Re: Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Stimulated by a physicist's request for information on “Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards” [Shelley, Yore, & Hand, eds. (2009a) - hereafter “SYH]”, I mined the internet for information on the SYH's: I - editors; II - contents, subject & author indices; III - theme; IV - treatment of Randomized Control Trials; and V - allusions to Physics Education Research. The resultant information, relayed in this post, may be of interest to some discussion-list subscribers.

Most of the contributors to SYH are skeptical of the U.S. Dept. of Education's enthronement of Randomized Control Trials (RCT's) as the “Gold Standard” of education research, consistent with the views of most evaluation experts.

On the other hand, the authors contributing to SYH appear to be either dismissive or oblivious of physics education research, inconsistent with the generally positive opinions of most observers.

For example, Millar and Osborne(2009) make the following erroneous claims (paraphrasing): “No standard or commonly agreed outcome measures exist for any major topic. Published assessment tools such as the 'Force Concept Inventory' have not been subjected to the kind of rigorous scrutiny of factorial structure and content validity that would be standard practice for measures of attainment or learning outcome in other subject areas.”

Despite SYH's cavalier dismissal of physics education research, I think some discussion-list subscribers might consider scanning a begged, borrowed, or stolen copy of SYH, before paying Springer's piratical $215 for a personal copy.

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

To access the complete 45 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yhhbu72.

REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Re: Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yhhbu72 . Post of 22 Feb 2010 14:04:43-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract is being sent to various discussion lists.

Millar, R. & J. Osborne. 2009. “Research and Practice: A Complex Relationship?” Chapter 3, pages 41-62, of Shelley et al. (2009a). Surprisingly, the Google book preview of Shelley et al. (2009a) at http://tinyurl.com/yddphh3 contains all of pages 41-62. To see click repeatedly on the “>” at the top of the first page to go to page vi and then click on chapter 3.

Shelley, M.C., L.D. Yore, & B. Hand, eds. 2009a. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards.” Springer, publisher's information at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2447682464446x2/. Amazon.com information at http://tinyurl.com/yf7efra, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. Barnes & Noble information at http://tinyurl.com/y8n9pe9. An expurgated (teaser) version is online as a Google “book preview” at http://tinyurl.com/yddphh3.

Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009). The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In emails to biology educators:

(a) Kathleen Fisher (2009) advocated a physics-education-reform type model (evidently sans pre/post testing) for biology education, stimulated by Henderson & Dancy's (2009) web-survey-based estimate (evidently sans pre/post testing) that 50% of college physics courses utilize “student engagement”; and

(b) Mike Klymkowsky, responding to Fisher, wrote:

“. . . .physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy (or skills), so (slavishly) following the physics model seems unlikely to address the real issues, which are the identification of topics, approaches, and assessments that can drive (and perhaps more importantly, encourage) improvements in biological literacy/competence. . . . . . . .”

I disagree with the above Klymkowsky claim that:

(1) physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy; and with subsequent claims that:

(2) physicists are teaching mostly 18th and 19th century physics that is of little relevance to non-physics majors;

(3) it's well established that “being Socratic” is more effective than lecturing;

(4) the work of Henderson and Dancy is primarily concerned with how to get other faculty to adopt more effective pedagogical approaches; and

(5) those approaches often involve superficial reform (as evidenced in part by the fact that reforms suggested by Michels et al. (1957)] are still waiting to be implemented.

To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. ”Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 . Post of 13 August 22:04:00-0000 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract was also distributed to various discussion lists.