By Sean Scarpiello
As computers and tablets quickly make their way into the classroom, the need to learn about these growing technologies is rising quickly. Yet as teachers try to integrate more technology into the classroom, there is a limited amount of time during the school day, so some subjects need to be removed to allow more time for technology. There has recently been debate among many grade school educators to reduce the amount of time being spent teaching and practicing cursive as it is becoming obsolete. As adults, we all remember spending countless hours in second and third grade perfecting our cursive. As society moves towards a more technology driven world, teachers are seriously considering cutting cursive from the curriculum. Educators are not calling to question the importance of cursive, but some feel that it isn’t worth teaching when there is so much to learn using technology.
First, the major problem that arises with teaching cursive is the opportunity cost. Teachers often ask, “What other subject can I be teaching during the time that it takes to teach second graders cursive.” This question arises in many teachers because there is a large chunk of class time dedicated to teaching cursive. Students are practically relearning the alphabet in a more fancy and complicated style by learning cursive. This means they need to spend a lot of time constantly writing out their cursive over and over again. In my schooling, cursive was practiced first thing each morning for about an hour over a time span of about three to four months. Each hour dedicated to cursive can add up over time and this time could have easily been used elsewhere.
For many teachers, the instruction of cursive is seen as a dying art as technology is quickly taking over. Many argue that people never use cursive to write letters as email has taken over. Even in the workplace, documents are typically typed out and if not people just print because it is easier. Therefore, it seems preposterous that schools spend a lot of time on cursive when it is used little, if at all, in the future. This especially holds true when teachers notice that time teaching cursive can be used to time teaching students how to use computers and other technology. In the long run, it would definitely serve students better if they were taught to use the computer and type faster rather than learning to write in cursive.
On the other hand, there are still many arguments for keeping cursive in schools. For one, students need to learn it for writing their signatures in the professional world and even in their daily lives as adults. Cursive has always been regarded as a professional writing style and practiced by well-educated individuals in society. If there is an end to cursive, some think ,many people would come across as being flat out dumb. Even today, too many students do not know how to professionally sign a letter or write out their signature. It is still important to not completely cut cursive from curricula.
While cursive really cannot be cut from the curricula altogether, the teachers’ best option for students to learn this writing style is to assign cursive as homework. Also, cursive could be done independently over the summer. This would give teachers more time in the classroom to teach other important subjects that may be overlooked when trying to squeeze cursive into a full curriculum. An advantage to cursive is how easy it is to learn and can be learned by students independently. In fact students could even utilize technology to learn cursive and accomplish both types of learning concurrently.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Learning From MOOCs
By Marie Norman
I’ve been working recently with a faculty member who is turning his thermodynamics course into a massive open online course, or MOOC. Working on this project, I’ve noticed that MOOCs have distinctive features that can help instructors avoid certain instructional pitfalls while simultaneously steering them in the direction of others.
Paying attention to these features in the context of MOOCs, I think, can help us be aware of -- and avoid -- the same problems in other teaching situations, online or face-to-face.
Because MOOC audiences are by definition large, they require faculty to design their courses for the broadest possible audience. This includes students without deep background knowledge in the subject area and students with diverse (and often weak) motivations for taking the course. Having to consider such a broad audience pushes faculty in directions that can help them overcome four common instructional problems.
Expert blind spot. EBS refers to the tendency we have as experts in our disciplines to move so quickly and intuitively through the familiar terrain of our subject matter that we omit important information, skip key steps and fail to point out critical connections. Instructor EBS can leave students, as relative novices, struggling to keep up. In over 10 years in faculty development, I’ve come to regard EBS as enemy number one in teaching.
MOOCs, because of their broad audience, compel instructors to use simpler language and proceed more systematically through content material. By actively working against EBS, the MOOC approach is likely to serve students in other kinds of courses as well.
Takeaway: As an expert in your discipline, you’re subject to expert blind spot. It comes with the territory. But you can consciously work against EBS by developing the habit of asking yourself: Have I left out any important information, connections or steps that students need to make sense of or apply this material?
