Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Topic: [math-learn] What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to
Wurman #2

Replies: 2   Last Post: Aug 25, 2012 8:04 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,218
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
[math-learn] What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to
Wurman #2

Posted: Aug 25, 2012 6:56 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (53.7 K)

If you reply to this long (41 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "What Mathematicians Might Learn
From Physicists: Response to Wurman" [Hake (2012)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>, Ze'ev Wurman (2012) in a Math-Learn post
<http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR> (to access this post non-subscribers will
need to click on "New User" in the upper left-hand corner and fill
out a form) made the following five points (paraphrased for brevity
[Ze'ev, please comment if you think I've failed to convey your
meaning]:

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
1. My post focussed on Hake's rude attack on Hansen as "illiterate"
because he used the word "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" (in
*consonance* with the OED and Merriam Webster}. Considering Hake's
citation of Strunk & White at <http://amzn.to/OGx7jv> and Follett at
<http://bit.ly/Nayixo>, who *oppose* defining "disinterested" to mean
"uninterested," I'm happy that I chose OED and Merriam Webster over
Strunk & White and Follett.

2. I am not surprised by Hake's crude misinterpretations of my quite
precise critique of elementary-librarians vs. teachers statement.

3. Nor am I surprised by Hake's preference of physics-for-dummies
("Hands- and Minds-On" in his mellifluous description).

4. But I was taken aback by Hake's belief that my support of
phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is
"uninformed." After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is
NICHD's <http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk>, <http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA> and the
National Reading Panel <http://bit.ly/P8AG2l>. When it suits him,
Hake prefers charlatanism over empirical evidence.

5. But the real issue is what all the above has to do with the issue
at hand - Hake's rude attack on Hansen as 'illiterate' because of
Hansen's use of a word Hake didn't like or know.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

In this post I comment on the above five points, indicating Wurman's
numerous errors, misrepresentations, and vacuities.
************************************************

In response to my post "What Mathematicians Might Learn From
Physicists: Response to Wurman" [Hake (2012)], Ze'ev Wurman (2012)
made several points to which I respond below, keeping in mind
Math-Learn moderator Rex Boogs' (2012) reminder "that professional
courteous discussion is expected on this list."


111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Wurman wrote: "My original reply to Hake was focused on his rude
and unfounded attack on Hansen as "illiterate" because of Hansen's
use of "disinterested" instead of "uninterested." All the linguistic
quotes and citations Hake marshals to promote the "venerable" Strunk
& White and "revered" Follett over the "skewed" OED and "debased"
Merriam Webster make me even happier in my "linguistic naivete" for
choosing the latter over the former."

Contrary to Wurman's implication, in my *complete* post [Hake (2012)]
at <http://bit.ly/TXMvNs> I did NOT call the OED "skewed" and I did
NOT call Merriam Webster "debased."

It was Stanford scholar John Willinsky
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Willinsky> in "Empire of Words:
The Reign of the OED" [Willinsky (1994, page 4)] who used the word
"skewed" in reference to the OED. As indicated in my *complete* post
[Hake (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>, Willinsky wrote:

"As orderly and ordinary a procedure as this editorial process
sounds, in the course of this study I have found that the citations
in the OED often misbehave. They can very easily testify against the
dictionary's definition, thereby disturbing the very resolution of
the meaning that is at the heart of the dictionary. THEY CAN MAKE
APPARENT HOW SKEWED THE DICTIONARY'S COVERAGE OF THE LANGUAGE IS. . .
. .[[My CAPS]]. . . . They can leave one wondering how it is that
words and meanings have moved across great periods of time.
Citations, it turns out, raise as many questions as they are supposed
to settle about the basis of authority and the determination of
sense."

Also as indicated in my *complete* post [Hake (2012)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>:

a. In the "The Elements of Style" [Strunk & White (2000)] - see the
Wikipedia entry at <http://bit.ly/NB06ef> - on page 44 of the 4th
edition state [my CAPS]:

"*Disinterested* means "impartial." DO NOT CONFUSE IT WITH
*uninterested*, which means " 'not interested in.' "

b. Follett (1998, pp. 103-104) states [bracketed by lines
"FFFFFFFFFFFF. . . . ."; my CAPS]:

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Some wise and some weary writers on language have declared the battle
for *disinterested* lost to those who think it a synonym for
*uninterested*. THIS VERDICT GIVES A SINGLE MEANING TO A PAIR OF
WORDS WITH A COMMON ROOT AND DISSIMILAR PREFIXES WHILE THROWING THE
MEANING OF ONE WORD OUT THE WINDOW. . . . .[[My CAPS]]. . . . At
best, one could say that *disinterested* has swung back to an earlier
meaning. But should it have? IT HAS DONE INVALUABLE SERVICE IN A
POST WHERE AT PRESENT NO REPLACEMENT IS IN SIGHT. . . . . .The
adjective *interested* has the self-evident antonym *uninterested*.
"The hound remained completely *uninterested* as long as no one
approached the porch." Make the hound *disinterested* and its drowsy
condition is likened to the scrupulous work of a good presiding judge.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Considering all the above, if Wurman's choice of OED and Merriam
Webster over Strunk & White (2000) and Follett (1998) makes him
happy, then (in my opinion) he has a lot to learn.



22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Wurman wrote: "The rest of Hake's ramblings make for a par
excellence example of an ad-hominem attack. I am not surprised by his
crude misinterpretations of my quite precise critique of
elementary-librarians-vs.-teachers statement. . . . . ."

As indicated in my *complete* post [Hake (2012)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>, in his NYT Opinion Piece "Teachers, Not
Librarians," Wurman (2011) wrote [bracketed by lines "WWWW. . . "; my
CAPS]:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
ACCESS TO READING BOOKS HAS NOT BEEN A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR MANY YEARS. They are available from the numerous and free
public libraries, through classroom and school collections and can be
purchased inexpensively. Access to research materials became
enormously easier with the Internet and home computers. Electronic
book availability has also exploded in recent years. Yet, a large
majority of Americans actually decreased the amount of their reading.

Perhaps the clearest indication of that can be seen in the recent
evaluation of the "Improving Literacy Through School Libraries". . .
. [the NYT link is to "Second Evaluation of the Improving Literacy
Through School Libraries Program" (Michie & Chany, 2009)]]. . . . .
program that provides federal grants to needy schools. Its grantees
roughly tripled their expenditures on books, subscriptions and
computer hardware, and doubled the number of libraries open after
school hours. Yet they have showed NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE
NUMBER OF MATERIALS CHECKED OUT. In other words, access is not an
issue.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Wurman claims the above is a "quite precise critique of
elementary-librarians-vs.-teachers statement." But in the above
Wurman *excises* the capitalized text in the "Executive Summary,"
page xiii of (Michie & Chany, 2009): "in the first evaluation,
GRANTEES SHOWED AN INCREASE IN STUDENT USAGE OF THE LIBRARIES PER
WEEK but no significant change in number of materials checked out."
Had Wurman *not* excised "Grantees showed an increase in student
usage of the libraries per week," then Wurman's conclusion "In other
words, access is not an issue" would have been seen to be an obvious
non sequitur.

Furthermore, Wurman was quoted by Elinor Yang Sue (2012) in her "San
Francisco Chronicl" report "Fewer California schools have trained
librarians" as follows:

" 'You have to make choices sometimes, and the importance of
librarians is a bit less than it used to be,' said Ze'ev Wurman, a
Silicon Valley executive who participated in the development of
California education standards and served as a policy adviser for the
U.S. Department of Education. 'In the elementary grades especially,
librarians are essentially teacher's aides, doing a variety of things
that have little to do with books or literacy, per se.' "

Wurman's statement incited comment from:

a. English teacher Susan Ohanian (2012), winner of the 2003 National
Council of Teachers of English [NCTE (2003)] George Orwell Award for
Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
and moderator of "Susan Ohanian.org" <http://susanohanian.org/> who
wrote [my CAPS]:

"PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A TOPIC, such as what
librarians do in schools, SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. But when the
newspaper calls, few do. Ze'ev Wurman's remarks to the reporter . . .
. .[[Yang Su (2012) in her report "Fewer California schools have
trained librarians" (Yang Su, 2012)]]. . . . . . . . . were really
outrageous, saying, 'In the elementary grades especially, librarians
are essentially teacher's aides, doing a variety of things that have
little to do with books or literacy, per se.' "

b. Reading expert Stephen Krashen (2011)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen> who wrote in a letter
to the editor of the "San Francisco Chronicle": [bracketed by lines
"KKKKK. . . ."; my CAPS]:

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
According to the Chronicle, Ze'ev Wurman thinks that "access to books
is not a problem" because of one finding in one report produced by
the US Government ("Fewer California schools have trained
librarians," Jan 2, 2012). . . . . .[[Yang Sue (2012), this report
was produced by "California Watch," a project of the nonprofit Center
for Investigative Reporting <http://californiawatch.org/>, *not* by
the US Government. ("Even Homer nods" <http://bit.ly/PFODs0>)]]. . .
. . This is like dismissing global warming because yesterday was
cold. And it is counter to the results of a multitude of studies.

NUMEROUS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PUBLISHED IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS HAVE
CONFIRMED THAT CHILDREN OF POVERTY HAVE LITTLE ACCESS TO READING
MATERIAL: They have fewer books in the home, live in neighborhoods
with inferior public libraries and fewer bookstores, and attend
schools with inferior classroom and school libraries.

STUDIES ALSO SHOW THAT INCREASING ACCESS TO BOOKS INCREASES THE
AMOUNT OF READING THEY DO, and increased reading leads to improved
achievement in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, and vocabulary.

Confirming the importance of access are the numerous studies of the
impact of libraries: Keith Curry Lance and others . . . . [[see e.g.,
"Something to Shout About: New research shows that more librarians
means higher reading scores" (Lance & Hofschire, 2011)]]. . . . .
have shown in a number of carefully done studies that BETTER
LIBRARIES MEAN HIGHER SCORES ON READING TESTS.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ACCESS TO BOOKS TO LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IS ONE OF
THE BEST-ESTABLISHED RESULTS IN ALL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH.
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK



3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. Wurman wrote: "The rest of Hake's ramblings make for a par
excellence example of an ad-hominem attack. I am not surprised by . .
. . . his preference of physics-for-dummies ("Hands- and Minds-On" in
his mellifluous description)."

Would Wurman have us believe that the minds-on curriculum at Harvard
and hands- and minds-on curriculum at MIT that have been so
effectively implemented at Harvard - [Crouch & Mazur (20ss), Mazur
(1997, 2009)] and MIT [Dori & Belcher (2004), Rimer (2009)], Breslow
(2010)] are for "dummies"??

It's unfortunate that Wurman is either unaware or dismissive of the
fact that hands- and minds-on pedagogy, i.e., "interactive
engagement" curricula have been shown by Hake (1998a,b) and about 25
other physics education researchers listed on page 12 of Hake (2008)
to result in average normalized gains <g>'s on mechanics Concept
Inventories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory> that are
about two standard deviations above those of the traditional
passive-student, direct-instruction, courses so beloved by Wurman and
his fellow traditionalist math warriors at "HOLD - Palo Alto"
<http://bit.ly/qofqny> (of which Wurman's evidently on the steering
committee), HOLD - NYC <http://www.nychold.com/>, and "Mathematically
Correct" <http://bit.ly/beOVtu>.



444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. Wurman wrote: "I was taken aback by Hake's belief that my support
of phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is
"uninformed." After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is
NICHD's opinion. . . . [[see, e.g., NICHD (2012a,b)]]]. . . , as well
as the opinion of the National Reading Panel . . . [NRP (2012)]]. . .
. . It is nice to know that, when it suits him, Hake prefers
charlatanism over empirical evidence."

