Re: Teaching and Learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: Teaching and Learning” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy (2014) in his Math-Teach post titled “Re: Khan Academy 2.0” at http://bit.ly/1tGPvAN wrote: “At its core, teaching has to be about helping the student to learn.”

To which math education guru Robert Hansen responded at http://bit.ly/YYpwJJ: “teaching is about teaching things. That is pedagogy. In an ideal world, every student would be able to learn every thing the teacher teaches. It is only (relatively) recently that teaching took on the role of learning, or better known as remediation, and quite frankly, not only does it suck at it, the more you make teaching about learning, the less you make it about teaching, until such point, it isn't about teaching at all. Or learning.”

For a more informed view of the relationship of teaching to learning see “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” [Barr & Tagg (1995)] at http://bit.ly/8XGJPc. They wrote: “A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted.”
************************************

To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VQx4MP.

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.

Boy #1: "I taught my dog to whistle."
Boy #2: "I don't hear him whistling."
Boy #1: "I said I taught him. I didn't say he learned it."
- Cartoon at http://bit.ly/1rCyR71

REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 Aug 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Re: Teaching and Learning" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VQx4MP. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

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.

Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3

Some blog followers be interested in a recent post “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Stacy Brown (2012) of the Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (RUME) list wrote at http://bit.ly/V55OTz (paraphrasing):

"Mathematics educators such as Jo Boaler (2012) http://bit.ly/R6XsuP are not the only academics who have had the misfortune of encountering attacks from Wayne Bishop. Science educators who worked with Cal Tech’s Precollege Science Initiative (CAPSI) project http://bit.ly/T9qRsv have been subjected to treatment from Bishop who called on federal funding agencies to audit several of their science projects in California in the hopes that the grant’s funds would be revoked.”

Further evidence that Traditionalist Math Warriors (TMW’s) such as Bishop, Hansen, and “Haim” are virulently opposed to ALL attempts (not just those in math education) to depart from “direct instruction”. . . . [in the sense used by the “Mathematically Correct Science Corner” http://bit.ly/bfzdZS: “drill and practice,” “non-hands-on,” “teach ’em the facts”; and “non-discovery-learning,” where “discovery learning” means setting students adrift either in aimless play or ostensibly to discover on their own, say, Archimedes’ principle or Newton’s Second Law - see Hake (2008b) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD]. . . . can be had by visiting the OPEN! archives http://bit.ly/eOTrs1 of Math-Teach, a den of TMW's. See, for example, the posts of:
(a) Bishop: click on “att1.html” near the top of the page at http://bit.ly/RBMyPZ and http://bit.ly/XoaQxx;
(b)"Haim" at http://bit.ly/RBDpHa, http://bit.ly/RTNfBB, and http://bit.ly/QmM5gb; and
(c) Hansen at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn and http://bit.ly/U4LDJx.

Hansen's response at http://bit.ly/XkAtiO to my post “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/R1q22j is typical of the pathologic excess of TMW rhetoric. Hansen wrote: “I am quite content to keep [education researchers] in check by pointing out their lack of honesty and method. These poor bastards are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . . . . Zealots full of ideology, devoid of fact or logic.. . . . Hakes and Boalers are part of the weather, albeit, the bad part. . . . . These poor bastards have been struggling for 40 years and they will struggle for another 40 years. I suspect that eventually they will move on to something other than mathematics, cause it really isn’t working out for them here. But I don’t suspect they will change their ways.”
**********************************************

To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/QuqXqo.

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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriorsn #3,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/QuqXqo. Post of 18 Oct 2012 07:47:21-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Hansen” at http://bit.ly/NxE6kB, I paraphrased Hansen's answers at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn to David Bressoud's question at http://bit.ly/MrAuyZ : “Why doesn’t the existence of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) together with documentation of their effectiveness guarantee their widespread adoption?” as follows:

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The physicists’ research based instructional strategies [RBIS]:

1. appear very compromised, designed as they are for only academically uninterested terminal students;

2. lack the essentials for academically interested students: rigor, detail, development, and challenge;

3. claim to be “successful,” but here the accepted notion of “success” is replaced with something entirely different;

4. doomed because they don’t produce advocates.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I then argued that THE ABOVE FOUR ANSWERS ARE BLATANTLY INCORRECT.

