| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Edmiston, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:21 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Lack of rigor: low increase in crit. thinking
At my university we have been studying the Academically Adrift book as
part of our investigation into student behavior and student learning...
both are things we want to improve.
Responders on this thread have tended to equate "rigor" with
difficulty. That is not exactly the point being made in the book, and
it is not the point we are struggling with in many of our courses at
Bluffton University. Lack of rigor in this context is mostly a result
of grade inflation. One result of grade inflation is the possibility
of students passing a course without studying very much, and therefore
without learning very much. Whether the course material contains
difficult concepts or easily-understood concepts does not matter. What
matters is whether each student spends the time he or she needs to
grasp the material, regardless of how difficult the material is.
A difficult concept might require a particular student to think about,
struggle with, work through some problems, etc. (that is... "study")
for one hour, and it is not going to be "learned" if that student only
spends 10 minutes with it. Likewise, a simple concept might require
that student to study it for six minutes, but the student won't get it
if he or she only spends one minute with it. I realize I have used a
linear example of the student spending one-sixth of the "necessary-
time" grappling with a concept rather than the full time that
particular student should have spent. Don't get hung up on that. The
point is, the student is not spending the required "on task" time that
that student needs to learn/understand the material. That's the start
of the problem.
The next part of the problem is the part we should have more control
over... and this is the trend for teachers to let students get away
with this. We let them pass the course when they have not put in the
effort we would expect, and therefore do not have the level of
understanding that we would expect for a person having passed the
course. This is the primary "lack of rigor" being discussed in the
Academically Adrift book.
Bernard Cleyet provided a link to the NPR article about the book, and
the fourth paragraph of that article states...
"Part of the reason for a decline in critical thinking skills could be
a decrease in academic rigor; 35 percent of students reported studying
five hours per week or less, and 50 percent said they didn't have a
single course that required 20 pages of writing in their previous
semester."
We are letting students get away with insufficient "out of class"
study/work time. For the most part, students expect to come to class,
and that's all the effort they should need to pass the course, and many
of us are allowing them to get away with that. Repeat... the book
says 35% of college students report spending at most five hours a week
studying. The old adage, which is actually mandated by state law for
state universities in most states, is that "the credit value of a
course shall be one credit hour for each three hours per week of time
it requires the average student to earn the average grade of C." A 3-
credit-hour course should require 9-clock-hours of on-task time per
week (including the presumed 3-hours in class) in order to get a grade
of C. For the average student this would mean spending 6 hours per
week studying for that one class, yet students report spending at most
5 hours per week studying for all the classes combined.
It doesn't matter whether the class is modern physics, or freshman
composition, or pottery. The concepts of these three classes require
different skills and/or have different levels of difficulty for any
particular student. However, on average, if these are 3-hour classes,
the students in each class should be spending 9-hours per week on task
for the pottery class just as much as for the modern physics class.
To carry the "art" example a bit further, I'll give an anecdotal good
example. My daughter finished a 5-year graphic design degree at the
University of Cincinnati School of DAAP (design, architecture, art,
planning). She had studio classes for which she got one hour of credit
but spent mandatory six hours per week in proctored studio (lab). Even
then she said it was not enough time to do a good job on the required
projects. She was often up most of the night working on assignments.
When she was carrying a 15-hour load she was spending considerably more
than 45 hours per week on her school work. I was impressed both with
her and also the UC Design School. BTW, how did this work out for my
daughter? She graduated magnum cum laude, moved to NYC without a job,
within six months she was working in Manhattan as a graphic designer in
a large firm. This occurred at a time when a lot of designers were
standing in unemployment lines. Recently I find myself doubting the
state
ment, "There are always jobs for good people," but my daughter appears
to be at least one case where the statement is still true.
I would be overjoyed if I could get my physics students to spend the
time on task that my daughter spent on task. Although she was
developing skills during the hours she spent on-task, I would not
describe those skill as "difficult" as when my students grapple with
relativity. This is a big part of why I bothered to mention my
daughter. For a person lacking some of her artistic skills, graphic
design might be "difficult," but it is not the mental challenge that
relativity presents. As she explains to me what she does, I don't have
any difficulty understanding it even though I cannot sketch as well as
she can, and I don't know my way around some of the software she uses.
But I basically get it.
So the point is... even though the conceptual framework of some
coursework (such as graphic design) is not the proverbial "rocket
science," people who want to be good at graphic design still need to
put a lot of time into it. Duh... if you want to be a good tennis
player, you have to practice. Students get that. Why don't they get
that they need to study physics, or accounting, or composition?
Well... at least part of the problem is we don't force them to do that
the same way the athletic coaches force it. If you don't put in the
required time to practice your sport, as well as spend time on
endurance and strength conditioning, then you are going to sit on the
bench.
Why do we let students get by with five or fewer hours of study a week.
That's the "lack of rigor" being discussed.
Michael D. Edmiston, PhD.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Chair, Division of Natural and Applied Sciences
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
Office 419-358-3270
Cell 419-230-9657
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 5:26 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; The Physics Learning Research List
Subject: [Phys-l] Lack of rigor: low increase in crit. thinking
Alluded to, but I don't remember the study's report's link posted.
In College, A Lack Of Rigor Leaves Students 'Adrift' : NPR | LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=363377354&ids=0Ud34Ne
3cPc3sIc3wUc3oVcj0Tb3sVdjsMe34MdOMTej4TdP4Pc3sId3kPdPsPcPoP&aag=true&fr
eq=weekly&trk=eml-tod-b-ttle-68&ut=1vxG-3vxiDv4U1
bc
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l