Prior knowledge gaps. To learn, students have to connect what they’re learning to what they already know. If there are significant gaps between what the instructor assumes students know coming into a course and what they actually know, it can seriously undermine students’ learning, not to mention their motivation. Yet we often overestimate students’ prior knowledge, if we give it much thought at all. Targeting a MOOC audience can help keep this tendency in check, if only by cautioning us to begin at the beginning, define our terms and (perhaps most importantly) clarify the knowledge and skills we expect students to have coming into the course.
Takeaway: It’s important to articulate what you expect your students to know coming into a course, including specific prerequisite skills (e.g., solving differential equations, searching academic journals) and knowledge (basic geography, Newton’s laws). If a large number of students lack these skills, take time to address the gaps. Also be sure not to create new gaps by failing to define terms or moving too fast through complex material.
Content overload. A common mistake in teaching is to assume that the more we cover, the more students learn. But all evidence in cognitive science points to the opposite conclusion. As Herb Simon, the father of cognitive psychology, frequently noted, coverage is the enemy of deep learning. It’s far better to cover less content with more opportunities for practice and feedback.
MOOCs, because of their size, generally don’t provide the necessary practice and feedback opportunities for deep learning. However, because they tend to be shorter than full-length, semester-long courses, they do compel instructors to prioritize and scale back content. While there is serious resistance to this idea in traditional academia (see Craig Nelson’s “dysfunctional illusions of rigor”), MOOCs give us license, even a mandate, to reduce the total amount of content we try to shovel into students’ heads.
Takeaway: Courses tend to grow over time; we add content but we seldom subtract it. To avoid content overload, ask yourself: What are the most important ideas? What do I most want students to know or be able to do by the end of the course? Prioritize and cut what isn't essential. Then use the time you’ve created to incorporate problem solving, discussion, reflection, etc.
Motivational deficits. We love our own disciplines or we wouldn't be in them. Our enthusiasm can be contagious to students. However, it can also lead us to assume that the value of our fields is as evident to others as it is to us. This is a mistake. In fact, from the perspective of student motivation, it’s critical not only to teach material that is timely and relevant but also to highlight its relevance.
Again, MOOCs push us in the right direction. By and large, MOOC students don't pay tuition. They aren't a captive audience and they don't have to sit still for our lectures. This makes it essential, not optional, to ask and answer the question: Why should students care? This is a question we ought to ask ourselves more often in the context of tuition-bearing courses as well.
Takeaway: Don't assume that students immediately see the value of the material you’re teaching. Instead, point out the value or (better yet) ask questions that prompt students to identify the value for themselves. Also, think about what your students care about and try to link what you're teaching to what they value, personally, intellectually and professionally.
Pitfalls That MOOCs Lead Us Toward
Alas, MOOCs can reinforce bad pedagogical habits as well. Chief among these is the tendency to mistake a set of lectures for a course. Not only are lectures, at most, only part of a course, but they're not even a terribly effective pedagogical method. Over 30 years of research indicates that, unlike more active forms of learning, lecture does not promote deep learning, knowledge retention or the ability to transfer learning into new contexts. Thus, the overwhelming focus in MOOCs on lecture delivery is cause for dismay. Indeed, there is a distinct irony to the fact that some of our most forward-thinking learning platforms take such a backward-looking approach to pedagogy.
Takeaway: Use lectures strategically to illuminate core disciplinary ideas, explain tricky concepts or demonstrate problem solving, but don't over rely on them. Remember that when it comes to deep learning, less is usually more. It’s generally a good idea to prioritize and cut your total lecture content while creating more opportunities for students to actively use what they're learning.
Second, the educational value of MOOCs is almost always compromised by the M in the title. When courses are massive, the instructor’s ability to utilize robust assessments, provide helpful feedback and create a meaningful connection with students is necessarily limited. Even the best MOOCs (the University of Pennsylvania’s Modern and Contemporary American Poetry is my personal favorite) can't offer the same kinds of rich, project-based or writing-intensive assessments that smaller courses routinely do. This isn't a bad habit; it’s just a functional constraint of the medium. The bad habit is believing that multiple-choice quizzes, even good ones, are an adequate replacement for more robust and authentic forms of assessment.
