What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2” [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs, Ze'ev Wurman (2012) in a Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR (to access this post non-subscribers will need to click on “New User” in the upper left-hand corner and fill out a form) made the following five points (paraphrased for brevity [Ze’ev, please comment if you think I’ve failed to convey your meaning]:

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
1. My post focussed on Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because he used the word “disinterested” to mean “uninterested” (in consonance with the OED and Merriam Webster). Considering Hake’s citation of Strunk & White at http://amzn.to/OGx7jv and Follett at http://bit.ly/Nayixo, who oppose defining “disinterested” to mean “uninterested,” I'm happy that I chose OED and Merriam Webster over Strunk & White and Follett.

2. I am not surprised by Hake’s crude misinterpretations of my quite precise critique of elementary librarians vs. teachers.

3. Nor am I surprised by Hake's preference of physics-for-dummies (“Hands- and Minds-On’ in his mellifluous description).

4. But I was taken aback by Hake’s belief that my support of phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is “uninformed.” After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is NICHD’s http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk, http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA and the National Reading Panel http://bit.ly/P8AG2l. When it suits him, Hake prefers charlatanism over empirical evidence.

5. But the real issue is what all the above has to do with the issue at hand – Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because of Hansen’s use of a word Hake didn't like or know.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

In this post I comment on the above five points, indicating Wurman’s numerous errors, misrepresentations, and vacuities.
************************************************

To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/NSbCh8.

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/KwZ6m

“. . . .there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a skills-oriented traditional curriculum. . . . . .They represent different value systems. I believe that rational, reflective discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the two sides closer together. . . . . . . I am told that California schools educate one-seventh of the students in this country. There is too much at stake to continue the fighting, to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should be.”
- Judith Sowder (1998)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “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 and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/MPsKXQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/NSbCh8. Post of 25 Aug 2012 15:56:24-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Learn, and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/SCjR4F with a provision for comments.

Sowder, J.T. 1998. “What are the ‘Math Wars’ in California All About? Reasons and Perspectives,” Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as a 98 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/O6R9If, thanks to Professor Bowen Brawner of Tarleton State University.

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..