If you reply to this long (16 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button (bane of discussion lists) 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.
In response to my post "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?
What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" [Hake (2012a)]
Noah Podolefsky (2012b) wrote [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . . . .";
my CAPS indicate what Podolefsky wrote - No, I'm NOT shouting!]:
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I would greatly appreciate being quoted in context. I don't see the
point in distorting my point by quoting out of context.
What I said:
"ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT
BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. ONE MAY AGREE
OR DISAGREE WITH THESE CRITIQUES, BUT THEY ARE SCHOLARLY AND WELL
ARGUED, AND WORTH CONSIDERING.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH
LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL
DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY MISGUIDED. I WOULD URGE ANYONE WITH THIS
ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN
COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE
LACKING."
Note that I am saying what *these papers* claim, not what I
personally believe, and was explicit that one may or may not agree.
Exposing people to ideas is not the same as advocating for them. In
fact, I followed up with a defense of education research, which I do
indeed believe is scientific.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
I would greatly appreciate not being falsely accused of quoting
Podolefsky out of context. What I wrote in "Can Education Research
Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')
[Hake (2012a)] was [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . . . ."; I have
CAPITALIZED the words written by Podolefsky which Podolefsky (2012b)
now falsely claims that I quoted *out of context* (see section above
bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ." ]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Noah Podolefsky (2012a) of the PhysLrnR list responded to Hansen
(2012a,b) as follows [bracketed by lines "PPPPP. . . ."; replacing
Podolefsky's bare URL's :-( with academic references :-); my inserts
at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . "]:
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
The NRC book . . . . . [["Scientific Research in Education"
(hereafter "SRE") (Shavelson & Towne, 2002)]]. . . . . . was a good
effort, and it has received a fair amount of criticism. See for
example: (a) "Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on
Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the
Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)]; (b) "Causal Explanation, Qualitative
Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education" [Maxwell (2004)]; and
(c) "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The
National Research Council's Report on Scientific Research in
Education" [Bloch (2004)].
ESSENTIALLY, THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT
BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . [[I think Podolefsky's "at worst a cartoonish
caricature of science" is an overstatement. It appears to me that
Popkewiz, Maxwell, and Bloch argue, respectively, that SRE reflects
an outmoded positivism; neglects qualitative research; and represents
"only one truth among many." For counter arguments see e.g., (a) the
reply by Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson (2002b) to somewhat similar
criticism - see Point #4 below; and (b) the comments by Denis
Phillips (2009 - see Point #5 below.]]. . . . . . . . . . . .
One may agree or disagree with these critiques, but they are
scholarly and well argued, and worth considering.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH RESPECT, STATING. . . . .[as did Hansen
(2012a,b)]]. . . . THAT EDUCATION RESEARCH LACKS OR EVEN DESPISES
HARD SCIENCE ACHIEVED THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IS COMPLETELY
MISGUIDED. I WOULD [REQUEST] ANYONE WITH THIS ATTITUDE TO INSPECT THE
WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER MANY DECADES IN COUNTLESS JOURNALS AND
SEE IF YOU TRULY FIND CRITICAL DISCOURSE LACKING. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .[[or Hansen and other skeptics might even consider following
the outrageous suggestion in the abstract of Hake (2012a) that they
scan: (1)"The future of physics education research: Intellectual
challenges and practical concerns" [Heron & Meltzer (2005)] at
<http://bit.ly/axznvY>; (2) "A Developmental History of Physics
Education Research" [Cummings (2011) at <http://bit.ly/TkBMOi>; (3)
"The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's
Relevance For Engineering Education" [Hake (2011a)] at
<http://bit.ly/nmPY8F> (8.7 MB); and (4) and "Resource Letter ALIP-1:
Active-Learning Instruction in Physics" [Meltzer & Thornton (2012)]
at <http://bit.ly/O35gtB>.]]. . . . . . .. . . . . ..
. . . . (And, incidentally, cold fusion was not a case of bad
science, despite the media reports . . . . . .but to understand why,
you have to understand how science actually works, not the way it is
claimed to work along the lines of the NRC book.)
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Note that the CAPITALIZED words above (2nd section above bracketed by
"PPPPP. . . .") exactly match what Podolefsky (2012a) falsely claimed
(1st section above bracketed by "PPPPP. . . .") that I quoted*out of
context*!
I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS I QUOTED HIM OUT OF CONTEXT?
It's conceivable that Podolefsky (2012b): (a) is NOT actually
complaining about being quoted out of context, but instead (b) used
inexact wording to complain that my ABSTRACT doesn't accurately
convey what he wrote.
IF that's the case, I WONDER IF PODOLEFSKY COULD EXPLAIN WHY HE
THINKS MY ABSTRACT MISREPRESENTED WHAT HE WROTE?
My abstract read [the CAPS indicate my summary of part of what
Podolefsky wrote]:
************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific
Research in Education' " [Hake (2012a)] at <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV>
[response by Greeno at <http://bit.ly/TXbnID>], PhysLrnR's NOAH
PODOLEFSKY (2012) at <<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>> (here and below <<. .
