Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in discussion-list
post "SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning
#2" [Hake (2011)].
The abstract reads:
****************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to "Changing the Culture of Science Education
at Research Universities #3" [Hake (2011a) <http://bit.ly/gSNTGi>],
problem-based-learning pioneer <http://bit.ly/etekAw> Don Woods
(2011a) wrote at <http://bit.ly/h1VrME> [my CAPS; my insert at ". .
. . .[[insert]]. . . . .]:
". . . . there are at least 20 valid forms of evidence that can be
used for measuring teaching 'productivity.' These include . . . . .
well-designed COURSE EVALUATIONS. . . . .[[I shall assume (please
correct me if I'm wrong) that Woods uses 'course evaluations' as
shorthand for 'Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET's]]. . . . . ,
exams and assignments, . . . . . More details are given in my
forthcoming book 'Motivating and Rewarding University Teachers to
Improve Student Learning: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators'. .
. . . .[[Woods, 2011b)]]. . . . ."
In "Culture of Science Education - Response to Woods" [Hake (2011b)
<http://bit.ly/fetCy6>] I wrote (paraphrasing):
"I disagree that SET's are a valid method of measuring 'teaching
productivity' IF 'teaching productivity' means 'student learning' -
see e.g., 'Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment the
Remedy?' [Hake (2002a)], 'SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching
Performance #4' [Hake (2006e)], and 'Effectiveness of Student
Evaluations' [PhysLrnR (2011)]."
In the present post I give 8 EXHIBITS suggesting that "SET's ARE NOT
VALID GAUGES OF STUDENTS' HIGHER-LEVEL LEARNING": (1) Halloun &
Hestenes (1985a); (2) Crouch & Mazur (2001); (3) Eric Mazur (1997,
2009); (4) John Belcher (2003); (5) Richard Hake (2006f); (6) Richard
Hake (2011c); (7) Russ Hunt (2011); and (8) David Gavrin (2003).
****************************************
"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 17 May 2011.]
Hake, R.R. 2011. "SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students'
Higher-Level Learning #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/jLZaz5>. Post of 17 May 2011 09:47:36-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also
being distributed to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/ixcQxs>.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at
<http://bit.ly/9izfFz>. A summary is online to all at
<http://bit.ly/9qGR6m>.