[net-gold] Physics Education Researchers Respond to "Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors"
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Other Net-Gold Lists -- Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <NetGold_general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Lists -- Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports Tourism <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HEALTH-RECREATION-SPORTS-TOURISM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
.
.
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:59:06 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Physics Education Researchers Respond to
"Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors"
.
.
If you reply to this long (18 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
.
***********************************************
.
ABSTRACT: Indicated below are reactions of three physics education
researchers to evidence [Hake (2012a)] at <http://bit.ly/QuqXqo> that
science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler
<http://bit.ly/R6XsuP>, have been "Under Fire By Traditionalist Math
Warriors" (double angle brackets <<. . . .>> surrounding URL's
indicate that access may require "obtaining a new Listserv password"):
.
1. John Belcher at <<http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6>> wrote "I don't know
whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at
<http://bit.ly/XkAtiO>: "These poor bastards [the Hakes and Boalers]
are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . ." Although
Hansen's comments are certainly laughable, Belcher may have cause to
cry - as co-author of the influential "How Does Technology-Enabled
Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of
Electromagnetism Concepts?" <http://bit.ly/fbOeA8>, Belcher's largely
to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the
Way of the Blackboard" <http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN>. Therefore Belcher
could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram
<http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c> hit list.
.
2. Antti Savinainen at <<http://bit.ly/RdtbdU>> wrote (liberally
paraphrasing): "All this reminds me of 'Merchants of Doubt: How a
Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke
to Global Warming' <http://bit.ly/XEw3U1>. Scientific debate is fine,
but it should take place in peer-reviewed journals, not in newspapers
or personal websites as described in the above book and is the case
for Bishop/Clopton/Milgram."
.
3. William Robertson at <<http://bit.ly/XAO5qj>> wrote, regarding
Savinainen's "peer reviewed journals": "anyone who thinks the peer
review process in journals is divorced from scientific and personal
biases is naive, and has likely never gone through the process." I
agree but reluctantly concede that peer review is probably
*necessary* but certainly not *sufficient* to promote the integrity
of the literature.
.
***********************************************
.
Indicated below are reactions of three physics education researchers
to evidence in Hake (2012a) that science educators, in addition to
mathematics educator Jo Boaler <http://bit.ly/R6XsuP>, have been
"Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors":
.
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
.
1. John Winston Belcher (2012) first quoted my quote [Hake (2012b)]
of Robert Hansen:
.
"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."
- Robert Hansen (2012)
.
And then commented: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry."
.
Although Hansen's Math-Teach comments, reflective of the
Traditionalist Math Warrior mentality, are almost always laughable,
the above comment may give Belcher cause to cry. As the co-author of
the influential "How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect
Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts?"
[Dori & Belcher (2004)], Belcher's largely to blame for the fact that
"At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard"
[Rimer (2009)]. Therefore Belcher could well be next on the
Bishop/Clopton/Milgram <http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c> hit list.
.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
.
2. Antti Savinainen (2012) wrote [my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . ."]:
.
"All this reminds me of an excellent book 'Merchants of Doubt' . . .
. .[[Oreskes & Conway (2010)]]. . . . . I'm just reading:
<http://bit.ly/XEw3U1>. Genuine *scientific* debate is fine. However,
it [should take] place in scientific forums such as peer-reviewed
journals, not in newspapers or personal websites. . . .[[as is the
case for Bishop, Clopton, & Milgram (undated and unpublished)]]. . .
. . Attacking scientific research and people doing it [in newspapers
or personal websites] (be it in education or in some other areas as
documented in the 'Merchants of Doubt') is a different thing."
.
Well said, Antti !
.
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
.
3. William Robertson (2012) responded to the above post by Savinainen
as follows: "Yes, but to veer off just a bit, anyone who thinks the
peer review process in journals is divorced from scientific and
personal biases is naive, and has likely never gone through the
process."
.
Here I find a second rare opportunity - for the first see "Re: Yet
More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller Team" [Hake (2012c)] to
*completely agree* with William Robertson, even though that means I
might be wrong. ["Ah! Don't say you agree with me. When people agree
with me I always feel that I must be wrong." - Oscar Wilde].
.
