Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 20, 2012 5:28 PM (GSC's remarks interspersed): > Does it have to be published for you to judge its > truthfulness or its validity? > I'm sure no one has claimed that 'being published' is the sole criterion or judging truthfulness or validity of any statement or claim. Publication does (to some extent, greater or lesser) help a reader to decide on 'truthfulness and validity' of claims; publication should not be the only criterion. (I don't know who exactly may be the "you" you're addressing: I'm putting forth my personal views). > >The reader should note > that the truthfulness and validity of the > Bishop/Milgram paper has not been questioned as has > been the case with the Boaler paper. > i) I've not studied the Bishop/Milgram paper in question; I shall try to do that in future.
ii) I have read with some care the claims Jo Boaler makes in her document "When Academic Disagreement Becomes Harassment and Persecution'; I've not studied or analyzed her statements or claims. I do not have definitive evidence of the 'truthfulness and validity' of her claims - but many of them seem to be of a piece with my experience with Professor Bishop at this forum.
iii) I have no idea about the 'truthfulness' or 'validity' of the claims that Professor Milgram might have made in this or other documents; that he has allied himself with Professor Bishop to attack Jo Boaler does, in my opinion, reduce some of his claims to 'truthfulness and validity';
iv) I have had some experience with Professor Bishop at this forum: I find the 'truthfulness and validity' of his arguments to be rather low. This judgment is based solely on my personal experience with Professor Bishop. If I'm mistaken, I shall be happy to correct my impression.
v) I've had some experience with you at this forum. I find that the 'truthfulness and validity' of your claims (and of your writing in general) to be extremely low. And the scientific/linguistic (semantic) accuracy of your statements to be extremely low. I shall be happy to correct my impressions of they are mistaken. > >Not even by Hake. > I do believe that Richard Hake may not have 'passed' the Bishop-Milgram paper for 'truthfulness and validity'. I would like to seek Professor Hake's views on this matter.
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!" - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that this tedium is EASILY removed by the SIMPLE expedient of not opening any letter purporting to originate from GSC) > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Richard Hake > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Some subscribers to Math-Teach might be interested > in a recent post "Is 'Education Research' > 'Scientific Research' ? YES!" [Hake (2012)]. The > e abstract reads: > > > > ********************************************* > > ABSTRACT: GS Chandy at <http://bit.ly/PfqJqt> wrote > (liberally paraphrasing and drastically condensing); > "Judging from his posts on the over 40-post > Math-Teach thread 'Jo Boaler reveals attacks by > Milgram and Bishop' at <http://bit.ly/Ty9tbf>, Robert > Hansen is wrong in his claim that 'Education > Research' is not 'Scientific Research.' " > > > > To which Hansen at <http://bit.ly/RHESbF> responded > with the following statement (paraphrasing) of which > the 2nd and 3rd sentences are blatantly false (as I > indicate in this post): "In scientific research, > conclusions are tested repeatedly by many different > researchers. In educational research, they are not. > One does a study, claims success, publishes it and > that is the end of it." > > > > The National Academies' "Scientific Research in > Education" at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV> suggests six > guiding principles that underlie all scientific > inquiry, including education research: (1) Pose > Significant Questions That Can Be Investigated > Empirically, (2) Link Research to Relevant Theory, > (3) Use Methods That Permit Direct Investigation of > the Question, (4) Provide a Coherent and Explicit > Chain of Reasoning, (5) Replicate and Generalize > Across Studies, and (6) Disclose Research to > Encourage Professional Scrutiny and Critique. > > > > In my opinion Jo Boaler's research - see the > material at <http://bit.ly/R6XsuP> & > <http://joboaler.com/> and Boaler & Staples (2008) at > <http://bit.ly/R8FGsG> - satisfies all the above > criteria, whereas the unpublished, undated, and > referenceless denunciation of Boaler's research by > Bishop, Clopton, & Milgram at > <http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c> does not. > > ********************************************* > > To access the complete 12 kB post please click on > <http://bit.ly/Vdj88z>. > > > > > > 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 19 Oct 2012.] > > Hake, R.R. 2012. "Is 'Education Research' > 'Scientific Research' ? YES!" online on the OPEN! > ! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Vdj88z>. Post of > 19 Oct 2012 13:11:11-0700 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/OPmCjt> > with a provision for comments.