Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
Susan S
Posts:
2
Registered:
10/31/12
|
|
Re: In Defense of the NRC's "Scientific Research in Education'"
Posted:
Oct 31, 2012 9:37 AM
|
|
|
|
The following articles may be particularly relevant to the current thought
provoking discussion.
"Propagation of Misinformation About Frequencies of RFTs/RCTs in
Education: A Cautionary Tale"
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/41/5/163?ijkey=M7uRdX7PI5G2g&keyty
pe=ref&siteid=spedr<http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/41/5/163?ijkey=M7uRdX7PI5G2g&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr>
"Things (We Now Believe) We Know"
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/41/5/177?ijkey=7FInHgkj8RK6g&keyty
pe=ref&siteid=spedr<http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/41/5/177?ijkey=7FInHgkj8RK6g&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr>
warm regards,
Susan
--
Susan Troncoso Skidmore, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational Leadership & Counseling
Sam Houston State University
http://www.shsu.edu/~sts008/
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Wayne Ford Mackey <wmackey@uark.edu> wrote:
> The IES requires randomized cluster trials now. Pretty scientific.
>
> wayne
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-mathedcc@mathforum.org [owner-mathedcc@mathforum.org] on
> behalf of Clyde Greeno @ MALEI [greeno@malei.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 4:55 PM
> *To:* Richard Hake; math-learn@yahoogroups.com; math-teach@mathforum.org;
> mathedcc@mathforum.org; Alain Schremmer
> *Subject:* In Defense of the NRC's "Scientific Research in Education'"
>
> Richard:
>
> Thanks for devoting so much time and attention to my comments about
> the National Academies'
> document, "SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN EDUCATION". Yes, it was published by
> the NRC's Center for Education
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10236&page=R1 . You have
> blessed me (tongue in cheek, I presume) with a label (in Title caps no
> less) which I presume is as amusing to you as to me and others ... since
> there are no such "MEG" animals.[image: Smile emoticon]
>
> Be assured that I respect your contributions toward educational progress
> at least as much as you seem to (usually) honor my own. In that vein, I
> regard your response NOT as opening a debate, but as an invitation to
> further pursue our mutual interests in scientific instructology. As
> Schremmer noted, you and I are not into dispute, but into viewing the cited
> report from differing angles.
>
> For sure, your prompting question, "Is 'Education Research' 'Scientific
> Research' ? " ... which must be answered "NO!" ... because it appears to
> speak of ALL educational research ... has some closely related questions:
> (1) CAN 'Education Research' be 'Scientific Research'?" ... whose answer is
> assuredly, "YES!" (2) "Has SOME 'Education Research' also been 'Scientific
> Research' ?" ... whose answer is assuredly, "YES!" (3) "How MUCH of
> 'Education Research' has been also 'Scientific Research' ?" ... whose
> answer is assuredly, "relatively meager!" (4) Can whatever 'Education
> Research' is also 'Scientific Research' become important and significant
> enough to warrant distinguishing it from non-scientific 'Education
> Research' ? ... whose optimistic answer is "yes", but in mathematics, the
> demonstrations are not readily apparent. Nonetheless, I am convinced that
> scientific research in instructology is the only reliable guide that can
> navigate the evolution of curricular education so as to achieve genuine
> progress.
>
> The issue that catalyzed your initial question ... about the scientific
> credibility of Boaler's instructological research ... is quite peripheral
> to our subsequent discourse about the SRE document's "six principles", but
> not fully irrelevant.
>
> I do fear that you have sorely misinterpreted my comments and their basis.
> Before attempting to clarify, I must confess to being a myopic specialist
> who focuses primarily on mathematics instructology (scientific and
> otherwise). Your repeated reference to scientific progress in physics
> instructology is heart warming ... even though my own plate presently is
> too full to seek enlightenment in that field. Nonetheless, I do greatly
> relish whatever you disclose about scientific instructology per
> mathematics.
>
> You seem to have presumed that I have "criticized" the NRC report.
