****************************************
ABSTRACT: I agree with Dutta & Bork that research on learning is
weak, at least in comparison to, say, traditional research in
hard-core physics. But I think: (a) this relative weakness derives
more from the complexity of human learning and education than from
misguided reliance on the "scientific method," as seems to be implied
by Dutta, and (b) Dutta's identification of the "scientific method"
with "positivism" is somewhat problematic.
****************************************
Some interesting discussions have occurred on the IFETS
[International Forum of Educational Technology and Society] list.
According to <http://ifets.ieee.org/> IFETS is endorsed by the
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technical
Committee on Learning Technology. Unfortunately the IFETS archives at
<http://ifets.ieee.org/archive.html> appear to be dead :-( .
Diptendu Dutta, in an IFETS post of 23 Sep 2006 03:08:54-0600,
enigmatically titled "Re: ifets-discussion Digest - 18 Sep 2006 to 19
Sep 2006 (#2006-73)" [but evidently in response to Brent Muirhead's
IFETS post of 18 Sep 2006 13:28:35-0400 titled "creative myths" wrote
[bracketed by lines "DDDDDDD. . . "; my inserts at ". . .[insert]. .
.]:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would like to title my submission as "Positivism Myths". . . [then
why didn't you? - all posters not afflicted by the finger-jerk
hit-the-reply-button syndrome - bane of discussion lists - are free
to select their subject headings]. . . .
We often make statements such as "Scientific studies reveal that
children are not as creative as some people have been claiming" and
support it by quoting "experts" such as "Sawyer". . .[evidently
referring to Muirhead's reference to Sawyer (2006)]. . . This
attitude comes from a culture which I think is heavily influenced by
the so called "scientific method" (positivism) and is an unfortunate
legacy of the natural sciences that appears to have crept into the
liberal arts and humanities. . .[and even education research of all
places ;-) - see e.g., Shavelson & Towne (2002)].
What bothers me is that even knowing fully well that these so called
"scientific studies" are quite weak in almost all their dimensions,
we make them sound like well established truths even in areas such as
human cognition and creativity.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Alfred Bork on 25 Sep 2006 05:06:44-0600 responded "I agree that the
current research in learning is very weak," but did not elaborate.
I agree with Dutta and Bork that research in learning is weak, at
least compared to, say, traditional hard-core research in physics.
But I think this relative weakness derives more from the complexity
of human learning and education than from misguided reliance on the
"scientific method," as seems to be implied by Dutta. Two quotes may
be in order:
1. George "Pinky" Nelson [astronaut, astrophysicist, and former
director of the AAAS Project 2061 is quoted by Redish (1999)] as
saying "Education is not rocket science, it's much harder."
2. Education guru David Berliner (2002) wrote: ". . .the important
distinction. . .[between, e.g., education and physics]. . . is really
not between the hard and the soft sciences. Rather, it is between the
hard and the easy sciences."
On a related matter, Dutta's identification of the "scientific
method" with "positivism" is, in my opinion, somewhat problematic.
See e.g.:
(a) The careful analysis of philosopher Denis Phillips
<http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayRecord.php?suid=dcpphd>
in Chapter 9 "Positivism" of "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a
guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social
science" [Phillips (2000)].
(b) Chapter 1 "What is Postpostivism?" in "Postpostivism and
Educational Research" [Phillips & Burbules (2000)].
(c) Alex Yu's (2002) paper "Misconceived relationships between
logical positivism and quantitative research."
(d) My comments on Yu's paper in "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and
Quantitative Methods" [Hake (2003a,b)].
Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative
Methods," online at <http://tinyurl.com/jt67z>. Post of 21 Apr 2003
12:52:21-0700 to AERA-D, EvalTalk, & PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative
Methods," online at <http://tinyurl.com/z4hy7>. Post of 24 Apr 2003
13:33:16-0700 to AERA-D & PhysLrnR.
Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide
to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science."
Rowman & Littlefield.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). "Explaining creativity: The science of human
innovation." Oxford University Press. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/eqqrz>. R. Keith Sawyer
<http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~educ/edu_sawyer.htm>, is a professor of
psychology and education at Washington University in St. Louis.
According to information at <http://tinyurl.com/k5y6f> Sawyer is "one
of the country's leading scientific experts on creativity and
learning."
Yu, C.H. 2002. "Misconceived relationships between logical positivism
and quantitative research," Research Methods Forum; Univ. of Miami;
formerly online at <http://division.aomonline.org/rm/> but the pdf
fails to download.