Measuring Theoretical Continuity: Fundamental Concepts
Throughout Successive Co re Cou rses
Shane Redden, Todd Burkhardt
This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year faculty
professional development program conducted by the Center for Teaching Excellence, United States Military
Academy, West Point, NY, 2007.
Introduction.
According t o the English Department, “Cadets pr ogressively improve in writing ability
from EN101 t o the last English core course in ways we can measure and demonstrate.” While
cadet writing certainly gets better over the four successive courses the Department requires, the
same progressive improvement is not as visible in terms of the cadets’ retention of important
course concepts. This distinction is s ignificant, especially if you agree that the Department has
other va lue for cadets besides its mandate to improve their writing ability. I n t his case, achieving
the same progressive improvement for concepts requires much more of the student as he or she
progresses from one class to the next—perhaps most basically t hat the student internalize a
certain level of foundational knowledge and t hen recall t he same in a successive course to further
enhance the learning of subject material.
But as we taught our respective courses, EN101 (Composition) by MAJ Redden and
PY201(Philosophy) by MAJ Burkhardt, our conversations in t he office began to reveal a
suspicion that the implied continuity between core courses fell short of our Department’s explicit
and implicit expectations. C onsequently, we began t o explore assessment techniques with which
to investigate the theoretical continuity between our two English Department courses. We then
assessed our classes with t his specific question in mind: D id t he students who received certain
instruction in EN101 demonstrate any measurable advantage in PY201 over students who did not
receive the same instruction?
Methodology.
EN101 instructors discussed the pr ominent characters (Crito, Socrates, and the author
Plato), the issue at hand, and both s ide of the dialectic dialogue with each of their sections. In
addition, every EN101 student was instructed to use The Crito as a primary source for one of the
five required essays. We envisioned that t his exposure to The Crito in EN101 would establish a
solid foundation that would enhance learning and discussion in PY201. In each of these core
courses, the cadets would have been significantly exposed to t he dialogue; this w ould, in our
view, strengthen the continuity between EN101 and PY201.
For this assessment, we selected four sections taught by MAJ Redden from EN101 (Fall
‘05) and three sections of PY201 (Fall ‘06) taught by MAJ Burkhardt. MAJ Redden taught The
Crito in t he Fall of 2005 t o each of his four EN101 sections. MAJ Burkhardt t hen taught t he
same subject material in t he Fall of 2006 to his PY201 classes. Our research took a year to
compile since the freshmen who took EN101 would not take PY201 until t hey were sophomores.
100% of the student population t hat MAJ Burkhardt would inherit from the EN101 instructors
had been exposed to The Crito. Moreover, there was a smaller (but perhaps even more
statistically de pendable) segment of MAJ Burkhardt’s students who had been taught by MAJ
Redden. These facts provided us w ith a quality sample of students that we could use to assess
the conceptual continuity among our core curriculum.
Discussion.
2
In our f irst semester teaching EN101 (Fall 2005), the Course Director mandated that each
instructor teach Plato’s The Crito. Since Philosophy students study the works of Socrates
(especially The Crito) extensively, t his instruction would, in his s ound reasoning, afford a certain
level of conceptual continuity between his course and PY201—a continuity that would not only
prove practical for the student, but would also he lp achieve more coherence in t he Department’s
core curriculum.
The fact that students would appreciate a palpable connection between courses seems
obvious. As one characteristic undergraduate points out, “I like it when teachers are able to
communicate together. It makes it easier on you, and it is always nice to learn something from
one class and be able to incorporate that into t he next c lass” (qtd. in Weissman and B oning 166).
From the teacher’s point of view, the same connection would help achieve, especially at West
Point, “synthesis and integration in an otherwise compartmentalized experience” (Samet).
There is already evidence to suggest that successive courses are beneficial to students. A
report from Miami-Dade Community College, for example, pr ovides ample data to support the
claim that “students who earned higher grades in the prerequisite courses were better prepared
for the next course than students who passed w ith ‘C’ grades” (5). This f inding w ill not be
disputed here. B ut the Dade report and many like it tend to overlook specific blocks of
instruction w ithin t he courses they examine. A s a result, t here was no da ta available to suggest
that students studying The Crito in EN101 would fare any better or worse in PY201 t han those
who had ne ver read the work. With this in mind, we began our assessments.
The data we collected confirmed our suspicions. Students, for t he most part, e ither could
not recollect enough of The Crito from EN101 to pr ove he lpful in the lesson or they failed to
3
remember having studied it at all. The numeric data to support t his claim is presented in t he
Survey Results section.
But one is still left questioning why a student would fail to de monstrate any measurable
benefit after a second exposure to the same concept. Perhaps the answer lies in what we already
know about t he difficulties of achieving uniformity in a college curriculum. The path toward a
coherent academic experience is beset, after all, by certain dangers. Thompson and Serra very
accurately point to some of these. “A curriculum has multiple objectives and is made up of a
myriad of individual courses; multiple pedagogies are employed; and students do not take the
same courses in the same sequence” (693). L ikewise, we found t hat the passage of time, busy
student schedules, and competing demands for student time are certainly enemies to conceptual
continuity. Moreover, the possibility of certain shortcomings on t he part of both students and
instructors certainly exists.
Assessment Techniques.
What was the best way to capture the data we needed for an effective assessment? As
Angelo advises, we decided t o “consider what the students may already know about it.
Recognizing that their knowledge may be partial, fragmentary, simplistic, or even incorrect, [we
tried t o] f ind at least one point that students are likely to know, and use that point to lead into
other, less familiar points” (123). Based on t his concept we used the following techniques:
Student Quiz, C ourse End Feedback, Student Survey, Concept Test, Instructor Survey, Student
Assessment of Learning Gains, and a Minute Paper.
Student Quiz: This quiz was given to EN101 students by MAJ Redden in fall ’06 after the class
had read and discussed The Crito.
1. Who is Socrates?
2. Who is Crito?
4
3. C an you e laborate on the main t heme of t his text?
4. What is one of Crito’s arguments against Socrates’ pos ition?
5. What is one of Socrates’ arguments against Crito’s position?
Course End Feedback: This question was presented to MAJ Redden’s EN101 students as a
supplemental course end feedback question at the end of Fall ’05 semester.
I understood t he
instruction on The Crito
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
2
3
4
5
Student Survey: This s urvey was given t o my PY201 students in Fall ’07 pr ior t o reading The
Crito for PY201.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Who was your EN101 instructor?
D id you discuss The Crito in your EN101 c lass?
H ow many lessons did you spend on this t opic?
I n EN101 did you write an essay regarding The Crito?
I f so, what was it on?
C an you e laborate on the main t heme of t his text?
Who is Plato?
Who is Socrates?
Who is Crito?
Concept Test: MAJ Burkhardt proposed the following question (What was Socrates’
predicament in The Crito?) to his PY201 students pr ior to assigning The Crito for homework in
PY201. This question was posed in order to see how many students had retained ke y
information about The Crito which they had discussed a year earlier in EN101. The concept test
is shown schematically be low (FLAG 2 ).
5
Question
Discuss with ne ighbors
(2)
(1)
Majority I ncorrect
(3)
(5)
Do the reading assignment
(4)
Vote on o utcome
Instructor Survey:
1. A s an EN101 instructor ( last Fall ’05) did you use The Crito in your c lass?
2. If so how many lessons did you spend on covering t his dialogue?
3. Which theme(s) did you try to have students extrapolate from t his dialogue?
4. D id you have your students write an essay concerning The Crito?
5. I f so, what was the focus of it?
6. D o you feel that your students had an adequate understanding of t he characters and issues
that this dialogue discusses?
7. Was discussing The Crito a worthy endeavor in your EN101 class? Why or Why not?
Minute Paper: “The Minute paper is traditionally done at the end of c lass. Y ou ask the students
to respond to a short question and t hen reflect upon them, note emergent t hemes, and formulate
adjustments” (FLAG 1). MAJ Burkhardt assigned this technique on lesson 29, having discussed
The Crito on lesson 10. The question posed was the following: What was Socrates’ predicament
in The Crito?
Survey Results.
Student Quiz—MAJ Redden administered The Crito quiz t o his EN101 students and had
successful results. His class average was 80% which demonstrated t o both of us that they ha d
effectively understood and retained the majority of the basic material presented.
Course End Feedback—there were 68 s tudents in MAJ Redden’s EN101 c lasses (only 64
responded). The results from the course end feedback form of Fall ‘ 05 were successful as well
with 77% of t he student base responding favorably t hat they could effectively discuss elements
of The Crito.
Strongly
Disagree
6
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I understood t he
instruction on The Crito
# of cadet responses
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
10
37
12
Student Survey—MAJ Burkhardt presented his 46 PY201 Fall ’06 students w ith a survey
in order to capture what information they had retained about The Crito a year earlier.
Alarmingly t he surveys concluded t hat hardly any information had been retained. 25% of the
students responded that they had not covered The Crito at a ll in t heir EN101 class. The rest
remembered reading or covering t he material but could not adequately demonstrate who P lato,
Socrates, or Crito was. Roughly 33% of the remaining students or 17% of t he 46 s tudents could
adequately describe the characters. This was only 11 s tudents had retained the basic composition
of Plato’s dialogue.