> Actually, I have no quarrel with it ... other than recognizing the
> potentials for its gross misuse by hoards of education researchers. Necessarily, the NRC relies on whatever "experts" it can identify ... for
> this panel: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10236&page=R5 . Of
> its seventeen non-staff members, only three seem visibly associated with
> science ... six others are from university schools of education and some
> others are in the same arena. Of course, such a constituency is far more
> disposed toward viewing scientific research through the eyes of educational
> research, than toward viewing educational research through the eyes of
> scientific research.
>
> Actually, it is very rare for a committee to author anything ... even
> though authors might attempt to amalgamate contributions from committee
> members, and later achieve their approval. In this case, Shavelson
> (formerly Stanford U's Dean of its School of Education) and Towne (an
> educational consultant and formerly an NRC staff member) have composed the
> document and are responsible for its contents. Any maladies in the
> document, as such, rest on their shoulders.
>
> The document reveals that the committee was saddled with one truly
> impossible task, so undertook another task which it hoped would serve
> similar purposes. My "caveat" apparently misled you into thinking that I
> had not scanned the report. Actually, I had ... and quickly (if rashly)
> concluded that the bulk of it was attempting to describe "scientific
> research" as it might happen across all arenas of educational research. So,
> I am still amazed that the NRC would allow its Center for Education to
> publish such a global and (necessarily) nebulous document ... to be
> commonly believed to be a "definition" of scientific educational research.
>
> I was/remain as skeptical about the scientific viability/credibility/value
> of any such global undertaking as I am about the scientific value of most
> of what has been published as "educational research." So, I did/will not
> have the time or interest needed for actually studying the body of the
> document. However, I would encourage all who are interested in such stuff
> to examine it.
>
> Due to your initial prompts, I did focus on the report's statements of six
> principles which it claims as "underlying" all of scientific research.
> Those are of special interest because you had earlier judged that Boaler's
> study met all of those conditions. That prompted my own concerns that other
> educators might use those *underlying principles* as if they were necessary
> and sufficient criteria for judging the science-ness of educational
> research activities and/or findings.
>
> My earlier comments about those six principles were primarily about their
> non-sufficiency ... their inadequacy for collectively serving as criteria
> for scientific research. [For sure, I might have better clarified that
> perspective.] Unfortunately, much of the educational research which
> conforms with those principles badly fails to be scientific. The report
> does NOT proffer those principles as being N&S criteria ... but it is
> certain that educational researchers will use them as if the report had so
> declared them.
>
> As a case in point (as Schremmer noted), the report's [Box 5-5] citation
> of (committee member) Confrey's own study as being illustrative of
> "scientific education research" is quite illustrative ... of how easily the
> report can be used for misconstruing good, "bricks and boards",
> instructological research as being "scientific."
>
> I did/could not *dispute* that each of those six principles *underlies*
> much of scientific research. And we can acknowledge that the committee's
> accepted goal required that it refer to scientific principles which are far
> too broad to be contested (other than through how they are worded). Nonetheless,
> since the report will (rightly or wrongly) be used as a criterion for the
> science-ness of educational research, its six principles of scientific
> research likewise will (rightly or wrongly) be used as necessary and
> sufficient conditions for educational research to qualify as being
> scientific.
>
> To reiterate, my own narrow focus on mathematics instructology leads me to
> so view the potentials, dangers, and projected mis-orientations of
> educational research that arise from allowing things like the Confrey study
> to be called "scientific" ... which would badly undermine the potentials of
> science for guiding future progress. As yet, the NRC's Center for Education
> is a long way from distinguishing scientific studies in instructology
> [e.g. of concept inventories] from non-scientific studies [like Comfrey's].
>
> So my comments about the six principles should be construed not as
> *disputing* them, but as a call for *refining* them toward better serving
> as scientific criteria for research ... and for instructological research,
> in particular. After your response, I carefully re-read the Executive
> Summary, and found it to say nothing different from what it said when I
> earlier studied it with care. Perhaps your presumptions that I had not
> studied it resulted from your better abilities to read, between the lines,
> things that I was unable or unwilling to speculate. I also have re-examined
> my earlier comments about each of those six. True, the rhetoric could
> better clarify the difference between "underlying principles" and
> "scientific criteria" for research. But I do not personally see my
> comments as disputing any of those six ... only as calling for something
> more adequate (at least as instructological research).
