But where did the standards come from? Are they valuable? Do they provide value to others? The nature of specialization is that we learn differing skills in order to bring complementary value to society at large. Do the people who haven't taken the class benefit because the student achieved the standards?
I teach graduate engineering managers, and early in the semester I ask: "who feels confident solving a differential equations problem?" A few recent graduates may raise their hands but none of the veterans (meaning 2+ years since completing their undergrad) will. The undergrad accreditation standards specify that students must be proficient in DiffyQ, and yet just a few years later they no longer feel confident. And they don't need to feel confident because they don't need to use it. And will never need to use it. (Some engineers do use DiffyQ, but all engineers are required to show proficiency.)
So where do the standards come from? Are they valuable? Do they go away when they are no longer relevant, or do they live forever? I have 3 engineering degrees and a 40-year career, and no one has ever paid me to calculate an integral. Why is this a standard? Millions of Americans have college debt but no degree (anecdotally, I understand that lots of engineering students drop around the time they take DiffyQ). While standards may be an alternative to grades, but the question remains - do they provide societal value?
I retired into teaching, but formerly ran engineering teams, and realized that the team was most effective when each member helped the others to learn. My students will learn more from each other than they can ever learn from me (but I get to pick the topics 😁). There are two assignments per week, all involve group effort, and what I monitor is how individuals contribute to the group. When I hired engineers into professional jobs, what most concerned me not what they knew, but their ability to contribute.
"Culture eats standards for breakfast" - standards are necessary, but not sufficient if our goal is to bring value to others.
I think you have some excellent points, and I mostly agree. I think you're more focusing on the broader question of why we require certain classes or topics at all -- why is our curriculum designed the way it is? These are all critical questions and we need to think about them. It's just not what this post happens to be about.
I don't like "work" because of its meaning and the mindset it produces which is that school is about points and rewards and extrinsic motion. I think school should be about learning and a growth mindset that is enhanced by intrinsic motivation. Just because its use is common doesn't make it right. I think we would have a much better climate in classrooms if students are engaging in learning (activities) and providing evidence of learning, not working or submitting work.
I have no interest in debating terms, but IDK, "work" is simple and descriptive and IMO there is nothing inherently extrinsic about it. (People "work out" at the gym and this is mostly intrinsic motivation; I work at my current job and not somewhere else because I enjoy the work intrinsically.) I'm just hesitant to take a one-syllable concept and blow it up into a nine-syllable phrase that communicates the same idea.
David, YES, YES, YES to "Never require perfection" and "Students must demonstrate consistent evidence of learning." And the second point indicates why we should NEVER use the word "work." Students provide "evidence of learning, not work.
Can you say more about why you don't like "work"? Certainly I like "evidence of learning" as a way to emphasize that there are many ways to show learning, but "work" is a common and useful shorthand too.
I tell students they need to show their thinking process, because you can get correct result by applying a totally wrong approach (I have a fun example I show in class.) Sometimes work (as, say, a string of computation) is enough and sometimes it isn't. Evidence of learning sounds partial, are we looking for theoretical understanding or an ability to apply the skill?
I like "thinking process". In general, I do think that the name is less important than how we explain what we care about. None of these terms is going to be automatically clear to all students; explaining what we care about is part of the process of having clearly defined standards.
But where did the standards come from? Are they valuable? Do they provide value to others? The nature of specialization is that we learn differing skills in order to bring complementary value to society at large. Do the people who haven't taken the class benefit because the student achieved the standards?
I teach graduate engineering managers, and early in the semester I ask: "who feels confident solving a differential equations problem?" A few recent graduates may raise their hands but none of the veterans (meaning 2+ years since completing their undergrad) will. The undergrad accreditation standards specify that students must be proficient in DiffyQ, and yet just a few years later they no longer feel confident. And they don't need to feel confident because they don't need to use it. And will never need to use it. (Some engineers do use DiffyQ, but all engineers are required to show proficiency.)
So where do the standards come from? Are they valuable? Do they go away when they are no longer relevant, or do they live forever? I have 3 engineering degrees and a 40-year career, and no one has ever paid me to calculate an integral. Why is this a standard? Millions of Americans have college debt but no degree (anecdotally, I understand that lots of engineering students drop around the time they take DiffyQ). While standards may be an alternative to grades, but the question remains - do they provide societal value?
I retired into teaching, but formerly ran engineering teams, and realized that the team was most effective when each member helped the others to learn. My students will learn more from each other than they can ever learn from me (but I get to pick the topics 😁). There are two assignments per week, all involve group effort, and what I monitor is how individuals contribute to the group. When I hired engineers into professional jobs, what most concerned me not what they knew, but their ability to contribute.
"Culture eats standards for breakfast" - standards are necessary, but not sufficient if our goal is to bring value to others.
I think you have some excellent points, and I mostly agree. I think you're more focusing on the broader question of why we require certain classes or topics at all -- why is our curriculum designed the way it is? These are all critical questions and we need to think about them. It's just not what this post happens to be about.
We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that work is inherently extrinsic in the classroom.
I don't like "work" because of its meaning and the mindset it produces which is that school is about points and rewards and extrinsic motion. I think school should be about learning and a growth mindset that is enhanced by intrinsic motivation. Just because its use is common doesn't make it right. I think we would have a much better climate in classrooms if students are engaging in learning (activities) and providing evidence of learning, not working or submitting work.
I have no interest in debating terms, but IDK, "work" is simple and descriptive and IMO there is nothing inherently extrinsic about it. (People "work out" at the gym and this is mostly intrinsic motivation; I work at my current job and not somewhere else because I enjoy the work intrinsically.) I'm just hesitant to take a one-syllable concept and blow it up into a nine-syllable phrase that communicates the same idea.
David, YES, YES, YES to "Never require perfection" and "Students must demonstrate consistent evidence of learning." And the second point indicates why we should NEVER use the word "work." Students provide "evidence of learning, not work.
Can you say more about why you don't like "work"? Certainly I like "evidence of learning" as a way to emphasize that there are many ways to show learning, but "work" is a common and useful shorthand too.
I tell students they need to show their thinking process, because you can get correct result by applying a totally wrong approach (I have a fun example I show in class.) Sometimes work (as, say, a string of computation) is enough and sometimes it isn't. Evidence of learning sounds partial, are we looking for theoretical understanding or an ability to apply the skill?
I like "thinking process". In general, I do think that the name is less important than how we explain what we care about. None of these terms is going to be automatically clear to all students; explaining what we care about is part of the process of having clearly defined standards.