Among those I cite in my *complete* post [Hake (2012)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs> in support of my view that a *balanced*
approach between the "progressive" vs "traditional" (in reading:
phonics vs. WL) makes sense [contrary to the phonics-only view of
Wurman] are: Dewey (1902/1990), Snow et al. (1998), Sowder (1998),
Hirsch (1999), Bickman (2003, 2004), Education Week (2004), and
Schoenfeld (2004). Please see the comments by Dewey (as quoted by
Ansberger (2000], Snow et al. (1998), Sowder (1998), Hirsch (1999),
Education Week (2004), Bickman (2004), and Schoenfeld (2004) given in
the REFERENCE list below.

Wurman's implication that I and those cited above are "charlatans"
suggests that Wurman defines a "charlatan" as anyone who disagrees
with him.

Incidentally, contrary to Wurman's statement that his phonics-only
view is also the view of NICHD and NRP, at NICHD (2012b)
<http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA> appears the following [second to last
paragraph; my CAPS] "Along with instruction in phonics and phonemic
awareness, the [NRP] OUTLINED OTHER EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING
CHILDREN TO READ. One strategy, GUIDED ORAL READING, involves having
children read aloud while receiving guidance from skilled readers.
The other, instruction in READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES, consists
of techniques for helping children to understand what they read."]

In addition, in my *complete* post [Hake (2012)] at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs> I pointed out that the National Reading
Panel's report has been devastatingly criticized in "More Smoke and
Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel (NRP) Report on
'Fluency', " by reading expert Stephen Krashen (2001)]].



55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
5. Wurman wrote: "But the real issue is what all these have to do
with the issue at hand, which was his rude attack on Hansen as
'illiterate' because of Hansen's use of a word Hake didn't like or
know. Hake's response simply shows it was not just a slip of a pen."

At the Math-Learn archives <http://yhoo.it/fF6D9w> it's stated that:
"The focus of this group is courteous discussion about the teaching
of mathematics." It's not clear to me why Wurman wishes to
concentrate on what he regards as my "rude attack on Hansen" rather
than on the teaching of mathematics.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to 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 [URL shortened by <http://bitly.com/> and accessed on
25August 2012.]
Ansbacher, T. 2000. "An Interview with John Dewey on Science
Education," Phys. Teach. 38(4): 224-227, April; online to subscribers
at <http://bit.ly/InrLvJ> and to all Ansbacher's site
<http://bit.ly/I89zmr> / "Articles in pdf" / "An interview with John
Dewey" (where "/" means "click on". . . . [[<http://bit.ly/I89zmr>
was dead on 25 August 2012 14:22-0700, but it may revive]]. . . . .A
thoughtful and well-researched treatment showing the consonance of
Dewey's educational ideas with the thinking of most current
science-education researchers (as
quoted straight from Dewey's own writings, not from the accounts of
sometimes confused Dewey interpreters).

Bickman, M. 2003. "Minding American Education: Reclaiming the
Tradition of Active Learning," Teachers College Press, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/OTewki>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/R10JZV>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
For a brief description see <http://bit.ly/OSYLdc>.

********************************************
Bickman, M. 2004. "Won't You Come Home, John Dewey?" Los Angeles
Times, 20 July, p. B13. For a copy of the commentary, originally
informatively titled by Bickman "THE NEEDLESS WAR BETWEEN
TRADITIONALISTS AND PROGRESSIVES AND HOW TO END IT," but changed by
the LA Time OpEd editor to the snappy but senseless "Won't You Come
Home, John Dewey?" see Hake (2004b) at <http://bit.ly/SoI0gw>.
Bickman wrote [bracketed by lines "BBBBB. . . . ; my CAPS; see
<http://bit.ly/SoI0gw> for the references]:

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
For much of its history, American education has seemed more like a
battleground between warring factions than an evolving and cumulative
field of increasingly refined concepts and methods. On one side we
get books by E.D. Hirsch . . . [1996]. . . and DianeRavitch . .
.[2000]. . . blaming the progressive tradition itself, with its
concern for process and student-centered activity, for the current
failings of our schools.

