How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” [Hake (2011d)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In a previous post “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” [Hake (2010b)] I implied that the less-than-stellar value-added rankings of Boris Korsunsky’s high school and Stuyvesant High School (each with top-tier reputations) were examples of “Value-Added Inequities.” I thank Catherine Johnson for correctly pointing out that those two appraisals were not necessarily inequitable - they could, in fact, be correct.

Two cases in point are the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of instruction at two elite institutions: (1) Eric Mazur's traditional 1990 calculus-based introductory course at Harvard, and (2) traditional introductory courses in electromagnetism a MIT. Both assessments are correct as judged by the value-added assessment provided by the average normalized pre-to-posttest gain on valid tests of students' conceptual understanding. Fortunately, in both cases “interactive engagement” pedagogy greatly improved normalized the pre-to-posttest gains in those courses: (1) Mazur switched to “Peer Instruction,” as is engagingly described by Mazur (2009) in “Confessions of a Converted Lecturer” on UTube at http://bit.ly/dBYsXh; and (2) John Belcher instituted TEAL (Technology Enabled Active Learning), as is cogently reported in the New Your Times by Sarah Rimer (2009) in “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard” at http://nyti.ms/e3JtYN .

In my opinion, demonstrations that the less-than-stellar value-added assessments of Korsunsky's high school and Stuyvesant High School are inequitable would require meaningful value-added measures such as normalized average pre-to-posttest gains on valid and consistently reliable tests of higher-order learning developed by disciplinary experts, not the value-added measures that characterize “Race to the Top,” and that have been called into question by the many expert panels listed in my previous post “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?”

It is conceivable that if there were “Eric Mazurs” or “John Belchers” at Korsunsky's high-school and the Stuyvesant High School, scenarios similar to those at Harvard and MIT might occur, even though all those institutions are regarded as “elite.”

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

To access the complete 36 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/g25OHd.

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

“I point to the following unwelcome truth: much as we might dislike the implications, research is showing that didactic exposition of abstract ideas and lines of reasoning (however engaging and lucid we might try to make them) to passive listeners yields pathetically thin results in learning and understanding - except in the very small percentage of students who are specially gifted in the field.” - Arnold Arons (1997, p. vii)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 22 Jan 2011.]

Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop . Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “The Ceiling Effect #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/hUnHZe . Post of 12 Jan 2011 16:19:49-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gLWr7W with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fN1HmD. Post of 18 Jan 2011 15:34:47-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/h23shQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011c. “Value-Added Inequities: Should Value-Added Measures Be Used to Evaluate Teachers?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fAvRpA . Post of 19 Jan 2011 11:36:22 -0800 to AERA-L, EDDRA2, Math-Teach, Net-Gold, and PhysLnR.

Hake, R.R. 2011d. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g25OHd. Post of 22 Jan 2011 14:50:14-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists. See also Hake (2011 a,b,c).

The Case for Classroom Clickers - A Response to Bugeja

Some blog readers may be interested in a recent report with the above title. The abstract reads (slightly edited):

Michael Bugeja, in a Chronicle of Higher Education  article "Classroom Clickers and the Cost of Technology" states that clickers at Iowa State have been pushed by commercial interests in a way that subverts rather than enhances education, a complaint that deserves to be taken seriously by universities.  But Bugeja then goes on to imply that clickers: (a) were introduced into education by manufacturers, thus ignoring their academic pedigree, and (b) are nearly useless in education, ignoring the evidence for their effectiveness.  Perhaps the most dramatic such evidence has been provided by Eric Mazur, who increased the class average normalized learning gain g(ave) on a standardized test of conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics by a factor of about two when he switched from traditional passive-student lectures to clicker-assisted "Peer Instruction" (PI).  In addition, clickers: (1) have contributed to the spread of the PI approach by providing a relatively easy and attractive bridge from traditional lectures to greater interactivity, (2) allow instructors to  obtain real-time student feedback in histogram form, thus "making students' thinking visible and promoting critical listening, evaluation, and argumentation in the class,"  (3) archive student responses so as to improve questions and contribute to education research.  From a broader perspective, clickers may contribute to the spread of "interactive engagement" methods shown to be relatively effective in introductory physics instruction - i.e., methods designed to promote conceptual understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback though discussion with peers and/or instructors.

To access the complete 716 kB report please click on 

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

or else see ref. 56 at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake