A Teaching differential equation
Let’s assume an international school is looking to hire a new non-native English teacher for their undergraduate program. The school wants to ensure that the teacher’s language proficiency and teaching abilities meet the high standards required for effective instruction.
- Performance (P):
During the interview and teaching demonstration, the candidate’s performance is evaluated by a panel of experienced educators. They rate the candidate’s teaching skills, communication, and ability to engage students during the demonstration. The performance score, P, ranges from 0 to 100.
2. Language Proficiency (I):
The candidate takes the IELTS exam, and their language proficiency score is converted to a scale of 0 to 100 for simplicity.
3. Teaching Experience (D):
The candidate’s teaching experience is quantified based on the number of years they have taught in various settings, including English-speaking and non-English-speaking environments. The experience score, D, is given on a scale of 0 to 100.
4. Student Feedback (T):
The school collects feedback from students who attended the teaching demonstration. Students rate the candidate’s clarity, understanding, and effectiveness as a teacher. The student feedback score, T, is given on a scale of 0 to 100.
5. Commitment to Professional Development (E):
The candidate’s commitment to ongoing professional development is assessed based on their participation in relevant workshops, certifications, and continuous learning initiatives. The professional development score, E, ranges from 0 to 100.
6. Cultural Sensitivity (F):
During the interview, the candidate’s cultural sensitivity and awareness of the challenges faced by international students are evaluated. The cultural sensitivity score, F, is given on a scale of 0 to 100.
Then let’s set all this information into a kind of differential equation like this
dU/dt = f(P, I, D, T, E, F)
where everything is in function of f.
If the school is worried about certain grade of uncertainty U(t), we could have the following
dU/dt = w₁*P + w₂*I + w₃*D + w₄*T + w₅*E + w₆*F + U(t)
Where w₁, w₂, w₃, w₄, w₅, and w₆ are weighting coefficients that represent the importance of each factor in determining the uncertainty grade.
The function f(P, I, D, T, E, F) would represent how each factor influences the change in the uncertainty grade over time. This function could be a complex combination of weights, coefficients, and interactions between the factors.
The differential equation essentially captures how the uncertainty grade evolves based on the information gathered during the hiring process. As more information is acquired or as the candidate demonstrates certain qualities (e.g., improved language skills or teaching ability), the uncertainty grade may decrease over time.
Over time, as the hiring process progresses and more information is gathered, the uncertainty grade, U(t), changes based on how each factor influences it. As the candidate’s performance, language proficiency, teaching experience, student feedback, commitment to professional development, and cultural sensitivity improve or decline, the uncertainty grade adjusts accordingly.
The hiring decision could be based on a threshold for the uncertainty grade, where candidates with uncertainty grades below a certain value are considered suitable for hiring.
Remember, this is a simplified example, and the actual weighting coefficients and the complexity of the function may vary in real-world scenarios. The decision to hire a candidate should involve a holistic evaluation, taking into account all individual factors, rather than relying solely on a single differential equation.
Assigning specific values to the weighting coefficients in the differential equation is subjective and depends on the priorities and preferences of the hiring organization. The values should reflect the relative importance of each factor in the hiring decision. Since this is a hypothetical example, I’ll provide arbitrary values to illustrate how the weighting coefficients could be applied.
Let’s assume the following arbitrary values for the weighting coefficients:
w₁ (Performance): 0.3 w₂ (Language Proficiency): 0.2 w₃ (Teaching Experience): 0.15 w₄ (Student Feedback): 0.1 w₅ (Commitment to Professional Development): 0.1 w₆ (Cultural Sensitivity): 0.15
These values indicate that the hiring organization places the highest importance on the candidate’s performance during the teaching demonstration and interview (30% weight). Language proficiency is also considered essential (20% weight), followed by teaching experience (15% weight) and student feedback (10% weight). The commitment to professional development and cultural sensitivity are both considered valuable but less critical (10% weight each).
With these values, the differential equation becomes:
dU/dt = 0.3P + 0.2I + 0.15D + 0.1T + 0.1E + 0.15F
As the hiring process progresses and the candidate’s performance and other factors are evaluated, the uncertainty grade, U(t), will change accordingly. The candidate with the lowest uncertainty grade after the evaluation process may be considered the most suitable for the position.
To adjust the differential equation and incorporate the historical time teaching in the same institution, we can introduce a new factor representing the time teaching historically in the institution. Let’s denote this factor as ‘H,’ and it will be given a specific weighting coefficient to reflect its importance in the hiring decision.
Let’s assume the following updated weighting coefficients:
w₁ (Performance): 0.25 w₂ (Language Proficiency): 0.15 w₃ (Teaching Experience): 0.1 w₄ (Student Feedback): 0.1 w₅ (Commitment to Professional Development): 0.1 w₆ (Cultural Sensitivity): 0.1 w₇ (Historical Time Teaching in the Institution): 0.2
The differential equation with the addition of the historical time teaching factor becomes:
dU/dt = 0.25P + 0.15I + 0.1D + 0.1T + 0.1E + 0.1F + 0.2H
The factor ‘H’ representing historical time teaching in the institution is included in the equation with a weight of 0.2. This factor will account for the candidate’s familiarity with the institution, its teaching methods, and the students. A teacher who has taught in the institution for a longer time may have a better understanding of the institution’s specific needs and dynamics, which could be beneficial in reducing uncertainty.
