11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Brian Blais (2008), attempting to end the bickering over whether
or not John Clement had given a proper reference in an earlier post)
wrote [bracketed by lines BBBBBBBBB. . . .; very slightly edited]:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
The citation is here:
"When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study
of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment," N. D.
Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N.
S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ.
Res. 1, 010103 (2005); online at
<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Honestly, saying "Search the archives" when the citation is so easy
to obtain seems to me to be saying "my time is more valuable than
yours", which isn't very nice.
I think it is common internet courtesy if someone asks for reference,
to give it, and not to say "oh, search the archives" or "go search
this journal", unless one is referencing an entire thread (which
wasn't the case here). Frankly, I have found the responses on this
issue to be pretty rude! Amazing! It probably stems partly from the
fact that you all know each other very well, but as primarily a
lurker here, I was taken aback a bit.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. To which Jack Uretsky (2008) responded:
"Thanks, Brian. That's the way citations are normally given in the
research community."
33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. To which John Clement 2008) replied:
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Sorry, but unfortunately, we are all in a hurry, and this is more a
chat line than a scientific journal. So references are given in a
hurry, and the reader may have to dig a bit. . . . . . . when someone
asks for a reference, I have to go back and hunt for it. So I do get
a bit testy when the information I gave is ignored. But I generally
do give citations when asked, even if they are a bit messy. But make
no mistake, there is a depth of literature that should be read by
anyone who is teaching science. There are also relevant math
research papers. Here I would cite one:
Cognitive Development, 6, 449-468 (1991)
Abstract:
It is widely assumed that instruction plays a role in learning and in
transfer. The present studies examine how type of instruction
(containing principle-based vs. procedure-based information)
influences learning and. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This one took me years to track down.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
I agree with John Clement that "we are all busy." So why doesn't John
save us all some time by giving a standard academic reference to the
article in "Cognitive Development "that took him years to track down?
It took me about 10 micro-years to track down Perry (1991), but if
700 Phys-L subscribers are forced to repeat that search it adds up to
a waste of about 7 wo(man) milli-years!
Perry, M. 1991. "Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and
conceptual change," Cognitive Development 6(4): 449-468; abstract
freely online at <http://tinyurl.com/2wd5yu>; the full article is
online at <http://tinyurl.com/2rc6me>, free to subscribers, $30 for
none subscribers. 4,407 links to other related articles in "Science
Direct" are freely online at <http://tinyurl.com/2qackd>
Uretsky, J. 2008. "citations (Was Re: the role of simulation),"
Phys-L post of 21 Jan 2008 12:42:35 -0600; online at
<https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2008/1_2008/msg00269.html>.