On the other side we get books by writers like Alfie Kohn . .
.[1999]. . . blaming traditional elements of our system - the
overemphasis on testing, the segmentation of knowledge into subjects
and textbooks, and passive modes of instruction.

If this were merely a battle of the books, a remedy would not be as
urgent. But students, parents and teachers are constantly caught in
this crossfire, or, to switch the metaphor, knocked about by the
pendulum swings between the two extremes. The most frustrating part
of this situation is that it is all so unnecessary. EACH SIDE HAS
SEIZED ON ONLY PART OF THE CYCLE THAT GENERATES REAL LEARNING AND
URGED IT UPON US AS THE ENTIRE SOLUTION. INSTEAD, THERE SHOULD BE A
DIALOGUE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE AND CULTURAL SYMBOLS, BETWEEN
SELF-EXPRESSION AND TEACHING THE BASICS.

One of the reasons this continuing conflict is so heartbreaking is
that, around the turn of the last century, John Dewey was able to
create resolutions both in a philosophic and practical sense. He
looked out on an educational landscape torn between similar
apparently competing philosophies. One group centered on the notion
of "child-study" and the person of G. Stanley Hall. This group had a
Rousseau-like sentimentality about nature and children, and it was
more concerned with what it saw as health and wholeness than with
intellectual growth.

On the other side was a group that stressed high academic achievement
as defined and organized by curricula and textbooks, led by William
Torrey Harris, U.S. commissioner of education. In this view, the
standard curriculum - arithmetic, geography, history, grammar and
literature, the "five windows of the soul," as Harris called them -
rescued the young mind from its immediate narrowness. Instead of
enlisting on one side or the other, DEWEY, in a crucial 1902 article,
"The Child and the Curriculum,". . . .[now in Dewey (1990)]. . .
CONCEPTUALIZED EACH POSITION SO THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER SEEM A MATTER
OF THE CHILD VERSUS THE CURRICULUM. . . . .[My CAPS.]
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
********************************************

Boggs, R. 2012. "Re: What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman," online on the CLOSED Math-Learn archives at
<http://yhoo.it/PPWBPz>. Math-Learn post of 24 August 10:20 pm
(Yahoo fails to specify the time zone.) To access this post
non-subscribers will need to click on "New User" in the upper
left-hand corner and fill out a form.

Berliner, D., & B. Biddle. 1996. "The Manufactured Crisis: Myths,
Fraud, and the Attack On America's Public Schools." Basic Books,
publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/O5M0wm>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/PGOfcT>.

Breslow, L. 2010. "Wrestling With Pedagogical Change: The Teal
Initiative at MIT," Change Magazine, September/October. A brief
Change Magazine abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/nFCymK>.

Crouch, C.H. & E. Mazur. 2001. "Peer Instruction: Ten years of
experience and results," Am. J. Phys. 69(9): 970-977; online at
<http://bit.ly/ppm3Bm>.

Dewey, J. 1902, 1990. "The School and Society, The Child and the
Curriculum," with an introduction by Philip W. Jackson. Univ. of
Chicago Press. Originally published in 1956. "The School and Society"
was published in 1902. For the marked influence of Dewey's
educational ideas on the thinking of most current science-education
researchers see Ansbacher (2000).

Dori, Y.J. & J. Belcher. 2004. "How Does Technology-Enabled Active
Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of
Electromagnetism Concepts?" The Journal of the Learning Sciences
14(2), online as a 1 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/fbOeA8>. See also Rimer
(2009) and Breslow (2010).

