PART 1
Considering recent comments on the PhysLrnR thread "Re: Math
Education Research; was Physics First," my PhysLrnR post Hake (2003b)
failed to make its intended point.
Here's another try (please excuse the repetition of a few paragraphs
from earlier posts).
In Hake (2003a)"Re: Physics First," I stated:
". . . among the myriad problems in K-12 MATH education (Kilpatrick
et al. 2001) are:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b) there is evidently no MER (Mathematics Education Research)
counterpart to the intensive PER (Physics Education Research) effort
(Redish 2003, Hake 2002d)."
A few PhysLrnR subscribers interpreted the above statement as an
unjustified total put down of MER.
But it's only a partial put down of MER by one who is not a math
education expert and could be wrong. In my view, MER DIFFERS IN
SEVERAL RESPECT FROM PER, and is therefore not as effective as it
could be in reforming K-12 education.
Herewith follows a Galilean dialogue [following the recent practice
of Redish (2003)]:
************************************************
Sagredo: In what so-called "important respects" is MER different from PER?
Hake: In Hake (2001a) "The math education research community (LONG!!
- 567 lines)," I wrote: Mathematics Education Research (MER) of
quality and quantity comparable to that in Physics Education Research
PER - [see e.g. McDermott & Redish (1999), Redish (2001)] exists but
MER
(a) is MORE DIRECTED TOWARDS K-12 education,
(b) groups are more apt to be found in graduate and undergraduate
SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION, while PER groups are found primarily in Physics
Departments [click on "Homepages" at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/> or go
to "Physics Education Research Web Sites at U.S. Institutions"
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/links/index.html>]. The location
of PER groups in physics departments gives them a a distinct
advantage for research on undergraduate education because student
subjects take courses in physics departments (Redish 1999), and
physicists are more knowledgeable in physics than are the faculty of
Ed. Schools.
I might have added that, as far as I know,
(c) MER has yet to:
(1) devise any standardized tests of important concepts in
undergraduate math courses (such as the Force Concept Inventory for
introductory mechanics) that would be useful in rigorous pre/post
testing of thousands of students so as to access the need for and the
effectiveness of reform math pedagogy [see Hake (2002d - Lesson #3),
and Stockstad (2000)],
(2) initiate a program such as PhysTec (2003), "to improve the
science preparation of future K-12 teachers. It aims to help physics
and education faculty work together to provide an education for
future teachers that emphasizes a student-centered, hands-on,
inquiry-based approach to learning science." [But perhaps math's
recent "Preparing Mathematicians to Educate Teachers" (PMET) (Katz &
Tucker 2003) will compares with PhysTEC.] Other physics programs to
assist the preparation of K-12 teachers are: CPU Project, Physics by
Inquiry, Powerful Ideas in Physical Science, Science Helper K-8
CD-ROM, and Workshop Physical Science, all accessible at
<http://www.psrc-online.org/> / "Curriculum" / "College/University
Physical Science" / "Pre-service Teacher Education" where "/" means
"click on."
(3) awaken from near total ignorance of the ground-breaking work of
Louis Paul Benezet (1935/36).
(4) make use of the 50-year-old "normalized gain" to analyze pre/post
test data [see e.g. Hovland et al. (1949), Gery (1972), Hake 1998)].
************************************************
Sagredo: This seems like a paradox. Why does MER's alleged failure to
attempt a large scale PER-like reform of undergraduate education in
favor of nearly complete devotion to K-12 math education make it LESS
effective than it could be in reforming K-12 math education?
Hake: Well said Sagredo. But if you consider the matter more
carefully, I think you'll realize that there's no paradox. Consider:
(a) colleges and universities supply the K-12 teachers, (b) teachers
tend to teach math and science in the way they were taught -
presently in the ineffective passive-student lecture mode - even
despite all the Ed School methods courses pre-service teachers may
take, (c) a crucial problem in K-12 education is the severe dearth of
EFFECTIVE science/math teachers [PhysTec (2003), AAAS (2002b), Hake
(2000b, 2002a)]. MER seems to be late in realizing this problem
[Jackson (2003), Lewis (2001), Cohen & Krantz (2001), Katz & Tucker
(2003)]
************************************************
Sagredo: OK, I'll grant you there may be no paradox, but what's so
difficult about reforming undergraduate education? There the
professors generally have subject expertise (unlike many teachers in
K-12). So all that's needed is to inform the professors of
pedagogical methods more effective than the ones they're using.
Hake: My 25-year stint at a large research university (where most
future teachers are educated) suggests that research mathematicians
are even less concerned with undergraduate education than research
physicists, and are even more convinced than physicists that the
lecture method is the ONLY effective method. (It's certainly the
easiest, and after all it worked for them.) In my response (Hake
2002a) to the MAA's Bernie Madison at a recent PKAL Assessment
Roundtable I wrote (my CAPS):
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
In my opinion, the enhancement of K-12 teaching should be the FIRST
priority of education reform (Hake 2001a; 2002a,b,c)). Sherman Stein
(1997) hit the nail on the head: "THE FIRST STAGE IN THE REFORM
MOVEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO IMPROVE THE MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE OF
PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS. Unfortunately, the cart
of curriculum reform has been put before the horse of well-prepared
teachers. In fact, not a single article on the subject of the
mathematical preparation of teachers has appeared in "The Mathematics
Teacher"
<http://my.nctm.org/eresources/journal_home.asp?journal_id=2> since
the second Standards volume was published [but to be fair one should
survey articles in other journals such as the "Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Preparation" <http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1386-4416>,
and the
"The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education"
<http://my.nctm.org/eresources/journal_home.asp?journal_id=1>].
