Some subscribers to
MathEdCC might be interested in a recent post "In Defense of the
NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education' " [Hake (2012)]. The
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
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
and (4) and
"Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics"
[Meltzer & Thornton (2012)] at
To access the complete 46 kB post please click on
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs:
"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
URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 26 Oct
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
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
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