In an AERA-L post of 9 Jun 2005 Sherman Dorn (2005) wrote:
"No one's job is on the line when Hake and others debate the best
ways to teach physics."
I suspect that Dorn meant that physics teachers' jobs are not on the
line as a result of their pre/post test gains (or lack thereof). But
Dewey Dykstra (2005) has pointed out that, taken at face value,
Dorn's statement could be misleading.
Salaries and jobs of reform-minded physicists who join in the debate
ARE very much on the line, especially if they actually spend (waste?)
time on reform projects.
For example, the sometimes less than enthusiastic attitude of the
traditional physics establishment towards physics education
researchers is judiciously hinted at by Heron & Meltzer (2005) who
write [*emphasis* in the original]:
"It is tempting to believe that the growing weight of such evidence .
. .[high quality physics education research (PER)]. . . will
eventually overcome lingering doubts about the validity of PER within
the larger physics community. These doubts reflect intellectual
concerns and perhaps a generally conservative attitude about what and
how we teach. However, efforts to convince skeptics by 'drowning them
in data' can engender further resistance. A backlash effect is
created when the message heard by physics instructors is that *they*
are ineffective and that *we*, the PER community, are the only ones
who know how to teach. Results from a pilot study of attitudes toward
PER held by mainstream physics faculty suggest that this type of
miscommunication may be a significant issue [Henderson & Dancy
(2004)].
My own quarter-century experience as a research university professor
taught me that most (but thankfully not all) physics department
chairs and executive committees are primarily interested in two
things: increasing the prestige of their departments in traditional
research fields and increasing grant funding. Wasting time on
pedagogy is often seen as contributing negatively to those goals.
This brings up yet another justification for partaking in discussion
lists [Hake (2005)]: to give support and encouragement to embattled
education researchers.
Dykstra, S. 2005. "Re: Teacher quality and pre/post tests," PhysLrnR
post of 9 Jun 2005 20:54:35-0600; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=physlrnr&O=D&X=496CB62A43A54DE8E5&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=2416>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that PhysLrnR is one of the few
discussion lists that denies archive access to non-subscribers :-( -
WHY ?? However, it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by following
the simple directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." 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. 2005. "Why Aren't AERA Discussion Lists More Active?" online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=aera-l&T=0&O=D&P=1246>.
Post of 11 Jun 2005 11:44:58-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G,
AERA-GSL,, AERA-H, AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-TchEdPsych, PhysLrnR.
Henderson, C. & M. Dancy. 2004. "Teaching, learning, and PER: Views
from mainstream faculty," Poster CP-IP08, Physics Education Research
Conference 2004, Sacramento, California, 4-5 August, 2004; online at
<http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/PERC2004Henderson.pdf>
(160 KB)