Re:Course evals and learning outcomes

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: David Eubanks of the ASSESS list, in a post "Course evals and learning outcomes" wrote (paraphrasing): "I'm creating a new course evaluation instrument that focuses entirely on learning outcomes instead of process-oriented questions such as "the syllabus accurately predicted my misery." I've posted my draft version at http://bit.ly/cA1tPc along with an explanation. I would love to receive critical feedback."

The following feedback might be considered but may not be loved. In "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?" [Hake (2005)] I criticized indirect gauges of student learning such as Eubanks' course evaluation in favor a direct gauge of student learning, viz., formative pre/post testing using (a) valid and consistently reliable tests devised by disciplinary experts, and (b) traditional courses as controls.

Nevertheless, I think that Eubanks' course evaluation is probably far superior to the standard "Student Evaluation of Teaching" methods that now dominate university assessment of faculty.

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

To access the complete 15 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/bsiTNd .

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

". . . as typically used in existing studies, self reported gains or growth do not permit the same level of internal validity as does assessing gains by pretest-posttest design, where pretest and posttest estimates are based on the same instrument." - Ernest Pascarella (2001)

REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 14 October 2010; URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Course evals and learning outcomes" [Hake (2010)], online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/bsiTNd. Post of 13 Oct 2010 12:55:51-0700 to AERA-L, ASSESS, & Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Pascarella, E. 2001. "Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A cautionary tale," Journal of College Student Development 42: 488-492, online at http://bit.ly/axiG5V.

Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply to Eubanks

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title [Hake (2009)]

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?" David Eubanks (DE) expressed 4 objections, as listed below followed by my responses (RH):

------------------------------------------

(1)

DE: "Surely, the science of learning cannot be compared to something like physics."

RH: The science of learning can and has been compared with physics, with the science of learning being classed as (a) harder, (b) about the same, and (c) less developed, than physics.

------------------------------------------

(2)

DE: "Sweeping the uniqueness problem away is convenient for building theories of cause and effect, but in no way removes the fundamental problem."

RH: Despite the fact that each student is unique, scientific methods have been used in physics to show that interactive engagement (IE) pedagogies featuring active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors, yield about a two-standard-deviation superiority over traditional methods in class averaged normalized gains g(ave) on valid and consistently reliable tests of conceptual understanding developed by disciplinary experts.

------------------------------------------

(3)

DE: "We can agree to call statistical correlations 'science', but it's a long way from having a predictive theory that deals directly with physical reality."

RH: The results of "2" above are derived from what psychometricians call "quasi-experiments" with control groups (the traditional courses) and are NOT merely “statistical correlations." Although those results, by themselves, do not give rise to a predictive theory, they (a) have now been substantiated in about 25 other physics-education research papers, and (b) are consistent with what's known about brain functioning.

------------------------------------------

(4)

DE: ". . . the assessment profession over-promises what it can deliver, and emphasizes the wrong kind of techniques-namely reductionism and logical positivism--which results in a lot of confusion."

RH: As far as I know, physics education researchers, at least, have never published any promises. Nevertheless, their research has partially stimulated the reform of a tiny fraction of introductory physics courses in the U.S., including large enrollment courses at Harvard, North Carolina State University, MIT, University of Colorado, and California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo; and all without reductionism, logical positivism, and confusion.

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

To access the complete 42 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. “Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron? Reply to Eubanks,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq . Post of 14 Jul 2009 16:22:55-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.