Re: PER vs EdD (SciEd)

[Joe Heafner <heafnerj@CTC.NET>]

On Jan 20, 2004, at 3:34 PM, John Denker wrote:

> Quoting "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>:
>
>   Will the chemistry courses be taught by "real chemists."
> > Will the history classes be taught by "real historians."  In this
> > context I think "real" means that the person has done and/or is doing
> > physics research
>
> That's the right way to say it.  Somebody should get the
> physics teaching job based on whether they REALLY know
> their stuff and REALLY know how to teach it ... and
> possessing a piece of sheepskin that says PhD on it is
> neither necessary not sufficient.

At last...someone else sees the truth.

> I agree, based on what I've seen published in the PER literature,
> that a PER degree is not reliable evidence of competence in physics,
> nor in education, nor in research.

I would argue that proficiency in instruction IS proficiency in physics
because to convey the physics one must first understand it. Then again
getting a degree in PER doesn't always involve much actual
instructional experience. I hope I'm wrong about that though.

> > Said another
> > way, are the courses going to be taught by "practicing physicists"
> > where
> > practicing means doing actual physics or having done/published actual
> > physics
>
> Right.

How about where "practicing" means having had actual classroom
experience beyond what a TA gets in grad school?

My fingers were cramping again.

Cheers,
Joe Heafner -- Astronomy/Physics Instructor