>
> However, my skepticism ... about any attempt to formulate scientific
> criteria that could be universally applied to *all* kinds of educational
> research .... does lead toward a more constructive and viable venue, and to
> this corresponding invitation to you and others.
>
> At least for now, let us set about to propose actual *criteria* for
> identifying educational research *in specific areas* as being genuinely
> scientific, or not. Let us begin by focusing specifically on
> instructological research ... on human learning, and the instructional
> guidance, thereof. Indeed, let us do that within each of the various arenas
> of human learning, because not all scientific criteria that apply to
> learning/instruction in one area necessarily apply in all other areas of
> learning.
>
> Thus, you and yours may proceed with developing viable/appropriate
> criteria for scientific physics-instructology ... and counterpart
> specialists in other fields can follow suit. You might wish to regard your
> contributions as being "a contextual particularization" appendix to the NRC
> document.
>
> Should you choose to pursue such a goal, you might get some ideas from the
> scientific (STAGML) theory of the State-Transition Analysis and Guidance of
> Mathematical Learning ... and how it is empirically grounded to clinical
> case-studies that focus on personal educational health (rather than on
> scholastic measures).
>
> I continue to look forward to our parallel pursuits and mutual stimulation.
>
> Cordially,
> Clyde
>
>
> ============
>
> *From:* Richard Hake <rrhake@earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2012 10:05 PM
> *To:* math-learn@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [math-learn] In Defense of the NRC's "Scientific Research in
> Education'"
>
>
>
> Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent post
> "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education' " [Hake
> (2012)]. The abstract reads:
>
> ********************************************
> ABSTRACT: In my post "Is 'Education Research' 'Scientific Research'
> ? YES!" [Hake (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/Vdj88z> I listed the
> *one-line headings* of the "six guiding principles that underlie all
> scientific inquiry (including education research)" as set down in the
> Executive Summary of the NRC's "Scientific Research in Education"
> [Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV>.
>
> In response, Math Education Guru <http://bit.ly/SeJcCL> Clyde Greeno
> (2012) at <http://bit.ly/T64H49> denounced the six principles as
> "glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science,"
> on the basis of their one-line headings, evidently not bothering to
> scan the book "Scientific Research in Education" or even the
> paragraph-long elaborations of the six principles in the Executive
> Summary. In this post I juxtapose for each of NRC's six one-line
> headings (a) Greeno's criticism, and (b) NRC's one-paragraph
> elaboration, and invite readers to judge the validity of Greeno'
> criticisms. Greeno ended his critique with: (a) "I am amazed that the
> NRC would allow such a publication," and (b) "[The World is] more
> than anxious to learn of whatever educational research efforts
> qualify as being genuinely 'scientific.' "
>
> Regarding (a) above, I am amazed that Greeno would denounce the NRC's
> six guiding principles on the basis of what he (often mistakenly)
> perceives them to mean from their one-line headings. Regarding (b)
> above, he and other skeptics might consider scanning: (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>.
> ********************************************
>
> To access the complete 46 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV>.
>
> 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>
>
> "Education is not rocket science, it's much harder."
> - George Nelson, astronaut, astrophysicist, and former
> director of the AAAS
> Project 2061, as quoted by Redish (1999)
>
> "Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
> tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
> courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
> similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
> students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
> including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
> by information technology, than in traditional courses."
> - Wood & Gentile (2003)
>
> REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
> 26 Oct 2012.]
> Hake, R.R. 2012. "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in
> Education' " online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
> <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV>. Post of 26 Oct 2012 17:04:49-0700 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/R8zEVq> with a provision for
> comments.
>
> Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
> teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online as a 258 kB
> pdf at <http://bit.ly/KMqgIx>.
