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: [Phys-L] OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')"



Finding it absurd, but not enjoying it.

Paul Lulai
St Anthony Village Senior High

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ken Caviness" <caviness@southern.edu>
Date: Sat, Nov 3, 2012 4:20 pm
Subject: [Phys-L] OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')"
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>

Exactly as much, I imagine!

(Now back to hitting delete after decisecond delays, while grumbling quietly)

KC

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Saturday, 03 November 2012 5:02 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')"

Is everyone else enjoying this Theater of the Absurd as much as I am?

Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of Richard Hake [rrhake@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 2:30 PM
To: AERA-K@LISTSERV.AERA.NET; phys-l@mail.phys-l.org; PHYSLRNR-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
Cc: Noah S Podolefsky; Dr Keith S Taber
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')"

If you reply to this long (18 kB) post please don't hit the reply button - bane of discussion lists - 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.

In response to my post "OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')" [Hake (2012b)], Podolefsky (2012c) wrote [bracketed by lines "PPPP. . . . ."; YES, I realize that bracket lines are unorthodox and may not be understood by Podolefsky and others, but they serve to: (a) avoid (in most cases) awkward quotes within quotes ". . . .'........'. . . ."; and (b) clearly indicate (to those who understand them) who said what, unlike the ambiguous marginal angle brackets ">", ">>", ">>>". . . . . that befoul many posts]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I'd love to respond, but I cannot make head nor tail of your posts.

Which parts are what I actually said, which are what you said I said, and which are things you said about what I said? It is either a reflection on the non-standard typesetting, my mental capacity, or my failure to care enough to try, that I can't tell.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Podolefsky inability to understand my post "OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')" [Hake (2012b)], whether it's "either a reflection on the non-standard typesetting, [his] mental capacity, or [his] failure to care enough to try" doesn't excuse HIS IRRESPONSIBLE FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS OBVIOUS ERROR in falsely accusing me of "distorting [his] point by quoting out of context."

It's possible that part of Podolefsky's inability to understand my post Hake (2012b) may be due in part to my inadvertent omission of a crucial ending bracket line "HHHHH. . . . " about midway in this passage of Hake (2012b) [I've put that ending bracket in place in the following (bracketed by double lines "########. . . . . . "); FOR REFERENCES OTHER THAN HAKE (2012a) and PODOLEFSKY (2012a,b), PLEASE SEE THE ORIGINAL POST HAKE (2012b)]:

###########################################################
###########################################################
In response to my post "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?
What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" [Hake (2012a)] Noah Podolefsky (2012b) wrote [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . . . ."; my CAPS indicate what Podolefsky wrote - No, I'm NOT shouting!]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I would greatly appreciate being quoted in context. I don't see the point in distorting my point by quoting out of context.

What I said:

"ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. ONE MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THESE CRITIQUES, BUT THEY ARE SCHOLARLY AND WELL ARGUED, AND WORTH CONSIDERING.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY MISGUIDED. I WOULD URGE ANYONE WITH THIS ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE LACKING."

Note that I am saying what *these papers* claim, not what I personally believe, and was explicit that one may or may not agree.
Exposing people to ideas is not the same as advocating for them. In fact, I followed up with a defense of education research, which I do indeed believe is scientific.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

I would greatly appreciate not being falsely accused of quoting Podolefsky out of context. What I wrote in "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') [Hake (2012a)] was [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . . . ."; I have CAPITALIZED the words written by Podolefsky which Podolefsky (2012b) now falsely claims that I quoted *out of context* (see section above bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ." ]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Noah Podolefsky (2012a) of the PhysLrnR list responded to Hansen
(2012a,b) as follows [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ."; replacing Podolefsky's bare URL's :-( with academic references :-); my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . "]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
The NRC book . . . . . [["Scientific Research in Education"
(hereafter "SRE") (Shavelson & Towne, 2002)]]. . . . . . was a good effort, and it has received a fair amount of criticism. See for
example: (a) "Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)]; (b) "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education" [Maxwell (2004)]; and
(c) "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education" [Bloch (2004)].

ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . [[I think Podolefsky's "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science" is an overstatement. It appears to me that Popkewiz, Maxwell, and Bloch argue, respectively, that SRE reflects an outmoded positivism; neglects qualitative research; and represents "only one truth among many." For counter arguments see e.g., (a) the reply by Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson (2002b) to somewhat similar criticism - see Point #4 below; and (b) the comments by Denis Phillips (2009 - see Point #5 below.]]. . . . . . . . . . . .

One may agree or disagree with these critiques, but they are scholarly and well argued, and worth considering.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING. . . . .[as did Hansen (2012a,b)]]. . . . THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY MISGUIDED. I WOULD [REQUEST] ANYONE WITH THIS ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE LACKING. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .

