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 <http://bit.ly/QuqXqo> that science educators, in addition to mathematics educator Jo Boaler <http://bit.ly/R6XsuP>, 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 <<http://bit.ly/OPZ3H6>> wrote "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" in reaction to Robert Hansen's comment at <http://bit.ly/XkAtiO>: "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?" <http://bit.ly/fbOeA8>, Belcher's largely to blame for the fact that "At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard" <http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN>.  Therefore Belcher could well be next on the Bishop/Clopton/Milgram <http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c> hit list.
 
2. Antti Savinainen at <<http://bit.ly/RdtbdU>> 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' <http://bit.ly/XEw3U1>. 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 <<http://bit.ly/XAO5qj>> 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 <http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf>.


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>

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> 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 <http://bit.ly/Rl5Zdf>. 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 <http://bit.ly/QABgtg> with a provision for comments.