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

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 06/22/2013 07:51 PM, Paul Lulai wrote:

> Any thoughts on the fmce vs the fci? I use the fci.

Use it for /what/, may I ask?

I have to ask, because of the Subject: line.  Using the FCI as 
an "indicator of quality teaching" is an incredibly bad idea.

... not that that stops certain people from doing it..........

======================
On 06/21/2013 05:45 PM, Marty Weiss wrote:

>  I stated that teaching is
> a lot more than standardized testing, statistics, and all the usual
> gobbledy-gook in these other posts.  

Yes indeed.

>   Wake up.  This "test at all costs" attitude is ruining education.

That is 100% true.

Recently I was trying to explain this point to someone who absolutely 
did not understand it -- someone who was running for school board, no 
less.  I kid thee not.  This was in a public forum, and she initially
had the audience mostly on her side, so I had to do some rapid explaining:

 -- I am all in favor of assessment and testing, provided it is done right.
 -- I am all in favor of accountability, provided it is done right.
 -- I am all in favor of standardization, provided it is done right.

Note the provisos.  The problem is that we have some really lousy
standardized tests.

 -- I am not opposed to all tests.  I am opposed to dumb tests.
 -- Teaching to the test is either a good thing or a bad thing,
   /depending on the test/.

Again, the problem is that we have some really lousy standardized
tests, and a bunch of mindless bureaucrats are putting waaaay too
much emphasis on the lousy tests.  This is the sort of thing that
gives mindless bureaucracy a bad name.

  Note that it doesn't have to be this way.  Not all bureaucracy
  is mindless, and not all standardized tests are bad.  For example:
  in my capacity as flight instructor, I teach to the test, and
  I am happy to do so, because it is a good test.  The test is 
  rigorously standardized by a bunch of federal bureaucrats, who 
  have done a good job.

Returning to the main theme:  The current situation is not an
accident.  There are some people who /want/ to destroy the public
education system.  They are well funded and well motivated.  They 
know what they want, and they are well on their way to getting 
it.  What happens after that, I don't know.

===============

Presumably "almost" everybody on this list already understands this.
My point is that it's not sufficient for us to explain this to each
other;  we need to do a better job of explaining it to people who
aren't teachers and have no clue what the problem is.

Actually, there are two overlapping problems:
  a) mindless bureaucrats placing too much emphasis on lousy tests
  b) incredibly low standards in parts of the PER community.

Abusive testing sits in the middle of the Venn diagram, in the
intersection of these two problems.

> Professional teachers know
> that all the intangibles I have pointed out in several posts make up
> more so-called gain than all your statistics can ever account for.
> Teachers are the last ones to be consulted and I for one am sick and
> tired of all the academics out there who by virtue of their
> statistical know-how and manipulation of the figures think they know
> more than the people who have doing this in real schools for decades.

Oh, you give them too much credit.  Not only do they not know much
about real physics and not know much about real teaching, they don't 
know much about real statistics, either.

These guys love to talk-talk-talk about "critical thinking" but many
of them have demonstrated that they don't actually know how to do it, 
much less teach it.