. . . . .[[or Hansen and other skeptics might even consider following the outrageous suggestion in the abstract of Hake (2012a) that they
scan: (1)"The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns" [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at <http://bit.ly/axznvY>; (2) "A Developmental History of Physics Education Research" [Cummings (2011) at <http://bit.ly/TkBMOi>; (3) "The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance For Engineering Education" [Hake (2011a)] at <http://bit.ly/nmPY8F> (8.7 MB); and (4) and "Resource Letter ALIP-1:
Active-Learning Instruction in Physics" [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/O35gtB>.]]. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . (And, incidentally, cold fusion was not a case of bad science, despite the media reports . . . . . .but to understand why, you have to understand how science actually works, not the way it is claimed to work along the lines of the NRC book.) PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (ending bracket line previously omitted)

Note that the CAPITALIZED words above (2nd section above bracketed by "PPPPP. . . .") exactly match what Podolefsky (2012a) falsely claimed (1st section above bracketed by "PPPPP. . . .") that I quoted*out of context*!

I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS I QUOTED HIM OUT OF CONTEXT?

It's conceivable that Podolefsky (2012b): (a) is NOT actually complaining about being quoted out of context, but instead (b) used inexact wording to complain that my ABSTRACT doesn't accurately convey what he wrote.

IF that's the case, I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS MY ABSTRACT MISREPRESENTED WHAT HE WROTE?

My abstract read [the CAPS indicate my summary of part of what Podolefsky wrote]:

*****************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education' " [Hake (2012a)] at <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV> [response by Greeno at <http://bit.ly/TXbnID>], PhysLrnR's NOAH PODOLEFSKY (2012) at <<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>> (here and below <<. .
.>> signifies that access may require filling out a form to obtain a Listserv password). . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*****************************************
Nowhere in the above abstract do I either imply or state that IT'S PODOLEFSKY'S OPINION that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and
(2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science."

Instead I state that PODOLEFSKY'S CLAIM IS THAT THE ARTICLES SHOW that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and (2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science.

In my opinion, if Podolefsky thinks my abstract misrepresented what he wrote, then he has not read the abstract carefully.
###########################################################
###########################################################

But regardless of Podolefsky's apparent inability to understand the admittedly complex construction of my post (Hake (2012b), with all its (a) bracket lines "PPPP. . . " bracketing quotes of Podolesky,
(b) bracket lines "HHHH. . . " bracketing quotes of Hake, and even,
(c) bracket lines "PPPP. . . " *WITHIN* bracket lines "HHHH. . . "; I'm amazed that the normally astute Noah Podolefsky <http://bit.ly/Tn4pYY> could either:

1. a scan the *complete* version of my post Hake (2012a) at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk> where it's obvious that I quote Podolefsky
(2012x) word for word and NOT out of context; or

2. scan *only* my abstract (in keeping with discussion-list protocol) in which I wrote: "Podolefsky. . . POINTED TO ARTICLES . . .
.stating that "these papers argue that the NRC book is incomplete at best and at worst a cartoonish caracacture of science"; or

3. both "1" and "2";

and then, in Podolefsky (2012b) (as if neither "1", "2", or "3,"
above, had occurred) make the totally false accusations [my CAPS]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE BEING QUOTED IN CONTEXT. I DON'T SEE THE POINT IN DISTORTING MY POINT BY QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT.

What I said:

"Essentially, these papers argue that the NRC book is incomplete at best, and at worst a cartoonish caricature of science. One may agree or disagree with these critiques, but they are scholarly and well argued, and worth considering.

On the other hand, with respect, stating that education research lacks or even despises hard science achieved through critical discourse is completely misguided. I would urge anyone with this attitude to inspect the work that has been done over many decades in countless journals and see if you truly find critical discourse lacking."

Note that I am saying what *these papers* claim, not what I personally believe, and was explicit that one may or may not agree.
Exposing people to ideas is not the same as advocating for them. In fact, I followed up with a defense of education research, which I do indeed believe is scientific.

-Noah P
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP


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
03 Nov 2012. To access posts on the CLOSED PhysLrnR archives 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!]

Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') "; online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>. Post of 31 Oct 2012
19:34:16-0700 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/YrZJUS> with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Rwwezt>. Post of 02 Nov 2012 09:19:01-0700 to Phys-L.
The same post was transmitted to PhysLrnR and AERA-K.

Podolefsky, N. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/TMOR56>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 13:04:51-0600 to PhysLrnR.

Podolefsky. N. 2012b. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" online on the CLOSED!
PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/PKp5gF>. Post of 1 Nov 2012
14:03:48-0600 to PhysLrnR.

Podolefsky, N. 2012c. "Re: OFF TOPIC: I Neither Quoted Podolefsky Out of Context Nor Misrepresented What He Wrote (was 'Can Education Research Be . . . .')," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/R0djvs>. Post of 02 Nov 2012 10:27:14 -0600 to PhysLrnR.


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l