In Defense of the NRC's Scientific Research in Education

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “In Defense of the NRC's Scientific Research in Education” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” [Hake (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z I listed the one-line headings of the “six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry (including education research)” as set down in the “Executive Summary” of the NRC’s Scientific Research in Education [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV.

In response, Math Education Guru http://bit.ly/SeJcCL Clyde Greeno (2012) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 denounced the six principles as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science,” on the basis of their one-line headings, evidently not bothering to scan the book Scientific Research in Education or even the paragraph-long elaborations of the six principles in the “Executive Summary.” In this post I juxtapose for each of NRC’s six one-line headings (a) Greeno’s criticism, and (b) NRC’s one-paragraph elaboration, and invite readers to judge the validity of Greeno' criticisms. Greeno ended his critique with: (a) “I am amazed that the NRC would allow such a publication,” and (b) “[The World is] more than anxious to learn of whatever educational research efforts qualify as being genuinely ‘scientific.’ ”

Regarding (a) above, I am amazed that Greeno would denounce the NRC’s six guiding principles on the basis of what he (often mistakenly) perceives them to mean from their one-line headings. Regarding (b) above, he and other skeptics might consider scanning: (1) “The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns” [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at http://bit.ly/axznvY; (2) “A Developmental History of Physics Education Research” [Cummings (2011) at http://bit.ly/TkBMOi; (3) “The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance For Engineering Education” [Hake (2011a)] at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB); and (4) and “Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics” [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at http://bit.ly/O35gtB.
********************************************


To access the complete 46 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VtXvAV.


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

“Education is not rocket science, it’s much harder.”
- George Nelson, astronaut, astrophysicist, and former director of the AAAS Project 2061, as quoted by Redish (1999)

“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 [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “In Defense of the NRC’s ‘Scientific Research in Education,’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV. Post of 26 Oct 2012 17:04:49-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Redish, E.F. 1999. “Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online as a 258 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/KMqgIx.

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.

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.

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.