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

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 06/24/2013 08:11 AM, Philip Keller wrote:

> They came for "gain", which if it does nothing else, will help them 
> gain admission and increased financial aid.

Well, there is such a thing as shooting fish in a barrel.  If 
you advertise an SAT-prep course and then poll the people who 
show up, then well, sure, they will say they want SAT gain.

Getting admitted is worse than nothing, if you lack the learning
skills and reasoning skills to survive after you get there.

I am reminded of the immortal Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:
  "People pay for what they want, not what they need."
  http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kBt7ExxaSuI/SRofjrknPdI/AAAAAAAAAIU/eMCcMzwpi8A/s1600/Calvinhobbes.jpg

So, yes, I left out an important word when I said SAT gain is
not all you want.  I should have said something like this:

SAT gain is not all you /should/ want.
It is not all you need.
It is not all you /would/ want, if you had any sense.
It is a distorted, partial shadow of what you should want.
An object controls its shadow, and not vice versa.

Students and everybody else /should/ want learning skills and 
reasoning skills ... combined with broad and deep knowledge.
The more directly you try to grab the shadow, the worse off 
you are.  The more you treat test scores as an end unto 
themselves, the worse off you are.

This may not be what people want to hear, but it is what they
need to hear, even in -- especially in -- the SAT cram course.

The tests are a silly game.  If you're going to play the game, 
you might as well play it well ... I don't have a problem with
that ... but at the end of the day, remember, it's still just 
a game.

I say that not because of sour grapes, but actually the opposite.
I personally have benefited enormously from the fact that some
people place too much emphasis on silly tests.  At the personal
level I feel grateful, but at the policy level I realize it is
not good policy.  I've seen silly tests and non-silly tests, and
I know the difference.  Before you start placing heavy emphasis
on the test, you have a duty to make sure it's a good test.

> the SAT, it often presents problems that require more thinking and
> playing than students are used to doing.  To me, this is an
> indictment of whatever form of math education they have experienced
> to that point.

Yes indeed, that is a harsh indictment.  Things like this are what
lead parents, politicians, and others to demand more accountability.

As for me:
I am all in favor of accountability, PROVIDED it is done right.
 -- That proviso is important!
 -- Demanding that teachers take a more direct approach, focusing 
  more directly on silly tests, is utterly the wrong answer.  That
  is an example of grabbing for the shadow.  It never achieves much 
  more than a superficial, temporary illusion of success.

An object controls its shadow, not vice versa.