As the hiring process progresses, the uncertainty grade, U(t), will now change based on the combined influence of all the factors, including the historical time teaching in the institution. The organization may still use a threshold for the uncertainty grade to determine the most suitable candidate for the position.
To incorporate popularity factors and effective communication between the teacher and its directors, we will introduce two new factors: ‘Pp’ for popularity and ‘C’ for effective communication. We will also assign specific weighting coefficients to these factors to reflect their importance in the hiring decision.
Let’s assume the following updated weighting coefficients:
w₁ (Performance): 0.2 w₂ (Language Proficiency): 0.12 w₃ (Teaching Experience): 0.08 w₄ (Student Feedback): 0.08 w₅ (Commitment to Professional Development): 0.08 w₆ (Cultural Sensitivity): 0.08 w₇ (Historical Time Teaching in the Institution): 0.15 w₈ (Popularity): 0.1 w₉ (Effective Communication with Directors): 0.11
The differential equation with the additional popularity and effective communication factors becomes:
dU/dt = 0.2P + 0.12I + 0.08D + 0.08T + 0.08E + 0.08F + 0.15H + 0.1Pp + 0.11C
So, let’s try to calculate the new factors.
Popularity (Pp): This factor represents the candidate’s popularity among students, faculty, or other stakeholders within the institution. Popularity can be influenced by the candidate’s teaching style, rapport with students, and overall likability. It may affect the candidate’s ability to engage and motivate students. The coefficient w₈ (Popularity) is set to 0.1.
Effective Communication with Directors: This factor reflects how well the candidate can communicate and collaborate with the school’s directors and administration. Effective communication is crucial for understanding and fulfilling the institution’s goals and maintaining a positive working relationship. The coefficient w₉ (Effective Communication with Directors) is set to 0.11.
As with the other factors, the popularity and effective communication factors will contribute to the overall change in the uncertainty grade, U(t), as the hiring process progresses. The organization can assess how these factors influence the hiring decision, and the final uncertainty grade will be determined by the collective influence of all the factors in the differential equation.
Combining these factors into a single differential equation may not be straightforward, as they represent different aspects and evaluations. The proposed differential equation provides a conceptual framework for evaluating the uncertainty grade during the hiring process. It offers a dynamic and evolving assessment of candidate suitability, taking into account multiple factors that contribute to a teacher’s effectiveness. However, it’s essential to remember that hiring decisions should not solely rely on a single equation but rather consider a comprehensive evaluation of each candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, and potential for growth in the context of the school’s specific needs and values.
Many educational theorists and researchers have written about teaching development as a crucial factor in improving educational outcomes. Some of the notable authors and researchers in this area include:
1. Donald Schön: He was an influential educational theorist who wrote extensively about “reflection in action” and the importance of ongoing professional development for teachers.
2. Lee Shulman: As an educational psychologist, he emphasized the need for specialized knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in effective teaching. He argued that teachers should continually develop their expertise to enhance student learning.
3. Linda Darling-Hammond: A prominent education researcher, Darling-Hammond has written extensively about the importance of teacher quality and the need for continuous professional development to support effective teaching.
4. John Dewey: A renowned philosopher and educator, Dewey emphasized the importance of experiential learning and reflective teaching practices as vehicles for professional growth.
5. Deborah Ball: A leading scholar in mathematics education, Ball has conducted extensive research on teacher knowledge and the need for ongoing professional development to improve teaching practices in this subject area.
Schön, Donald. “The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.” Basic Books, 1983.
Shulman, Lee S. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard University Press, 1986.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. “The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future.” Teachers College Press, 2010.
Dewey, John. “Experience and Education.” Touchstone, 1938.
Ball, Deborah Loewenberg. “The Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Standards: Negotiating the Space Between.” Routledge, 2008.
Danielson, Charlotte. “Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching.” Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 2007.
Zeichner, Kenneth M. “Teacher Education and the Struggle for Social Justice.” Routledge, 2009.
Kolb, David A. “Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.” Pearson Education, 1984.
Fullan, Michael. “The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact.” Jossey-Bass, 2014.
Hargreaves, Andy, and Michael Fullan. “Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School.” Teachers College Press, 2012.
Duff, Patricia A. “Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics.” Routledge, 2008.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. “Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.” Oxford University Press, 2014.
Carroll, Stephen B. “Cultural Capital and English Language Proficiency: The Impact of Teacher Beliefs.” Springer, 2014.
Lin, Angel M.Y. “Language Across the Curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and Practice.” Routledge, 2016.
Canagarajah, Suresh. “Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations.” Routledge, 2013.