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

[Marty Weiss <martweiss@comcast.net>]

You must remember where Dr. Lewin teaches.... MIT students are no slouches.  If their graduates are not learners and "gainers" as you like to put it then the trait doesn't exist.  And, Dr. Lewin would have to have exhibited the traits of all good MIT professors or else he would be there after many, many years in the Physics department.  In fact when we walked to his classroom and lecture hall we would pass the offices of his colleagues, several of whom were famous in their own right.  That didn't necessarily make them good teachers, but consider who matriculates in this institution and what they produce when they graduate.  Consider that there has to be "gaining" going on... the whole area of Cambridge surrounding the campus is filled with offices and buildings where you will find start-up businesses run by MIT professors and graduates.  Consider that MIT graduates are sought after by the top companies in the world and that to have these three letters after your name is a key to success anywhere.  Consider that there are more foreign graduate students and a substantial number of foreign undergrads there than USA citizens... the intensity of learning is such that many of our best and brightest simply cannot keep up the pace.  Yet, Dr. Lewin and m,any of the others I have encountered there certainly do produce the learning you so covet or else these governments wouldn't spend the money to send their own best and brightest to the US to attend this institution if they were not receiving "gains".  It's just a shame that their "gains" draw innovation away from our own country.  But that's a subject for another thread.   


 On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:00 AM, John Clement wrote:

> The research is pretty definite as to the possible indicators of quality
> teaching.  Certain terms are used to indicate quality, but they do not.
> Some of these are:
> Hands on, energetic, clear, asking questions, concrete, popular, personable,
> knowledgeable... The list is endless!
>
> Most teaching is evaluated by a set of surface features.  The traditional
> evaluation followed the Madeline Hunter method where a lesson had to have
> certain specific things such as clear objectives, closure...  This meant you
> had to tell the student what they will learn and how it will be evaluated,
> you then tell them, and then you tell them that you told them.
>
> But when doing inquiry, this does not apply.  The students should not be
> given the law first, and then verify it.  Instead they model the law and
> figure it out.  This is consistent with the learning cycle: exploration,
> concept development/term definition, appliction.
>
> So if you are looking for how well someone is teaching you need to go below
> the myriad surface features and then look at what research shows is needed.
> For example before a demo were students all forced to make a prediction.
> This is very important.  What are the features of the questions, rather than
> are there questions.  Were all students engaged to answer by some means such
> as written or voting response.  There is actually an evaluation form, RTOP,
> which predicts how well inquiry is being implemented and it lines up with
> better learning.  And of course in the end a good reasearch based student
> evaluation is ultimate indicator.
>
> Malcolm Wells, the original author of the Modeling method, was very quiet an
> low key.  Indeed his videos make him appear to be boring.  I know a very
> good  professor who uses the research based methods to achieve high gain,
> but his demeanor and appearance is quite low key.  I sat in on one of his
> classes and was not impressed by his energy.  Yet his gain is outstanding.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l