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] Apologies if wrong



Richard Hake tells me that I was wrong in my suggestion that he misrepresented a colleague (Noah Podolefsky) in recent postings by selectively posting part of a list message from one list on other lists. Perhaps I was wrong in my reading of Richard's post. I did not think so at the time, but I am certainly prepared to accept that I may have misunderstood something as I do not find the ways some of these iterative postings are formatted easy to follow.

I referred to a posting that (in part) said:

On 01/11/2012 20:58, Richard Hake wrote:

AERA-K: Teaching and Teacher Education Forum

...
In this post I:

A. Argue that Podolefsky's claim that the articles by
Popkewitz, Maxwell, and Bloch show that the NRC's
report is (1)"incomplete" has been addressed by the
authors of the report, and (2) "at worst a cartoonish
caricature of science" is an overstatement....

My interpretation of this posting extract was that Richard was claiming that Noah Podolefsky himself claimed that the articles by Popkewitz, Maxwell, and Bloch showed that the NRC's report is "incomplete", whereas I understood from Noah's cited posting that NP was only reporting that the authors of these papers suggested this, not himself making the claim.

I am quite happy to accept I may well have misunderstood parts of Richard's message, and if so I apologise to Richard for unfairly criticising him (on that particular point). I am told that I am a reasonably clever person (although the evidence to support this claim seems rather transient), and if I did misinterpret this, I suspect others might have as well. So whilst apologising for any offence to Richard, I still maintain that we should be careful in cross-posting messages that selectively quote and criticise others who may not read the other lists on which we are discussing what we think they wrote.

If, as Richard believes, I got this wrong, then my error can at least stand as an example of just the kind of problem that might have occurred had I posted my message to lists on which Richard's original post had not appeared. I did not, so at least Richard had recourse to being able to point out my error.

This (the nature of educational research) is actually a very important topic, and it's a shame to get bogged down in 'who said what'; so my apologies to everyone on the lists concerned if my intervention detracted from the substantive topic and initiated less productive postings.

Best wishes

Keith



On 02/11/2012 16:38, Richard Hake wrote:
AERA-K: Teaching and Teacher Education Forum

If you reply to this long (16 kB) post please don't hit the reply button (bane of discussion lists) unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

In response to my post "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" [Hake (2012a)] Noah Podolefsky (2012b) wrote [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . . . ."; my CAPS indicate what Podolefsky wrote - No, I'm NOT shouting!]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I would greatly appreciate being quoted in context. I don't see the point in distorting my point by quoting out of context.

What I said:

"ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. ONE MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THESE CRITIQUES, BUT THEY ARE SCHOLARLY AND WELL ARGUED, AND WORTH CONSIDERING.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY MISGUIDED. I WOULD URGE ANYONE WITH THIS ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE LACKING."

Note that I am saying what *these papers* claim, not what I personally believe, and was explicit that one may or may not agree. Exposing people to ideas is not the same as advocating for them. In fact, I followed up with a defense of education research, which I do indeed believe is scientific.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

I would greatly appreciate not being falsely accused of quoting Podolefsky out of context. What I wrote in "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') [Hake (2012a)] was [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . . . ."; I have CAPITALIZED the words written by Podolefsky which Podolefsky (2012b) now falsely claims that I quoted *out of context* (see section above bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ." ]:


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Noah Podolefsky (2012a) of the PhysLrnR list responded to Hansen (2012a,b) as follows [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ."; replacing Podolefsky's bare URL's :-( with academic references :-); my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . "]:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
The NRC book . . . . . [["Scientific Research in Education" (hereafter "SRE") (Shavelson & Towne, 2002)]]. . . . . . was a good effort, and it has received a fair amount of criticism. See for example: (a) "Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)]; (b) "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education" [Maxwell (2004)]; and (c) "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education" [Bloch (2004)].

ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . [[I think Podolefsky's "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science" is an overstatement. It appears to me that Popkewiz, Maxwell, and Bloch argue, respectively, that SRE reflects an outmoded positivism; neglects qualitative research; and represents "only one truth among many." For counter arguments see e.g., (a) the reply by Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson (2002b) to somewhat similar criticism - see Point #4 below; and (b) the comments by Denis Phillips (2009 - see Point #5 below.]]. . . . . . . . . . . .

One may agree or disagree with these critiques, but they are scholarly and well argued, and worth considering.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING. . . . .[as did Hansen (2012a,b)]]. . . . THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY MISGUIDED. I WOULD [REQUEST] ANYONE WITH THIS ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE LACKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .[[or Hansen and other skeptics might even consider following the outrageous suggestion in the abstract of Hake (2012a) that they scan: (1)"The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns" [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at <http://bit.ly/axznvY>; (2) "A Developmental History of Physics Education Research" [Cummings (2011) at <http://bit.ly/TkBMOi>; (3) "The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance For Engineering Education" [Hake (2011a)] at <http://bit.ly/nmPY8F> (8.7 MB); and (4) and "Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics" [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/O35gtB>.]]. . . . . . .. . . . . ..

. . . . (And, incidentally, cold fusion was not a case of bad science, despite the media reports . . . . . .but to understand why, you have to understand how science actually works, not the way it is claimed to work along the lines of the NRC book.)
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Note that the CAPITALIZED words above (2nd section above bracketed by "PPPPP. . . .") exactly match what Podolefsky (2012a) falsely claimed (1st section above bracketed by "PPPPP. . . .") that I quoted*out of context*!
I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS I QUOTED HIM OUT OF CONTEXT?