I learned from Scott Berkun's (2007) "The Myths of Innovation" that
Paul C. Lauterbur's <http://bit.ly/PJ8J7B> seminal 1973 paper on
magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by "Nature."
Lauterbur is co-winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine <http://bit.ly/RLhtGk> for discoveries concerning "magnetic
resonance imaging." Lauterbur is quoted by Davis (2007) as stating .
. . . "You can write the entire history of science in the last 50
years in terms of papers rejected by 'Science' or 'Nature.' Big ideas
in all fields endure dismissals, mockeries, and persecutions (for
them and their creators). . . . ."
.
See also "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by
Leading Economists" [Gans & Shepherd (1994)] and "Rejected: Leading
Economists Ponder the Publication Process" [Shepherd (1994)]. I
hope someone will eventually publish a Gans/Shepherd-type study of
the Physics Education Research field.
.
And in "Re: Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review" [Hake
(2010)] I quoted Patricia Cohen (2012) in a NYT piece "Scholars Test
Web Alternative to Peer Review":
.
"Clubby exclusiveness, sloppy editing and fraud have all marred peer
review on occasion. Anonymity can help prevent personal bias, but it
can also make reviewers less accountable; exclusiveness can help
ensure quality control but can also narrow the range of feedback and
participants."
.
My experience is consistent with the above and with Elbert Hubbard's
<http://bit.ly/XEsugt> definition of:
.
"EDITOR: A person employed on a newspaper. . . [or journal]. . . ,
whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see
to it that the chaff is printed." . . . . . . .for the "American
Journal of Physics" (AJP) see e.g., published CHAFF: Klein (2007);
rejected WHEAT: Hake (1998b, 2004), Williams & Dickinson (2006).
.
Despite all the above, I have to reluctantly concede that peer review
is probably *necessary* but certainly not *sufficient* to promote the
integrity of the literature.
.
For recent discussions of the merits and demerits of peer review and
open access see e.g., "Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of
Networked Science" [Nielsen (2011)], and "Publishers See Pitfalls in
Open Access" [APS News (2012)]. For a failed attempt at "Open Peer
Review" see Nature (2006).
.
.
.
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
21 Oct 2012. To access posts on PhysLrnR one needs to subscribe :-( ,
but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave
PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL"
option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access
the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO
MAIL from the list!
.
APS News. 2012. "Publishers See Pitfalls in Open Access," APS News
21(9): 17; online at <http://bit.ly/RUvhSh>.
.
Atkins, L.J. 2007. Comment on Klein (2007). Am. J. Phys. 75(9):
773-775; online to subscribers at <http://bit.ly/TpEdkl>. See also
her blog post at <http://bit.ly/diFjlY>, wherein Leslie wrote: "The
editorial itself isn't too surprising; it's the kind of editorial
that shows up in newspapers and websites when mathematics education
reform curriculum is introduced. And it's from a vocal critic of
those reforms. WHAT IS SURPRISING IS THAT THE AJP DECIDED TO PUBLISH
IT, WITH ALL OF ITS RANTING RHETORIC." [My CAPS.]
.
Belcher, J.W. 2012. . "Re: Science Educators Also Under Fire By
Traditionalist Math Warriors #3," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6>. Post of 18 Oct 2012 12:55:21-0400.
.
Berkun, S. 2007. "The Myths of Innovation," O'Reilly Media,
publisher's information at <http://oreil.ly/Reyn13>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/lumaT6>.
.
Bishop, W., P. Clopton, & R.J. Milgram. Undated. "A Close Examination
of Jo Boaler's Railside Report," online as a 549 kB pdf at
<http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c>, evidently unpublished.
.
Breslow, L. 2010. "Wrestling With Pedagogical Change: The Teal
Initiative at MIT," Change Magazine, September/October. A brief
Change Magazine abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/nFCymK>. A more
informative ERIC abstract is online at <http://1.usa.gov/qaPwdi>.
.
Cohen, P. 2010. "Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review," New
York Times, 23 August; online at <http://nyti.ms/amr2Um>. See also
Hake (2010).
.
Davis, K. 2007. "Public Libraries Open Their Doors," BIO-IT World,
February; online at <http://bit.ly/VfQUKi>.
