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 OffersMechanics course by Prof.Walter Lewin)

Again this is an argument based on surface features rather than actual
evidence. Students may not be slouches, but does that mean that they are
actually making good gain. You really do not know unless there has been
testing for gain, or the course has been evaluated for features that are
known to produce higher gain. One thing that the research has shown is that
even graduate students in physics have been found to exhibit significant
misconceptions. Notice I am not saying most or all, but a significant number
have been found. I have no doubt that they come in with higher
understanding, but how much do they gain? Incidentally the argument that
they are no slouches has no bearing on Lewin because that factor would also
apply to any other teacher.

Rensselaer is a competitor to MIT and they found that their course was only
getting low gain, despite their reputation for teaching excellence. Then
look at the Private Universe video and you see even professors and graduate
students spouting absolute scintific nonsense. This video was made at
Harvard and MIT graduation. Have you watched it? It is on the web if you
search for it.

So is there any actual evidence for the assertion that Lewin is getting
superior results????? If nobody can come up with actual evidence and not
opinion, then it can not be determined. Whenever I ask these kinds of
questions, nobody comes up with an answer, so I must conclude that my
questioning is valid, and that my skepticism is correct. Indeed nobody even
admits to not having evidence.

Just remember the research that shows the only factor that matters is what
you do in class, and not who your are or what your style is.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


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 succ
ess 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

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