It's conceivable that Podolefsky (2012b): (a) is NOT actually complaining about being quoted out of context, but instead (b) used inexact wording to complain that my ABSTRACT doesn't accurately convey what he wrote.

IF that's the case, I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS MY ABSTRACT MISREPRESENTED WHAT HE WROTE?

My abstract read [the CAPS indicate my summary of part of what Podolefsky wrote]:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education' " [Hake (2012a)] at <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV> [response by Greeno at <http://bit.ly/TXbnID>], PhysLrnR's NOAH PODOLEFSKY (2012) at <<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>> (here and below <<. . .>> signifies that access may require filling out a form to obtain a Listserv password).

(a) POINTED TO ARTICLES (1) "Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/RqBTpp>.; (2) "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education" [Maxwell (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/VwWtE9>; and (3) "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education" [Bloch (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/XFxPoL>; STATING THAT "THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE."

(b) Implied that the NRC's report "Scientific Research in Education" [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV> did not adequately reflect the way science works, a topic discussed in a 14-post thread PhysLrnR thread "Should the History of Science Be Rated X?" of 9-13 July 2012 at <<http://bit.ly/T68VLd>>.

In this post I:

A. ARGUE THAT PODOLEFSKY'S CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLES BY POPKEWITZ, MAXWELL, AND BLOCH SHOW THAT THE NRC'S REPORT IS (1)"INCOMPLETE" HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORT, AND (2) "AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE" IS AN OVERSTATEMENT.

B. Argue that Podolefsky's apparent implication (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the way science *actually works* is contrary to the way it's *claimed to work* in the NRC report is incorrect.

C. Provide a bibliography related to the questions "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?" and "What's 'Scientific'?"
************************************************

Nowhere in the above abstract do I either imply or state that IT'S PODOLEFSKY'S OPINION that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and (2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science."

Instead I state that PODOLEFSKY'S CLAIM IS THAT THE ARTICLES SHOW that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and (2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science.

In my opinion, if Podolefsky thinks my abstract misrepresented what he wrote, then he has not read the abstract carefully.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 02 Nov 2012.]
**Berliner, D. 2002. "Educational research: The hardest science of all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online as a 70 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/Spi59l>. See also Amrein &Berliner (2002).

Bloch, M. 2004. "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in Education," Qualitative Inquiry 10(1): 96-110; online at <http://bit.ly/XFxPoL>.

**Erickson, F. & K. Gutierrez. 2002. "Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research," Educational Researcher 31(8): 21-24; online as a 995 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/Tp02yD>.

Feuer, M.J., L. Towne, & R.J. Shavelson. 2002a. "Scientific Culture, and Educational Research," Educational Researcher 31(8): 4-14; online as a 184 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/TiCA1Km>.

Feuer, M.J., L. Towne, & R.J. Shavelson. 2002b. "Reply" [to the double asterisked ** articles in this listing], Educational Researcher 31(8): 28-29; online at <http://bit.ly/VVNfaz>.

Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') "; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>. Post of 31 Oct 2012 19:34:16-0700 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 <http://bit.ly/YrZJUS> with a provision for comments.

Hansen, R. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/TMWjgw>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 02:34:03 -0400 to PhysLrnR. The same message appears on the Math-Teach list at Hansen (2012b).

Hansen, R. 2012b. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education', " online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at <http://bit.ly/TMWLvg>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 10:21 am (the Math Forum fails to specify the time zone. See also responses in the same intemperate tone by Traditionalist Math Warriors "Haim" and Hansen at the same URL (scroll down).

Maxwell, J.A. 2004. "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education," Educational Researcher 33(2): 3-11; an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/VwWtE9>. See also Maxwell (2012a, 2012b).

Maxwell, J.A. 2012a. "A Realist Approach For Qualitative Research." Sage Publications, Publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/SbnA6I >. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/ShiaIy>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.

Maxwell, J.A. 2012b. "Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach," Third Edition." Sage Publications, Publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/StXTSA>. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/ScZN6W>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.

** Pelligrino, J.W. & S.R. Goldman. 2002. "Be Careful What You Wish For - You May Get It: Educational Research in the Spotlight" Educational Researcher 31(8): 15-17; online at <http://bit.ly/VVNfaz>."

Podolefsky, N. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/TMOR56>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 13:04:51-0600 to PhysLrnR.

Podolefsky. N. 2012b. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/PKp5gF>. Post of 1 Nov 2012 14:03:48-0600 to PhysLrnR.

Popkewitz. T.S. 2004. "Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the Manifesto, " Qualitative Inquiry 10(1): 62-78/; an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/RqBTpp>.

**St. Pierre, E.A. 2002. " 'Science' Rejects Postmodernism," Educational Researcher 31(8): 25-27; online at <http://bit.ly/VVNfaz>."


AERA Division K: Teaching and Teacher Education Forum
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AERA Home Page on the World Wide Web: http://www.aera.net
List Service Info http://listserv.aera.net/scripts/wa.exe
To cancel your subscription address an email message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AERA.NET containing only the message UNSUB AERA-K
Address problems with your subscription to: listadmin@aera.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------


--


Dr. Keith S. Taber
Chair: Science, Technology & Mathematics Education Academic Group
University Reader in Science Education
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education


Editor: Chemistry Education Research and Practice
(Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry)
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/rp/about.asp


Book Reviews Editor: Studies in Science Education
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03057267.asp



http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html

https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/~kst24/index.html



Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom


ECLIPSE -
Exploring Conceptual Learning, Integration and Progression
in Science Education
https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/wiki/eclipse/Eclipse.html