Education Week. 2004. "Reading," online at <http://bit.ly/QrHF6v>.
Education Week wrote: "For much of the past two decades, the proper
method for teaching children to read and write was under the
divergent influences of two powerful schools of thought, the phonics
and the whole language approaches, embroiling educators in the
so-called 'reading wars.' Determining the best means of teaching
children to read is of particular concern in light of dismal national
reading proficiency scores. On the 2003 National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 38 percent of 4th graders and 28 percent of 8th
graders could not demonstrate basic reading skills for their
grade-level. (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003). In
the 21st century, however, this debate has evolved. Instead of
focusing on the 'either/or' of the phonics versus whole-language
approaches to reading instruction, the debate now centers on the
essential components of a comprehensive reading program. . . . . .
TODAY, THE READING DEBATE NO LONGER CENTERS ON WHICH APPROACH IS
BETTER, BUT RATHER THE PROPER MIX OF EACH IN A COMPREHENSIVE READING
PROGRAM. . . . .[My CAPS.]]. . . . Some feel that more emphasis
should be placed on the skills-based instruction within a reading
curriculum, while others feel that more emphasis should be placed on
authentic reading tasks. The combination of the two approaches, known
as Balanced Literacy, has continued to evolve over the last few years
as new research has revealed the benefits of both phonics and
authentic reading (Pearson, 2004)."

Follett, W. 1998. "Modern American Usage - A Guide," revised by Erik
Wensberg. Macmillan, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/Nayixo>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/NUC6hd>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
The publisher states: 'A classic since its first edition in 1966,
"Modern American Usage," has been called a book that "every literate
American ought to read." Now fully revised and brought up-to-date,
this one-volume course in good writing brims with helpful
answers-large and small-for readers who want to use English clearly,
naturally, and correctly.

Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online as an 84 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9484DG> . See also the crucial but ignored companion
paper Hake (1998b).

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as a 108 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>. A crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement"
(PERS) of the American Journal of Physics, but rejected by its editor
on the grounds that the very transparent, well organized, and crystal
clear Physical-Review-type data tables were "impenetrable"!

Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: Research Based Instruction," online on the on
the OPEN AERA-J archives at <http://bit.ly/NVHPon>. See also "Direct
Instruction in Reading" [Hake (2004c)].

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Won't You Come Home, John Dewey?" online on the
OPEN POD archives at <http://bit.ly/SoI0gw>. Post of 20 Jul 2004
20:58:22-0700 to AERA-J, Dewey-L, Math-Teach, PhysLrnR, POD, and
STLHE-L.

Hake, R.R. 2004c. "Direct Instruction in Reading," on the OPEN! POD
archives at <http://bit.ly/Nlp2km>. Post of 31 Jul 2004 14:55:09-0700
to POD.

Hake, R.R. 2008. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008)]. A
pre-publication version of that chapter is online as a 1.1 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/9kORMZ>.

Hake, R.R. 2012. "What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/TXMvNs>. 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 <http://bit.ly/MPsKXQ> with a provision for
comments.

Hirsch, E.D. Jr. 1999. "The Schools We Need: Why We Don't Have Them"
Anchor, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/R27f2v>. Amazon.com
information at <>, , note the searchable "Look Inside" feature. On
page 67 Hirsch wrote: "In the heat of the battle few have wished to
heed researchers like Jeanne Chall. . . . . . . . .
[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Chall >]]. . . . and Marilyn
Jager Adams. . . . . . .
.[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Jager_Adams]]. . . . ., who
found that a middle-of-the-road approach which includes both phonics
and whole language approaches is the most effective teaching method."

Krashen, S. 2001. "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National
Reading Panel (NRP) Report on 'Fluency', " Phi Delta Kappan, October;
online as a 41 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/NJ15F1>.

Krashen, S. 2011. Letter to the Editor, "San Francisco Chronicle," 3
January; a copy is online on Krashen's blog "Schools Matter" at
<http://bit.ly/P9mAis> and at Ohanian (2012).

Lance, K.C. & L. Hampshire. 2011. "Something to Shout About: New
research shows that more librarians means higher reading scores,"
School Library Journal, 01 September; online at
<http://bit.ly/QooLx6>.

Mazur, E. 1997. "Peer instruction: a user's manual." Prentice Hall;
information online at <http://bit.ly/n73k9g>.

