Two grad students and I have just finished marking the 484 entries and 1245 comments that made up the first blog period. Learning from last year, we called things as they actually were, particularly using the descriptors A=excellent, B=good, C=acceptable, D or worse=unacceptable. This generated the following grade distribution.
Monthly Archives: September 2012
Take-off?
I just finished marking my share of the first marking period on the class blog. Three of us have been working hard at it, and I have yet to align the grades. But based on what I have graded, my overwhelming feeling so far is disappointment. Very few students are really going for it. Obviously my job is to inspire them, to lift games, to make them go places they are not naturally inclined to go.
Class Test 1, 2012
Recall: the tests are 28 multiple-choice questions. I calculate the grade out of 25. This allows me to ask testing questions, so that a good student can still get an A even after they have got a few questions wrong. I love this system. Fewer complaints, more stretching. My aim with tests are to force students to think hard, generate teachable moments, tell the students and me who is not understanding what (i.e. kick them and me into action) and then, least important, return a grade.
Tests, in real time
Today is the first class test. It runs on line for 24 hours. This means in real time, I get data on how people are doing. It is very stressful for me early in the day, when I can’t tell if the test settings are right, or I have got the balance right. But by about noon, I get a sense of it, and by early evening (now) I can really tell. This test has no problems. It has spread open the class. There are some fails. Nobody has got everything right, but there are some 100% grades under my grading scheme. No individual questions have been train smashes: different people got different things wrong. An ideal outcome. I can use any of the questions I want as teachable questions in class tomorrow. And it will wake everyone up. I have started to stretch people.
Does God exist?
In class today, I talked about the question of whether prayer heals. This question very naturally lends its self to scientific experimentation. I based the class about one such study [Leibovici (2001) Effects of remote, retoactive intercessory prayer on outcome in patients with blood stream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 323: 1450-1.pdf]. It’s a great hook to get across lots of stuff, like the difference between faith (where no data will change your mind) and science (where data makes a difference). It also illustrates hypothesis testing, experimental design, chance, third variables and a whole lot of other good stuff, not least the sheer beauty of the randomized controlled trial.
The thin blue line
I showed this in class today, in the PB&J slot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
Its best on high def, with surround sound LOUD.
Peer review
For two years now, I have been pondering how to teach my students about peer review. Love it or hate it, peer review is an essential part of science. Expert scrutiny makes a huge difference. The review process is why you can trust scientific papers more than, say, the latest political diatribe. It is why I trust what climate scientists say, even though I cannot judge climate science myself.
The Responsibility
This is the time in semester when I still have the energy and enthusiasm to really feel the burden of this course. The students are busy writing their introductory blog entries, where they have to explain why they are not science majors, and why they are doing my course. The main goal of the exercise is to make sure they can work the blog, but what gets revealed are woeful tales of the failure of K-12 science education (some particularly disturbing examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).