Takeaway: Multiple-choice quizzes and tests are easy to grade and can, if well designed, test higher-order thinking skills. They're helpful, especially for managing faculty workload in large classes. But students also need opportunities to produce their own work, to construct meaning and practice using key skills. And this requires projects and assignments that allow students to think, write and speak critically -- and receive feedback on their work.
Neither the good teaching habits described here nor the bad ones are inevitable for MOOCs: the MOOC format simply makes these habits easier to fall into. Nor are the pitfalls discussed (expert blind spot, prior knowledge gaps, content overload, motivational deficits, over reliance on lecture and inadequate assessment methods) significant only for MOOCs. They're every bit as relevant -- and arguably far more problematic -- in for-credit courses.
Why focus on MOOCs then? MOOCs have different constraints and challenges that help to shed new light on issues surrounding teaching and learning. And they highlight these issues outside the contexts in which most of us teach, where perhaps we can see them more clearly.
I’ve been working recently with a faculty member who is turning his thermodynamics course into a massive open online course, or MOOC. Working on this project, I’ve noticed that MOOCs have distinctive features that can help instructors avoid certain instructional pitfalls while simultaneously steering them in the direction of others.
Paying attention to these features in the context of MOOCs, I think, can help us be aware of -- and avoid -- the same problems in other teaching situations, online or face-to-face.
Because MOOC audiences are by definition large, they require faculty to design their courses for the broadest possible audience. This includes students without deep background knowledge in the subject area and students with diverse (and often weak) motivations for taking the course. Having to consider such a broad audience pushes faculty in directions that can help them overcome four common instructional problems.
Expert blind spot. EBS refers to the tendency we have as experts in our disciplines to move so quickly and intuitively through the familiar terrain of our subject matter that we omit important information, skip key steps and fail to point out critical connections. Instructor EBS can leave students, as relative novices, struggling to keep up. In over 10 years in faculty development, I’ve come to regard EBS as enemy number one in teaching.
MOOCs, because of their broad audience, compel instructors to use simpler language and proceed more systematically through content material. By actively working against EBS, the MOOC approach is likely to serve students in other kinds of courses as well.
Takeaway: As an expert in your discipline, you’re subject to expert blind spot. It comes with the territory. But you can consciously work against EBS by developing the habit of asking yourself: Have I left out any important information, connections or steps that students need to make sense of or apply this material?
Prior knowledge gaps. To learn, students have to connect what they’re learning to what they already know. If there are significant gaps between what the instructor assumes students know coming into a course and what they actually know, it can seriously undermine students’ learning, not to mention their motivation. Yet we often overestimate students’ prior knowledge, if we give it much thought at all. Targeting a MOOC audience can help keep this tendency in check, if only by cautioning us to begin at the beginning, define our terms and (perhaps most importantly) clarify the knowledge and skills we expect students to have coming into the course.
Takeaway: It’s important to articulate what you expect your students to know coming into a course, including specific prerequisite skills (e.g., solving differential equations, searching academic journals) and knowledge (basic geography, Newton’s laws). If a large number of students lack these skills, take time to address the gaps. Also be sure not to create new gaps by failing to define terms or moving too fast through complex material.
Content overload. A common mistake in teaching is to assume that the more we cover, the more students learn. But all evidence in cognitive science points to the opposite conclusion. As Herb Simon, the father of cognitive psychology, frequently noted, coverage is the enemy of deep learning. It’s far better to cover less content with more opportunities for practice and feedback.
MOOCs, because of their size, generally don’t provide the necessary practice and feedback opportunities for deep learning. However, because they tend to be shorter than full-length, semester-long courses, they do compel instructors to prioritize and scale back content. While there is serious resistance to this idea in traditional academia (see Craig Nelson’s “dysfunctional illusions of rigor”), MOOCs give us license, even a mandate, to reduce the total amount of content we try to shovel into students’ heads.
Takeaway: Courses tend to grow over time; we add content but we seldom subtract it. To avoid content overload, ask yourself: What are the most important ideas? What do I most want students to know or be able to do by the end of the course? Prioritize and cut what isn't essential. Then use the time you’ve created to incorporate problem solving, discussion, reflection, etc.