Mazur, E. 2009. "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" talk at the
University of Maryland on 11 November 2009. That talk is now on
YouTube at <http://bit.ly/dBYsXh>, and the abstract, slides, and
references - sometimes obscured in the UTube talk - are at
<http://bit.ly/9qzDIq> as a 4 MB pdf. As of 24 August 19:44-0700
Eric's talk had been viewed 71,902 times. In contrast, serious
articles in the education literature (or even posts such as this one)
are often read only by the author and a few cloistered specialists,
creating tsunamis in educational practice equivalent to those
produced by a pebble dropped into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Michie, J.S. & B.W. Chaney. 2009. "Second Evaluation of the
Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program," Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Education; online as a 1.2 MB pdf at
<http://1.usa.gov/TSqP5a>.

NCTE, 2003. National Council of Teachers of English, Orwell Award.
The award recognizes writers who have made outstanding contributions
to the critical analysis of public discourse and is give by the NCTE
Committee on Public Doublespeak. In the award speech, Rudolph Sharpe,
speaking on behalf of the NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak, said,
"The selection of the 2003 recipient acknowledges the influence of
electronic media on public perception. For the first time, a Web site
has been selected - for its clarity, honesty, and eloquence. As one
nominator noted, Susan Ohanian's Web site 'presumes a natural love of
the education of children, offers a place for a free exchange of
thought on their behalf, but has little sympathy for those who view
children as things, as commodities. Her Web site's dedication to
social and educational justice filled with questions, information,
and resources, conflict, and love, exemplify. . . what should be the
very best in the heart of public thinking.'" . . . ."

NICHD. 2012a. "Phonics Instruction," National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, online at <http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk>.
See also NICHD (2012b).

NICHD. 2012b. "Story of Discovery: From Reading Research to
Practice," National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
online at <http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA>.
<http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk> and <http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA>.

NRP. 2012. National Reading Panel, online at <http://bit.ly/P8AG2l>.
It is stated that "In 1997, Congress asked the Director of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at
the National Institutes of Health, in consultation with the Secretary
of Education, to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness
of different approaches used to teach children to read. By act of
congress (Public Law 110-154), the Institute was renamed the Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD).
Ohanian, S. 2012. "Anti-testing Letters" in her blog "Susan
Ohanian.org," online at <http://bit.ly/PpIIrJ>.

Pearson, P.D. 2004. "The Reading Wars," Educational Policy 18(1):
216-252; an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/NlH065>.

Ravitch, D. 2010. "The Death and Life of the Great American School
System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education." Basic
Books, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/pN1NJo>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/pAjeZU>, note the searchable "Look
Inside" feature.

Schoenfeld, A. 2004. "The Math Wars," Educational Policy 18(1),
253-286; online as a 164 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/OIljxk>. Regarding
the "Reading Wars" Schoenfeld wrote: Before the math wars in
California, there were reading wars (see Pearson, 2004 [this issue],
for substance and details). That makes some sense at least: What the
state mandates as reading matter can be controversial. Indeed, the
battles quickly polarized around right versus left politics. The
Religious Right got up in arms when books it found objectionable were
put on the state's reading lists and when the California Learning
Assessment System asked students to write about their feelings in
response to what they read. From the (very) traditionalists' point of
view, the role of schooling should be to provide authoritative
knowledge. Certain things are right or wrong; it is the
responsibility of the teacher to say what is right and to make sure
the students learn it. What the students feel is irrelevant and
inappropriate for discussion in school; what counts is what the
students are taught and what they should know. Protests began and
began to be effective. But how does one get from objecting to what
children are given to read to doing battle nationally over whether to
teach phonics or whole language? A major factor is the view of
authority described above. The concomitants of a phonics approach are
discipline, structure, and authority. A concomitant of the
whole-language approach is *invented spelling*, which from the
perspective of the traditionalists is as undisciplined and
individualistic as you can get ("You don't know how to spell a word?
Make it up!"). THUS THE CONFLICT OF PHONICS VERSUS WHOLE LANGUAGE CAN
BE SEEN AS A MICROCOSM OF THE LARGER HISTORICAL
TRADITIONAL-VERSUS-PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ABOUT AMERICAN SCHOOLING As
such, it fit the agenda of the New Right, a powerfully connected and
politically influential group that included the far right and
neoconservatives such as Diane Ravitch. . . . .[[Ravitch has since
done a 180 - see e.g. Ravitch (2011)]]. . . ., Chester Finn, E. D.
Hirsch, and Lynn Cheney (Berliner & Biddle, 1995).

