Friday, April 29, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Rethinking College Admissions
- Less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income.
- Poorer high schools aren’t as likely to offer A.P. courses, and a heavy load of them is often cited as a culprit in sleep deprivation, anxiety and depression among students at richer schools.
- Discourage manic résumé padding by accepting information on a sharply limited number of extracurricular activities; that they better use essays and references to figure out which students’ community-service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing.
- Give full due to the family obligations and part-time work that some underprivileged kids take on.
Rethinking College Admissions
Frank Bruni
A tour group at Princeton University. Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times
Over recent years there’s been a steady escalation of concern about the admissions process at the most revered, selective American colleges. And little by little, those colleges have made tweaks.
But I get the thrilling sense that something bigger is about to give.
The best evidence is a report to be released on Wednesday. I received an advance copy. Titled “Turning the Tide,” it’s the work primarily of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, though scores of educators — including the presidents and deans of admission at many of the country’s elite institutions of higher education — contributed to or endorsed it. Top administrators from Yale, M.I.T. and the University of Michigan are scheduled to participate in a news conference at which it’s unveiled.
“Turning the Tide” sagely reflects on what’s wrong with admissions and rightly calls for a revolution, including specific suggestions. It could make a real difference not just because it has widespread backing but also because it nails the way in which society in general — and children in particular — are badly served by the status quo.
Focused on certain markers and metrics, the admissions process warps the values of students drawn into a competitive frenzy. It jeopardizes their mental health. And it fails to include — and identify the potential in — enough kids from less privileged backgrounds.
“It’s really time to say ‘enough,’ stop wringing our hands and figure out some collective action,” Richard Weissbourd, a senior lecturer at Harvard’s education school, told me. “It’s a pivot point.”
Weissbourd is one of the directors of the school’s Making Caring Common project, which produced the report. He’s also the author of research that was one motivation for it — specifically, a survey of more than 10,000 middle- and high-school students that asked them what mattered most: high individual achievement, happiness or caring for others. Only 22 percent said caring for others.
The new report contemplates how the admissions process contributes to that psychology and how it might be changed. Some of those alterations would simultaneously level the playing field for kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds.
“Colleges spend a huge sum each year sending signals that influence the behavior of millions of students,” the report notes. Why not rethink those signals to reshape that behavior?
The report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income.
It asks colleges to send a clear message that admissions officers won’t be impressed by more than a few Advanced Placement courses. Poorer high schools aren’t as likely to offer A.P. courses, and a heavy load of them is often cited as a culprit in sleep deprivation, anxiety and depression among students at richer schools.
The report also suggests that colleges discourage manic résumé padding by accepting information on a sharply limited number of extracurricular activities; that they better use essays and references to figure out which students’ community-service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing; and that they give full due to the family obligations and part-time work that some underprivileged kids take on.
Stephen Farmer, the vice provost for enrollment and undergraduate admissions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, praised the report as consistent with his school’s desire “to be humbler and more alert to the many ways in which people can stake a claim on a place here.”
He said that the school had already, for example, downgraded the importance of “A.P. everything,” which doesn’t necessarily measure true ability or intellectual hunger.
“Just making people jump through hoops because we can — we don’t want to do that,” he told me, especially when some hoops are so arbitrary that “we might as well be admitting these people on the basis of their height or the size of their neck.”
“Turning the Tide” follows other reexaminations of the admissions process. A growing number of colleges have made the SAT or ACT optional. And late last year, more than 80 colleges, including all eight in the Ivy League, announced the formation of the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success, which is developing a website and application process intended in part to diversify student bodies.
Colleges are becoming more conscious of their roles — too frequently neglected — in social mobility. They’re recognizing how many admissions measures favor students from affluent families.
They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions. And they’re acknowledging the extent to which the admissions process has contributed to this.
But they still need to stop filling so much of each freshman class with specially tagged legacy cases and athletes and to quit worrying about rankings like those of U.S. News and World Report. Only then will the tide fully turn.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 20, 2016, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Rethinking College Admissions . Today's Paper|Subscribe
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
73% of teachers use OER more than textbooks
Teachers Report: OER In; Textbooks Out
- By Dian Schaffhauser
- 03/09/16
Those results came out of a survey of nearly 1,000 American teachers who were contacted in January and February 2016 by TES Global, a company with a teacher community and marketplace. The findings were shared during a panel at SXSWedu taking place this week in Austin, TX.
The survey found that most teachers have enough computers and tablets in the classroom. Just under 3 in 10 respondents (27 percent) said they lacked a sufficient number of those devices. At the same time 4 in 10 (37 percent) noted that they'd still like more of those in their rooms. The next most popular wish list item would be the addition of game-based technology, cited by 25 percent of teachers.
