BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Well, I don't have world or time or probably expertise enough to go through all of this myself to see if the name-calling is justified, and the conflict of interest is disturbing, but I don't think this . . .[evidently referring to Schoenfeld (2003)]. . . backs up the claim that Carnine is anti-research.
In fact, reading Carnine's piece "Why Education Experts Resist". . .[Carnine (2000). . . cited by Schoenfeld to support his accusation leads to the opposite conclusion, what with Carnine's emphasis on evidence and recommendation of double-blind randomized design. So while it's possible there are grounds to criticize Carnine's research, it seems to me it's shoddy practice to claim he played a "leading role in undermining effective math instruction" or to label him "anti-research" on the basis of the
cited references.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
I disagree. I think Shoenfeld makes a good case that Carnine played a leading role in undermining math instruction in California. And that Carnine is "anti-research" is made abundantly clear by Carnine (2000) himself. He extols the notoriously inept [Lagemann (2000), Cohen (1970),] Project Follow Through, and discounts almost all other education research because it fails to employ the double-blind randomized design of some medical research.
Except for Carnine, even the Randomized Control Trial (RCT) champions who have convinced the U.S. Dept. of Education that RCT's are the "gold standard" of education research realize that double-blind trials in education are virtually impossible. For example, any instructor who is oblivious of whether s(he) is using pill "A" ("interactive-engagement") or pill "B" (passive-student lectures) could not, in my opinion, be trusted to administer either pill effectively.
As for RCT's, as indicated in Hake (2005a) [bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHH. . . .; see that article for references other than Shavelson & Towne (2002)]"
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH That a single research method should be designated as the "gold standard" for evaluating an intervention's effectiveness appears antithetical to the report of the NRC's "Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research" [Shavelson & Towne (2002) - ST]. ST state that scientific research should "pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically," and "use methods that permit direct investigation of the questions."
Furthermore, the USDE's RCT gold standard is considered problematic by a wide array of scholars. Taking issue with the RCT gold standard are philosophers Dennis Phillips [Shavelson, Phillips, Towne, & Feuer (2003)] and Michael Scrivin (2004); mathematicians Burkhardt & Schoenfeld (2003); engineer Woodie Flowers [Zaritsky, Kelly, Flowers, Rogers, Patrick (2003)]; and physicist Andre deSessa [Cobb, Confey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003)].
In addition, the following organizations oppose the RCT gold standard:
(a) American Evaluation Association (AEA)
<http://www.eval.org/doestatement.htm>,(b) American Education Research Association (AERA)
<http://www.eval.org/doeaera.htm>, and(c) National Education Association
<http://www.eval.org/doe.nearesponse.pdf> (88 kB).
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRichard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
REFERENCES
Black, S. "Re: Efficient teaching methods," TIPS post of 07 Apr 2005 10:44:39-0500. online at
<http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?sub=342238&id=271381206>.[One way to locate this message on the primitive TIPS archive is to search for "efficient" (without the quotes) in the "entire message."]
Carnine, D. 2000. "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices (And What It Would Take to Make Education More Like Medicine)," online as a 52kB pdf at
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/found.cfm?author=72&keyword=&submit=Search>.
Cohen, D.K. 1970. "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action Programs in Education," Review of Educational Research 40: 231.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851 (2005); APS March Meeting, Los Angles, CA. 21-25 March; online as ref. 36 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by clicking on <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf> (256 kB). For excerpts see Hake (2005b). For a related post see Hake (2005c).
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Seven Reasons Why The NCLB Might Promote Direct Instruction of Science in the U.S. and One Reason Why It Might Not," online at <http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0504&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1107>. Post of 4 Apr 2005 15:03:45-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, and STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Will the NRC Switch the NCLB's Direct Science Instruction
Juggernaut to the Guided Inquiry Track?, online at
<http://lsv.uky.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0504&L=assess&T=0&F=&S=&P=2423>. Post of 6 Apr 2005 11:42:21-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare, POD, and STLHE-L.
Lagemann, E.C. 2000. "An Elusive Science: The troubling history of education research." Univ. of Chicago Press.
Schoenfeld, A.H. 2003. "Math Wars," ["almost final draft of 5 August 2003"] to appear in 2004 Politics of Education Yearbook, edited by B.C. Johnson and W.L. Boyd; online as a 76 kB pdf at
<http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/AHSchoenfeld/AHSchoenfeld.html>, along with some other worthwhile papers, or access directly by clicking on
<http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/aschoenfeld/Math_Wars.pdf> (76 kB).
Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne, eds. 2002. "Scientific Research in Education," National Academy Press; online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