Because the AMS and MAA presumably agree with those twelve most
crucial pages . . .(pages 132-143 of "Professional Standards for
Teaching Mathematics (1991)". . . THESE ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD PERSUADE
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE THERE.
If all teachers were mathematically well prepared, I for one would
stop worrying about the age-old battle still raging between "back to
basics" and "understanding". On the other hand, IF MATHEMATICS
DEPARTMENTS DO NOTHING TO IMPROVE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS, THEY SHOULD
STOP COMPLAINING THAT INCOMING FRESHMEN LACK MATHEMATICAL SKILLS."
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
************************************************
Sagredo: Why do most mathematics departments do nothing? Certainly
Stein has made a good case that it's to their own advantage to do
something.
Hake: I think Herb Clemens (1998) explained it perfectly (my CAPS):
"Why don't mathematicians from universities and industry belong in
math education? THE FIRST REASON IS THAT IT IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. The
quickest way to be relegated to the intellectual dustbin in the
mathematics departments of most research universities today is to
demonstrate a continuing interest in secondary. . .(or tertiary). . .
mathematics education. Colleagues smile tolerantly to one another in
the same way family members do when grandpa dribbles his soup down
his shirt. Math education is certainly an acceptable form of retiring
as a mathematician, like university administration (unacceptable
forms being the stock market, EST. . .[Erhard Seminar Training?
<http://www.working-minds.com/werner.htm>]. . ., or a mid-life love
affair). BUT YOU DON'T DO GOOD RESEARCH AND THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT
EDUCATION." (Clemens' comments apply as well to physicists and
physics education.)
************************************************
Sagredo: It looks as if it might be necessary to change the culture
of university math and science departments. That's not easy! What's
the benefit for the faculty?
Hake: I agree that it's not easy [Hake (2002d - Lessons #10 & #12)].
In Hake (2002b,c) I suggested that widespread adoption of Leon
Lederman's (1999) "Physics First" curriculum (physics, chemistry, and
biology for ALL students in, respectively, grades 9, 10, and 11)
MIGHT ASSIST THE GOAL OF SCIENCE/MATH LITERACY FOR THE GENERAL
POPULATION [AAAS (2002a), Ford (1998), Hake (2000a), Nelson (1998)]
by inducing physics/math faculty to pay some attention to
undergraduate education and thereby increase the number of EFFECTIVE
K-12 science/math teachers.
************************************************
Sagredo: Do university physics/math faculty give a fig about
science/math literacy for the general population?
Hake: My sad experience is that most do not. (But there may be ways
around their indifference. See the Cornford quote below my signature.)
************************************************
Sagredo: OK, I know enough about human nature to agree with Cornford.
But what arguments address the prejudice and the political motive of
science/math faculty?
Hake: In Hake (2002b) I wrote:
" . . . physics departments might help to overcome this major block
on the road to general science/math literacy . . .(the dearth of
effective science/math teachers) . . . and at the same time ENHANCE
THEIR NUMBERS OF PHYSICS MAJOR AND GRADUATE STUDENTS, through
programs designed to provide a large corps of teachers capable of
EFFECTIVELY teaching physics to vast numbers of students in the
"Physics First" schools: ALL ninth-graders plus those taking
high-school honors and AP physics courses. Then to, once ninth
graders have experienced the excitement of well-taught conceptually
oriented physics they will doubtless flock to enroll in twelfth grade
and undergraduate physics classes, many of them as physics majors."
************************************************
Sagredo: It doesn't sound TOTALLY absurd, but has anyone bought the
above argument.
Hake: NO! Judging from the tepid response I've received, the message
has fallen on deaf ears, even those of "Physics First" (Livanis 2002)
and Science/math Literacy (AAAS 2002a) champions.
"I shall take it that you are in the first flush of ambition and just
beginning to make yourself disagreeable. You think (do you not?) that
you have only to state a reasonable case, and people must listen to
reason and act upon it at once. It is just this conviction that makes
you so unpleasant. There is little hope of dissuading you; but has it
occurred to you that nothing is ever done until every one is
convinced that it ought to be done, and has been convinced for so
long that it is now time to do something else? And are you not aware
that conviction has never been produced by an appeal to reason which
only makes people uncomfortable? If you want to move them, you must
address your arguments to prejudice and the political motive, which I
will presently describe."
- F.M. Cornford, "Microcosmographia Academica - Being A Guide for the
Young Academic Politician" (Bowes & Bowes, Cambridge, 4th ed., 1949 -