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."
"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."
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.' "
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.
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 . . . . . . and DianeRavitch . . .. . . 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 . . .. . . 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).
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).
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]