Grayson replies: I shall address Stanisław Głazek’s points one by one. The authorship of each chapter is not explicitly stated, but I include teacher learning as part of “educational matters at pre-college levels.” Although the authors mention works by three highly regarded physics educators, results of the vast body of physics education research do not seem to have played a role in framing their arguments or moderating their criticisms. Yet physics education research has provided a wealth of useful insights for addressing issues the authors refer to, including the different frames of reference of students and teachers and aspects of physics learning environments that lead to productive learning. Reinders Duit compiled the most comprehensive list of such references. 1 ComPADRE (http://www.compadre.org), a collaboration of several physics and astronomy professional associations, maintains a website of physics teaching and education research resources.

NSF has supported a number of systemic reform initiatives over the past two decades, of which Discovery was one. As an example of the outcomes, NSF reports,

During the 1994–95 school year, the first year that NSF funded the urban systemic program, Chicago’s school system saw significantly more of its students score above the national norm in mathematics on a commonly used assessment called the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. What’s more, Chicago students’ performance in mathematics has increased in 61 out of 62 high schools, suggesting that improvement is occurring across the board. 2  

My reference to How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School was not because it describes successful school programs (it does not), but because it comprises a synthesis and overview of research into the process of learning, which the authors conclude “has gone unexamined.”

Głazek states that I decried “parts of the book on psychology of learning and reform.” That is not true. Nor would I deny the central role of the relationship between student and teacher in student learning. My criticisms were of the writing style—I found the sections on the psychology of learning and educational reform to be overly wordy and poorly integrated into the sections on Albert Einstein and his science. If the central point of the book is to come across more clearly, the services of a good editor are needed.

1.
Bibliography, Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education
, http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
2.
National Science Foundation
, “
Education: Lessons About Learning
,” http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/education/moresynergistic.htm.