3 ms·

I tried looking at that document. It's pages upon pages of nitpicky detail causing my eyes to glaze over. Better would be something which points out the scient

I tried looking at that document. It's pages upon pages of nitpicky detail causing my eyes to glaze over. Better would be something which points out the scientific misconduct. Otherwise it comes across like a Gish gallop. As an example, I picked one of the documents - https://drive.google.com/file/d/17O123ENTxvZOjXTnOMNRDtHQAOjtb2Zo/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/17O123ENTxvZOjXTnOMNRDtHQAOj... - and found a comment that intrigued me: > In some places, the CMF has no research-based evidence, as when it gives the advice “Do not include homework . . . as any part of grading. Homework is one of the most inequitable practices of education.” The research on homework is complex and mixed, and does not support such blanket statements. I stuck "homework inequitable" in Google Scholar and found https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/8910k087s https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/8910k087s saying "Based on the literature, it is apparent that homework is not equitable for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. It is important to mention that some studies claimed a positive correlation with homework and learning outcomes, but those studies don’t take socioeconomic status into account." There's a book from 2000 on the topic, "The end of homework : how homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning", at https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780807042182/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780807042182/page/n9/mode/... and "Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs" with a second edition in 2018. This all makes me wonder why doesn't the research-based evidence support this statement? If it isn't "one of the most", what are the most? Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand? > the document I linked to is from 2023 That's an unfair characterization. While parts of it are from 2023, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california-math-framework/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california... shows the document was there in 2022.

gnicholas 3y ago
> That's an unfair characterization. While parts of it are from 2023, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california... shows the document was there in 2022. The document was edited over the last year or so, as the CMF was released and edited. But the investigation referenced by another commenter took place way back in 2006, well before the CMF popped up. [1] 1: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-prof...
- eesmith 3y ago
  Thank you for agreeing with me about that point. What about my more substantial one - I don't have the time to dig through what appear to be a lot of personal disagreements about what how to interpret research, so would you please highlight the part which you best believe constitutes scientific misconduct? I mean, sure, repeating a false myth about calculus from the 1800s may be wrong, but if that counts as misconduct then there's a lot of misconduct going on in academia.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    I didn't actually agree with you — I maintain that it is not "an unfair characterization", since the document was created a decade and a half after the investigation that another commenter referenced. Nice try on claiming the W though! > Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand? I would say the same to you, in your attempt to critique Professor Conrad's piece. As you say, your eyes glazed over so you didn't actually read it. Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. > Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value. Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains. You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong? Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains. Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?

gnicholas 3y ago

> That's an unfair characterization. While parts of it are from 2023, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/05/05/california... shows the document was there in 2022. The document was edited over the last year or so, as the CMF was released and edited. But the investigation referenced by another commenter took place way back in 2006, well before the CMF popped up. [1] 1: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-prof...

eesmith 3y ago
Thank you for agreeing with me about that point. What about my more substantial one - I don't have the time to dig through what appear to be a lot of personal disagreements about what how to interpret research, so would you please highlight the part which you best believe constitutes scientific misconduct? I mean, sure, repeating a false myth about calculus from the 1800s may be wrong, but if that counts as misconduct then there's a lot of misconduct going on in academia.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I didn't actually agree with you — I maintain that it is not "an unfair characterization", since the document was created a decade and a half after the investigation that another commenter referenced. Nice try on claiming the W though! > Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand? I would say the same to you, in your attempt to critique Professor Conrad's piece. As you say, your eyes glazed over so you didn't actually read it. Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. > Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value. Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains. You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong? Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains. Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?