4 ms·

We'd get better teachers if we paid more to good teachers. The problem is no one can seem to agree on how to measure what makes a good teacher - one side is bus

by patmcc 13y ago

We'd get better teachers if we paid more to good teachers. The problem is no one can seem to agree on how to measure what makes a good teacher - one side is busy arguing seniority should be the primary measure, the other side argues test scores, and neither one seems to want to spend any time or money figuring out an actually successful way to measure teacher skill.

mindslight 13y ago
You could ask the kids. They certainly know which classes are engaging, and which are time-biding garbage. And ultimately, assuming a teacher isn't running a movie theatre, student interest is the most important metric. You'd of course have to keep the actual weighting process a bit fluid to avoid the inmates gaining control of the asylum, but it should be quite straightforward to pick out the extreme bad and extreme good teachers. It would also be a good introduction to the rationale behind secret ballots, and when it is actually appropriate to lie.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Look at ratemyprofessor and see how well an incredibly difficult professor that is also engaging and interesting does; now imagine that in a situation where the people in his/her class are forced to be there.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    I took a quick look through that site, paging through my alma mater of a decade ago. I do see pathologies in the ratings/comments that remind me of complaints I would hear about professors from fellow students that were stressed, not getting the material, or used to a more structured environment. And if these ratings held weight with the university, I can definitely see professors dumbing down their lessons to avoid bad reviews. So I do see what you're getting at with it going terribly wrong. Still, I think there's several key differences: 1. Every school student would be rating their teachers, rather than just those that loved a professor, had an axe to grind, or were encouraged to by an entertaining personality. 2. The context would be "closed", with each teacher relative to their school, rather than open cross-institution competition with a front page of featured "rockstar" professors that make the rest seem inadequate. 3. The high schools officially sanctioning ratings with real results would give kids the feeling that they really do have a stake in the process, rather than simply being its victims. 4. High school is a more structured environment where the process details matter a lot more. So a teacher eg giving out an incomplete homework problem is actually a valid indictment rather than the stressed out nitpicking of a culture shocked freshman. 5. In college, there's a certain level of appreciation for the material that everyone should have but doesn't necessarily, causing them to get frustrated at a professor with a dry personality. Whereas with high school, the idea is that everybody should be learning a cursory understanding of all subjects. 6. In college, there's a huge variation in the level of courses. One specific professor I had for a seminar where it was basically his PhD research group and me, an undergrad who'd just started on a simultaneous master's. I learned a lot in that class, and really appreciated him. I then ended up in a grad-level "intro" course with him (which I knew was an utter waste going in, but it was the only thing that fit my schedule). Most of the students were rote-memorization paying-for-credential types, but his style certainly did them no favors either, and I can definitely see my recollection echoed in a few of his current reviews. I'd say that he's still a teaching asset, but not for intro lectures where most students aren't already committed to the subject. Really, there just needs to be some extrinsic motivation/reward for teachers that are truly making a difference versus simply clock-punching, and that's not more top-down testing edicts that further shackle them. And sure, the immediate reaction shouldn't be to fire the lowest-reviewed, but neither should we pretend that they deserve similar compensation to the exceptional ones.

by patmcc 13y ago

mindslight 13y ago

You could ask the kids. They certainly know which classes are engaging, and which are time-biding garbage. And ultimately, assuming a teacher isn't running a movie theatre, student interest is the most important metric. You'd of course have to keep the actual weighting process a bit fluid to avoid the inmates gaining control of the asylum, but it should be quite straightforward to pick out the extreme bad and extreme good teachers. It would also be a good introduction to the rationale behind secret ballots, and when it is actually appropriate to lie.

ameister14 13y ago
Look at ratemyprofessor and see how well an incredibly difficult professor that is also engaging and interesting does; now imagine that in a situation where the people in his/her class are forced to be there.
- mindslight 13y ago
  I took a quick look through that site, paging through my alma mater of a decade ago. I do see pathologies in the ratings/comments that remind me of complaints I would hear about professors from fellow students that were stressed, not getting the material, or used to a more structured environment. And if these ratings held weight with the university, I can definitely see professors dumbing down their lessons to avoid bad reviews. So I do see what you're getting at with it going terribly wrong. Still, I think there's several key differences: 1. Every school student would be rating their teachers, rather than just those that loved a professor, had an axe to grind, or were encouraged to by an entertaining personality. 2. The context would be "closed", with each teacher relative to their school, rather than open cross-institution competition with a front page of featured "rockstar" professors that make the rest seem inadequate. 3. The high schools officially sanctioning ratings with real results would give kids the feeling that they really do have a stake in the process, rather than simply being its victims. 4. High school is a more structured environment where the process details matter a lot more. So a teacher eg giving out an incomplete homework problem is actually a valid indictment rather than the stressed out nitpicking of a culture shocked freshman. 5. In college, there's a certain level of appreciation for the material that everyone should have but doesn't necessarily, causing them to get frustrated at a professor with a dry personality. Whereas with high school, the idea is that everybody should be learning a cursory understanding of all subjects. 6. In college, there's a huge variation in the level of courses. One specific professor I had for a seminar where it was basically his PhD research group and me, an undergrad who'd just started on a simultaneous master's. I learned a lot in that class, and really appreciated him. I then ended up in a grad-level "intro" course with him (which I knew was an utter waste going in, but it was the only thing that fit my schedule). Most of the students were rote-memorization paying-for-credential types, but his style certainly did them no favors either, and I can definitely see my recollection echoed in a few of his current reviews. I'd say that he's still a teaching asset, but not for intro lectures where most students aren't already committed to the subject. Really, there just needs to be some extrinsic motivation/reward for teachers that are truly making a difference versus simply clock-punching, and that's not more top-down testing edicts that further shackle them. And sure, the immediate reaction shouldn't be to fire the lowest-reviewed, but neither should we pretend that they deserve similar compensation to the exceptional ones.