SET's Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students’ Higher-Level Learning #2” [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities #3” [Hake (2011a) http://bit.ly/gSNTGi], problem-based-learning pioneer http://bit.ly/etekAw Don Woods (2011a) wrote at http://bit.ly/h1VrME [my CAPS; my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . .]:

“. . . . there are at least 20 valid forms of evidence that can be used for measuring teaching ‘productivity.’ These include . . . . . well-designed COURSE EVALUATIONS. . . . .[[I shall assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that Woods uses ‘course evaluations’ as shorthand for ‘Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET’s)’]]. . . . . , exams and assignments, . . . . . More details are given in my forthcoming book ‘Motivating and Rewarding University Teachers to Improve Student Learning: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators’. . . . . .[[Woods, 2011b)]]. . . . .”

In “Culture of Science Education - Response to Woods” [Hake (2011b) http://bit.ly/fetCy6] I wrote (paraphrasing):

“I disagree that SET’s are a valid method of measuring ‘teaching productivity’ IF ‘teaching productivity’ means ‘student learning’ - see e.g., ‘Re: Problems with Student Evaluations: Is Assessment the Remedy?’ [Hake (2002a)], ‘SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance #4’ [Hake (2006e)], and ‘Effectiveness of Student Evaluations’ [PhysLrnR (2011)].”

In the present post I give 7 EXHIBITS suggesting that “SET’s ARE NOT VALID GAUGES OF STUDENTS' HIGHER-LEVEL LEARNING”: (1) Halloun & Hestenes (1985a); (2) Crouch & Mazur (2001); (3) Eric Mazur (1997, 2009); (4) John Belcher (2003); (5) Richard Hake (2006f); (6) Richard Hake (2011c); (7) Russ Hunt (2011); and (8) David Gavrin (2003).

****************************************

To access the complete 76 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/jLZaz5.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize

the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective tests to compare student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted by information technology, than in traditional courses.”

Wood & Gentile (2003)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 May 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011. “SET’s Are Not Valid Gauges of Students' Higher-Level Learning #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/jLZaz5. Post of 17 May 2011 09:47:36-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being distributed to various discussion lists.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/9izfFz. A summary is online to all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.

Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under- Emphasize Physics?

Some blog followers might be interested in a post of the above title [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

*******************************************

ABSTRACT: In "Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency" Cooke, Irby, and O'Brien (2010) wrote: ". . . .the premedical requirements OVEREMPHASIZE SOME SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, SUCH AS PHYSICS. . . ."

On the other hand, physicists Crouch et al. (2010), in "Physics for Future Physicians and Life Scientists: a moment of opportunity," imply that the physics needed by future physicians is UNDEREMPHASIZED, writing [my CAPS]:

"The great success of 20th century biology was to reveal the physical and chemical machinery of life. Biological molecules, cells, organisms, and ecosystems are all constrained and enabled by the same laws of nature that govern the inanimate world. In this new vision, life emerges as perhaps the richest and most complex example of a physical system. IN THE 21st CENTURY, THE STUDY OF LIFE REQUIRES AN INTEGRATED, QUANTITATIVE APPROACH: PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND MATHEMATICS TIGHTLY INTERWOVEN WITH TRADITIONAL BIOLOGY.

This fundamental transformation has been widely recognized in recent education policy statements. The National Research Council report 'Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists' argued that life science researchers need a strong grounding in mathematics and the physical sciences. In June 2009, a joint AAMC-HHMI committee issued an important report, 'Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians' (SFFP) . . . This report calls for removing specific course requirements for medical school admission and focusing instead on a set of scientific and mathematical 'competencies.' PHYSICS PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN BOTH REPORTS."

It would be interesting to know how discussion-list subscribers (and/or blog followers) come down on the question "Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under- Emphasize Physics?"

******************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/2dqfqlt .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under- Emphasize Physics?" online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/2dqfqlt . Post of 14 Jun 2010 09:25:25 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and URL are being transmitted to various discussion lists.