Snow, C., M. Burns, M., & P. Griffin. 1998. "Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children," National Academy Press' online at
<http://bit.ly/OOhFCa>. A New York Times book
review states: "A new evaluation by the National Research Council, a
branch of the National Academy of Sciences, should put an end to this
dispute [phonics vs whole language] by declaring that BOTH APPROACHES
CAN BE USED IN A COMPLEMENTARY FASHION . . . .[[My CAPS]]. . . . . .
. could serve as a road map to national standards."

Sowder, J.T. 1998. "What are the 'Math Wars' in California All About?
Reasons and Perspectives" Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as a
98 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/O6R9If>. Sowder wrote: "I would like,
today, to put aside the rhetoric of the extremists on either side who
close themselves off from considering whether or not the 'other side'
has any valid concerns or any valid answers. Certainly there are good
and reasonable people on either side of the current debate. Even so,
there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a
concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a
skills-oriented traditional curriculum. I will discuss today the ways
that I see these two sides differing: They hold different beliefs
about what mathematics is, different beliefs about how mathematics is
learned, different understandings of what it means to know
mathematics, and different ways of interpreting what research has to
tell us on these issues. In a nutshell, THEY REPRESENT DIFFERENT
VALUE SYSTEMS. I believe that rational, reflective discussion and
exploration of these issues can bring the two sides closer together.
Thus, although the two sides may not reach total agreement, they can
come to understand the issues better and find ways to compromise. I
am told that California schools educate one-seventh of the students
in this country. THERE IS TOO MUCH AT STAKE TO CONTINUE THE FIGHTING,
to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our
children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should
be." (My CAPS.)

Strunk, W. & E.B. White. 2000. "The Elements of Style," 4th edition,
forward by Robert Angell. Allyn & Bacon. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/OGx7jv>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.

Willinsky, J. 1994. "Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED."
Princeton University Press, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/OuKeaa>, including this excerpt from "Booklist": "a
scholarly study of the more than two million citations in the
dictionary that are used to show shades of meanings of words.
WILLINSKY QUESTIONS THE AUTHORITY OF THE OED BY DEMONSTRATING HOW
IDIOSYNCRATIC THE CHOICE OF CITATIONS OFTEN HAS BEEN.. . . .[[My
CAPS.]]. . . Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/NY9WDu>, note
the searchable "Look Inside" feature. See also Willinsky (2000).

Willinsky, J. 2000. "Complicated web." New Statesman, a draft is
online as a 115 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/QmqKSB>, courtesy of the
"Public Knowledge Project" at <http://pkp.sfu.ca/>.

Wurman, Z. 2011. "Teachers, Not Librarians." New York Times Opinion
Piece, 27 June; online at <http://nyti.ms/ScUxC4>. As of 22 August
09:46-0700 there had been 72 comments, most of them disagreeing with
Wurman.

Wurman, Z. 2012. "What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists:
Response to Wurman," online on the CLOSED Math-Learn archives at
<http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR>. Math-Learn post of 24 August 12:27 pm (Yahoo
fails to specify the time zone. To access this post non-subscribers
will need to click on "New User" in the upper left-hand corner and
fill out a form.

Yang Su, E. 2012. "Fewer California schools have trained librarians,"
California Watch, 2 January; online at <http://bit.ly/NBeF1x>. As of
22 August 09:48-0700 there had been 40 comments, many of them
disagreeing with Wurman (see above).







[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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.