The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: [math-learn] What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to

Replies: 2   Last Post: Aug 25, 2012 1:20 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,251
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
[math-learn] What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to

Posted: Aug 24, 2012 11:04 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (14.1 K)

Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent
discussion-list post "What Mathematicians Might Learn From
Physicists: Response to Wurman" [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In my post "What Mathematicians Might Learn From
Physicists: Response to Hansen" at <>, I
paraphrased Hansen's answers at <> to David
Bressoud's question at <>: "Why doesn't the
existence of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) together
with documentation of their effectiveness guarantee their widespread
adoption?" as follows:

The physicists' research based instructional strategies [RBIS]:

1. appear very compromised, designed as they are for only
academically uninterested terminal students;

2. lack the essentials for academically interested students: rigor,
detail, development, and challenge;

3. claim to be "successful," but here the accepted notion of
"success" is replaced with something entirely different;

4. doomed because they don't produce advocates.


[Note: I think Hansen's slightly corrected four paraphrased answers
at <> are also blatantly incorrect.]

In response, Ze'ev Wurman in a Math-Learn post at
<> excused himself from any detailed analysis of
Hansen's answers with this vague statement: "Hake then tries to
reject Hansen's arguments. Unsuccessfully as far as I am concerned,
but that is neither here nor there." Instead Wurman concentrates on
nitpicking my offhand criticism of Hansen's misuse of "disinterested"
to mean "uninterested." Accordingly, this post is in two parts:

PART I: "Hansen's Use of *Disinterested* to Mean *Uninterested* Is a
Linguistic Atrocity," for those interested in linguistics;

PART II. "Wurman's Long Record of Uninformed Arguments in Favor of
Bad Educational Ideas," for those interested in education: Examples -
Wurman's advocacy of:
A. Diverting K-12 Funding From Librarians to Teachers,
B. Direct Instruction Over Hands- and Minds-On Pedagogy,
C. Phonics Over Whole Language for Reading Instruction.

To access the complete 61 kB post please click on <>.

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

"Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and
memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always
effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of
reflection and ingenuity."
John Dewey "Morals Are Human," Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p. 207

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <> and accessed on 23
August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. "What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at
<>. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.