.>> signifies that access may require filling out a form to obtain a
Listserv password).
(a) POINTED TO ARTICLES (1) "Is the National Research Council
Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On
Trusting the Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)] at
<http://bit.ly/RqBTpp>.; (2) "Causal Explanation, Qualitative
Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education" [Maxwell (2004)] at
<http://bit.ly/VwWtE9>; and (3) "A Discourse that Disciplines,
Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on
Scientific Research in Education" [Bloch (2004)] at
<http://bit.ly/XFxPoL>; STATING THAT "THESE PAPERS ARGUE THAT THE NRC
BOOK IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND AT WORST A CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF
SCIENCE."
(b) Implied that the NRC's report "Scientific Research in Education"
[Shavelson & Towne (2002)] at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV> did not
adequately reflect the way science works, a topic discussed in a
14-post thread PhysLrnR thread "Should the History of Science Be
Rated X?" of 9-13 July 2012 at <<http://bit.ly/T68VLd>>.
In this post I:
A. ARGUE THAT PODOLEFSKY'S CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLES BY POPKEWITZ,
MAXWELL, AND BLOCH SHOW THAT THE NRC'S REPORT IS (1)"INCOMPLETE" HAS
BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORT, AND (2) "AT WORST A
CARTOONISH CARICATURE OF SCIENCE" IS AN OVERSTATEMENT.
B. Argue that Podolefsky's apparent implication (please correct me if
I'm wrong) that the way science *actually works* is contrary to the
way it's *claimed to work* in the NRC report is incorrect.
C. Provide a bibliography related to the questions "Can Education
Research Be 'Scientific'?" and "What's 'Scientific'?"
************************************************
Nowhere in the above abstract do I either imply or state that IT'S
PODOLEFSKY'S OPINION that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and
(2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science."
Instead I state that PODOLEFSKY'S CLAIM IS THAT THE ARTICLES SHOW
that "the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete", and (2) "at worst a
cartoonish caricature of science.
In my opinion, if Podolefsky thinks my abstract misrepresented what
he wrote, then he has not read the abstract carefully.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 02 Nov 2012.]
**Berliner, D. 2002. "Educational research: The hardest science of
all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online as a 70 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/Spi59l>. See also Amrein &Berliner (2002).
Bloch, M. 2004. "A Discourse that Disciplines, Governs, and
Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on Scientific
Research in Education," Qualitative Inquiry 10(1): 96-110; online at
<http://bit.ly/XFxPoL>.
**Erickson, F. & K. Gutierrez. 2002. "Culture, Rigor, and Science in
Educational Research," Educational Researcher 31(8): 21-24; online as
a 995 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/Tp02yD>.
Feuer, M.J., L. Towne, & R.J. Shavelson. 2002a. "Scientific Culture,
and Educational Research," Educational Researcher 31(8): 4-14; online
as a 184 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/TiCA1Km>.
Feuer, M.J., L. Towne, & R.J. Shavelson. 2002b. "Reply" [to the
double asterisked ** articles in this listing], Educational
Researcher 31(8): 28-29; online at <http://bit.ly/VVNfaz>.
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's
'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .') "; online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>. Post of 31 Oct 2012
19:34:16-0700 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/YrZJUS> with a
provision for comments.
Hansen, R. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research
in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/TMWjgw>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 02:34:03 -0400 to
PhysLrnR. The same message appears on the Math-Teach list at Hansen
(2012b).
Hansen, R. 2012b. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research
in Education', " online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at
<http://bit.ly/TMWLvg>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 10:21 am (the Math Forum
fails to specify the time zone. See also responses in the same
intemperate tone by Traditionalist Math Warriors "Haim" and Hansen at
the same URL (scroll down).
Maxwell, J.A. 2004. "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and
Scientific Inquiry in Education," Educational Researcher 33(2): 3-11;
an abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/VwWtE9>. See also Maxwell
(2012a, 2012b).
Maxwell, J.A. 2012a. "A Realist Approach For Qualitative Research."
Sage Publications, Publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/SbnA6I >. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/ShiaIy>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Maxwell, J.A. 2012b. "Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach," Third Edition." Sage Publications, Publisher's information
at <http://bit.ly/StXTSA>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/ScZN6W>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
** Pelligrino, J.W. & S.R. Goldman. 2002. "Be Careful What You Wish
For - You May Get It: Educational Research in the Spotlight"
Educational Researcher 31(8): 15-17; online at
<http://bit.ly/VVNfaz>."
Podolefsky, N. 2012a. "Re: In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific
Research in Education', " online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>. Post of 27 Oct 2012 13:04:51-0600 to PhysLrnR.
Podolefsky. N. 2012b. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's
'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. . . .')" online on the CLOSED!
PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/PKp5gF>. Post of 1 Nov 2012
14:03:48-0600 to PhysLrnR.
Popkewitz. T.S. 2004. "Is the National Research Council Committee's
Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting
the Manifesto, " Qualitative Inquiry 10(1): 62-78/; an abstract is
online at <http://bit.ly/RqBTpp>.