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]

[Phys-L] Re: Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold Standard? PART 1



PART 1
If you object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through inter- and
intra-disciplinary barriers, please hit "delete" now. And if you
respond to this long (18 kB) post, please don't hit the reply button
unless you prune the original message normally contained in your
reply down to a few lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire post
yet again on suffering list subscribers.

Before proceeding to the main substance, I should like to relay an
important comment from EdStat's Dale Berger (2005):

"Those interested in the 'Gold Standard' issue may wish to read or
see the 'debate' between [psychologist] Mark Lipsey and [philosopher]
Michael Scriven last summer. It is available in text or streaming
video through the link <http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2668.asp>."

In his AERA-C post of 18 Apr 2005 with the above title, Dennis
Roberts (2005) wrote [bracketed by lines "RRRRRR. . . ."]:

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
At 08:54 AM 4/18/2005 [Jason Osborne (2005)] wrote:

"I have been amazed that this conversation has been going on as long
as it has . . . and the lack of fiery rebuttal bothers me as well.
While I agree that RCTs are not ALWAYS appropriate, as Richard. . .
.[Hake (2005a)]. . . suggests, they are and should be the gold
standard in terms of creating STRONG inference."

ON the other side of the coin ... it also amazes me when people can't
see that while education is not perfect by any stretch of the
imagination ...PRODUCTS from this system in large part are highly
intelligent ... invent things ... make scientific discoveries ...
solve medical problems ... lead governments ... fly 767s ... orbit
the planet ... build the Golden Gate Bridge ... and just a zillion
other accomplishments THAT for the most part ... started back in
their school days.

School, w/o RCT, does make a huge difference in peoples' lives
...While it might be nice when the opportunity arises to do more RCT
in school settings ... it's not the gold standard. Look at the
accomplishments of students as they become adults ... THAT's the
proof.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Great minds run in the same direction. Dennis's point that, judging
from its products, the old-time education was not so bad, was also
made by POD's Mike Theall (2005a) who wrote [bracketed by lines
"TTTTTT. . ."; my insertion of a,b,c] :

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
a. For the majority, education does a pretty good job. . . .

b. . . . while all the critics scream for "reform" in education, we
don't hear much screaming about reforming anything else. Our business
& political critics need to do a lot of housecleaning before casting
any stones. Law, medicine, and other professions aren't perfect
either and rather than accepting any responsibility for their
mistakes, they simply point to education as a handy scapegoat.
Frankly, I'm tired of the hypocrisy. . . . .

c. . . . We all know and admire scores of teachers who are dedicated,
thoughtful, capable, and hard-working. Let's remember these people
in our statements and let's fight for the recognition and credit they
and education deserve.. . . .
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

My response [Hake (2005b)] was (with apologies to those who have seen
this previously):

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I enthusiastically agree with Mike Theall's points "b" and "c," and
with Mike Chejlava's (2005) comment regarding the reality of C.P.
Snow's "culture gap," so apparent in the posts of Theall (2005),
Chejlava (2005), and the POD discussion list generally.

However, I vehemently disagree with Mike Theall's point "a," that

"FOR THE MAJORITY, EDUCATION DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB."

In Hake (2000) I listed a few examples of the science illiteracy of
the general population (and even the elite graduates of Harvard and
MIT) for whom education has NOT done a "pretty good job" (see that
article for the references):

EVIDENCE FOR SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY (a few of many examples)

A. Science and Engineering Indicators (NSF, 1998), Chap. 7, "Science and
Technology"; on the web at
<http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind98/start.htm>: "..... it appears
that only 11 percent of Americans can define the term 'molecule.' . .
. A large proportion of the population knows that a molecule is a
small piece of matter, but is unable to relate it to an atom or a
cell, which are also small pieces of matter. And, despite substantial
media attention to deep space probes and pictures from the Hubble
Space Telescope, only 48 percent of Americans know that the earth
goes around the sun once each year .. Only 27 percent of Americans
understand the nature of scientific inquiry well enough to be able to
make informed judgments about the scientific basis of results
reported in the media. Public understanding of the nature of
scientific inquiry was measured through questions about the meaning
of scientific study and the reasons for the use of control groups in
experiments."

B. Eugenie C. Scott, "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore," Science 228,
813-815 (2000); on the web at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5467/813>: "In August
of 1999, after months of wrangling, the Kansas State Board of
Education passed its state science education standards. Against the
recommendations of a committee of 27 scientists and teachers, the
board voted to strip from the standards all mention of the Big Bang,
the age of the Earth, and any reference to organisms having descended
from the same ancestors: in other words evolutionary astronomy,
geology, and biology. Teachers were informed that evolution would not
be included in the state high-school assessment exams, greatly
decreasing the likelihood that the subject would be taught . . . As
the media probed for more stories, the National Center for Science
Education (where I work. . . <http://www.natcenscied.org/> . . .)
informed the sometimes incredulous press that, yes, indeed,
antievolutionism is a widespread problem in American kindergarten
through high school or 'K-12' education."

C. Jerome Epstein, "Cognitive Development in an Integrated
Mathematics and Science Program," J. of College Science Teaching,
12/97 & 1/98, pp. 194-201:
"While it is now well known that large numbers of students arrive at
college with large educational and cognitive deficits, many faculty
and administrative colleagues are not aware that many students lost
all sense of meaning or understanding in elementary school. . . .In
large numbers our students. . .[at Bloomfield College (NJ) and Lehman
(CUNY)] . . . cannot order a set of fractions and decimals and cannot
place them on a number line. Many do not comprehend division by a
fraction and have no concrete comprehension of the process of
division itself. Reading rulers where there are other than 10
subdivisions, basic operational meaning of area and volume, are
pervasive difficulties. Most cannot deal with proportional reasoning
nor any sort of problem that has to be translated from English. Our
diagnostic test, which has been given now at more than a dozen
institutions shows that there are such students everywhere. . .
.(even Wellesley! - see J. Epstein, "What is the Real Level of Our
Students," 1999, unpublished).

CONTINUED IN PART 2
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l