Re: [Phys-l] Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

I had assumed that she was in the humanities because of:

"Mary Burgan is former general secretary of the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) and a former English professor at Indiana
University. This essay has been adapted in part from her forthcoming book,
Whatever Happened to the Faculty?"

She used stories and anecdotal evidence, but was apparently unaware, or
ignored, that Feynman himself pronounced his lectures a failure.  Being a
professor of teaching/learning does not necessarily qualify as science.  My
point is that while a scientist who is a researcher in learning can rebut
what she says about science, but since most of her article focused on the
humanities, a rebuttal needs to come from that direction.  I am NOT saying
making a comparison between the humanities and science, but rather saying
that good criticism of each needs to come from within the field and not from
outside.

There are no references that I can see to the controlled studies that have
been made inside science that compare forms of instruction.  As a result, I
would say she is ignorant of the science education research.  Of course she
could have chosen to ignore the studies, because they strongly suggest that
conventional lecturing is the least effective method.  Most of the other
references did not seem to be controlled studies, but rather anecdotal.  The
rebuttal letters did mention studies in the humanities.

Essentially her editorial is an example of persuasive writing, something
English professors should be good at.  Ronald Reagan was also good at it,
but he often twisted the end of a story to suit his opinion, and when
confronted by this he said "but it sounds true".  The editorial does not
present much good evidence.  Incidentally the rebutters also presented
evidence that cuts across the humanities and science.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> At 11:18 PM 2/17/2007, you wrote:
> > Since Burgan is not in science, perhaps the best response to her
> editorial
> > was published by her peers:
> >
> > <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/index.asp?key=992>
> >
> > Thanks to someone who posted this on another list.  Hake hardly needed to
> > rebut the editorial.
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
>
> This sentiment of John's is puzzling. Am I to conclude that a
> professor of teaching/learning at PenState(Berks), is the peer
>   of a non-science person, and so does not qualify for him as being
> "in Science"?
>
>   She appears to understand the concept of controlled experiment
>   - though it be of liveware: she refers to the literature at every
>   assertion.
>     I ask myself then: just what DOES qualify as science: someone
> who weaves elaborate theories of the unobservable? -  as it might
>   be strings or the events at the first millisecond of creation?
> It is a puzzle.
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l