 15 Oct 2012 12:18:37-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Schoenfeld, A.H. 2004. "The Math Wars," Educational Policy 18(1): 253-286; online as a 164 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/OIljxk.
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Scott Jaschik (2012), in his exemplary Inside Higher Ed report “Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/V1ZSL2 wrote (paraphrasing):
“Jo Boaler http://bit.ly/R6XsuP, a full professor at Stanford University argues that new approaches - group work, real-life examples, and solving problems students can relate to - have the potential to transform the way students interact with mathematics. Traditional methods, which emphasize students learning key principles and facts, have resulted in schools in which too many students feel early on that they just ‘don’t get math,’ and shy away from the subject. So why does Boaler feel under siege?
On 12 Oct 2012 she posted on her own website ‘When Academic Disagreement Becomes Harassment and Persecution’ at http://bit.ly/Wpel7t , an account of what she terms unfair personal and professional attacks in an unpublished critique ‘A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report’ at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c by James Milgram of Stanford University and Wayne Bishop of CalState-L.A.
Of her critics, Keith Devlin http://bit.ly/P503sg director of the Human Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute at Stanford, said ‘I suspect they fear her because she brings hard data that threatens their view of how children should be taught mathematics.’ He said that the criticisms of Boaler reach ‘the point of character assassination.’
Alan Schoenfeld http://bit.ly/NGfW62 of the University of California at Berkeley, a past president of the American Educational Research Association and past vice president of the National Academy of Engineering, said ‘The discussion of Boaler’s work ‘fits into the context of the math wars, which have sometimes been argued on principle, but in the hands of a few partisans, been vicious and vitriolic.’ He said that he is on a number of informal mathematics education networks, and that the response to Boaler’s essay ‘has been swift and, most generally, one of shock and support for Boaler.’ One question being asked, he said, is why Boaler was investigated and no university has investigated the way Milgram and Bishop have treated her.
*************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/R1q22j.
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
***************************
“Let the war rage.” - Wayne Bishop
“Can't we all just get along?” - Rodney King
***************************
The above two quotes were cited by Alan Schoenfeld (2004) in his essay "The Math Wars."
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/R1q22j . Post of 15 Oct 2012 12:18:37-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Schoenfeld, A.H. 2004. "The Math Wars," Educational Policy 18(1): 253-286; online as a 164 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/OIljxk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
