March 15, 2007

Introductory Course Makeovers

Intermediate algebra at the University of Alabama used to be your basic introductory class — lecture format, little interaction.

Looking for a job?

See all 231 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,298
Administrative: 1,239
Executive: 160
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

When Joe Benson, senior associate dean in the College of Arts and Sciences, looked at the grade distribution in the Math 100 course in 1999, he was displeased. Fewer than 40 percent of the 1,500 students who enrolled during that academic year received a C- or higher, and many were unable to move onto the next course in the math sequence.

“It was a situation where students, particularly at that level, had a difficult time learning the math in that format,” Benson said. “Their engagement in the course wasn’t as high as we would have liked.”

By fall 2004, the grade distribution was markedly different. Seventy-five percent of students received either A, B or C grades in the course.

What gave?

Early in 2000, Alabama was selected to take part in a course redesign project set up through the National Center for Academic Transformation. The nonprofit organization consults with colleges across the country on how they can improve student academic performance while reducing costs. It advocates more use of technology in large-enrollment, introductory courses, and in some cases replaces lectures with lab time that allow for more individual interaction between professors and students.

With an $8.8 million grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the center provided grants to 30 two- and four-year institutions to take part in its program in course redesign from 1999 to 2004. NCAT reported that student learning, measured through tests before and after, improved at 25 of the institutions and remained equal at the other five. All colleges involved reported cost savings — money that goes back into a department’s general fund, according to the center.

The center is now on its third round of grants. Money is being distributed to roughly 60 institutions for course redesign projects. And several large university systems — including the Arizona Board of Regents, the State University of New York System and the University System of Maryland — have signed on to participate through at least 2009.

NCAT’s growth in visibility can be attributed to a confluence of factors. As some of the early grantees have reported results from their redesign projects, word of mouth has spread at meetings of both trustees and faculty.

At the same time, the center’s core mission of helping higher education produce more degree holders while becoming cost efficient has been affirmed by the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. A report released by the Making Opportunity Available project last week also cited NCAT’s efforts.

A Menu of Models

NCAT has identified several redesign models, all of which adhere to the principle that students need more than just traditional lectures. One model reduces the number of in-class meetings and increases lab time. Some simply supplement lectures with out-of-class activities — CD-Rom assignments, online simulations and interactive workshops.

The models stress online assessment that provides immediate feedback to instructors. Administrators can monitor tests given to students before the course redesign and after to measure their subject knowledge.

The idea, says Carol A. Twigg, president and chief executive of NCAT, is to structure courses so that both student and instructor time is best used. Face-to-face time with students is valuable, but sometimes independent learning is more sensible, the NCAT theory goes. Twigg, a former academic administrator and vice president of Educom (the higher education technology association now know as Educause), said the models are meant to give colleges flexibility.

Alabama used NCAT’s “emporium” model, which eliminates all class meetings and replaces them with a learning resource center featuring online material and on-demand faculty assistance.

Colleges typically begin with a pilot project and then bring changes to a class over a three-year period. Alabama began its pilot program in spring of 2000, abandoning the traditional three-times-a-week blackboard instruction that accommodated sections of 35 students in favor of a new software program and one-on-one tutorial assistance. The university created a math technology learning center dedicated exclusively to students in the course.

Students work through online math problems, largely going at their own pace and seeking help from an on-site instructor whenever they come across questions. There is generally one required lab time per week.

While some students and parents were initially skeptical, Benson said test scores gradually rose. He was so pleased with the results that Alabama signed on to use NCAT to help with other math courses.

“Math courses are particularly amenable to computer-based instruction,” Benson said. “If you walk by a lab and look at the classes, at any point there are people sitting there doing math. If you walk past most college classes, they are sitting there watching an instructor doing a problem. It doesn’t translate.”

The NCAT Web site lists a number of cost-reduction strategies for colleges that are participating in a redesign: Reduce the number of sections of a course, increase the size of each section, bring in several adjuncts to teach sections of a course that were previously taught by full-time instructors.

