|
|
Re: Update about "The community of mathematics educators: Join in
defending fun
Posted:
Jan 9, 2013 7:04 PM
|
|
Robert, they say that Reading Is Fundamental. So maybe you'd like to read, carefully, the part that refers directly to Stanford's official finding about this matter and charges leveled against Jo Boaler's alleged 'scientific misconduct' and alleged 'fabrication of data and/or results.'
"In response to your question, Stanford University wishes to reiterate its strong support for the work of Stanford School of Education Professor Jo Boaler. In 2005, an individual made certain allegations that prompted an inquiry into Dr. Boaler?s research study that later appeared as ?Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching Approach: The Case of Railside School? (Teachers College Record, 2008, 110(3), 608?645). Under Stanford policy (and as required by law), the University has an obligation to look into such allegations to determine whether falsification or fabrication of research data or results are being alleged.
The Stanford committee carefully reviewed Dr. Boaler?s study and the allegations that were being made. It concluded that the concerns expressed by the complainant did not demonstrate any evidence of fabrication or falsification. The committee concluded as follows:
?We understand that there is a currently ongoing (and apparently passionate) debate in the mathematics education field concerning the best approaches and methods to be applied in teaching mathematics. It is not our task under Stanford?s policy to determine who is ?right? and who is ?wrong? in this academic debate. We do note that Dr. Boaler?s responses to the questions put to her related to her report were thorough, thoughtful and offered her scientific rationale for each of the questions underlying the allegations. We found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraudulent behavior related to the content of the report in question. In short we find that the allegations (such as they are) of scientific misconduct do not have substance.? (Emphasis added)
The committee therefore recommended that?as a result of its findings?no further investigation was warranted. The University adopted that recommendation.
Dr. Boaler is a nationally respected scholar in the field of math education. Stanford has provided extensive support for Dr. Boaler as she has engaged in scholarship in this field, which is one in which there is wide- ranging academic opinion. Stanford respects the fundamental principle of academic freedom: the merits of a position are to be determined by scholarly debate.
- -------
So you may look forward to whatever you like, but how you glean from what Stanford officially stated that you'll be seeing that raw data eludes me.
Note that Stanford doesn't seem worried about Boaler's work, nor about accusations by one of its faculty members, nor by one of Cal State-LA's faculty members. I think it's a pretty safe bet that they're not worried about you.
So if things remain other than "cleared up" in your mind, perhaps it's due to your presumptive judgments. I suggest you take your resulting doubts, misgivings, hard feelings, etc., up with Stanford University. I'm sure they'll be eager to assuage your concerns with all possible haste. After all, they all know how vital Robert Hansen's opinion is in every venue on every subject and would not want to risk your disapproval of their findings.
By the way, I, too, conducted research in mathematics education as a graduate student in the early 1990s, and the results were published in a University of Georgia peer-reviewed journal of mathematics education (I believe our article appeared in the inaugural issue, but I wouldn't swear to that).
I strongly suggest that you, Wayne, Dr. Milgram, and everyone else who thinks as you do demand that the chief investigator release all the raw data. After all, if someone with Jo Boaler's reputation in her field is ostensibly faking data and results (regardless of what Stanford University has to say on the subject), undoubtedly an untenured assistant professor and a couple of graduate students were probably doing at least as much if not far worse. You can tell without seeing the data because we (modestly and tentatively) drew some inferences from the data that likely wouldn't jibe with the thinking of anyone affiliated with Mathematically Correct or HOLD. And you know what THAT means, don't you? Call a cop!
Indeed, you might like to spend the rest of your life investigating mathematics education research. With your deep knowledge of social science research methodology (quantitative, qualitative, and blended, with their myriad design models and theoretical research frameworks, etc.), you'd be perfect. Remind me, though: where was it you trained in such things? I know Stanford will want to know.
|
|
