A Twitter conversation about Math Ed on the arXiv

August 1, 2013 — 8 Comments

On July 27, 2013, I created a petition on Change.org to get math.ED – Mathematics Education added as a category on the arXiv. You can find the petition here. At present, there is no dedicated category on the arXiv for math ed and I’d like to change this. If you want to know how all this got started, check out this post.

The last time I checked, we were just shy of 200 signatures on the petition. My initial goal was 50. The support has been quite impressive. Most of the signatures are from the United States, but there are others from around the world. As far as I can tell, support is coming from people with interests in math ed, physics ed, STEM ed, ed tech, math, stats, operations research, secondary education, and more. I even recognized at least one philosopher. Thankfully, it seems we have the support of a few prominent math ed researchers (e.g., Alan Schoenfeld), which I think is crucial for this to really work.

There have been a few developments with the folks over at the arXiv and I’ll share the current state of affairs in another post. In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy a conversation that happened on Twitter between myself (@danaernst) and Republic of Math (@republicofmath). Matt Boelkins (@MattBoelkins) chimes in at the end, too. The conversation wasn’t linear, but I’ve done my best to list the tweets in an order that makes sense.

Dana Ernst

Posts Twitter

Father of two boys, husband, mathematician, cyclist, trail runner, rock climber, and coffee drinker. Columnist for MAA blog Math Ed Matters.
  • There may very well be quality issues in mathematics education research. I’d like to think that it’s largely due to the complexity of education research as a whole, where there are too many variables to control, much less account for in most meaningful studies. Depending on the perspective of the reader, the variables addressed in a piece of research could make the paper look good or bad, and I don’t know if there’s an easy way to resolve that. Particularly in qualitative research, we’re limited in our ability to share data. Even if we could share everything, it’s reasonable to expect that different methods of analysis with different theoretical frameworks could produce results that contradict our own, which is a rather unpleasant thought for many researchers.

    I’d like to be wrong about this, but I think math ed researchers took so much abuse in the math wars that many of them are content to keep their research in places controlled by like-minded people. I saw the response you got when you posted to the Math Forum – there are mathematicians who dismiss any and all math ed research, and they’re none too friendly about it, too. I’m not sure math ed thinks the arXiv would be friendly territory, and those who do good work aren’t exactly helped when poor quality work gets posted in prominent places. I’d like to think we’d trust each other to share in a process of quality control, but with no post-publication peer review processes (that I know of) currently in math ed, I think the idea is too foreign at the moment for people to trust.

    Yet, I still think it would be a good idea to have a prominent place for mathematics educators to share preprints. If there are quality issues, I don’t see how hiding them ultimately helps the field. I understand that there are more personal risks involved, and nobody likes to be embarrassed, but I think we’ve entered an age where accepting the risk of being more open with your work is more frequently and widely rewarded.

  • I’ve been curious about several comments I saw since the beginning of this endeavor. The one I’ve been having the hardest time finding answers, though a lot of comments orbit around it, is: Where is math ed data currently published? (Or why isn’t it worth publishing?)

    Regarding copyright issues, there are many tools to help and it might be useful to raise awareness in the math ed community. Science Commons has a tool to generate copyright amendments to retain the right to self archive and deposit in a repository such as the arxiv. (My institution and several others have their own amendments to do this.) The RoMEO database is useful to check journal policies before submitting.

    Finally, as a follow-up to the comment on crowd reviewing for the arxiv, the Selected Papers Network is a pilot project for doing exactly this.

  • Raymond, great insight. Thanks for sharing. I’m going to continue to look to people like you for clarity on issues like this.

  • François, you said, “The one I’ve been having the hardest time finding answers, though a lot of comments orbit around it, is: Where is math ed data currently published?” Can you point me to where questions like this were raised? It seems there were multiple spin-off conversations about this that I missed. Thanks for the links to Science Commons and RoMEO. I was unfamiliar with both. I’d love to hear more about the amendments that your institution made.

  • There were some comments on G+ reshare by Bret Benesh that preprints in math ed had no value. That was stated in a few other places too. I followed-up with a question about data and I got no answer. I know there are limitations because the research involves human subjects but I don’t know how these constraints work in practice.

  • Maybe I’m being foolish, but it seems that any arguments against pre-prints in math ed would apply to most subjects.

  • Wow! That G+ thread really picked up! I’m at a conference right now so it’s hard for me to follow the pace… In any case, it’s really interesting to read the comments from math ed researchers. There are a lot of misconceptions on the role and purpose of the arxiv. I think it would be important to disseminate information about the arxiv as well as making the arxiv more accommodating to math ed. Greg Kuperberg and Paul Ginsparg probably have some materials for that available.

  • If anyone is interested, the G+ thread that François is referring to is located here.