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] Physics Education Researchers Respond to "Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors"

Some subscribers might be interested in a recent post "Physics Education Researchers Respond to 'Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors' " [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: Indicated below are reactions of three physics education researchers to evidence [Hake (2012a)] at <> that science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler <>, have been "Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors" (double angle brackets <<. . . .>> surrounding URL's indicate that access may require "obtaining a new Listserv password"):

1. John Belcher at <<>> wrote "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at <>: "These poor bastards [the Hakes and Boalers] are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . ." Although Hansen's comments are certainly laughable, Belcher may have cause to cry - as co-author of the influential "How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts?" <>, Belcher's largely to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" <>. Therefore Belcher could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram <> hit list.

2. Antti Savinainen at <<>> wrote (liberally paraphrasing): "All this reminds me of 'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' <>. Scientific debate is fine, but it should take place in peer-reviewed journals, not in newspapers or personal websites as described in the above book and is the case for Bishop/Clopton/Milgram."

3. William Robertson at <<>> wrote, regarding Savinainen's "peer reviewed journals": ". . . .anyone who thinks the peer review process in journals is divorced from scientific and personal biases is naive, and has likely never gone through the process." I agree but reluctantly concede that peer review is probably *necessary* but certainly not *sufficient* to promote the integrity of the literature.

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on <>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <>
Academia: <>
Blog: <>
GooglePlus: <>
Twitter: <>

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <> and accessed on 21 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. "Physics Education Researchers Respond to 'Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors', "online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <>. Post of 21 Oct 2012 13:59:06-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <> with a provision for comments.