professornana (professornana) wrote,

  • Location:
  • Mood:

NCTQ and "research"

Evaluating a course by its syllabi? Yep. That is part of the flawed methodology utilized by the National Council on Teacher Quality who recently decided to rate teacher preparation programs because, of course, they need reforming, too (hope you could insert the sarcastic font on your own). Here is what happens when you take a look at my syllabus for YA literature via WORDLE:

Wordle: syllabi

You can certainly see the emphasis of the course in the size of the word READING. However, what about the initials NY which stand out, too? That is because of my bibliography of trade books we read and texts I recommend for further reading (about 4 pages). So, if I go in and remove some of the extraneous words, the Wordle now looks like this:

Wordle: Untitledsyllabi 2

How can anyone make an evaluation on the content of my class without seeking out more than the syllabus? The content of my syllabus is dictated by so many things including the template we use in the college, the requirements of our accrediting agencies, and other factors that have little to do with actual instruction. This is akin to VAM models that purport to measure effectiveness based not on seeing a teacher with students, but on some paper assessment that is far removed from that interaction.

Trust me: if I were to submit research of this shoddy quality to a journal for publication, I would be rejected summarily. So, too, should this junk science research that does not measure anything other than WORDS.
Tags: junk science, nctq, research
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.