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.

Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2009)]

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Jerry Bracey in his book Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality listed what he regarded as 10 lessons from the “Eight-Year Study” of 1942, in which more than 30 high schools in the 1930s were encouraged to try non-traditional approaches to teaching. Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews then (a) repeated Bracey's 10 lessons along with comments by Bracey and by himself, and (b) bravely invited his readers to kick sand in the faces of Bracey and himself by letting him know which of the Bracey/Mathews comments were most inane.” Taking Mathews at his word, in my view the most inane Bracey/Mathews comments center around Bracey's Lesson #8 that SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EDUCATION IS AN OXYMORON. If this lesson is correct then it would appear that the following authors all have their heads buried in the sand: David Hestenes (1979), Edward (Joe) Redish (1999), Richard Shavelson & Lisa Towne (2002) and members of the National Academy's "Committee on Scientific Principles for education research," Paula Heron & David Meltzer (2005), Carl Wieman (2007), and Richard Hake (2007).

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

To access the complete 24 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/n9cyjy .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “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.