Date: Oct 21, 2012 6:24 PM
Author: Richard Hake
Subject: Physics Education Researchers Respond to "Science Educators Also<br> Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors"

Some subscribers to Math-Teach 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 <> that
science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler
<>, 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 <<>> wrote "I don't know
whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at
<>: "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?" <>, Belcher's largely
to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the
Way of the Blackboard" <>. Therefore Belcher
could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram
<> hit list.

2. Antti Savinainen at <<>> 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' <>. 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 <<>> 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 <>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <>
Academia: <>
Blog: <>
GooglePlus: <>
Twitter: <>

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <> 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 <>. 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
<> with a provision for comments.