This year far fewer teachers lack the Internet connectivity they want for getting their students online (16 percent) compared to last year (35 percent).
A profusion of tech has also shifted the kinds of educational materials used in the classroom. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (73 percent) said they now use open educational resources more than textbooks.
"We are thrilled to see improvements around access to technology and high-quality open resources," said Rob Grimshaw, chief executive officer of TES Global, who shared the survey findings at the conference. "Arming teachers with the tools they need to succeed is the right way to ensure that innovative technologies can impact student performance."
Dian
Schaffhauser is a writer who covers technology and business for a number of
publications. Contact her at dian@dischaffhauser.com.
Friday, March 4, 2016
What Blended Learning is and Isn't
WHAT BLENDED LEARNING IS – AND ISN’T
March 4, 2016 | by Clifford Maxwell
Last summer, I attended a panel at an education conference where the moderator asked a group of panelists, “How do you define blended learning?” The moderator’s question came from a realistic vantage point: with a wide range of educational terms, including project-based learning, blended learning, personalized learning, and online learning, it can be difficult to differentiate what blended learning is and isn’t. Nevertheless, I felt frustrated by her question because it assumed that each panelist would have different insights to offer on what blended learning means. Without a universal definition of blended learning there is no shared language by which the education field can describe the phenomena or address its opportunities and challenges.
The phenomenon of blended learning has its roots in online learning and represents a fundamental shift in instruction that has the potential to optimize for the individual student in ways that traditional instruction never could. Although schools have been using computers and technology for some time, until recently they haven’t generally used technology to provide students with a true “blend” of instruction that gives them some element of control over their learning. The definition of blended learning has three parts, described below:
1. In part through online learning
First, blended learning is any formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
Critical to the definition is “online learning, with some element of student control.” In all blended-learning programs, students do some of their learning via the Internet. This does not mean using any digital tool, such as an online graphing calculator or Google Docs. Online learning means a bigger instructional shift from a face-to-face teacher to web-based content and instruction.
Some element of student control is critical; otherwise, blended learning is no different from a teacher beaming online curriculum to a classroom of students through an electronic whiteboard. The technology used for the online learning must shift content and instruction to the control of the student in at least some way for it to qualify as blended learning from the student’s perspective, rather than just the use of digital tools from the classroom teacher’s perspective. It may be merely control of pace—the ability for students to pause, go back, or skip forward through online content as free agents. But often, online learning extends other types of control—in some cases students can choose the time at which they do their online learning, the path they want to take to learn a concept, or even the location from which they want to complete the online work—whether in a brick-and-mortar classroom or anywhere else.
2. In part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location
The second part of the definition is that the student learns at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home. In other words, the student attends a physical school with teachers or guides. Often it’s the neighborhood school, but in other cases it’s a learning center that could even be housed in a shopping mall space that has been converted into a drop-in computer lab. Blended learning means that students have at least some on-campus, away-from-home component built into their schedule.
3. An integrated learning experience
The third part of the definition is that the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience. This means that if students are learning U.S. history in a blended way, the online and face-to-face components work together to deliver an integrated course. The opposite of this would be that the students learn some topics online and then return to their traditional classroom to repeat them in a face-to-face lecture. To prevent such lack of coordination, most blended-learning programs use a computer-based data system to track each student’s progress and try to match the modality—whether it is online, one-on-one, or small group—to the appropriate level and topic. The key idea is that blended learning involves an actual “blend” of whatever formats are within the course of study.
Applying the definition
Let’s use this definition in a hypothetical situation to see whether it is an example of blended learning.
Tracy is a language arts teacher who has posted all of her lesson plans, assignments, and quizzes online so that students can access them at home, as well as at school. Tracy’s school recently implemented a one-to-one program in which each student has access to a personal computing device. To leverage the technology, Tracy has all of her students follow along on their devices during a guided reading exercise, during which the teacher and students examine a piece of text together. After a class discussion on the text, Tracy has the students switch over to Google Docs where they each write their own agreement or disagreement with the central argument of the text. During this time, Tracy roams the classroom making sure students are on task and answering any questions that arise.
Is Tracy using blended learning in her classroom? No. Let’s understand why:
By posting all class material online, Tracy is using the Internet to merely host information, not to manage the delivery of content or instruction.
The fact that Tracy’s school is a one-to-one program is irrelevant to whether blended learning is taking place. One-to-one is not synonymous with blended learning, as it doesn’t imply a shift in instructional delivery or an element of student control. Although equipping all students with devices can be a crucial component of creating a blended-learning program, if not implemented correctly, the devices themselves can easily be used to support traditional instruction (as in Tracy’s case).