Concept Test—MAJ Burkhardt also used a concept test to determine even further what
these students had really retained. H e asked the students, “what was Socrates’ predicament in
The Crito?” The students wrote down t heir answer anonymously. A fter the results were
counted—65% of t he class (or 30 s tudents) were not sure about the predicament (MAJ Burkhardt
did not te ll the students the results). Then MAJ Burkhardt told t he students to discuss it w ith
their neighbor in c lass. B ased on the answers he received (only the coherent ones are
presented)—don’t know, in jail, escaped from pr ison, and falsely accused—he asked the students
to vote for one of t hese answers. The students answered the question correctly. We believe that
this was the case since their was a limited number of answers to begin with, and since most did
not know t hey picked the answer that most did when MAJ Burkhardt asked them t o vote by a
show of hands. A t this point, MAJ Burkhardt asked them to read The Crito for homework in
order to discuss it at the next lesson.
7
Instructor Survey—we believed that t he anonymous instructor survey was a critical piece
to our research. This was the case because we wanted to ensure that The Crito was taught by a ll
EN101 instructors as the Course Director had advised. But further that the instructors spent
enough t ime and focus on this work. The results suggest that 100% of the instructors did teach
The Crito in either 1 or 2 lessons. Further, t he research suggests that 5 out 24 instructors (21%)
did not require their students to write an essay on this subject. However, this pr obably de graded
some students’ retention since they did not have the opportunity to write about some fashion of
The Crito. But we do not believe that this compromised our research since each class was
exposed to the central theme and its character through both reading and class discussion. Of
those instructors who did require their students write on the subject, the central ideas of the essay
prompts i ncluded the following: citizen responsibility, identity, relationship to the state, a state’s
obligation to its c itizens, and justice. 71% or 17 of the 24 instructors felt t hat their students had
an adequate understanding of t he characters and issues that that t his dialogue de monstrates.
Minute Paper—the minute paper was used on lesson 29, 19 lessons after MAJ Burkhardt
had discussed The Crito in his PY201class. Students were given 2 to 3 minutes to write down
what they thought was the central issue in The Crito. O verwhelmingly 35 out of 43 ( 3 were
absent from c lass) or 81% effectively demonstrated to us that they were aware of the argument in
the philosophical dialogue and could adequately write competently about it.
Conclusion.
Clearly the English Curriculum at USMA seems to face the same continuity challenges
that other colleges do. B ut based on t he assessments of our classes, there is reason to believe that
we, as instructors of potentially contiguous core courses, can he lp our Department pr ovide a
more coherent experience. T he Course Director who wanted EN101 instructors t o cover
8
material that he knew students would see again had t he right idea; more diligence on t he parts of
both students and teachers will he lp transform this idea into a successful reality.
First, t he Department must decide which concepts should be contiguous from one course
to the next. Those selecting concepts must be careful, however, not to overwhelm e ither the
instructor or the Department’s ability t o supervise t he teaching of these concepts; we only need
enough t o create a not iceable continuity. I n addition, the instructors should not only be aware of
these foundational concepts, but should a lso become experts in teaching them. The Department
can support this w ith a very specific, core concept based observation and mentorship program.
Next, both t he Department and t he instructor must make the idea of continuity between
courses an explicitly stated goal—whether in t he Arriving Faculty Workshop, a Teaching
Practicum, or on a course syllabus, students and faculty should see the message that uniformly
presenting a few key concepts throughout successive courses is a major Department goa l.
Finally, knowing that a considerable measure of responsibility for learning must remain
with the student, the Department should develop assessment techniques uniformly among the
courses to measure student retention of these foundational concepts. I nstructors w ill use these
techniques and perhaps even a certain percentage of the course grade to assess their classes and
hold students accountable for retaining course material.
Works Cited.
Field Tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG). Ed. Art Ellis. 1999. National Institute for
Science Education, University of W isconsin-Madison. <http://www.flaguide.org/cat/
cat.php>. 15 Jan 2007.
Office of Institutional Research, Miami-Dade Community College. “How Well D o Prerequisite
Courses Prepare Students for the Next Course in t he Sequence?” August 2000. 1 4pp.
9
Samet, E lizabeth. P ersonal interview w ith Nathaniel Redden. 27 F ebruary 2007.
Thompson, Robert R. Jr. and Matt Serra. “Use of Course Evaluations to Assess the
Contributions of Curricular and Pedagogical Initiatives to Undergraduate General
Education Learning Objectives.” Education. 125.4 (Sum 2005). 9p p.
Weissman, Julie and Kenneth J. Boning. “Five Features of Effective Core Courses.” The
Journal of General Education. 52.3 (Jul 2003). 25 pp.
10