>
> Wood, W.B. & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
> Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at
> <http://bit.ly/9izfFz>. A summary is online to all at
> <http://bit.ly/9qGR6m>.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWFjM2JqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3Mjk3MzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyMjQyBG1zZ0lkAzEyODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTMwNzExOQ--?act=reply&messageNum=12837> Reply
> to sender
> <rrhake@earthlink.net?subject=Re%3A%20In%20Defense%20of%20the%20NRC%27s%20%22Scientific%20Research%20in%20Education%27%22> Reply
> to group
> <math-learn@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20In%20Defense%20of%20the%20NRC%27s%20%22Scientific%20Research%20in%20Education%27%22> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlazltNmVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3Mjk3MzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyMjQyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTMwNzExOQ--> Messages
> in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/message/12837;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dWZvNjA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3Mjk3MzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyMjQyBG1zZ0lkAzEyODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTMwNzExOQR0cGNJZAMxMjgzNw-->(1)
> Recent Activity:
>
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbGw0MzNhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3Mjk3MzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyMjQyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTMwNzExOQ-->
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYTllNHRmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3Mjk3MzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyMjQyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUxMzA3MTE5>
> Switch to: Text-Only<math-learn-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<math-learn-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>?
> Unsubscribe <math-learn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>? Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> ? Send us Feedback
> <ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
> ====================
> I do choose to regard your critique of my critique as being NOT a
> challenge to debate the veracity of some authors' perceptions/descriptions
> of "scientific educational research", but as an invitation to collaborate
> on the continued furtherance of scientific instructology.
>
> Within that context, I confess to being a myopic specialist who focuses
> primarily on mathematics instructology. Your repeated reference to
> scientific progress in physics instructology is heart warming ... even
> though my own plate presently is a bit too full to seek enlightenment in
> that field. Nonetheless, I do greatly relish whatever you disclose about
> scientific instructology per mathematics.
>
> Thanks for your copious and time consuming critique of my own critique of
> the National Academies' Education Center's document about scientific
> educational research. Yes, the Center exists and is responsible for the
> document in question. The National Academies http://www.nas.edu/ consists
> of four organizations, one of which is the NRC. The NAS has its own Center
> for Education ... which it lists as authoring the document of reference.
> The NRC's Center for Education is cited at
> http://www7.nationalacademies.org/tac/Linking_Mandatory_PD_Agenda.pdf.
> But all of that is sheerly peripheral to our dialog.
>
> You have blessed me with a label (in Title caps no less) which I presume
> is as amusing to you as to me(presumably tongue in cheek). Be assured that
> I respect your contributions toward educational progress at least as much
> as you seem to honor my own.
>
> For sure, there have been many recent advances in mankind's scientific
> knowledge of instructology [the methods of "concept inventories" being a
> case in point]. But for the benefit of future generations, I deem it
> essential that we clearly distinguish between genuinely scientific
> advances, and the kind of question-answering findings and data-suggesting
> hypotheses that characterize classical educational research.
>
> That brings us back to your critique of my critique. Our dialog has
> reached far beyond the issues/disputes about whether or not Jo Boaler's
> findings are scientifically reliable ... or even about the National
> Academies' document. We now are talking about the scientific credibility
> of the diverse kinds of instructological research. In particular, we
> presently are talking about how well the Shavelson and Town criteria
> suffice for discerning which educational research is genuinely *scientific*
> ... and which is not. I do not disagree with what they say ... only
> with what they allow as being "scientific educational research."
>
> Yes, I did earlier read their "executive summary" elaborations of their
> six criteria. That is precisely how I concluded that their espoused
> concepts of "science" were biased to accommodate non-scientific
> educational research. The raising/pursuit of "questions" characterizes
> classical educational research ... which has badly failed to produce any
> scientific theory of instructology. The bottom line is that the NAS
> Education Center's six criteria accept as "scientific findings" too many
> findings that have no scientific credibility.
>
> You cite the "scholars" behind that document. I have personally talked
> with, and corresponded with, some NRC "experts" in mathematics education
> ... and found them to be sorely lacking in professional expertise. So your
> list of "scholars" is of no scientific interest. Science is all about
> empirical realities ... not about opinions of committees or "experts" (or
> of you or myself).
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
