Re: [Phys-l] Federally mandated homework

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

When I pay a delivery company to move a parcel from point A to
point B, I am not paying them in proportion to the time they
spend on the task.  I am paying them for the result.  Surely
there is some time required, but slower is not better.

Handel wrote his /Messiah/ in 24 days.  There are plenty of people
(including me) who could spend 2,400 days writing an oratorio and
not produce anything of comparable value ... let alone 100 times
the value.

That is something of an extreme example, but I have seen innumerable
less-extreme examples in my own life, up close and personal.  I have
hired lots of engineers, and paid them out of my own pocket, which
makes me acutely sensitive to issues of productivity and value.  When
I need a widget designed, it is quite common to find that one engineer
can design it tenfold more quickly -- and better -- than another.

Most colleges provide a "reading center" that helps students to
increase their reading speed and reading comprehension.  This
allows students to do their homework with less "time on task".
Slower is not better.

In short, I totally reject the Marxist "labor theory of value".


On 11/04/2011 03:13 AM, Edmiston, Mike wrote:
> I am also aware of professors who come to class on the hour, start 
> with a bit of small talk about the soccer team having a good win, 
> then ask if there are any questions (usually not, because if a 
> student asks a question, the other students groan), and then say, 
> "Okay, read the next 20 pages for tomorrow", and then dismisses the 
> class.  By now it's probably 20 minutes past the hour.  The class 
> lasted less than half the time it was scheduled for, and didn't 
> really involve any "formalized instruction."  But aren't the
> students held responsible for the material?  Well... yes... if you
> think "being held responsible" means taking an in-class multiple
> choice exam on Friday that was distributed to the class on Thursday.

That example is a two-edged sword.

 a)  In context, it seems to be an argument in favor of requiring
  more "time on task".  It starts to talk about "responsibility",
  but then makes a mockery of responsibility.
 
 b) As I have been saying all along, I think we would be much better
  off /not/ making a mockery of responsibility.  Teachers and students
  should take responsibility for the quality of the product (rather 
  than fixating on "time on task").

I insist that the students /will/ be held responsible for what they
have (and have not) learned.  Real life will hold them responsible,
even if the instructor and the school do not.

This is important!

I am reminded of a great line (one of many) from the movie "Stand 
and Deliver".  On the day before the big test:
  Claudia: You're worried that we'll screw up royally tomorrow, 
     aren't you?
  Jaime Escalante: Tomorrow's another day. I'm worried you're 
     gonna screw up the rest of your lives. 

In real life, nobody cares about "time on task" ... except maybe in
minimum-wage jobs, and college is not supposed to be training people
for minimum-wage jobs. In real life, people mostly care about the 
quality of the product -- as they should. 

> I am ashamed that my institution lets some professors get away with
> very little on-task time both for themselves and their students.

If you are arguing about "time on task", you have already lost.  
Even if you win the battle you have lost the war.  You are already 
in the Nth circle of hell.  Maybe increasing the "time on task" 
will move you up to circle N-1 ... or maybe it will move you in 
the other direction ... but in any case it won't get you to where 
you want to be.

I say again:  Measure the thing you care about.

Measuring "time on task" is easier than measuring the quality of the
product ... but so what?  It's still the wrong thing to measure!

A lack of "time on task" is symptomatic of deeper problems.  A direct 
attack on the superficial symptom will not make the deeper problems 
go away.

I can /just barely/ imagine a scenario where a lack of "time on task"
was the rate-limiting step, such that more time would solve all the 
world's problems, but I consider this to be a red herring.  It's
wildly atypical, irrelevant, and misleading.

Again:  Measure the thing you care about.  "Time on task" is easy to 
measure, but it is many, many steps removed from the things we should
be focusing on.

Please don't provide any more anecdotes that associate irresponsible
teachers with insufficient "time on task".  I'm sure the anecdotes 
are true, but "time on task" is the wrong topic for discussion.  It's 
the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong 
enemy.  Having students spend more time in "contact" with the irresponsible
teacher is not an improvement.

If some teachers (or entire schools) have no sense of responsibility 
and no respect for the fundamental goals and purpose of the educational 
system, THAT is the problem.  We need to deal with the actual problem. 
Regulating the "time on task" provides little if any traction on this 
problem.