Slashdot Mirror
Huge Study Finds Professors' Attitudes Affect Students' Grades (arstechnica.com)
A huge study at Indiana University, led by Elizabeth Canning, finds that the attitudes of instructors affect the grades their students earned in classes. The researchers conducted their study by sending out a simple survey to all the instructors of STEM courses at Indiana University, asking whether professors felt that a student's intelligence is fixed and unchanging or whether they thought it could be developed. Then, the researchers were given access to two years' worth of students' grades in those instructors' classes, covering a total of 15,000 students. Ars Technica reports: The results showed a surprising difference between the professors who agreed that intelligence is fixed and those who disagreed (referred to as "fixed mindset" and "growth mindset" professors). In classes taught by fixed mindset instructors, Latino, African-American, and Native American students averaged grades 0.19 grade points (out of four) lower than white and Asian-American students. But in classes taught by "growth mindset" instructors, the gap dropped to just 0.10 grade points. No other factor the researchers analyzed showed a statistically significant difference among classes -- not the instructors' experience, tenure status, gender, specific department, or even ethnicity. Yet their belief about whether a students' intelligence is fixed seems to have had a sizable effect.
The students' course evaluations contain possible clues. Students reported less "motivation to do their best work" in the classes taught by fixed mindset professors, and they also gave lower ratings for a question about whether their professor "emphasize[d] learning and development." Students were less likely to say they'd recommend the professor to others, as well. Is it possible that the fixed mindset professors just happen to teach the hardest classes? The student evaluations also include a question about how much time the course required -- the average answer was slightly higher for fixed mindset professors, but the difference was not statistically significant. Instead, the researchers think the data suggests that -- in any number of small ways -- instructors who think their students' intelligence is fixed don't keep their students as motivated, and perhaps don't focus as much on teaching techniques that can encourage growth. And while this affects all students, it seems to have an extra impact on underrepresented minority students.
The students' course evaluations contain possible clues. Students reported less "motivation to do their best work" in the classes taught by fixed mindset professors, and they also gave lower ratings for a question about whether their professor "emphasize[d] learning and development." Students were less likely to say they'd recommend the professor to others, as well. Is it possible that the fixed mindset professors just happen to teach the hardest classes? The student evaluations also include a question about how much time the course required -- the average answer was slightly higher for fixed mindset professors, but the difference was not statistically significant. Instead, the researchers think the data suggests that -- in any number of small ways -- instructors who think their students' intelligence is fixed don't keep their students as motivated, and perhaps don't focus as much on teaching techniques that can encourage growth. And while this affects all students, it seems to have an extra impact on underrepresented minority students.
Prove to me that is not because one set of professors actually gives fair grades, while the other artificially inflated them...
This study is why people now think social sciences are bullshit. It made horrible racist assumptions at the outset, and then denied the basic truth that some people are smarter than others, regardless of whether they are back, white, green, or polka dot.
none of this is news, in fact it's well known. The entire reason for institutionalized learning is to make sure people are indoctrinated into a certain world view and this is not a slant at any particular political group. That is how everyone does it.
One of my absolute favorite proofs of this is Seminary. Every time I meet a preacher than talks about attending seminary I ask them. Why did you attend? Then I ask them, if they would have paid any attention to any of the actual Prophets of the Bible... because God would have absolutely without question chose a Prophet that would never have attended seminary and there is a very good reason for that.
God chooses His Prophets and declares whom or what is wise, not other men passing around little pieces of paper.
Are they hinting at assessment bias? Are these scores given by professors for written answers, projects, theses - from standardised multi-choice tests - or both?
Why is this not mentioned?
A hint is that the article uses "underrepresented minorities" as a euphemism for lower-intelligence minorities - Asians and Jews not included. So IQ is likely to be key here. If you control for SAT scores, does the racial "bias" disappear? My guess would be "yes".
It is true that intelligence, at least the measurable part, is fairly fixed for individuals, so the professors teaching the hardest subjects (advanced maths and physics) are more likely to express the "fixed mindset", while those teaching the more wishy-washy liberal arts subjects like biology and chemistry, where attitude and hard work achieve more, are more likely to lean in the "growth mindset" direction. This would yield the reported results.
But why speculate when comparing standardised test scores, and aptitude scores (SAT, IQ) would help answer these questions?
Were the authors careful to only compare professors teaching the same subjects?
Was affirmative action involved in the admissions process?
Would the authors prefer hinting at racial bias to giving actual facts?
Far too little information is given to infer a causal relationship between teacher attitude and score gap.
taking a required class with 500 of your closest friends and than trying to talk to one of the two TAs who are apparently failing English as a second or third language.
Bah, you think that's bad? When I went to college the first time (at 17) my Algebra instructor himself had an impenetrable Chinese accent, at least to me and several others in the class who would all look at one another in puzzlement when he dropped a particularly mush-mouthed gem. I couldn't understand a goddamn thing he was saying, and eventually had to drop out. I'm still crap at math.
Another person I know took [teaching] "Engrish as second ranguage" with "Doctor Kah" who would say "Ok, this be on test, this very importan" and then would ramble through several sentences of apparent gibberish.
If I were going to teach in another country, I'd expect to have to be comprehensible in their language. Why don't people have to do that here? I don't give half of one shit where someone comes from, what their genetic background is, what gender they are, or what color their skin is, I just want to get the information I need to succeed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"