[Note: I think Hansen's slightly corrected four paraphrased answers at http://bit.ly/PfeOn4 are also blatantly incorrect.]

In response, Ze’ev Wurman in a Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/Px8qKf excused himself from any detailed analysis of Hansen’s answers with this vague statement: “Hake then tries to reject Hansen’s arguments. Unsuccessfully as far as I am concerned, but that is neither here nor there.” Instead Wurman concentrated on nitpicking my offhand criticism of Hansen’s misuse of disinterested to mean uninterested. Accordingly, this post is in two parts:

PART I: “Hansen’s Use of Disinterested to Mean Uninterested Is a Linguistic Atrocity,” for those interested in linguistics;

PART II. “Wurman’s Long Record of Uninformed Arguments in Favor of Bad Educational Ideas,” for those interested in education: Examples – Wurman’s advocacy of:
A. Diverting K-12 Funding From Librarians to Teachers,
B. Direct Instruction Over Hands- and Minds-On Pedagogy,
C. Phonics Over Whole Language for Reading Instruction.
*********************************************

To access the complete 61 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/TXMvNs.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

“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 [URL shortened by http://bitly.com/ and accessed on 23 August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists..

What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Hansen

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Hansen” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists” [Hake (2012b)] at http://bit.ly/ROjN2T, MathTeach's Robert Hansen (2012) at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn first quoted from David Bressoud's (2012a) “Learning from the Physicists” at http://bit.ly/MrAuyZ:

“Unfortunately, the experience of the physicists. . . . [[according to Henderson et al. at http://bit.ly/MWSxIU]]. . . ., demonstrates that the existence of research based instructional strategies. . . . [[RBIS]]. . . . together with documentation of their effectiveness is not sufficient to guarantee their widespread adoption. Why not?. . . . . The work that they have done via surveys of physics faculty demonstrates that the greatest problem is not in making faculty aware of what has been done, or even in getting faculty to try different approaches to teaching. THE GREATEST PROBLEM IS IN GETTING FACULTY TO STICK WITH THESE STRATEGIES.” [My CAPS.]

Hansen then proceeded to ignore Bressoud’s answer: “The greatest problem is in getting faculty to stick with these strategies” as derived from Henderson et al. and give his own answers to Bressoud's question: “Why doesn't the existence of RBIS together with documentation of their effectiveness guarantee their widespread adoption?” [paraphrasing in an attempt to eliminate at least some of Hansen’s ambiguity, illiteracy, imprecision, redundancy, and verbosity - Robert please correct me if you think my paraphrasing distorts your intended meaning]:

The physicists' research based instructional strategies [RBIS]:

1. appear very compromised, designed as they are for only academically uninterested terminal students;

2. lack the essentials for academically interested students: rigor, detail, development, and challenge;

3. claim to be “successful,” but here the accepted notion of “success” is replaced with something entirely different;

4. doomed because they don't produce advocates.

In this post I show that Hansen’s four answers (above) to Bressoud’s question are all blatantly incorrect.
*********************************************

To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/NxE6kB.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 August 2012.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Hansen” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/NxE6kB. Post of 18 Aug 2012 14:55:51-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding ?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding? ” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Math-Teach’s Robert Hansen, in his post “An Interesting Study” http://bit.ly/xRJ4Nw wrote (paraphrasing): “Thomas Judson’s study ‘High School Calculus in the United States and in Japan’ http://bit.ly/z13oSx shows what I’ve been asserting all along – Hake’s hypothesis that good students who can solve problems lack conceptual understanding is BS.”

That “good students who can solve problems lack conceptual understanding” is NOT the “Hake hypothesis” and is NOT “BS,” unless “BS” means something like “Basic Sense.” See, for example Kim & Pak’s “Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems” http://bit.ly/ApWSju.
**********************************************

To access the complete 10 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/xE2vbg.

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
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 March 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Is It Possible For Students Who Can Solve Traditional Problems To Lack Conceptual Understanding?” on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/xE2vbg. Post of 5 Mar 2012 19:42:03-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4” [Hake (2011c)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In my post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” http://bit.ly/eh6sge, I suggested over 30 references that might have helped to alleviate his near zero knowledge of physics education research. In his response http://bit.ly/fjJAdl Hansen demonstrated that he had either not bothered to read or had not understood the recommended references. In this post I give six excerpts quoted from Hansen's (2011) reply, along with my responses to the nonsensical assertions Hansen makes in each of those excerpts.

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

To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/hBhrJw.

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

“If you try to introduce people. . . . .[[such as Hansen]]. . . to a paradigm shift, they will hear what you have to say and then interpret your words in terms of their old paradigm. What does not fit, they will not hear.”

Myron Tribus (2001)

“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)

“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. . . . . We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.”

Robert DeHaan (2005)

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 April 2011.]

DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; the abstract and first page are online at http://bit.ly/cqIK1w.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ifvkSz, with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/efQg1g, with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #4,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hBhrJw. Post of 22 Apr 2011 14:11:15-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Hansen, R. 2011. “Re: ‘The 'Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/fjJAdl. Post of April 17 to Math-Teach & Math-Learn.

Tribus, M. 2001. “Quality in Education According to the Teachings of Deming and Feuerstein,” online as a 78 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/hwcbjn. A Wikipedia entry on Myron Tribus is athttp://bit.ly/g5uGEk.

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.

The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” [Hake (2011b)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” [Hake (2011a)], Math-Teach’s Robert Hansen wrote (paraphrasing):

“Is there a complete high-school assessment endorsed by PER [Physics Education Research]? The FCI [Force Concept Inventory] assesses only one component of physics and I think that keeps people, especially physicists, from getting too excited over normalized gains on the FCI.”

Hansen is either dismissive or oblivious of the fact that PER is concerned with (a) students’ conceptual understanding, (b) students’ ability to solve non-algorithmic problems, and (c) at least 10 other capabilities listed in this post. I suggest over 30 references to the PER literature that might reduce Hansen’s confusion.

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

To access the complete 24 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/eh6sge.

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 (PEDARRI)

rrhake@earthlink.net

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

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

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“The premium so often put in schools upon external ‘discipline,’ and upon marks and rewards, upon promotion and keeping back, are the obverse of the lack of attention given to life situations in which the meaning of facts, ideas, principles, and problems is vitally brought home.”

John Dewey (1916)

REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 14 April 2011 and shortened by http://bit.ly/.]

Dewey, J. 1916. “The Nature of Realization or Appreciation” in Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, online at http://bit.ly/evICPb, Chapter 18, Educational Values, Section 1.1.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ifvkSz.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #2

Blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #2” [Hake (2011b)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities” [Hake (2011a)], Math-Teach's Robert Hansen wrote: “If you want to fix education you don't start at the end. . . . .You start at the beginning.”

Similarly, according to a report in Inside Higher Ed by Stephanie Lee (2009), Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation, said: “The quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately begins with solid instruction at the K-12 level. While higher education remains strong, it is clear it cannot continue without a strong foundation.”

In response to Gregorian, “Steve” in a comment on Lee’s report wrote: “From experience I know that the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately DOES NOT begin with solid instruction at the K-12 level, it begins with the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities. For far too long higher education has 'passed the buck' by not producing qualified teachers.”

Right on, Steve, consistent with the NSF’s (1996) report “Shaping the Future” and Don Langenberg's http://bit.ly/gRxINE incisive: “Although we in higher education are very skillful at ignoring the obvious, it is gradually dawning on some of us that we bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this sad situation [the state of K-12 education].”

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

To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gZSf8W.

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

“. . . I know from both experience and research that the teacher is at the heart of student learning and school improvement by virtue of being the classroom authority and gatekeeper for change. Thus the preparation, induction, and career development of teachers remain the Archimedean lever for both short- and long-term improvement of public schools.”

Larry Cuban (2003) in Why Is It So Hard To Get Good Schools? (page 1)

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 March 2011.]

Cuban, L. 2003. Why Is It So Hard To Get Good Schools? Teachers College Press, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/gSn3P2. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/gvxHIb. Note the “Look Inside” feature.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eqw6ow. Post of 4 Mar 2011 08:04:14-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/hnkAuJ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gZSf8W. Post of 6 Mar 2011 15:16:50 -0800 to AERA-L & Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists.