Re: [MATHEDCC] Philosophical discussion

John M. Flanigan (johnf@HAWAII.EDU)
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:44:26 -1000

Sure. I think everyone I know has noticed it, dispises it--and uses it. We
can tell, can't we?, to a reasonable degree, by individual conferencing,
whether a student understands the material. But we can't assign the
required numeric grades on that basis; for that, we have to have numbers
that can be defended in court--whether or not they really indicate
learning. I have sat on grievance committees where such numbers were held
in very high esteem. I certainly wouldn't want to be caught in that
situation without the numbers to "justify" the grade I gave. My own best
judgment wouldn't suffice.

I don't really think it's a "philosophy" so much as a self-defense
mechanism.

John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu> The equation is the final arbiter.
Assistant Professor, Mathematics --Werner Heisenberg
Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final arbiter.
4303 Diamond Head Road --Bill Walton
Honolulu HI 96816 History is the final arbiter.
(808) 734-9371 --Edward Gibbon

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Bret Taylor wrote:

> A few faculty memebers were sitting around our lounge late one afternoon
> waiting to either go home or to a night class and we started waxing
> philosophical. (I guess we are administrators at heart. :-) )
>
> We came up with two observations.
>
> 1. It seems like there is more and more prevalent a philosophy that a
> student should be able to take one of two paths in order to pass a class:
> learn the material or "jump through hoops." By the latter I mean do work
> that is related to the course but not necessarily indicative of learning the
> material. Examples: Keep a homework notebook; class attendance; time spent
> in the computer lab; time spent in the tutorial center; correct exams and
> turn them back in. All of those activities *should* increase learning, but
> do not guarantee an increase. But, it seems like there is more and more
> prevalent a philosophy "in education" that those activities should count a
> larger and larger percent of a grade.
>
> 2. Colleges tend to grade "success" by asking, "Did the student pass this
> course?" rather than by asking, "Is the student prepared to pass the next
> course?" (When our school presents data on "student success" it is always
> measured in grades in a particular course. Example: We had a 55% success
> rate in Algebra.)
>
> Anybody else notice either of these phenomena?
>
> ****************************************************************************
> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
> * To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
> * In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
> * Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
> * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
> ****************************************************************************
>

****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************