Some who read the redesign proposals wonder about staffing implications: Would a college choose to cut faculty jobs as a result of structural changes to a course?

Twigg says none of the models call for eliminating instructor positions, and that replacing faculty with graduate instructors or part-timers is not a predominant technique.

“People naturally think, if you talk about saving money, you’re going to lose jobs,” she said. “We’re talking about changing the way in which faculty work to free them to do other things.”

But Roy Fechner, a math instructor at Alabama, said since several courses have gone to the new model, he is asked to teach fewer sections, which means less income. Other instructors have also reported a workload decrease, he said.

Fechner listed other problems with the redesigned courses. It’s more difficult to check if students are using the correct method to solve problems because process is hard to track with the software. Because instructors now see students once a week in lab instead of three times in lecture, they are asked to disseminate more information in one sitting than many students can digest, he said. And class size has doubled, from 30 to 60 in some cases, making it difficult to tell if students are prepared, Fechner added.

Colleges have reported problems while implementing the course changes. According to the NCAT Web site, in some cases early on, faculty and parents were upset that courses would require less class time and face-to-face interaction. It said students at some institutions were concerned about lack of faculty availability in learning centers. Some teaching assistants weren’t prepared to handle the online technology, and faculty members said teaching in lab setting took adjustments.

Sam Evers, an instructor at the University of Alabama who has taught in the math department for more than a decade, said the redesign has changed the way faculty there look at math courses.

“The human element isn’t gone; if anything it’s more hands-on now,” he said. “Before, if students wanted to ask me a question, they’d have to e-mail me with a question or set up a time during my office hours. Now, they may not get me specifically, but someone will be on site immediately.”

Evers said most of the concern has been from instructors, (introductory math courses aren’t taught by full-time professors) but that most now understand the change simply means a shift in routine, with more time now spent walking the floor of the lab. “You need as many or more instructors to make this work right,” he said.

And then there’s the question of cost savings. NCAT stresses that reshaped courses save institutions money by freeing up faculty time and reducing per-student costs.

Stephen C. Ehrmann, vice president of the nonprofit Teaching, Learning and Technology Group, says that while projects that the center highlights report lower operating costs, the newly designed courses tend to be more capital intensive.

Ehrmann said there is a “loose relationship” between money spent to redesign a course and the educational outcome — in other words, a costly course can be less effective than one that is less expensive to reshape. Models that emphasize materials as a substitute for what he calls “live transmission or interaction” tend to be more rigid, he said.

“It’s harder to adapt to the teaching preferences of faculty A and faculty B, or to changing current events that might affect a course,” he said.

Ehrmann said NCAT’s model also focuses too heavily on redesigning individual courses rather than a sequence or cluster.

Working with State Systems

Large state university systems, many of which are seeing rapid enrollment increases, are signing on to work with Twigg.

This spring, the State University of New York is expected to begin work with NCAT to reshape at least 10 courses systemwide.

The University of Maryland System hired Twigg as a consultant for the next three years to work with 11 colleges. The project coordinators, Donald Spicer and Nancy Shapiro, both associate vice chancellors, said the project will focus on courses that serve as transitions from high school to college work.

“Students who are struggling can get the help they need, and those ready to launch ahead aren’t held back,” Shapiro said of the new course models.

Maryland wants to accommodate more students and add sections. Spicer said some courses are growing in size without the physical space or enough instructors. Twigg is providing feedback to faculty there who are submitting proposals.

Both Shapiro and Spicer said they will measure success by cost savings, dropout rates and major declarations (how many students participating in the pilot courses end up declaring a major in the field where the project took place.)

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is using a grant to rethink how to structure Spanish courses. Half the sections of an introductory class are moving from four hours of classroom time per week (plus office hours) to a setup that is weighted more heavily toward independent work online and virtual office hours, during which time a faculty member will be available online.

Glynis Cowell, director of the UNC Spanish language program, said the change could help accommodate more students. The university — because of lack of physical space and budget constraints — hasn’t been able to meet its student demand in Spanish. She said students will also be able to move at their own pace.

Larry King, a UNC Spanish professor, said those who support the changes say technology provides more flexibility in instruction, gives immediate feedback and allows students to hear authentic language on demand. Critics say it’s not sensible to replace face time with an instructor and that cultural context is impossible to pick up over a video.

NCAT has also finished consulting with the Ohio Learning Network. Ohio University was one of the institutions that participated in an orientation that explained the model system. (NCAT didn’t follow the progress of a course redesign there.)

Scott Titsworth, associate director for graduate studies in the School of Communication Studies, said changes to an introductory-level communications course has greatly reduced grading time. He said for every hour of class instruction, the professor and two teaching assistants spent four hours grading reflection papers in the 400-person course.

Students now respond to homework assignments in class by answering questions using a clicker system. Titsworth says those responses help spark class discussion. Class attendance is up and there is only a need for one teaching assistant, he said.

Maryn Boess, grants program manager with the Arizona Board of Regents — which began working with Twigg in January — said she hopes to support 10 to 15 projects overall at the University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University and Arizona State University.

“Faculty may not even be aware of the level of discontent with a large lecture course,” she said. “Some are still wedded to the large lecture model and haven’t become aware of how different it can be. We’re riding the coattails of this movement.”

— Elia Powers

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Grade Inflation...

This is nothing more than a blatant example of grade inflation! The purpose of introductory math and science courses is to knock out those students who can’t handle the coursework. If students can’t pass a remedial algebra class, then they shouldn’t be taking math classes, much less even be in college! When the number of students passing a class jumps from 40% to 75%, that simply means that more unqualified students will be passed up the ladder to more advanced courses, where they will simply flunk out later. Meanwhile, they will be taking up the time and resources of the faculty who teach the higher level courses.

When I teach an introductory science course, I teach with the expectation that a certain percentage of students will flunk. If that percentage decreases, then I make the material harder to compensate. That’s the purpose of introductory courses — weed out the week and let only the strongest survive.

Science Prof, at 8:45 am EDT on March 15, 2007

I can’t tell whether this first comment is a joke or for real.

Education research shows that good instruction closes the achievement gaps among students with uneven preparation, raising achievement for all students but particularly for those who begin the class the farthest behind (See Lion Gardner, Redesigning Higher Education..etc.) Holding the expectation that many in a class will or should fail becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and leaves potential successful learners behind.

The too frequent presence of a “wash out” mentality among teachers in K-12 education leaves many students underprepared for college level work. Couple that with college teachers with little or no education in education, and you have a perfect set-up for a low achieving nation. Too few teachers, from grade school through graduate school, grasp the power of good teaching and actively look for alternative ways to reach all students. Of course students must work hard too — but that becomes much more likely when they have some reinforcing, initial successes.

Ross Miller, AAC&U

Ross Miller, Dir. of Programs, at 9:41 am EDT on March 15, 2007

Zero Sum?

Science makes a couple of assumptions I don’t think are warranted, at least not without qualification.

1) He assumes that a student’s ability to learn a subject is innate & cannot be improved by better methods.

2) He assumes his methods are not only adequate, but as good as they can be.

The first assumption has been shown to be empirically false. We know that better teaching leads to better learning. Which is not the same as saying all students are capable of learning a particular body of knowledge. Not everyone can be above average.

The second assumption represents the sort of hubris that stultifies higher education, particularly in the sciences. It too often serves as cover for those faculty who are unwilling or unable to evolve their approach to teaching to fit the needs of changing demographics & changing technology.

I am not making a claim, by the way, that the methods described in the article are necessarily an improvement. They sound interesting and I’d like to know more, but they are also only pilot programs. Change is inevitable, though, and even conservative old profs like me need to learn how to adapt & evolve.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 9:45 am EDT on March 15, 2007

New Paradigm

I don’t know if “Science Prof” is trying to start an online fight by posting something outrageous or if they are actually serious... In any case, I’ll bite. Higher education institutions should now be operating under a new paradigm where the goal is no longer the “survival of the fittest", but success and learning for everyone who is motivated to participate. It is time to throw out the “bell curve", and recognize that the goal of higher education should be learning for all.

Jeremy, at 11:22 am EDT on March 15, 2007

Who says US higher ed is dead in the water?

The project demonstrates that we are capable of continual experimentation and renewal, and that we understand the primary role of our colleges and community colleges to be the distribution of knowledge. If the passing a course is determined by criterion-referenced performance measures that are accessible and public, we know what students have learned. They do enter higher education to learn something, after all, not just to walk around. Whatever creases there are in these projects will be ironed out in time. We can’t sit around beating up on people who are trying to do something positive. We have enough problems with the cry-babies who complain that our higher ed system is a failure. P.S. And as for what Science Prof wrote there’s a Latin label: res ipsa loquitur.

Clifford Adelman, Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 11:23 am EDT on March 15, 2007

Find the Science Prof and fire his butt. Who appointed him the God of science and does his university know that he has selected himself as the gate keeper of the science department – why does he think he knows? He is the example of what wrong with science and engineering education in this country. Assuming he has tenure and an 80 IQ so he can’t be fired I am sure there are lots of dirty test tubes he can wash.Perhaps I’m stupid but I would never make a life affecting decision on a human being based on a few quizzes and tests that I didn’t know. Incidentally, who has evaluated Science Prof’s teaching lately? It’s also highly likely that he would have failed Albert Einstein.

Ateve, at 11:24 am EDT on March 15, 2007

I like Science Prof. Not necessarily because I think his view of the world makes for good policy, but because he is being honest.

First of all, in all subjects people need to have some minimal level of competence before they can progress to more difficult work. Many social sciences have become some entrenched in recruiting people that they have forgotten this. So, many of them don’t even require rigorous introductory courses.

Secondly, there is nothing inherently wrong with weeding out the weak. Especially if a school considers its graduates to be the “best” in the country. What good is such a claim if they consider all classes to be a form of therapy and remediation.

Third, I still don’t understand how entering college students will claim to have some level of competence in math and science and then demand remedial courses in these areas. In my day everyone (even the music majors) had Calc I under their belts before coming to college. Is it an improvement to have virtually waived that requirement at most schools?

Mr. Miller, Not all schools consider themselves in the business of fixing large achievement gaps. In fact, I would argue that I school that considers itself “elite” in any way has absolutely no business doing so. So, in response to Mr. Duemer’s claim, if you are at an elite school, everyone SHOULD be above average.

If the students that it admits are so smart, they don’t need special help. Also, if students are unprepared for college-level work, they don’t need to go to college. In fact, college will likely be a waste to them, and they won’t learn anything and end up working at jobs they could get without going to college.

Larry, at 12:00 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

Coure Make Overs

Well — is it not what we are supposed to do? — teach students subjects where they have a need? If we are not to do that then what are we doing? As a Academic Counselor I know some courses are not truly taught but used as screening tools. I object to those courses now as I objected to those courses when I was a student so many years ago. Educators need to educate or get out of the business. I think the proof is in the outcomes — students not previously even attempting additional more aggressive courses and now students are being successful and going further in their studies with some success. Just because some one else has success by doing something differently than the norm does not mean the instructor is watering down the material. Look at the outcomes before you comment. I think the instructor is doing a good job with the quality of students signing up for the course.Keep at it. I am in your corner.

jbjones, at 1:45 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

What Get Lost

With all due respect to the respondents so far, I think that “Science’s” perhaps deliberately provocative post has deflected attention from what I think is the main issue: the further computerization of teaching, accompanied by the further atomization and isolation of the learning experience. The question, it seems to me, is not that “Faculty may not even be aware of the level of discontent with a large lecture course. . .” or whether “some are still wedded to the large lecture model. . . .” The question is whether large lecture courses provide the same sort of quality educational experience that a smaller class size can provide. In my area (English literature), the answer is definitely not. I am also suspicious of a pedagogical movement that has as its prime goal reducing costs, or one that defines “learning” as successfully completing a multiple choice test.

