Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
****************************************
ABSTRACT: MathEdCC’s Alain Schremmer at http://bit.ly/VNUvPV opined that: (a) research in mathematics education does not exist; (b) physics cannot be taught as lecture only; (c) Hake (2002b) at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV disagreed with Greeno (2002a) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 because Hake is unfamiliar with math education and thinks its problems are similar to those in physics education.
I argue in opposition to the above that:
(a) Research in mathematics education does exist, see e.g., the 18 entries preceded by double asterisks ** in the REFERENCE list of my complete post at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
(b) Physics has been taught essentially as lecture only (where taught does not mean learned), witness the fourteen “traditional” (T) courses (N = 2084) in Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG.
(c) I disagreed with Greeno, not because of my unfamiliarity math education, but because Greeno denounced as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” the six guiding principles suggested in Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, as underlying all education research; whereas I think those principles are consistent with the nature of science as I have experienced it and as has been explained by Ziman (2002) at http://bit.ly/VtdoHR.
****************************************
To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.
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
“He . . . .[or she]. . . . that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Edmund Burke (1790)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 Nov 2012.]
Burke, E. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Available as a 2006 edition by Dover; Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/c4wbfS. Online at http://bit.ly/fjYUfD thanks to Questia. See also the Wikipedia entry at http://bit.ly/hMaGfn.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3. Post of 6 Nov 2012 11:12:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Scientific Research in Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific Research in Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Can Education Research Be “Scientific”? What's “Scientific”? (was “in Defense of. . . .”)
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’? What's ‘Scientific’? (was ‘in Defense of. . . .’)” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “In Defense of the NRC’s Scientific Research in Education ” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV [response by Greeno at http://bit.ly/TXbnID], PhysLrnR’s Noah Podolefsky (2012) at **http://bit.ly/TMOR56** (here and below **. . .** signifies that access may require filling out a form to obtain a Listserv password).
(a) Pointed to articles (1) “Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto” [Popkewitz (2004)] at http://bit.ly/RqBTpp ; (2) “Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education” [Maxwell (2004)] at http://bit.ly/VwWtE9; and (3) “A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education” [Bloch (2004)] at http://bit.ly/XFxPoL; stating that “these papers argue that the NRC book is incomplete at best, and at worst a cartoonish caricature of science.”
(b) Implied that the NRC’s report Scientific Research in Education [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV did not adequately reflect the way science works, a topic discussed in a 14-post thread PhysLrnR thread “Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” of 9-13 July 2012 at **http://bit.ly/T68VLd**.
In this post I:
A. Argue that Podolefsky's claim that the articles by Popkewitz, Maxwell, and Bloch show that the NRC's report is (1) “incomplete” has been addressed by the authors of the report, and (2) “at worst a cartoonish caricature of science” is an overstatement.
B. Argue that Podolefsky's apparent implication (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the way science actually works is contrary to the way it's claimed to work in the NRC report is incorrect.
C. Provide a bibliography related to the questions “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’?” and “What's ‘Scientific’?”
************************************************
To access the complete 75 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ujaogk.
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
“It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge.”
- John Ziman (1969): “Information, Communication, Knowledge,” Nature 224 (5217): 324; online at http://bit.ly/cNPB1d.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 01 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’? What’s ‘Scientific’? (was ‘in Defense of. . . .’) ”; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ujaogk. Post of 31 Oct 2012 19:34:16 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “In Defense of the NRC’s Scientific Research in Education ” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV [response by Greeno at http://bit.ly/TXbnID], PhysLrnR’s Noah Podolefsky (2012) at **http://bit.ly/TMOR56** (here and below **. . .** signifies that access may require filling out a form to obtain a Listserv password).
(a) Pointed to articles (1) “Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto” [Popkewitz (2004)] at http://bit.ly/RqBTpp ; (2) “Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education” [Maxwell (2004)] at http://bit.ly/VwWtE9; and (3) “A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education” [Bloch (2004)] at http://bit.ly/XFxPoL; stating that “these papers argue that the NRC book is incomplete at best, and at worst a cartoonish caricature of science.”
(b) Implied that the NRC’s report Scientific Research in Education [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV did not adequately reflect the way science works, a topic discussed in a 14-post thread PhysLrnR thread “Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” of 9-13 July 2012 at **http://bit.ly/T68VLd**.
In this post I:
A. Argue that Podolefsky's claim that the articles by Popkewitz, Maxwell, and Bloch show that the NRC's report is (1) “incomplete” has been addressed by the authors of the report, and (2) “at worst a cartoonish caricature of science” is an overstatement.
B. Argue that Podolefsky's apparent implication (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the way science actually works is contrary to the way it's claimed to work in the NRC report is incorrect.
C. Provide a bibliography related to the questions “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’?” and “What's ‘Scientific’?”
************************************************
To access the complete 75 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Ujaogk.
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
“It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge.”
- John Ziman (1969): “Information, Communication, Knowledge,” Nature 224 (5217): 324; online at http://bit.ly/cNPB1d.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 01 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’? What’s ‘Scientific’? (was ‘in Defense of. . . .’) ”; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Ujaogk. Post of 31 Oct 2012 19:34:16 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Friday, October 26, 2012
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.
********************************************
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
