Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
***********************************************
ABSTRACT: John Denker, in his PhysLrnR post “The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents” called attention to Rebecca Mead's New Yorker article of the same name at http://nyr.kr/M6qz4j. Mead wrote: “. . . . there is a burgeoning opt-out movement, with parents, teachers, and administrators questioning the efficacy of the tests as they are currently administered, in measuring both the performance of teachers and the progress of students.”
Denker wrote (paraphrasing): “There's a medium-sized revolt going on. But it's not a huge revolt because of weak messaging and weak leadership. Specifically the anti-testers haven't come up with a crisp description of what they are revolting against . . . . or where they would like to go instead.”
Denker is either oblivious or dismissive of the vigorous leadership, voluminous messaging, and pro-public-/anti-private-education positions of (a) Diane Ravitch and (b) “Fair Test” http://www.fairtest.org/ with its discussion list ARN-L with OPEN! archives at http://bit.ly/jeiTPm.
Unfortunately, both Ravitch and “Fair Test” appear to be uninformed regarding the virtues of rigorous measurement of students’ higher-order learning by means of zero-stakes FORMATIVE (i.e., “designed and used to improve an object, especially when it is still being developed”) pre/post testing utilizing Concept Inventories http://bit.ly/dARkDY which are constructed by disciplinary experts through arduous qualitative and quantitative research – see e.g., (a) “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education” (Hake, 2011) at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB); and (b) “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” (Hake, 2013) at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).
***********************************************
To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1mYwWoa.
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); 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.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: The Defiant Parents: Testing’s Discontents” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1mYwWoa.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Showing posts with label John Denker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Denker. Show all posts
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Re: Entropy again
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Re: Entropy again”[Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: Antti Savinainen in his Phys-L post “Entropy again” wrote that:
(a) he was about to teach entropy at the high school level but realized that the syllabus statement “entropy is a system property that expresses the degree of disorder in the system” was not a satisfactory characterization of entropy; and
(b) “it would be interesting to hear ideas on how to define or characterize entropy at an introductory level.”
Antti pointed to 4 references on entropy by Denker, Lambert, and Leff that he regarded as “useful, or at least interesting.” I add 6 more references to Antti’s list and then quote portions of Denker’s response to Antti, in which Denker advocates the “probabilistic approach” to entropy and severely criticizes the “spreading metaphor” of Lambert and Leff.
Henri Poncare wrote: “When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. FOR A DEFINITION TO BE OF ANY USE, IT MUST TEACH US TO MEASURE FORCE; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.”
Likewise, in discussions of entropy it would seem worthwhile to specify HOW ENTROPY CAN BE MEASURED. Leff (2012) does so in the context of the “spreading metaphor.” I wonder if Denker could explain how his favored “probabilistic approach” specifies how to physically MEASURE entropy in real substances?
************************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zVixYk.
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
“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”
John Dewey “Morals Are Human,” Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Jan 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Entropy again,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zVixYk. Post of 7 Jan 2012 14:51:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..
Leff, H. 2012. “Removing the Mystery of Entropy and Thermodynamics - Part I,” Phys. Teach. 50(1): 28-31; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/wLy3En. Parts II-V will be published in Phys. Teach 50 (2012).
************************************************
ABSTRACT: Antti Savinainen in his Phys-L post “Entropy again” wrote that:
(a) he was about to teach entropy at the high school level but realized that the syllabus statement “entropy is a system property that expresses the degree of disorder in the system” was not a satisfactory characterization of entropy; and
(b) “it would be interesting to hear ideas on how to define or characterize entropy at an introductory level.”
Antti pointed to 4 references on entropy by Denker, Lambert, and Leff that he regarded as “useful, or at least interesting.” I add 6 more references to Antti’s list and then quote portions of Denker’s response to Antti, in which Denker advocates the “probabilistic approach” to entropy and severely criticizes the “spreading metaphor” of Lambert and Leff.
Henri Poncare wrote: “When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. FOR A DEFINITION TO BE OF ANY USE, IT MUST TEACH US TO MEASURE FORCE; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion.”
Likewise, in discussions of entropy it would seem worthwhile to specify HOW ENTROPY CAN BE MEASURED. Leff (2012) does so in the context of the “spreading metaphor.” I wonder if Denker could explain how his favored “probabilistic approach” specifies how to physically MEASURE entropy in real substances?
************************************************
To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zVixYk.
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
“Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”
John Dewey “Morals Are Human,” Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207
REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Jan 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Entropy again,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zVixYk. Post of 7 Jan 2012 14:51:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..
Leff, H. 2012. “Removing the Mystery of Entropy and Thermodynamics - Part I,” Phys. Teach. 50(1): 28-31; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/wLy3En. Parts II-V will be published in Phys. Teach 50 (2012).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