Peter C. Herman, Prof. at SDSU, at 1:46 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

Here’s to qualification

Larry begins to offer the qualification that Professor Duemer invites. The claim “every student will learn at institution A” and “every student at institution A should learn” are quite different from the claim “every student can learn.” A question that comes to the surface here is what sort of relationship is on offer when a student is admitted to an institution (an “elite” one or a less elite one); this is not so much a question about theories of learning as about ethics. When institution A admits student B to an “entry-level” class, a relationship is on offer. The institution needs to be forthright about what that relationship is. It may well be that what is on offer to students is an opportunity to verify prior knowledge and learning practices. In such a situation, “effective” (perhaps not the best word) teaching is not really an issue since the institution never really committed to delivering effective teaching, and the students don’t expect it. As long as the evaluation of classes is reliable, the commitment is honored.

Our relationship with learners comes to a stark focus in Larry’s phrases “smart” and “unprepared for college-level work.” Larry does not put these terms into opposition, but there are plenty of ethical stances that do. Our fuzzy use of these phrases points me at a kind of uncertainty about what college is for (to riff on Karabell’s title and to end a sentence with a preposition). Our thinking about these phrases probably ought to be presented clearly in our institutions’ mission and vision statements and in the ways we recruit students and hire faculty and, more to the point here, the way we staff and teach Math 100 (and whether we offer it at all). An elite institution surely can decide to have nothing to do with fixing “achievement gaps.” But it can do so responsibly only if it does not recruit students who are “unprepared” for the “college” classes and if it does not offer developmental courses for “unprepared” students. I suppose that a responsible, elite institution could admit students who are very unlikely to succeed at the institution as long as it disclosed just how unlikely a student with one or another sort of preparation was to succeed.

This thread reveals a good deal about some ethical (verging on moral) views of higher education. Science Prof is comfortable with one value set; as a community college faculty, I hold quite a different one. Threads like this give us a chance to clear up what our values are and, if we are willing, to reflect on our values.

Todd, Faculty, at 1:50 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

Science Prof’s views common

Regardless of whether the posting by “Science Prof” is real or not, the fact is that his views are common among many math and science faculty in academia. I myself graduated with a dual degree in chemistry and mathematics, and I certainly encountered my fair share of faculty who hold this view. One memory I will never forget occurred on the first day of my freshman year when I walked into an introductory chemistry course (in an auditorium with 500 people) and the professor stood in the front with a microphone on his collar and boasted that 25% of the class would flunk.

It didn’t matter if students studied harder or worked harder. After the first exam, if less than 25% of the students flunked, then the subsequent exams would be made more difficult. The goal was to maintain the 25% target, regardless of how well students learned or performed.

My observations as a student were that professors holding this view were usually older and tenured (they’re not afraid of being fired). Also, foreign professors seemed more likely to have these views. In countries like China and India, students often take entrance exams designed to “weed out” a significant number of students, and so if someone from those nations becomes a professor in America, they still hold the belief that their job is to do exactly that.

So, in reply to “Ateve", Science Prof is most likely tenured and therefore unfireable.Also, in reply to “College Administrator", I’m suprised that you’re shocked. As a science graduate, I can tell you Science Prof’s view are not uncommon at all.

James, at 3:35 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

Learning Math In Never, Never Land

As is the case with many news reports and essays in InsideHigherEd, the comments to this article are much more interesting than the article itself (sorry Elia).

In this case it is difficult to jump in because (1) Science Prof’s incendiary remarks are pretty ridiculous, set the stage for commentary, and provided a sounding board against which others could make input without expressing anything of substance and (2) most comments failed to address the news report itself.