Motivational deficits. We love our own disciplines or we wouldn't be in them. Our enthusiasm can be contagious to students. However, it can also lead us to assume that the value of our fields is as evident to others as it is to us. This is a mistake. In fact, from the perspective of student motivation, it’s critical not only to teach material that is timely and relevant but also to highlight its relevance.
Again, MOOCs push us in the right direction. By and large, MOOC students don't pay tuition. They aren't a captive audience and they don't have to sit still for our lectures. This makes it essential, not optional, to ask and answer the question: Why should students care? This is a question we ought to ask ourselves more often in the context of tuition-bearing courses as well.
Takeaway: Don't assume that students immediately see the value of the material you’re teaching. Instead, point out the value or (better yet) ask questions that prompt students to identify the value for themselves. Also, think about what your students care about and try to link what you're teaching to what they value, personally, intellectually and professionally.
Pitfalls That MOOCs Lead Us Toward
Alas, MOOCs can reinforce bad pedagogical habits as well. Chief among these is the tendency to mistake a set of lectures for a course. Not only are lectures, at most, only part of a course, but they're not even a terribly effective pedagogical method. Over 30 years of research indicates that, unlike more active forms of learning, lecture does not promote deep learning, knowledge retention or the ability to transfer learning into new contexts. Thus, the overwhelming focus in MOOCs on lecture delivery is cause for dismay. Indeed, there is a distinct irony to the fact that some of our most forward-thinking learning platforms take such a backward-looking approach to pedagogy.
Takeaway: Use lectures strategically to illuminate core disciplinary ideas, explain tricky concepts or demonstrate problem solving, but don't over rely on them. Remember that when it comes to deep learning, less is usually more. It’s generally a good idea to prioritize and cut your total lecture content while creating more opportunities for students to actively use what they're learning.
Second, the educational value of MOOCs is almost always compromised by the M in the title. When courses are massive, the instructor’s ability to utilize robust assessments, provide helpful feedback and create a meaningful connection with students is necessarily limited. Even the best MOOCs (the University of Pennsylvania’s Modern and Contemporary American Poetry is my personal favorite) can't offer the same kinds of rich, project-based or writing-intensive assessments that smaller courses routinely do. This isn't a bad habit; it’s just a functional constraint of the medium. The bad habit is believing that multiple-choice quizzes, even good ones, are an adequate replacement for more robust and authentic forms of assessment.
Takeaway: Multiple-choice quizzes and tests are easy to grade and can, if well designed, test higher-order thinking skills. They're helpful, especially for managing faculty workload in large classes. But students also need opportunities to produce their own work, to construct meaning and practice using key skills. And this requires projects and assignments that allow students to think, write and speak critically -- and receive feedback on their work.
Neither the good teaching habits described here nor the bad ones are inevitable for MOOCs: the MOOC format simply makes these habits easier to fall into. Nor are the pitfalls discussed (expert blind spot, prior knowledge gaps, content overload, motivational deficits, over reliance on lecture and inadequate assessment methods) significant only for MOOCs. They're every bit as relevant -- and arguably far more problematic -- in for-credit courses.
Why focus on MOOCs then? MOOCs have different constraints and challenges that help to shed new light on issues surrounding teaching and learning. And they highlight these issues outside the contexts in which most of us teach, where perhaps we can see them more clearly.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Credit For Actually Learning—Not Time In Class—Is Shaking Up Higher Education
By Ben Schiller
The credit hour is the standard way of measuring achievement in U.S. higher education. It's the unit students have to accumulate before they can graduate. It's used in assessments of how much to pay faculty. It's an organizing force on campus and in relations between institutions. It's a currency that everyone understands—but also something that an increasing number of people criticize. Are students really learning or time-serving? Does making everyone learn at the same pace hold back students who could learn more quickly, and does the credit hour-system raise costs unnecessarily?
In its place, a growing number of institutions are developing courses based on "competency"—or what students actually learn—rather than the number of hours they put in. Competency-based education (CBE) is a hot topic among policy-makers, foundations, and colleges because it has the potential to lower costs, broaden access to education, and perhaps raise standards. But, as two new reports point out, CBE isn't a perfect solution. In some cases, it may be more expensive than the traditional model, and, importantly, it's still unclear what could replace the credit hour as a universal unit.
