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.
Showing posts with label Richard Shavelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Shavelson. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012
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.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills
Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills” [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
*****************************************
ABSTRACT: David Musick of the DrEd list wrote (paraphrasing): “We are working on a project related to ‘critical thinking skills’ and how they might be assessed in medical students. I am aware of the ‘California Critical Thinking Skills Test series’ and the ‘Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.’ I would be interested in learning more about similar instruments."
DrEd subscribers suggested the “Health Sciences Reasoning Test,” a test “developed for use by educators and researchers to assess the critical thinking skills of health science professionals and health science students,” commercially available from “Insight Assessment” http://www.insightassessment.com/.
Among other tests that might be of interest to Musick and others are:
a. Biologist Anton Lawson’s “Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning” (CTSR), a test of “ability to apply aspects of scientific and mathematical reasoning to analyze a situation, make a prediction, or solve a problem.” The CTSR has contributed importantly to physics education research, thanks to Coletta, Phillips, & Steinert.
b. The Council for Aid to Education’s “Collegiate Learning Assessment” (CLA) employed by Arum & Roksa (2011) to show (purportedly) that U.S. higher education is Academically Adrift. Arum & Roksa (p. 21) wrote: “According to its developers, the CLA was designed to access 'core outcomes espoused by all of higher education - critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing.’ ”
I give academic references to all the above tests as well as to valuable articles in the critical thinking area:
(1) “Assessing Critical Thinking Skills” [Stein et al. (2003)],
(2) “Responding Responsibly To the Frenzy to Assess Learning in Higher Education” [Shavelson & Huang (2003)].
*****************************************
To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/oMew7d.
ADDENDUM
In response to “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills” [Hake (2011)], Steven Jones (2011) wrote:
“I would also encourage those interested in the assessment of critical thinking skills to consider using the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT), a tool created by folks at Tennessee Tech in consultation with a rather impressive national advisory board. The CAT may be of particular interest to subscribers of POD because - aside from its obvious use for assessment of critical thinking -- the test is intentionally designed so that it can be used as a catalyst for faculty development as well. Information about the CAT can be found at: http://www.tntech.edu/cat/home/”
According to information at http://www.tntech.edu/cat/contacts/, Barry Stein is the principal investigator.
In the abstract of Hake (2011) I wrote: “I give academic references to all the above tests as well as to valuable articles in the critical thinking area: (1) ‘Assessing Critical Thinking Skills’ [Stein et al. (2003)]”
Unfortunately I had earlier been unaware of the more recent work of Stein and his colleagues at Tennessee Tech that had culminated in the valuable "Critical thinking Assessment Test [CAT (2011)].
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
“What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess,
and if we don't assess it, we won't get it.”
Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 24 August 2011.]
Bransford, J.D. & B.S. Stein. 1993. The Ideal Problem Solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. Worth Publishers; 2nd edition. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/n1fG5E.
CAT. 2011. “Critical thinking Assessment Test” Tennessee Technological University, online at
http://www.tntech.edu/cat/home/ . According to the Overview: “The CAT Instrument is a unique tool designed to assess and promote the improvement of critical thinking and real-world problem solving skills. The instrument is the product of extensive development, testing, and refinement with a broad range of institutions, faculty, and students across the country. The National Science Foundation has provided support for many of these activities.”
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/oMew7d. Post of 24 Aug 2011 09:02:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Jones, S.K. 2011. “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills,” online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://bit.ly/qCB4Yz . Post of 24 Aug 2011 14:08:59-0600.
Stein, B.S. A.F. Haynes, and J. Unterstein. 2003. “Assessing Critical Thinking Skills,” Paper presented at SACS/COC Annual Meeting / Nashville, Tennessee / December 6 - 9; online as a 385 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/mWzHkg . The Appendix lists “Current Critical Thinking Tests, Types, and Weaknesses (Based on Information Obtained from U.S. Department of Education, 2000).” Stein is coauthor of The Ideal Problem Solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity [Bransford & Stein (1993)].
Wiggins, G. 1990. “The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts,” AAHE Assessment Forum: 17-31; online at http://bit.ly/a7g09T.
