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

[Richard Hake]

Some subscribers to RUME 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 <http://bit.ly/QuqXqo> that 
science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler 
<http://bit.ly/R6XsuP>, 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 <<http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6>> wrote "I don't know 
whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at 
<http://bit.ly/XkAtiO>: "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?" <http://bit.ly/fbOeA8>, Belcher's largely 
to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the 
Way of the Blackboard" <http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN>.  Therefore Belcher 
could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram 
<http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c> hit list.

2. Antti Savinainen at <<http://bit.ly/RdtbdU>> 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' <http://bit.ly/XEw3U1>. 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 <<http://bit.ly/XAO5qj>> 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 <http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf>.


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 [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> 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 <http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf>. 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 
<http://bit.ly/QABgtg> with a provision for comments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://betterfilecabinet.com/pipermail/rume_betterfilecabinet.com/attachments/20121021/d14dc266/attachment.htm>