Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a recent
discussion-list post "What Mathematicians Might Learn From
Physicists: Response to Wurman #2 [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "What Mathematicians Might Learn
From Physicists: Response to Wurman" [Hake (2012a)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>, Ze'ev Wurman (2012) in a Math-Learn post
<http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR> (to access this post non-subscribers will
need to click on "New User" in the upper left-hand corner and fill
out a form) made the following five points (paraphrased for brevity
[Ze'ev, please comment if you think I've failed to convey your
meaning]:
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
1. My post focussed on Hake's rude attack on Hansen as "illiterate"
because he used the word "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" (in
*consonance* with the OED and Merriam Webster). Considering Hake's
citation of Strunk & White at <http://amzn.to/OGx7jv> and Follett at
<http://bit.ly/Nayixo>, who *oppose* defining "disinterested" to mean
"uninterested," I'm happy that I chose OED and Merriam Webster over
Strunk & White and Follett.
2. I am not surprised by Hake's crude misinterpretations of my quite
precise critique of elementary-librarians vs. teachers statement.
3. Nor am I surprised by Hake's preference of *physics-for-dummies*
("Hands- and Minds-On" in his mellifluous description).
4. But I was taken aback by Hake's belief that my support of
phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is
"uninformed." After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is
NICHD's <http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk>, <http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA> and the
National Reading Panel <http://bit.ly/P8AG2l>. When it suits him,
Hake prefers charlatanism over empirical evidence.
5. But the real issue is what all the above has to do with the issue
at hand - Hake's rude attack on Hansen as 'illiterate' because of
Hansen's use of a word Hake didn't like or know.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
In this post I comment on the above five points, indicating Wurman's
numerous errors, misrepresentations, and vacuities.
************************************************
". . . .there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a
concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a
skills-oriented traditional curriculum. . . . . .They represent
different value systems. I believe that rational, reflective
discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the two sides
closer together. . . . . . . I am told that California schools
educate one-seventh of the students in this country. There is too
much at stake to continue the fighting,
to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our
children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should
be."
- Judith Sowder (1998)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 25
August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 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/MPsKXQ> with a provision for
comments.
Hake, R.R. 2012b. "What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman #2," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/NSbCh8>. Post of 25 Aug 2012 15:56:24-0700 to AERA-L,
Math-Learn, 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/SCjR4F> with a provision for
comments.
Sowder, J.T. 1998. "What are the 'Math Wars' in California All About?
Reasons and Perspectives," Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as
a 98 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/O6R9If>, thanks to Professor Bowen
Brawner of Tarleton State University.