Tracy’s students are all using the personal computing devices s to read and write, but they are moving through the content as a single batch doing the same thing at the same time with no element of control over the time, place, path, or pace of learning.
Tracy’s use of Google Docs for the student writing exercise is no different than if her students were writing with pencil and paper.
Tracy is participating in a “technology-rich” classroom, not a blended one. Technology-rich instruction shares the features of traditional teacher-led instruction with technological enhancements. This includes electronic whiteboards, digital textbooks, online lesson plans, Google Docs, virtual reality, and so forth. These tools may enhance learning experiences, but do not fundamentally shift instruction in a way that gives students some element of control.
By understanding blended learning as an instructional delivery model that gives students some element of control over their learning and by leveraging the opportunity of personalization that blended learning can provide at scale, educators can start to address challenges and opportunities in their schools that will enable them to move the practice of blended learning forward.
To read about real-life examples of what blended learning looks like in schools, check out the BLU school directory and start searching.
- See more at: http://www.blendedlearning.org/what-blended-learning-is-and-isnt/#sthash.J9JOjOwZ.dpuf
March 4, 2016 | by Clifford Maxwell
Last summer, I attended a panel at an education conference where the moderator asked a group of panelists, “How do you define blended learning?” The moderator’s question came from a realistic vantage point: with a wide range of educational terms, including project-based learning, blended learning, personalized learning, and online learning, it can be difficult to differentiate what blended learning is and isn’t. Nevertheless, I felt frustrated by her question because it assumed that each panelist would have different insights to offer on what blended learning means. Without a universal definition of blended learning there is no shared language by which the education field can describe the phenomena or address its opportunities and challenges.
The phenomenon of blended learning has its roots in online learning and represents a fundamental shift in instruction that has the potential to optimize for the individual student in ways that traditional instruction never could. Although schools have been using computers and technology for some time, until recently they haven’t generally used technology to provide students with a true “blend” of instruction that gives them some element of control over their learning. The definition of blended learning has three parts, described below:
1. In part through online learning
First, blended learning is any formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
Critical to the definition is “online learning, with some element of student control.” In all blended-learning programs, students do some of their learning via the Internet. This does not mean using any digital tool, such as an online graphing calculator or Google Docs. Online learning means a bigger instructional shift from a face-to-face teacher to web-based content and instruction.
Some element of student control is critical; otherwise, blended learning is no different from a teacher beaming online curriculum to a classroom of students through an electronic whiteboard. The technology used for the online learning must shift content and instruction to the control of the student in at least some way for it to qualify as blended learning from the student’s perspective, rather than just the use of digital tools from the classroom teacher’s perspective. It may be merely control of pace—the ability for students to pause, go back, or skip forward through online content as free agents. But often, online learning extends other types of control—in some cases students can choose the time at which they do their online learning, the path they want to take to learn a concept, or even the location from which they want to complete the online work—whether in a brick-and-mortar classroom or anywhere else.
2. In part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location
The second part of the definition is that the student learns at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home. In other words, the student attends a physical school with teachers or guides. Often it’s the neighborhood school, but in other cases it’s a learning center that could even be housed in a shopping mall space that has been converted into a drop-in computer lab. Blended learning means that students have at least some on-campus, away-from-home component built into their schedule.
3. An integrated learning experience
The third part of the definition is that the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience. This means that if students are learning U.S. history in a blended way, the online and face-to-face components work together to deliver an integrated course. The opposite of this would be that the students learn some topics online and then return to their traditional classroom to repeat them in a face-to-face lecture. To prevent such lack of coordination, most blended-learning programs use a computer-based data system to track each student’s progress and try to match the modality—whether it is online, one-on-one, or small group—to the appropriate level and topic. The key idea is that blended learning involves an actual “blend” of whatever formats are within the course of study.
Applying the definition
Let’s use this definition in a hypothetical situation to see whether it is an example of blended learning.
Tracy is a language arts teacher who has posted all of her lesson plans, assignments, and quizzes online so that students can access them at home, as well as at school. Tracy’s school recently implemented a one-to-one program in which each student has access to a personal computing device. To leverage the technology, Tracy has all of her students follow along on their devices during a guided reading exercise, during which the teacher and students examine a piece of text together. After a class discussion on the text, Tracy has the students switch over to Google Docs where they each write their own agreement or disagreement with the central argument of the text. During this time, Tracy roams the classroom making sure students are on task and answering any questions that arise.
Is Tracy using blended learning in her classroom? No. Let’s understand why:
By posting all class material online, Tracy is using the Internet to merely host information, not to manage the delivery of content or instruction.