The first report comes from the American Enterprise Institute and looks at the current "landscape" of CBE. Author Robert Kelchen identifies 34 colleges offering some form of CBE. Not all of those publish enrollment data, but, of the nine that do, he counts a total of 140,000 undergraduates and 57,000 graduate students on CBE programs currently.
CBE seems to open up colleges to older people. 9 out of 10 of the students Kelchen found are over 25 years old. About half are studying part-time, presumably because they also have to work and/or look after families. The programs themselves take different forms. Some grant credit based on backwards-looking assessments of learning ("prior learning assessments"), some just on the assessments of whether students have mastered new material.
The institutions include Alverno College, in Milwaukee, George Mason University, the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, and the University of Wisconsin, which offers "Flex Option" degrees (we wrote an in-depth post about that program here). It gives three months of "all you can eat" access, allowing students to complete as many competency tests as they like. The flat-rate cost is $2,250. Other programs charge for packages of credits, plus fees for exams and assessments.
Kelchen argues that CBE is not necessarily cheaper than traditional degrees, partly because many programs don't offer federal aid. Some students could get Pell grants for standard degrees, for example. So, it would be a disadvantage taking CBE courses. Or, depending on their level of preparation, motivation and the amount of time they have, students may not be able to complete "all-you-can-eat" courses quickly enough to make the cost worthwhile. It's like a gym membership: how expensive it is depends on how often you go?
The more fundamental question is how to assess the quality of CBE teaching and how to replace the credit hour. That's the subject of another report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT). It concedes that the credit hour is problematic because it "discourages educators from examining more closely students’ strengths and weaknesses" and "masks the quality of student learning." But it also notes that the credit hour ensures students receive consistent amounts of teaching time, plays a vital role in the administrative functioning of higher education, and "makes possible innumerable exchanges and interconnections among institutions."
The credit hour, in fact, was never designed for its current role. It was invented by the philanthropist Andrew Carnegie a century ago—and named the Carnegie Unit—as a way to pay faculty pensions. It wasn't meant as a proxy for what students learned; that's what tests and exams are for. The report says throwing out credit hours isn't a panacea, and it's surely right. After all, there are lots of reasons why colleges fail to teach students properly, why students don't bother learning, and why employers say graduates are unprepared. It isn't all linked to the credit-hour, despite what some suggest (this is a good example of the credit hour critique).
CFAT says we should move slowly, in case we throw out the good with the bad. "American education has a long history of promising reform ideas that have failed to achieve their intended outcomes," it says. "It is one thing to have good ideas for change; it is another to execute effectively and efficiently in our large, complex educational systems."
The credit hour is the standard way of measuring achievement in U.S. higher education. It's the unit students have to accumulate before they can graduate. It's used in assessments of how much to pay faculty. It's an organizing force on campus and in relations between institutions. It's a currency that everyone understands—but also something that an increasing number of people criticize. Are students really learning or time-serving? Does making everyone learn at the same pace hold back students who could learn more quickly, and does the credit hour-system raise costs unnecessarily?
In its place, a growing number of institutions are developing courses based on "competency"—or what students actually learn—rather than the number of hours they put in. Competency-based education (CBE) is a hot topic among policy-makers, foundations, and colleges because it has the potential to lower costs, broaden access to education, and perhaps raise standards. But, as two new reports point out, CBE isn't a perfect solution. In some cases, it may be more expensive than the traditional model, and, importantly, it's still unclear what could replace the credit hour as a universal unit.
The first report comes from the American Enterprise Institute and looks at the current "landscape" of CBE. Author Robert Kelchen identifies 34 colleges offering some form of CBE. Not all of those publish enrollment data, but, of the nine that do, he counts a total of 140,000 undergraduates and 57,000 graduate students on CBE programs currently.
CBE seems to open up colleges to older people. 9 out of 10 of the students Kelchen found are over 25 years old. About half are studying part-time, presumably because they also have to work and/or look after families. The programs themselves take different forms. Some grant credit based on backwards-looking assessments of learning ("prior learning assessments"), some just on the assessments of whether students have mastered new material.
