How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions - Response to Haim #2” [Hake (2011d)].

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

ABSTRACT: In my post “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions?” [Hake (2011c)], I wrote:

“. . . . 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. . .”

Math-Teach's “Haim” responded: “The problem is that you are not sure what you are measuring."

NONSENSE! In the case of Harvard, the higher-order learning consisted of conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics.

Haim continued: “First, parents and students seem to know something about Stuyvesant that educator assessments clearly fail to discern. . . . . Second . . . very many of Stuyvesant's students graduate at a very high level (certainly by comparison to most other high school graduates) of academic achievement. . . . the real problem is transparent. It is the ceiling effect. . . .City-wide and state-wide assessments are simply not designed for academic institutions.”

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with the theme of my post: “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 that at Harvard and MIT might occur. . . . . [[i.e., realization that students were not learning much from traditional passive-student lecture methods followed by a switch to interactive-engagement pedagogy.]]. . . . , even though all those institutions are regarded as ‘elite.’ ”

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

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/gxUOAb .

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

“Above all things we must be aware of what I will call ‘inert ideas’

- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind

without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.”

Alfred North Whitehead (1929, 1965) in The Aims of Education

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 26 Jan 2011.]

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 are being 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 are being 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. “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 are also online on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/gnLPjH with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011d. “How Much Value is Added at Elite Institutions – Response to Haim #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/gxUOAb. Post of 26 Jan 2011 16:14:36-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists. See also the relevant previous posts Hake (2011a,b,c)].

Whitehead, A.N. 1967. Aims of Education and other essays. Free Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/fIUbXB. First published in 1929. Note the “Look Inside” feature.

Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online #3

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online #3” [Hake (2011)]. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In an earlier post, “Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online,” I responded to a question posed by STLHE-L’s Martin Rosenzweig: “Does anyone know of any published studies comparing online to face-to-face instruction with regards to learning outcomes?” I wrote: “As far as I know the answer is ‘NO.’ The reason is [as pointed out in ‘Can Distance and Classroom Learning Be Increased?’ (Hake, 2008a)] ‘scholars of teaching and learning continue to rely on low-resolution gauges of students’ learning.’ ”

In response, several discussion-list subscribers called attention to “Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies” [USDE (2009)] at http://bit.ly/e1VXvA, of which I had been unaware.

In my opinion, the USDE (2009) study is yet another example of reliance on low-resolution gauges of students’ learning. On pages 11-12 it is stated that examples of learning outcome measures included: (a) scores on standardized tests, (b) scores on researcher-created assessments, (c) grades/scores on teacher-created assessments (e.g., assignments, midterm/final exams), and (d) grades or grade point averages.

But among lessons of the physics education research effort [Hake (2002)] are that: (1) “c” and “d” are *invalid* measures of students' *higher-order* learning; and (2) analyses of “a” and “b” are best carried out in terms of the course average *normalized* gain [g], ignored in USDE (2009).

Furthermore, on page 18 of http://bit.ly/e1VXvA the USDE report states: “The mean effect size for all 50 contrasts of online vs face-to-face instruction was +0.20.”

Contrast the above with the effect size d = +2.43 for the superiority of [[g]] (the average of the course average [g]) for 48 face-to-face “interactive engagement” physics courses vs 14 face-to-face “traditional”introductory physics courses [Hake (1998a,b; 2002; 2008b)].

I suspect that similar large effect sizes would be found for the superiority of online “interactive engagement” courses vs online “traditional” courses.

In my opinion it makes little sense to meta-analyze online vs face-to-face instruction without taking into account the relatively large effects on higher-order learning of “interactive-engagement” vs “traditional” instruction.

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

To access the complete 20 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/egC8I3.

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 incourses 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 05 Jan 2010.

Hake, R.R. 2002. “Lessons from the physics education reform effort,” Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at http://bit.ly/aL87VT.

Hake, R.R. 2008a. “Can Distance and Classroom Learning Be Increased?” IJ-SoTL 2(1): January; online at http://bit.ly/98dL0Y.

Hake, R.R. 2011. “Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online #3,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/egC8I3. Post of 5 Jan 2011 13:54:14 -0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted 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 for all at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.