Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Where are the scholars?



In his Chemed-L post of 22 Mar 2004 John Denker (2004) wrote
[bracketed by lines "DDDDDDDDDDDDDD. . . . ."]:

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
William Bush wrote:
....
I am deeply saddened by the lack of scholarly
discussion on this list as it applies to education and
teaching. Does anyone know anything here about
chemical education? Where is the scholarly inquiry?

Those are excellent questions. Very insightful and incisive questions.

But we must keep in mind that those are not the only questions, nor
even the most important questions. We can un-ask those questions if
we decide that TEACHING IS AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE. [My CAPS.]

Many of us have been afflicted by certain persons who try to make it
a science ... but wind up doing bad science and bad teaching. So
just ignore them! We are not obliged to transform teaching from an
art to a science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

The view that TEACHING IS AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE, is a shibbolith that
has been reiterated time and time again. It is commonly voiced by
traditionalists such as prototype "T" (there's at least one in every
department) who remain convinced, come hell or high water, that

"If everyone had my own teaching insight, knew as much science as I
do, and lectured in my own crystal-clear manner, then there would be
no problem. Besides my teachig evaluationa are off-scale!"

If correct, then everyone merely needs to get the WORD from "T."
Disciplinary education researchers are wasting their own times and
everyone elses. Just ignore them!

Here are three counters to John Denker's old refrain by three persons
who have been trying to make teaching a science and whom Denker
doubtless believes have wound up doing bad science and bad teaching,
and should therefore be ignored. If you believe Denker, then hit
delete now.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. David Hestenes (1976) wrote [EMPHASIS in the original]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"Teaching, I say, is an art, and not a science. . . in no sense can
teaching be said to be a science."

These words, written by F.K. Richtmyer (1933) were recently
reiterated in this journal by R.A. Goodwin (1978). Professor Goodwin
seems to think that all the great truths about teaching are already
known, so that recent attempts to improve teaching techniques can
hardly be more than transitory "fads." I am sorry to see someone who
is concerned with the quality of teaching take such a divisive
stance. Perhaps a reply will help some readers develop a more
constructive point of view. I will argue that an ample foundation for
a science of teaching exists already today, but that the "science"
remains in a primitive state primarily because it has not been
fostered and cultivated by those in a position to do it, namely, the
university professors.

Let us agree at the outset that GOOD TEACHING IS AN ART, fully
deserving our respect and admiration. It does not follow, however, as
Goodwin seems to think, that there cannot also be a SCIENCE OF
TEACHING. Who will not agree that there is an art of experimental
physics and an art of mathematical thinking? Nobody, let us hope,
confuses the art of doing science with the body of knowledge which it
produces. Nor should anyone confuse the teaching skills acquired by
individuals with an objective body of knowledge about teaching.
Medical practice is widely acknowledged to be an art, but who doubts
the possibility of medical science? Is teaching so different because
it ministers to the mind?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. More recently Joe Redish (1999) wrote:

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The four examples of research I described above were done by
physicists acting as education researchers and curriculum developers
within physics departments, studying the learning of university
students. This kind of research effort is growing. As of this
writing, there are more than a dozen research physics departments
that have programs in physics education research.

But shouldn't education research only be done in an education school
rather than a physics department? After all, it isn't physics, is it?

In order to consider the question: "Is it physics?" let me begin with
my subjective response and then analyze that response. In the 30
years since I received my Ph.D. in nuclear physics I've seen and done
a lot of different kinds of physics. I've worked on phenomenology and
the development of abstract mathematical theories. Though I'm a
dyed-in-the-wool theorist, I've consulted with experimentalists and
discussed new data and the plan of experiments. I've served on
national committees evaluating proposed research projects and served
as chair of a Department that had funded research programs in 14
different areas. I've seen the growth of space physics and biophysics
and watched the decline and rebirth of university-based atomic and
solid state physics. THE RESEARCH I'M NOW DOING ON PHYSICS EDUCATION
STILL FEELS LIKE PHYSICS TO ME. [My CAPS.]
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. And Lesson #14 of Hake (2002) is:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"EDUCATION IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, IT'S MUCH HARDER."
George Nelson, astronaut and astrophysicist, as quoted by Redish (1999).

My own belief, conditioned by 40 years of research in
superconductivity and magnetism, 28 years in physics teaching, and 16
years in education research, is that EFFECTIVE education (both
physics teaching and education research) is harder than solid-state
physics. The latter is, of course, several orders of magnitude harder
than rocket science. Nuclear physicist Joe Redish (1999) writes:

"The principles of our first draft of a community map for physics
education are different in character from the laws we would write
down for a community map of the physical world. They are much less
like mathematical theorems and much more like heuristics. This is not
a surprise, since the phenomena we are discussing are more complex
and at a much earlier stage of development."

Since education is a complex, early-stage, dynamic, non-linear,
scientific/sociopolitical, high-stakes system, it might benefit from
the expertise of conservation ecologists who are well used to dealing
with such challenging systems.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


REFERENCES
Denker, J. 2004. "Re: Where are the scholars?," Chemed-L post of 22
Mar 2004 23:41:53-0500; online at
<http://mailer.uwf.edu/Lists/wa.exe?A2=ind0403&L=chemed-l&D=1&O=A&P=36702>.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "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.

Hestenes, D. 1979. "Wherefore a Science of Teaching?" The Physics
Teacher 17: 235-242; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. See also Hestenes (1998).

Hestenes, D. 1998. "Who needs physics education research?' Am. J.
Phys. 66(x): 465-467; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>: Nearly two decades ago I
penned a diatribe . . .[Hestenes (1979)]. . . on the need for a
'Science of Teaching.' I have since seen PER emerge as a credible
discipline
in its own right, with a growing body of reliable empirical evidence,
clarification of research issues, and, most important of all, an
emerging core of able and committed researchers within physics
departments across the country. MOST OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN
OBLIVIOUS TO THIS MOVEMENT, IF NOT CONTEMPTUOUS OF IT. . .[e.g., John
Denker]. . . Some are beginning to realize that it is more than
another "educational fad." It is a serious program to apply to our
teaching the same scientific standards that we apply to physics
research. [My CAPS.]

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

Richtmyer, F.K. 1933. "Physics is Physics," Am. J. Phys. 1: 1. This
article has been reprinted in Phys. Teach. 14(1): 30-33 (1976).

Goodwin, R.A. 1978. "Talk and Chalk," Phys. Teach. 16: 367-373 (1978).