.
Dori, Y.J. & J. Belcher. 2004. "How Does Technology-Enabled Active
Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of
Electromagnetism Concepts?" The Journal of the Learning Sciences
14(2), online as a 1 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/fbOeA8>. See also Rimer
(2009), and Breslow (2010).
.
Gans, J.S. & G.B. Shepherd. 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen:
Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 8(1): 165-179; online as a 1.6 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/mRd589>. See also the retrospective by Gans, online as
a 29 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/9sNdu7> and Shepherd (1994).
.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online as an 84 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9484DG> . See also the crucial but ignored companion
paper Hake (1998b).
.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as a 108 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>. A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement"
(PERS) of the American Journal of Physics, but rejected by its editor
on the grounds that the very transparent, well organized, and crystal
clear Physical-Review-type data tables were "impenetrable"!
.
Hake, R.R. 2004. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to the
"American Journal of Physics" on 24 April 2004; online as a 144 kB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/boeQQt>. This paper was rejected by an editor
who evidently took the advice of a referee who erroneously stated
that "[Arons'] activities did not constitute systematic
investigations." Did ethnographer Margaret Mead's activities also
"not constitute systematic investigation"?
.
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/cMwTB9>. Post
of 25 Aug 2010 09:05:15-0700. The abstract and link to the complete
post were also transmitted to various discussion lists.
.
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Science Educators Also Under Fire By
Traditionalist Math Warriors #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 and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/OLm5yL> with a provision for
comments.
.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. "Re: Casualty of the Math Wars," online on the
OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/R1q22j>. Post of 15 Oct 2012
12:18:37-0700. 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/TssFHi> with a provision for
comments.
.
Hake, R.R. 2012c. "Re: Yet More From the Clark/Kirschner/Sweller
Team," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/QH3Cje>. Post of 24 Mar 2012 14:09:21 -0700 to
PhysLrnR.
.
Hansen, R. 2012. "Re: Casualty of the Math Wars," online on the OPEN
Math-Teach archives at <http://bit.ly/XkAtiO>. Post of 16 Oct 2012
4:32 AM to Math-Teach.
.
Klein, D. 2007. "School math books, nonsense, and the National
Science Foundation," Am. J. Phys. 75(2): 101-102; online at
<http://bit.ly/ck0p8Z>. For responses see Atkins (2007) and Miller
(2007)).
.
Miller, T. Comment on Klein (2007). Am. J. Phys. 75(9): 775-776;
online to subscribers at <http://bit.ly/TpEdkl>.
.
Nature. 2006. "Overview: Nature's peer review trial," December,
online at <http://bit.ly/TJG12m>.
.
Nielsen, M. 2011, "Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked
Science." Princeton University Press, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/T9cfr8>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/SczAWe>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
See also Nielsen's TED talk "Open Science Now" of November 2011,
online at <http://bit.ly/XH54Hw> with 220, 862 views as of 21 Oct
2012 13:26-0700.
.
Oreskes, N. & E.M. Conway. 2010. "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful
of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to
Global Warming." Bloomsbury Press, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/Tl2w34>. Authors' information at
<http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/LFYVFE>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
.
Rimer, S. 2009. "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the
Blackboard," New York Times, 12 January; online at
<http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN> (with 74 comments as of 12 Sept 2009
12:51:00-0700).
.
Robertson, W. 2012. "Re: Science Educators Also Under Fire By
Traditionalist Math Warriors #3," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/XAO5qj>. Post of 18 Oct 2012 23:28:07-0600.
.
Savinainen, A. 2012. "Re: Science Educators Also Under Fire By
Traditionalist Math Warriors #3," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/RdtbdU>. Post of 19 Oct 2012 05:13:46+0000
to PhysLrnR.
.
Shepherd, G.B. ed., 1994. "Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the
Publication Process." Thomas Horton & Daughters. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/zrEEXx>.
.
Williams, B.A. & A. Dickinson. 2006. "Evaluating conceptual learning
in a reformed physics course," submitted to the "American Journal of
Physics," but evidently rejected - proof positive of an exemplary
paper!
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Physics Education Researchers Respond to "Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors" - David P. Dillard
