Some subscribers to TIPS and TeachingEdPsych may be interested in a
recent post "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply to
Eubanks" [Hake (2009)].
The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Is Scientifically-based Education
an Oxymoron?" David Eubanks (DE) expressed 4 objections, as listed
below followed by my responses (RH):
------------------------------------------
(1)
DE: "Surely, the science of learning cannot be compared to something
like physics."
RH: The science of learning can and has been compared with physics,
with the science of learning being classed as (a) harder, (b) about
the same, and (c) less developed, than physics.
------------------------------------------
(2)
DE: "Sweeping the uniqueness problem away is convenient for building
theories of cause and effect, but in no way removes the fundamental
problem."
RH: Despite the fact that each student is unique, scientific methods
have been used in physics to show that interactive engagement (IE)
pedagogies featuring active engagement of students in heads-on
(always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate
feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors, yield
about a two-standard-deviation superiority over traditional methods
in *class averaged* normalized gains <g> on valid and consistently
reliable tests of conceptual understanding developed by disciplinary
experts.
------------------------------------------
(3)
DE: "We can agree to call statistical correlations 'science', but
it's a long way from having a predictive theory that deals directly
with physical reality."
RH: The results of "2" above are derived from what psychometricians
call "quasi-experiments" with control groups (the traditional
courses) and are NOT merely "statistical correlations." Although
those results, by themselves, do not give rise to a predictive
theory, they (a) have now been substantiated in about 25 other
physics-education research papers, and (b) are consistent with
what's known about brain functioning.
------------------------------------------
(4)
DE: ". . . the assessment profession over-promises what it can
deliver, and emphasizes the wrong kind of techniques - namely
reductionism and logical positivism -- which results in a lot of
confusion."
RH: As far as I know, physics education researchers have never
published any promises. Nevertheless, their research is at least
partially responsible for the reform of a tiny fraction of
introductory physics courses in the U.S., including large enrollment
courses at Harvard, North Carolina State University, MIT, University
of Colorado, and California Polytechnic State University at San Luis
Obispo; and all without reductionism, logical positivism, and
confusion.
********************************************
To access the complete 42 kB post, please click on <http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq>.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<[email protected]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?
Reply to Eubanks," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq>. Post of 14 Jul 2009 16:22:55-0700 to
AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was (a) transmitted to several
discussion groups, and (b) placed online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-scientifically-based-education_14.html>
with a provision for comments.
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