About SF: Okay, he’s a relic of the past. Remember those tales (it actually happened to me) when, at freshman orientation, the academic dean commanded us to look to the right and look to the left and announced that at the end of the academic year only one of us would still be there. As I recall, it was stated with some degree of boastful pride ... and those were the days when admissions weeded out a large number of the unprepared and unqualified – and probably the unmotivated — students to begin with. So those guys to your right and left were not chopped meat ... they would probably be stars in today’s academic firmament.

In my opinion, however, stating that SF is a relic doesn’t end the story. Larry is right ... there would be no basis whatsoever for SF’s remarks were it not for the fact that somewhere between 30% and 60% of today’s students gain entrance to so-called higher education essentially by passing the foggy mirror test (i.e., if, when you “breathe” on a mirror, it fogs up ... oh my, you did it my dear ... you’re in!).

Now, in response to Clifford Adelman, Senior Associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, who asks “Who says U.S. higher education is dead in the water?” ... well I do. Frankly there are so many serious systemic problems with higher education in America today, that anyone who looks at the University of Alabama’s thoughtful strategy for the instruction of ITS unprepared and unmotivated mathematics students and sees hope for the disaster that is higher education in these United States deserves the descriptor, “Pollyanna.” Don’t misunderstand ... I congratulate Alabama for the doing the best they can with what they’ve got ... and I appreciate the fact that they’re trying ... but “higher education is not dead in the water?” I think not.

How I could ever, ever find myself more in agreement with SF than with the apologists for “dumbing down” is beyond me – and is a matter of concern that will probably keep me awake tonight – but anyone who thinks this very, very, very small initiative is indicative of U.S. higher education not being dead in the water strikes me as being waaay, waaay off in never, never land.

RWH, at 5:21 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

Weed Outs are the way of the world

I praise Science Prof for his honest and genuine view and I’m always amazed at people like Jeremy and Ateve (Steve?) who have an almost Marxist view of education that all students should somehow be equal regardless of their ability or performance. No, higher education and success is not for all, and we are not all above average.

Instead, the world is competitive. Since the dawn of time, humans have competed against each other for food and resources. In modern society, each person must compete for education, jobs, higher salaries, etc.

Science Prof is doing his students a favor- he’s teaching them that it is not sufficient to meet some objective standard for success. Instead, students must compete against and outperform a certain number of their classmates in order to succeed. When these students enter the working world, they will be expected to outperform their co-workers if they want a promotion. If they go into business, their business must outperform competing businesses. This is simply the way of the world, and Science Prof is preparing students for that world.

Just as not all sports teams make it to the championships, not everyone will succeed in education. When students who have completed high school get to college, they will naturally face more intense competition. Likewise, if college graduates go to graduate school, they will face yet another round of “weed out” courses. When I was in graduate school, almost half of the admitted students did not make it past the first year — and we’re talking about people who are *already* college graduates!!

But, this is the way things work — it’s no different then the current college basketball championships, where people are filling out those bracket charts predicting which teams will win — but with half of the teams being elimated with each increase in the level of competition.Likewise, at each level of education — college, graduate school, professional school, etc. — more people are eliminated from educational competition.

Mr. Smith, at 5:00 am EDT on March 16, 2007

Naturally!

Of course it’s the job of higher ed to weed people out (of some situations).

Look at intended vs. actual majors. Why did all those wanna-be science majors (to take one example) change their minds? Did they find polisci so intriguing in their freshman years? No, most of them found they couldn’t actually do science well.

Or the pre-meds? How often has a smarter-than-average kid heard, “Oh, you’re so smart. You should be a Doctor!” Often enough to believe it...at least until they actually have to study science at a reasonably difficult level. Then...off to another field!

