Physics Education Researchers Respond to “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors”

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Physics Education Researchers Respond to ‘Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors’ ” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************
ABSTRACT: Indicated below are reactions of three physics education researchers to evidence [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/QuqXqo that science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler http://bit.ly/R6XsuP, have been “Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors” (double asterisks **. . . .** surrounding URL’s indicate that access may require “obtaining a new Listserv password”):

1. John Belcher at **http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6** wrote "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at http://bit.ly/XkAtiO: "These poor bastards [the Hakes and Boalers] are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . ." Although Hansen's comments are certainly laughable, Belcher may have cause to cry - as co-author of the influential "How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts?" http://bit.ly/fbOeA8, Belcher's largely to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN. Therefore Belcher could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c hit list.

2. Antti Savinainen at **http://bit.ly/RdtbdU** wrote (liberally paraphrasing): “All this reminds me of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming http://bit.ly/XEw3U1. Scientific debate is fine, but it should take place in peer-reviewed journals, not in newspapers or personal websites as described in the above book and is the case for Bishop/Clopton/Milgram.”

3. William Robertson at **http://bit.ly/XAO5qj** wrote, regarding Savinainen’s “peer reviewed journals”: “anyone who thinks the peer review process in journals is divorced from scientific and personal biases is naive, and has likely never gone through the process.” I agree but reluctantly concede that peer review is probably necessary but certainly not sufficient to promote the integrity of the literature.
***********************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf.


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 21 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Physics Education Researchers Respond to ‘Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors’, ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf. Post of 21 Oct 2012 13:59:06-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3” [Hake (2011a) http://bit.ly/gSNTGi], problem-based-learning pioneer http://bit.ly/etekAw Don Woods (2011a) wrote at http://bit.ly/h1VrME [my CAPS; my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . .]:

“. . . . there are at least 20 valid forms of evidence that can be used for measuring teaching ‘productivity.’ These include . . . . . well-designed COURSE EVALUATIONS. . . . .[[I shall assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that Woods uses ‘course evaluations’ as shorthand for ‘Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET’s)’]]. . . . . , exams and assignments, . . . . . More details are given in my forthcoming book ‘Motivating and Rewarding University Teachers to Improve Student Learning: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators’. . . . . .[[Woods, 2011b)]]. . . . .”

In “Culture of Science Education - Response to Woods” [Hake (2011b) http://bit.ly/fetCy6] I wrote (paraphrasing):

“I disagree that SET’s are a valid method of measuring ‘teaching productivity’ IF ‘teaching productivity’ means ‘student learning’ - see e.g., ‘Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment the Remedy?’ [Hake (2002a)], ‘SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance #4’ [Hake (2006e)], and ‘Effectiveness of Student Evaluations’ [PhysLrnR (2011)].”

In the present post I give 7 EXHIBITS suggesting that “SET’s ARE NOT VALID GAUGES OF STUDENTS' HIGHER-LEVEL LEARNING”: (1) Halloun & Hestenes (1985a); (2) Crouch & Mazur (2001); (3) Eric Mazur (1997, 2009); (4) John Belcher (2003); (5) Richard Hake (2006f); (6) Richard Hake (2011c); (7) Russ Hunt (2011); and (8) David Gavrin (2003).

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

To access the complete 76 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/jLZaz5.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize

the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”

Wood & Gentile (2003)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 May 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011. “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5. Post of 17 May 2011 09:47:36-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being distributed to various discussion lists.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.

How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2” [Hake (2011d)].

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

ABSTRACT: In my post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” [Hake (2011c)], I wrote:

“. . . . demonstrations that the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of Korsunsky's high school and Stuyvesant High School are inequitable would require meaningful value-added measures such as normalized average pre-to-posttest gains on valid and consistently reliable tests of higher-order learning. . .”

Math-Teach's “Haim” responded: “The problem is that you are not sure what you are measuring."

NONSENSE! In the case of Harvard, the higher-order learning consisted of conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics.

Haim continued: “First, parents and students seem to know something about Stuyvesant that educator assessments clearly fail to discern. . . . . Second . . . very many of Stuyvesant's students graduate at a very high level (certainly by comparison to most other high school graduates) of academic achievement. . . . the real problem is transparent. It is the ceiling effect. . . .City-wide and state-wide assessments are simply not designed for academic institutions.”

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with the theme of my post: “It is conceivable that if there were ‘Eric Mazurs’ or ‘John Belchers’ at Korsunsky's high-school and the Stuyvesant High School, scenarios similar to that at Harvard and MIT might occur. . . . . [[i.e., realization that students were not learning much from traditional passive-student lecture methods followed by a switch to interactive-engagement pedagogy.]]. . . . , even though all those institutions are regarded as ‘elite.’ ”

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

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gxUOAb .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“Above all things we must be aware of what I will call ‘inert ideas’

- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind

without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.”

Alfred North Whitehead (1929, 1965) in The Aims of Education

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Jan 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “The Ceiling Effect #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hUnHZe. Post of 12 Jan 2011 16:19:49-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gLWr7W with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fN1HmD. Post of 18 Jan 2011 15:34:47-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/h23shQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g25OHd. Post of 22 Jan 2011 14:50:14-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gnLPjH with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011d. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions – Response to Haim #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gxUOAb. Post of 26 Jan 2011 16:14:36-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists. See also the relevant previous posts Hake (2011a,b,c)].

Whitehead, A.N. 1967. Aims of Education and other essays. Free Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/fIUbXB. First published in 1929. Note the “Look Inside” feature.