Responding to Robert Hansen's (RH's) post dt. Jan 10, 2013 8:54 PM (pasted below my signature for ready reference):
I shall leave it to Jo Boaler to explain, if she desires to, why she is not doing as RH wants her to do.
I feel I am justified in asking RH to explain why he himself does not do as he recommends that Jo Boaler should do.
Specifically I refer to the falsehoods that he - along with Haim - promoted here at Math-teach over several years about the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) - an aid to problem solving and decision making developed by the undersigned.
The falsehoods involve his claim that "OPMS is just petty list-making and nothing else - and it is therefore trivial" (words to that effect), when it would be abundantly clear to even a high-school student who examines the literature that the OPMS is considerably "more than petty list-making". See, for instance, the attachments herewith which clearly demonstrate that the OPMS is much more than lists - AND that RH's claim was and is total falsehood.
Can RH provide ANY data at all to demonstrate the validity of his claim that OPMS is just "petty list-making - and nothing else"???
I have provided my data to demonstrate that OPMS is much more than "petty list-making". All needed data is available at those attachments. More data can develop from live cases for anyone who wishes to check out by applying the OPMS to any issue of interest to himself/ herself/ themselves.
RH is very prompt, I observe, to ask Jo Boaler to provide data in support of her claims - but he refuses to do the same in support of his own claims!
One may certainly disagree as to the value to problem solving of the OPMS; one may claim it is worthless - that is anybody's prerogative - but why these blatant lies???
Kindly do yourself the favor of explaining the falsehoods (i.e., blatant lies) that you promoted, RH.
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!")
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 8:54 PM: > > The actual reality that Milgram et al uncovered at > the three schools did not match Boaler's descriptive > conclusion in her study. Now, it may be Stanford's > policy that educational research is to be taken with > a grain of salt and with particular attention to the > fine print, however, in this case, Boaler's study had > neither a grain of salt nor fine print. I am not > going to try to hide my disappointment. I was hoping > for something like the following from Boaler (with > MPG's signature after hers)... > > "I realize that the reader might infer from my > conclusion and comments in my original study that the > students at Railside were passing, or even doing very > well, in these advanced classes. Heaven's no! Nothing > could be further from the truth. Almost none of these > students did well enough to even pass. Indeed, they > were failing. But that wasn't what my study was > about. My study was about showing that if we adopt an > open and encouraging environment in mathematics > education then we can achieve a semblance of success > in mathematics. I realize that most readers are > puzzled and will ask why we would want a semblance of > success and not actual success, and more importantly, > why I didn't point this detail out in my original > study? This is because my study was not about > mathematics, not in the common sense, it was about > equality. But in order to achieve a semblance of > equality we must establish a semblance of success in > mathematics. Now, I don't have an answer to the > question "Why does! > equality, or even a semblance of equality, have > e anything to do with mathematics?" But if equality > can be reduced to a semblance of equality based on a > semblance of success in mathematics then my study > shows a possible way of achieving that semblance." > > Bob Hansen > > > On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:16 PM, GS Chandy > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 12:41 AM: > >> > >> Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so > >> that we can understand better the basis for Jo's > >> remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this > >> release though. You would have thought that would > >> have cleared everything up immediately. > >> > >> Bob Hansen > >> > > A thorough investigation was conducted. > > > > NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR > FABRICATION OF RESULTS (BY JO BOALER). > > > > That is, the complaint made by 'a certain > individual' was found to be utterly phony. > > > > To me it seems that the only real issue may be to > inquire why such a phony complaint was ever made in > the first place. > > > > And I do tend to wonder why you, Robert Hansen, > keep supporting such a phony case. > > > > It seems that there is good reason for some serious > introspection here (quite apart from any formal > investigations). > > > > GSC > > ("Still Shoveling Away!)