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]

Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching (Was:MOOC: Edx Offers Mechanics course by Prof.Walter Lewin)



See, you proved my point. Gain is so vague that your definition has to do with measuring output to input. Can we take that to mean testing? What about those intangibles I pointed out... socioeconomic status, parental background, etc. I will give you a specific example from my biology class this year. I had a student who immigrated from Mexico a few years ago and went to a school last year in the States where the teacher knew nothing in science (I teach in a private religiously oriented school and that is the case in a lot of the schools my students come from.).
So, essentially he came to me with zero knowledge background in any biology whatsoever... nothing about ATP or DNA or anything else in the modern biology curriculum. This kid struggled with the most basic of learning in the beginning, was absent quite a few times (evidently in the previous school it didn't matter how many days they missed), and it took him a few months before he realized this attitude wasn't going to be accepted any longer here. In the beginning he was getting failures regularly and received a D for the first quarter. When he (and his parents) figured out he had to be present and work his butt off he started improving and ended up with a 77 average. Now contrast that to another student in the same class with a family background of academics. This kid started with high C's and ended with a low B. Now, both showed gains according to testing, but who had the best gain? I would argue the first student even with his 77 scored a better gain than the student of privilege who went from a C to a B. Testing scores alone would differ in conclusion, but teaching must consider all the other factors that the outsiders would discount in their call for testing gains alone.

On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:16 PM, rjensen@ualberta.ca wrote:


Wow! there isn't a Wikipedia entry on 'gain' in this context yet. Can
anyone provide a reasonably reputable reference so that we can ensure
we are on the same page? That said, the electronics definition of gain
is reasonable: "a measure of the increase in signal amplitude produced
by an amplifier, expressed as the ratio of output to input."

So my current definition of academic gain is: "a measure of the
increase in student knowledge obtained in a measured learning
environment, such as an academic course, expressed as the ratio of
output to input."

Electronic gain is frequency dependent, and academic gain can be
measured for every student. However, since students control their
destiny, it is more appropriate to talk about the collective gain of
the entire cohort of students.

I am currently contemplating how to *measure* academic gain
objectively. Pre & post-testing is in vogue, but the pre-test is
different than the post-test. The latter being significantly more
challenging than the pre-test. Maybe a few questions from the pre-test
on the post-test? Your thoughts?

Dr. Roy Jensen
(==========)-----------------------------------------¤
Faculty Lecturer, Chemistry
E5-33A, University of Alberta
780.248.1808






On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:59:46 -0400, you wrote:

The surrounding neighborhoods are filled with these businesses, many of which move to larger quarters or are bought out by larger companies for the patents they acquire. Many professors start their own business when they retire or during their tenure or consult for others. They can pull in the most promising students to work for them. Other universities have the same type of things going on. I am just a bit more familiar with this particular one.

I'm very leery of this word... "gain". One person's gain is anothers mediocrity. I am very proud of a student who might struggle with a D for the first two quarters and then progress to a C+ for the final grade. Is his gain less than the student who started with a "B" and ended up the top student? I would say the first student gained more even though the grades may not show it.
Suppose the best student lazed his way through the first half of the year with low B's then started working and got the A which comes naturally for him. Contrast with the first student I described above with D's and then worked his butt off to get a high C. There are a lot of intangibles that tests cannot consider, but in real life we cannot use them to "measure" gain.

On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Philip Keller wrote:


BC said:

Plenty of successful start ups from drop outs, also.

--------------------------------------------------------------


The media glamorizes the successful drop-outs. Steve Jobs didn't need no stinkin' degree -- why do you? But consider the odds. What % of MIT grads develop successful businesses (and not just "start-ups", a phrase which seems to give credit for winning just by starting the race)? And what % of drop-outs do the same? And how many orders of magnitude separate those two figures?
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l