The institutions include Alverno College, in Milwaukee, George Mason University, the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, and the University of Wisconsin, which offers "Flex Option" degrees (we wrote an in-depth post about that program here). It gives three months of "all you can eat" access, allowing students to complete as many competency tests as they like. The flat-rate cost is $2,250. Other programs charge for packages of credits, plus fees for exams and assessments.
Kelchen argues that CBE is not necessarily cheaper than traditional degrees, partly because many programs don't offer federal aid. Some students could get Pell grants for standard degrees, for example. So, it would be a disadvantage taking CBE courses. Or, depending on their level of preparation, motivation and the amount of time they have, students may not be able to complete "all-you-can-eat" courses quickly enough to make the cost worthwhile. It's like a gym membership: how expensive it is depends on how often you go?
The more fundamental question is how to assess the quality of CBE teaching and how to replace the credit hour. That's the subject of another report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT). It concedes that the credit hour is problematic because it "discourages educators from examining more closely students’ strengths and weaknesses" and "masks the quality of student learning." But it also notes that the credit hour ensures students receive consistent amounts of teaching time, plays a vital role in the administrative functioning of higher education, and "makes possible innumerable exchanges and interconnections among institutions."
The credit hour, in fact, was never designed for its current role. It was invented by the philanthropist Andrew Carnegie a century ago—and named the Carnegie Unit—as a way to pay faculty pensions. It wasn't meant as a proxy for what students learned; that's what tests and exams are for. The report says throwing out credit hours isn't a panacea, and it's surely right. After all, there are lots of reasons why colleges fail to teach students properly, why students don't bother learning, and why employers say graduates are unprepared. It isn't all linked to the credit-hour, despite what some suggest (this is a good example of the credit hour critique).
CFAT says we should move slowly, in case we throw out the good with the bad. "American education has a long history of promising reform ideas that have failed to achieve their intended outcomes," it says. "It is one thing to have good ideas for change; it is another to execute effectively and efficiently in our large, complex educational systems."
Friday, January 30, 2015
How to Effectively Test Teachers with Technology
By Sean Scarpiello
This may come as a surprise but, Finland has one of the most successful education systems. This has been proven by international standardized tests and graduate success. When comparing Finland’s education system with that of the United States, there are a few large differences, one of which is how teachers in Finland are treated. All Finlandian teachers must meet a range of difficult requirements and pass challenging tests to become educators. In fact, all educators in Finland must have a Master’s degree in order to teach. While it would be extremely difficult to overhaul the setup of the educational system of the United States to model that of Finland in the near future, there are still some routes that the United States schools can take to mimic the archetype of Finland’s educators system.
Teachers in Finland are held in higher regard, much like doctors and college professors are held in the United States. This is due to Finnish teachers continuing their education through further education, much like doctors and professor in the United States. In the United States, the idea of grading a teacher becomes a concern because people fear that grading teachers on their students’ performances (on standardized tests) will cause teachers to simply “teach the test” to students. However, a new company called Panorama Education is looking to change all of this by grading teachers in such a way that stimulates improvement and better outcomes for students.
Panorama Education tests teachers through the use of surveys given to students in order to assess how well teachers are doing. Teachers will not receive an actual grade on their performance, but these surveys will collect data on what students are thinking about the teachers performance. In fact, some schools surveyed have shown that some teachers subconsciously spend more time helping male students in the classroom while other surveys revealed that some departments in school are focusing less on special needs students. While these surveys are not intended to be used to get rid of teachers, they can help shed light on some problem areas that need to be improved. Panorama Education actually works through a technology based system that collects the paper and pencil based surveys completed by students and analyzes the results.
Currently, many schools look to make improvements in their system by hiring outside contractors to come in and examine teachers and students in classrooms. These firms are expensive and must take place over the course of many months. Panorama Education on the other hand is much less expensive and schools can expect data back almost instantly. Panorama education can be even more effective than outside education consultants as schools hear exactly what their students are thinking about regarding their teachers and classes. Overall, Panorama Education can be a huge success as it fosters an improved education for a greater number of students through the advent of new technology.