Jack, at 5:01 am EDT on March 16, 2007

Fad Programs

My fear is that this will become the next “big thing” in higher education, because administrators will see the words *cost savings* and will start applying the program willy nilly to programs across the board. Note to administrators: higher tech, more labs, more part-time faculty and other aspects of this program are not always appropriate for every discipline or class.

Ugh!

InfoDiva, at 5:05 am EDT on March 16, 2007

How is Formal Education to Be Delivered

The interest spurred by Science is truly a reflection of resistance to access to good teaching by computer and other modern methods.

The denial of admission and flunk were the historical methods of the elite to maintain their societal position. The methods described in this article are about to end the hammer lock the elites have held on formal education.

With the computer and student aids, rather than 25,000 applicants for 1,000 slots, all 25,000 can be admitted and taught. Doors will open on merit rather than name.

Michael Milken went into education because he predicts a move to efficient, modern, profitable methods. The question is who and how will they be delivered. NCAT is on the leading edge because of the grant from Pew. Grants from Carnegie, Ford and others should soon put competitors into this effort.

Let’s first improve the poorest educated yet most important and most profitable to educate among us, the lawyers.

Behave as though we want to take formal education to the final four.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 9:10 am EDT on March 16, 2007

changing majors

Jack, You got a lot of anger there. But, it is quite possible that people do see political science more fascinating in their freshman year. After all, it isn’t usually taught in high schools, so it might be someone’s first exposure to it.

Whether one subject is “harder” than another is really a question of how much a professor wants to push students and what standards are demanded.

Larry, at 12:31 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

Someone Rescue Me ... Please!

I can’t believe I am “defending” Science Prof twice in the same space, but William Sumner Scott, J.D.’s post is just so outrageous, I can’t contain myself.

First, in response to J.D.: There is nothing – either direct or implied in SP’s post that “[reflects] resistance to access to good teaching by computer and other modern methods.” One could just as well have claimed that responses to SP’s post “reflect resistance to access to good teaching by divine intervention.”

In a sense, J.D.’s remark that “the denial of admission and flunk were the historical methods of the elite to maintain their societal position” is true. What he failed to stipulate, however, is that it was the EDUCATIONAL (maybe even the INTELLECTUAL) ELITE who were denying entry ... and it wasn’t “societal position” they were protecting; it was educational (and maybe even intellectual) standards they were protecting.

I taught my first class in the fall of 1960, and I am still teaching. And of all the professors I know who are not computer science faculty, I use the computer more than any of them. I have a pretty good sense of how computers fit into education today and what their potential is in the future ... and J.D.’s sense that computers will be the great educational or economical equalizer is pure baloney. I am reminded of the sense in which programmed learning was going to be the solution to remediation back in the 70’s. Has he not been paying attention to the technology divide?

I will bow to J.D.’s “wisdom” that if Michael Milken is “doing it,” then it is time for the rest of us to run helter skelter for the bandwagon.

Next, if he thinks “first improve the poorest educated yet most important and most profitable to educate among us, the lawyers” is either relevant or humorous ... well, he left me behind.

And finally, he asks us to “behave as though we want to take formal education to the final four.” That’s just too much for me. I think someone should report this guy to Penn and Teller.

Second, as I said, I have been in the classroom for most of the burgeoning growth of higher education that has taken place since the end of World War II, and I understand the very significant impact of the G.I. Bill. For all the good the GI. Bill did, it also cemented the fact that colleges and universities are not here to educate the intellectual elite; they are here to prepare the masses for the workplace. And during the 47 years I’ve been teaching, academe has done less and less educating and more and more training (what are the myriad M.B.A. programs if not misguided job-training programs?).

I could go on, but I will close with a small point of ambivalence vis-a-vis SP’s perspective. Early in my professional career while teaching mathematics at Virginia Tech, I graded students on a curve ... although the curve was definitely skewed to the left (who says the curve must be normally distributed?). Later I found myself teaching statistics at Princeton and then political methodology at Yale, and in those august environments most of the students were smarter than I anyway. About then it occurred to me that I should set standards for each class and grade students according to how well they met the standards. My students were highly motivated – by me and by themselves – and low grades were few and far between. You may call that grade inflation if you like, but given the levels of student achievement I was witnessing, “giving” those students low grades seemed pretty bizarre to me.

Later, however, I had positions at respectable universities (take my word for the fact that they were quite mediocre) with a high percentage of under-prepared students ... and with learning cultures in which students were not required to work very hard to get good grades. Early on my D and F rates were in the neighborhood of 70%. Obviously that wouldn’t work ... for my students ... for the universities ... or for me ... so I dumbed down my courses. I didn’t do that by giving grades away (per se) or by making tests easier ... I simply decided to cover, on average, about 60% of what one would normally cover in the courses I was teaching. And take my word for it, J.D., various forms of dumbing down are taking place all over our beloved land ... and in very creative ways.

Now, for the tragedy of the situation ... and I will admit to not caring very much about the difference between a B in a first course in linear models at the university of Michigan and a B in my course in linear models at Bonehead U. What really killed me was that not all of the students at Bonehead U. are actually boneheads. So in each of my classes I encountered a very large number of boneheads who really did not care very much at all about getting an education (sorry J.D.) and a much smaller number of really top-notch young people who deserved much more than they were getting.

No criticism please ... I really did do special things for the “special” students (although, truth be known, they were not that special at all ... they were merely doing what one would expect any serious student to do). In any event, it was too much for me. I quit ... and I’m on the market again. It would kill me to retire, but I will never, never, ever accept a position at a college or university that fits the model of “tuition-driven.”

So, Science Prof, I understand – and although I disapprove, you have my admiration – and William Sumner Scott, J.D., give us all a break and open your mouth when you understand that about which you are talking.

RWH, at 5:02 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

do students have limits?

Can every student learn a difficult course (such as advanced calculus, quantitative analysis, narrative analysis, computational semantics, ...) well enough to earn an A or a B if the course is only taught well enough?

It’s clear that not every course it taught well, and that there are many “learning styles” which often aren’t accomodated well.

But even if every course is taught as well as the state of the art allows, are people claiming that every person could get an A or a B in every course/

Henry, at 9:00 pm EDT on March 18, 2007

And they all can vote!

at each level of education — college, graduate school, professional school, etc. — more people are eliminated from educational competition.

And yet they all have an equal vote. Students today will be deciding increasingly complex issues raised by the obvious trends in regenerative medicine, cybernetics/AI, not to mention the use of military force.

I’d certainly hope that folks who have the opportunity to teach at any institution would try their very best to reach every student they can, and Good Luck to all of you!

Mike, at 4:25 am EDT on March 20, 2007

Jobs Related to Introductory Course Makeovers

or search for jobs directly.

Project Manager
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The UNC Center for AIDS Research in cooperation with the Center for Infectious Diseases established and maintains the ... see job

Enterprise Learning Training Administrator
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Post Doctoral Research Associate
Princeton University

Position Summary: We are seeking a postodoctoral research associate for a joint project in Hierarchical ... see job

Budget Coordinator
American University

American University’s School of International Service seeks to hire a qualified candidate to fill a newly created Budget ... see job

Secondary Student Outreach Facilitator (Tech Prep)
Community College of Philadelphia

Explore the Path to Possibilities at Community College of Philadelphia, the largest public institution of higher education in ... see job

Arts Instructor
South Texas College

South Texas College Job Announcement # 2010 – 3004 Pending Board approval of FY10 Budget Please note that only complete ... see job

Pediatric Dermatologist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Senior Professional Research Assistant
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver Senior Professional Research Assistant Sleep Behavior ... see job

Nurse Practitioner
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: The Division of Urology in the Department of Surgery at the University of Colorado ... see job

Director, Annual and Special Gifts
University of California, Los Angeles

Position Summary The Director of Annual and Special Giving is responsible for the maintenance and increased support of alumni ... see job