Responding to Hake (2003), math educator Jack Lochhead (2003) wrote:
"If current mathematics lacks a coherent vision . . .(of education).
. . what can one say about science?"
Of course, it's just another case of the pot calling the kettle
black. In science education, just as in math education, there seems
to be no coherent vision - only a cacophony of querulous voices.
As an example, in Hake (2002a - Lesson #8) I wrote (see that article
for references - other than those given after "and more recently":
L8. COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACULTY TEND TO OVERESTIMATE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR OWN INSTRUCTIONAL EFFORTS AND THUS TEND TO SEE
LITTLE NEED FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM.
As examples of this tendency see Geilker (1997) [countered by Hilborn
(1998)]; Griffiths (1997) . . .(admired by Roos - see below). . .
[countered by Hestenes (1998)]; Goldman (1998); Mottman (1999a,b)
[countered by Kolitch (1999), Steinberg (1999), and Hilborn (1999)];
and Carr (2000). . .[and more recently: Lamoreaux (2001) countered by
Stith et al. 2002, Ehrlich (2002) countered by Hake (2002b), and Roos
(2002)].
The traditionalists (e.g., Geilker, Griffiths, Goldman, Mottman,
Carr, Lamoreaux, Ehrlich, Roos) turn a deaf ear to three decades of
physics education research (McDermott & Redish 1999, Hake 2002),
purportedly showing that traditional introductory physics courses
with passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem
exams are of limited value in enhancing conceptual understanding of
the subject for the average student; and ignore the videotape
evidence that graduating seniors of (a) Harvard think that the
seasons are due to the elliptic orbit of the Earth around the Sun
[Schneps & Sadler (1985), and (b) MIT have trouble getting a light
bulb to light given a battery, one bulb, and one piece of wire
(Shapiro et al. 1997).
For example Roos (2002), ignoring the arguments of Hestenes (1998),
writes (my CAPS): "As you read through Griffiths' (1998) article, it
becomes immediately apparent that he is not an advocate of the need
to reform physics teaching, and indeed still rather likes the
traditional lecture. HE MAKES A VERY CONVINCING, AND INTELLECTUALLY
SOUND CASE FOR THE TRADITIONAL METHODS."
"Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and
memory. It instigates invention. It shocks us out of sheeplike
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving . . . conflict is the
sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity."
-- John Dewey
REFERENCES
Ehrlich, R. 2002. "How do we know if we are doing a good job in
physics teaching? Am. J. Phys. 70(1): 24-29,
Griffiths, D. 1997. Millikan Lecture 1997; Is there a text in this
class?" Am.J. Phys. 65: 1141-1143.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Comment on 'How do we know if we are doing a good
job in physics teaching?' by Robert Ehrlich," Am. J. Phys. 70(10):
1058-1059; online as ref. 17 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
Roos, K. "Don't Lecture Me on Lectures," Fall 2002 issue of APS
"Forum on Education Newsletter"
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/index.html> / "Forum newsletters" where
"/" means "click on."
Shapiro, I., C. Whitney, P. Sadler, M. Schneps. 1997. "Can We Believe
Our Eyes" Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science
Education Department; description online at
<http://www.learner.org/progdesc/index.html?uid=26&sj=>.
Stith, J. H., D. Campbell, P. Laws, E. Mazur, W. Buck, & D. Kirk.
2002. "Importance of Physics Education Research," Am. J. Phys. 70(1):
11.