Source: https://www.panoramaed.com/
This may come as a surprise but, Finland has one of the most successful education systems. This has been proven by international standardized tests and graduate success. When comparing Finland’s education system with that of the United States, there are a few large differences, one of which is how teachers in Finland are treated. All Finlandian teachers must meet a range of difficult requirements and pass challenging tests to become educators. In fact, all educators in Finland must have a Master’s degree in order to teach. While it would be extremely difficult to overhaul the setup of the educational system of the United States to model that of Finland in the near future, there are still some routes that the United States schools can take to mimic the archetype of Finland’s educators system.
Teachers in Finland are held in higher regard, much like doctors and college professors are held in the United States. This is due to Finnish teachers continuing their education through further education, much like doctors and professor in the United States. In the United States, the idea of grading a teacher becomes a concern because people fear that grading teachers on their students’ performances (on standardized tests) will cause teachers to simply “teach the test” to students. However, a new company called Panorama Education is looking to change all of this by grading teachers in such a way that stimulates improvement and better outcomes for students.
Panorama Education tests teachers through the use of surveys given to students in order to assess how well teachers are doing. Teachers will not receive an actual grade on their performance, but these surveys will collect data on what students are thinking about the teachers performance. In fact, some schools surveyed have shown that some teachers subconsciously spend more time helping male students in the classroom while other surveys revealed that some departments in school are focusing less on special needs students. While these surveys are not intended to be used to get rid of teachers, they can help shed light on some problem areas that need to be improved. Panorama Education actually works through a technology based system that collects the paper and pencil based surveys completed by students and analyzes the results.
Currently, many schools look to make improvements in their system by hiring outside contractors to come in and examine teachers and students in classrooms. These firms are expensive and must take place over the course of many months. Panorama Education on the other hand is much less expensive and schools can expect data back almost instantly. Panorama education can be even more effective than outside education consultants as schools hear exactly what their students are thinking about regarding their teachers and classes. Overall, Panorama Education can be a huge success as it fosters an improved education for a greater number of students through the advent of new technology.
Source: https://www.panoramaed.com/
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Technology in the Classroom: Helpful or Harmful?
By Samantha Cleaver
Kids gravitate towards technology—if your child heads straight for the video games or Facebook after school, you know what we’re talking about. With a world of information at their fingertips nowadays, it seems like kids should be finding it easier than ever to succeed in school. However, as more classrooms invest in the latest technology, test scores remain the same, bringing its effectiveness into question.
“Incorporating technology into the classroom requires a double innovation,” says Shelley Pasnik, director of the Center for Education and Technology, Educators who receive new technology must first learn how to use the equipment and then decide whether or not it supports the class objectives and curriculum.
For example, an instructor may restructure a lecture into a group activity, having students conduct online research to boost their understanding. With such a vast reference tool, the students might pose questions that no one in the class, not even the teacher himself, can answer. Many teachers and schools choose to avoid this situation by discouraging the use of computers in a well-organized lesson. Their latest shipment of Smartboards, ELMOs, or iPads stays locked in a closet as they struggle to find the time to effectively incorporate them into the curriculum plan.
Despite the challenges, incorporating technology into education still has proven benefits, especially when it comes to personalized learning. From math games that adjust the level of difficulty as players progress to electronic books that talk and respond to the tap of a finger, products that personalize the learning experience for students often benefit their understanding. An interactive game is more engaging than a book, so technology often promotes more practice and review in areas requiring memorization, such as spelling, math and geography. This frees up time in the classroom so educators can focus on skills like problem solving, character development and critical thinking.
Technology also makes it easier to spend more overall time on learning. “After school and weekend time can become effective learning time with the right technology,” says David Vinca, founder and executive director of eSpark Learning, an education company that focuses on bringing iPads and iPods into the classroom. Much like how smart phones extend the workday by allowing professionals to send emails anytime, educational technology extends the school day for kids who will happily play multiplication games or review grammar on computer programs.
Educators also find it easier to track and assess student progress with the help of technology. At the end of each lesson cycle in eSpark’s app, students record a video summarizing what they’ve learned, and email it to their teacher. If a student consistently misspells words of a certain pattern, the teacher will know immediately and reintroduce that specific skill. This kind of data-driven information is invaluable for teachers who want to revise and review.
