Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a discussion-list
post " Operational Definitions" [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
****************************************
ABSTRACT: Alan Bender (2011), in a POD post "Open inquiry is bad? (in
some intro tech courses)," wrote (paraphrasing) : "I wonder how the
terms 'learning centered' and 'instruction centered' tend to be
understood, particularly by those who hear them for the first times.
. . . . What definitions for such phrases might promote more thought
about paradigms/ideologies?"
In my opinion, "OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS" might promote more thought
about paradigms/ideologies and attendant ambiguous phrases such as
"learning centered," "instruction centered," "active learning,"
"direct instruction," "inquiry," "open inquiry," "student centered,"
"learning centered," "discovery," etc., etc., etc.. . .
See e.g.: "Language Ambiguities in Education Research" [Hake (2008)]
at <http://bit.ly/bHTebD> , and "Education Research Employing
Operational Definitions Can Enhance the Teaching Art" [Hake (2010)]
at <http://bit.ly/aGlkjm>.
****************************************
"When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and
this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely
sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to
*measure* force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary
that it teach us what force is *in itself*, nor whether it is the
cause or the effect of motion."
Henri Poincare (1905)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 22 June 2011.]
Hake, R.R. 2011. " Operational Definitions," online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/l1ADtf>. Post of 22 Jun 2011
19:19:14-0700 to POD, AERA-L, and NetGold. The abstract and link to
the complete 7 kB post are being transmitted to various discussion
lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/mGOW4J > with a provision for comments.