The abstract reads:
*****************************************
ABSTRACT: David Musick of the DrEd list wrote (paraphrasing): “We are working on a project related to ‘critical thinking skills’ and how they might be assessed in medical students. I am aware of the ‘California Critical Thinking Skills Test series’ and the ‘Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.’ I would be interested in learning more about similar instruments."
DrEd subscribers suggested the “Health Sciences Reasoning Test,” a test “developed for use by educators and researchers to assess the critical thinking skills of health science professionals and health science students,” commercially available from “Insight Assessment” http://www.insightassessment.com/.
Among other tests that might be of interest to Musick and others are:
a. Biologist Anton Lawson’s “Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning” (CTSR), a test of “ability to apply aspects of scientific and mathematical reasoning to analyze a situation, make a prediction, or solve a problem.” The CTSR has contributed importantly to physics education research, thanks to Coletta, Phillips, & Steinert.
b. The Council for Aid to Education’s “Collegiate Learning Assessment” (CLA) employed by Arum & Roksa (2011) to show (purportedly) that U.S. higher education is Academically Adrift. Arum & Roksa (p. 21) wrote: “According to its developers, the CLA was designed to access 'core outcomes espoused by all of higher education - critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing.’ ”
I give academic references to all the above tests as well as to valuable articles in the critical thinking area:
(1) “Assessing Critical Thinking Skills” [Stein et al. (2003)],
(2) “Responding Responsibly To the Frenzy to Assess Learning in Higher Education” [Shavelson & Huang (2003)].
*****************************************
To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/oMew7d.
ADDENDUM
In response to “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills” [Hake (2011)], Steven Jones (2011) wrote:
“I would also encourage those interested in the assessment of critical thinking skills to consider using the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT), a tool created by folks at Tennessee Tech in consultation with a rather impressive national advisory board. The CAT may be of particular interest to subscribers of POD because - aside from its obvious use for assessment of critical thinking -- the test is intentionally designed so that it can be used as a catalyst for faculty development as well. Information about the CAT can be found at: http://www.tntech.edu/cat/home/”
According to information at http://www.tntech.edu/cat/contacts/, Barry Stein is the principal investigator.
In the abstract of Hake (2011) I wrote: “I give academic references to all the above tests as well as to valuable articles in the critical thinking area: (1) ‘Assessing Critical Thinking Skills’ [Stein et al. (2003)]”
Unfortunately I had earlier been unaware of the more recent work of Stein and his colleagues at Tennessee Tech that had culminated in the valuable "Critical thinking Assessment Test [CAT (2011)].
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
“What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess,
and if we don't assess it, we won't get it.”
Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 24 August 2011.]
Bransford, J.D. & B.S. Stein. 1993. The Ideal Problem Solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. Worth Publishers; 2nd edition. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/n1fG5E.
CAT. 2011. “Critical thinking Assessment Test” Tennessee Technological University, online at
http://www.tntech.edu/cat/home/ . According to the Overview: “The CAT Instrument is a unique tool designed to assess and promote the improvement of critical thinking and real-world problem solving skills. The instrument is the product of extensive development, testing, and refinement with a broad range of institutions, faculty, and students across the country. The National Science Foundation has provided support for many of these activities.”
Hake, R.R. 2011. “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/oMew7d. Post of 24 Aug 2011 09:02:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Jones, S.K. 2011. “Re: Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills,” online on the OPEN! POD archives at http://bit.ly/qCB4Yz . Post of 24 Aug 2011 14:08:59-0600.
Stein, B.S. A.F. Haynes, and J. Unterstein. 2003. “Assessing Critical Thinking Skills,” Paper presented at SACS/COC Annual Meeting / Nashville, Tennessee / December 6 - 9; online as a 385 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/mWzHkg . The Appendix lists “Current Critical Thinking Tests, Types, and Weaknesses (Based on Information Obtained from U.S. Department of Education, 2000).” Stein is coauthor of The Ideal Problem Solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity [Bransford & Stein (1993)].
Wiggins, G. 1990. “The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts,” AAHE Assessment Forum: 17-31; online at http://bit.ly/a7g09T.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