Consider these three tips when you consider your child’s daily interaction with technology:
Look for Connections. When students use technology, it should be within the context of larger learning goals rather than in isolation. “Technology used in isolation is less effective than when it’s integrated into a curricular set of activities,” says Pasnik.
Don’t Assume. There are a lot of facts floating out there, and everyone has an opinion. Base your understanding of education technology on reliable sources. Pasnik suggests asking your child’s teacher about how technology is incorporated into the curriculum.
It’s all in the Application. The success of any tool depends on how it’s used. Ask how a gadget or program furthers higher thinking, basic skills, or the child’s ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize ideas. This way, you’ll ensure that it’s being used for more than its novelty.
Technology may be changing the experience of education, but the role of teachers and parents grow increasingly important as they become the experts and guides for new learning resources. Teachers remain the constant in an ever-changing classroom environment, which will continue to shift with the technological tides. Vinca agrees. “However technology is used in class, it has the opportunity to be a game changer.”
Kids gravitate towards technology—if your child heads straight for the video games or Facebook after school, you know what we’re talking about. With a world of information at their fingertips nowadays, it seems like kids should be finding it easier than ever to succeed in school. However, as more classrooms invest in the latest technology, test scores remain the same, bringing its effectiveness into question.
“Incorporating technology into the classroom requires a double innovation,” says Shelley Pasnik, director of the Center for Education and Technology, Educators who receive new technology must first learn how to use the equipment and then decide whether or not it supports the class objectives and curriculum.
For example, an instructor may restructure a lecture into a group activity, having students conduct online research to boost their understanding. With such a vast reference tool, the students might pose questions that no one in the class, not even the teacher himself, can answer. Many teachers and schools choose to avoid this situation by discouraging the use of computers in a well-organized lesson. Their latest shipment of Smartboards, ELMOs, or iPads stays locked in a closet as they struggle to find the time to effectively incorporate them into the curriculum plan.
Despite the challenges, incorporating technology into education still has proven benefits, especially when it comes to personalized learning. From math games that adjust the level of difficulty as players progress to electronic books that talk and respond to the tap of a finger, products that personalize the learning experience for students often benefit their understanding. An interactive game is more engaging than a book, so technology often promotes more practice and review in areas requiring memorization, such as spelling, math and geography. This frees up time in the classroom so educators can focus on skills like problem solving, character development and critical thinking.
Technology also makes it easier to spend more overall time on learning. “After school and weekend time can become effective learning time with the right technology,” says David Vinca, founder and executive director of eSpark Learning, an education company that focuses on bringing iPads and iPods into the classroom. Much like how smart phones extend the workday by allowing professionals to send emails anytime, educational technology extends the school day for kids who will happily play multiplication games or review grammar on computer programs.
Educators also find it easier to track and assess student progress with the help of technology. At the end of each lesson cycle in eSpark’s app, students record a video summarizing what they’ve learned, and email it to their teacher. If a student consistently misspells words of a certain pattern, the teacher will know immediately and reintroduce that specific skill. This kind of data-driven information is invaluable for teachers who want to revise and review.
Consider these three tips when you consider your child’s daily interaction with technology:
Look for Connections. When students use technology, it should be within the context of larger learning goals rather than in isolation. “Technology used in isolation is less effective than when it’s integrated into a curricular set of activities,” says Pasnik.
Don’t Assume. There are a lot of facts floating out there, and everyone has an opinion. Base your understanding of education technology on reliable sources. Pasnik suggests asking your child’s teacher about how technology is incorporated into the curriculum.
It’s all in the Application. The success of any tool depends on how it’s used. Ask how a gadget or program furthers higher thinking, basic skills, or the child’s ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize ideas. This way, you’ll ensure that it’s being used for more than its novelty.
Technology may be changing the experience of education, but the role of teachers and parents grow increasingly important as they become the experts and guides for new learning resources. Teachers remain the constant in an ever-changing classroom environment, which will continue to shift with the technological tides. Vinca agrees. “However technology is used in class, it has the opportunity to be a game changer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