The fact that Tracy’s school is a one-to-one program is irrelevant to whether blended learning is taking place. One-to-one is not synonymous with blended learning, as it doesn’t imply a shift in instructional delivery or an element of student control. Although equipping all students with devices can be a crucial component of creating a blended-learning program, if not implemented correctly, the devices themselves can easily be used to support traditional instruction (as in Tracy’s case).
Tracy’s students are all using the personal computing devices s to read and write, but they are moving through the content as a single batch doing the same thing at the same time with no element of control over the time, place, path, or pace of learning.
Tracy’s use of Google Docs for the student writing exercise is no different than if her students were writing with pencil and paper.
Tracy is participating in a “technology-rich” classroom, not a blended one. Technology-rich instruction shares the features of traditional teacher-led instruction with technological enhancements. This includes electronic whiteboards, digital textbooks, online lesson plans, Google Docs, virtual reality, and so forth. These tools may enhance learning experiences, but do not fundamentally shift instruction in a way that gives students some element of control.
By understanding blended learning as an instructional delivery model that gives students some element of control over their learning and by leveraging the opportunity of personalization that blended learning can provide at scale, educators can start to address challenges and opportunities in their schools that will enable them to move the practice of blended learning forward.
To read about real-life examples of what blended learning looks like in schools, check out the BLU school directory and start searching.
- See more at: http://www.blendedlearning.org/what-blended-learning-is-and-isnt/#sthash.J9JOjOwZ.dpuf
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Evidence of Effect from SRI: Khan Works for Math
A positive association was found between
more Khan Academy use and more problem
sets completed and two outcomes: (1)
improvements in student test scores, and
(2) improvements in tself reported
non-achievement outcomes – math
anxiety, math self-concept, and academic
efficacy (i.e., belief in one’s ability to
succeed in academic endeavors).
Evidence from exploratory analyses of data available from two sites suggested that students who spent more time on Khan Academy and successfully completed more Khan Academy problem sets to proficiency experienced more positive than expected outcomes in terms of math test scores, reduced math anxiety, and had higher confidence in their ability to do math. Prior achievement tests and attitude measures taken in the fall were used to predict end-of-year outcomes for all students, and then the sample was split into those whose end-of-year scores were better than predicted, and those whose end of year scores were less positive than expected.
SRI Analysis of Kahn Effect
Evidence from exploratory analyses of data available from two sites suggested that students who spent more time on Khan Academy and successfully completed more Khan Academy problem sets to proficiency experienced more positive than expected outcomes in terms of math test scores, reduced math anxiety, and had higher confidence in their ability to do math. Prior achievement tests and attitude measures taken in the fall were used to predict end-of-year outcomes for all students, and then the sample was split into those whose end-of-year scores were better than predicted, and those whose end of year scores were less positive than expected.
SRI Analysis of Kahn Effect
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Fixing Our Beliefs
From my friend Jon Haber's excellent blog Degrees of Freedom
Fixing Our Beliefs
So how is one to balance
intellectual humility (which asks you to resist the urge to insist you are
right, even when you might be wrong) and intellectual courage (which asks you
to stick to your guns, even if your argument receives a setback)? Fortunately, I ended up pondering this conundrum while reading some essays by Charles Sanders Peirce,
the father of Pragmatism.Pragmatism, the only school of the Western philosophical tradition to have originated in America, will be making an appearance more than once between now and Election Day. For now, however, I just want to focus on how one of the founding documents of this philosophical movement, Peirce’s The Fixation of Belief, can help us navigate the choppy waters between intellectual humility and courage. In that essay, Peirce proposes that doubt motivates all of our thinking and that all of us constantly generated beliefs large and small in order to dispel the discomfort of doubt. Once generated, the author describes four ways those beliefs can become fixed in our minds.
One is an a priori method which simply involves believing (or continuing to believe) things that make you comfortable. This fits well with the human tendency towards cognitive bias which involves only accepting information that supports current beliefs while ignoring facts that conflict with preferred storylines.
Alternatively, one’s beliefs can be established by authority, such as a priesthood (secular or religious) which establishes what is allowed vs. forbidden to think within a society. Such authority is often challenged by free spirits, many of whom come to their beliefs through tenacity, which involves settling onto a belief system and boldly holding onto it at all costs (regardless of whether it is right or wrong).
While all three of these methods for fixing belief (a priori, authority and tenacity) have something to recommend them, none of them are of much use if your goal is getting to the truth. If that is your purpose, Peirce proposes science as a model which treats beliefs as conditional, even as more and more experiments are performed and evidence amassed to asymptotically get us closer and closer to ideas likely to be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)