Re: grade inflation, etc.

[Digby Willard <dwillard@MAIL.CENTRAL.STPAUL.K12.MN.US>]

Sorry to take so long to respond to Rick's post from Wednesday, especially
since Rick was patient enough to respond to all of my questions.


Responding to the message of Wed, 05 Jan 2000 22:39:26 -0500
from Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>:

> > 1) What's "work ethic?"
> It is many things, but to me primarily a willingness to put in the
> necessary
> effort to achieve a goal OR to fulfill a responsibility.  The latter
> especially applies to employees in today's workplace.  One has a level of
> responsibility to an employer.  In a school situation there is
> essentially
> an unwritten (sometimes even written) contract between instructor and
> student
> which requires effort and commitment from both sides.  Students unwilling
> to fulfill the 'work' clauses have broken the contract.  This is, IMO, a
> reasonably predictor for their future efforts in their chosen fields.


 In the case of my original hypothetical student, the student had put in
more than enough work to achieve the goal of learning what was to be
learned in the lab situation.  In the more general case of these students
that I described, the students often put in significant extra time to
achieve the goal of learning extra physics on their own.

As for the contract, I'll agree that effort and commitment are required
from both sides.  Let's assume that the student agrees also (if only they
always did).  Isn't it possible that the student may not equate "effort and
commitment" with "spending lots of time doing lab reports and homework that
are too easy for me?"  Why can't putting in the necessary effort (and more)
to master the material and apply it in real-world situations and
communicate it to others WHEN IT MATTERS count as "effort and commitment?"
The student communicated clearly to lab partners when the group was working
toward its goal, and took on a large chunk of the responsibility of helping
the group meet its goal.  Doesn't this count as fulfilling a
responsibility?

Doing what's necessary to learn physics can be entirely different from
doing assigned problems and handing them in.  The first fulfills the
responsibility of learning the material; the second may or may not.

Most of the students that I'm thinking of don't have a problem taking on
real responsibility and meeting it well.  They often take my second-year
course.  Students in that course often help set up and run labs for the
first-year course.  It is not at all unusual for one of the "irresponsible"
students to spend several hours of personal time --lunch, before school,
after school--making sure a lab works well, and to come in on a free hour
and help run the lab.  They usually do an excellent job.

The difference?  The responsibility of making the lab happen is a real one.
If they don't put in the effort to make it happen, the lab doesn't get
done.   This effort often involves some redesign of the lab to deal with
changes in equipment, enrollment, or whatever else may have happened since
the student did the lab.  Thanks to our lousy equipment budget, I've often
had these students present during the lab to troubleshoot.  They usually do
a great job setting up and running a lab.

The responsibility of turning in unchallenging homework for someone else to
judge doesn't meet this criterion at all; if the homework doesn't get done,
everything happens as normal.  No one suffers.  No one else in class misses
an opportunity to learn.  In terms of time spent on grading, whoever grades
homework actually benefits.

This responsibility is not so much a responsibility as a unilaterally
imposed obligation.  While the assignment of the homework may have been for
the student's benefit, the grading of the homework is for the purpose of
assessment.   But the student is being assessed at least as much on
cooperation with assessment as with fulfillment of any real responsibility.

To go with the employee workplace analogy, it's as if an employee's
performance review was based not on the employee's achievements to benefit
the company, but rather with how well the employee had cooperated with
regular performance reviews.  Imagine having to spend an hour or two a day
preparing for performance review.  Judging from the evaluations of teaching
thread earlier, most of us wouldn't care for that.  I don't see how
homework habits are an indicator of performance in a future job with real
responsibility.  I don't see how a job without real responsibility could
require a knowledge of physics.

There are a couple other functions of homework submission, of course:  it
lets the teacher see how well individual students and the class as a whole
are getting the material.  And returned homework with comments can help
students improve their ability.  If the homework is used for these
purposes, the student has something more of a real responsibility.  But
most assigned homework/lab reports are far in excess of the the instructor
needs (or wants) for the purpose of feedback.

> > 2) Why do you assess it? <work ethic>
> Are assignments done (with care)?  Do students put out at least the
> minimum
> effort necessary to learn the subject?

What if the minimum effort necessary to learn the subject for a given
student doesn't include doing assignments?

> > 3) How do you assess it?
>
> stuttering here I think--  ;-)

No, not stuttering.  "Why" and "How" have different meanings.



> > 4) What qualifies one to assess it?  My training in physics qualifies
> > me
> to
> > assess skill in physics, to some degree.  I have no training in 'work
> > ethic,' other than that given me by my parents.
>
> Every instructor has been a student, and most have been successful
> students.
> We should have a reasonable feel for the kinds and levels of effort
> required.  In other situations the assessment is even more straight
> forward--does the work get done!

If we're assessing work ethic for the student's future employer (not our
job, IMO...maybe you gathered that), then isn't our success as students
irrelevant?  Most of us have substantial experience in the world of work
outside academia, but for many of us, it was the grunt jobs we did until we
got into our academic jobs.  I've seen lots of examples of students who
don't do schoolwork but do very well at grunt jobs.  Most studies of
success in "the real world" (whatever that is) indicate little or no
correlation between grades and any other kind of success.  If we're just
assessing their potential for success in a physics-related job, don't we
need to know something about the actual work habits of people who use
physics outside academia before we can judge a student's likelihood of
success?  Some of us have that knowledge; many of us don't.

> > 5) Is there such a thing as a 'play ethic' and if so, does it have any
> > bearing on future performance in a given field?
>
> ?????

I asked this question to see what you thought of the value of play, given
the stress I perceive you to put on 'work ethic.'  Einstein, in some
context unknown to me, said, "Play is the highest form of research."  I've
had a number of students who were really good at physics.  Some had 'work
ethic' and some didn't.  I've never seen one in the really good category
who didn't love to play with it.  They've all loved to learn new physics
and to try the challenging stuff just for the fun of it.

I've also had kids who had 'work ethic' but no passion and little interest
in playing with physics once the hour was over and they could go somewhere
else.  Many of these kids were competent at the physics presented in class,
but I can't think of a single one who was solidly in the 'really good'
category.  The two I can think of who were borderline were from the same
family.

I've also had kids who were passionate about physics, but not real good at
it.  Overall, though, if I were going to predict my students' success in a
physics-related field, I would assess their play habits more than their
homework habits.  If I thought I could assess them.


Digby