ReportWire

Tag: Data and research

  • PROOF POINTS: 2023 in review

    PROOF POINTS: 2023 in review

    [ad_1]

    Every December, I compile a list of the most popular Proof Points columns. In 2023, the big story was the failure of schools to help children catch up from pandemic learning losses. I was proud to write several watchdog stories about the online tutoring that schools are buying and the crazy job of an online tutor. I was surprised that those were not among the most popular stories. What struck a chord with readers was research about math, math and more math….and some handy study tips. 

    Thank you to everyone who read and commented on my weekly stories about education data and research. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you next year. If you would like to receive my email newsletter and be notified when the column comes out each week, please click here and fill out the form. I’ll be back again on Jan. 2, 2024 with a story about college applications. Happy New Year!

    Credit: Erika Rich for Hechinger Report
    1. PROOF POINTS: Inside the perplexing study that’s inspired colleges to drop remedial math

    CUNY’s seven-year study of its experiment to get rid of remedial math has arguably been one of the most influential attempts to use experimental evidence to change how higher education operates and is now affecting the lives of millions of college students. However, many colleges may not realize that the study never looked at how to help students pass college algebra, an important prerequisite course. Some researchers argue that the shift to statistics instead of the elimination of remedial ed might have driven the results.

    1. PROOF POINTS: How a debate over the science of math could reignite the math wars

    This column explained the origins of the new “science of math” movement, and how a group of special education researchers are seeking to copy the science of reading playbook. Their first manifesto attacked what they described as common misconceptions about teaching math.

    Credit: Kevin Wolf/ Associated Press
    1. PROOF POINTS: Professors say high school math doesn’t prepare most students for their college majors

    College professors often lament that their students are unprepared for the rigor of college-level math. But this Alabama survey highlighted another problem: high schools aren’t teaching the math skills that college professors in non-STEM fields want students to have. 

    Credit: Carol Yepes/ Moment via Getty Images
    1. PROOF POINTS: Do math drills help children learn?

    I took a look at  the contentious research debate on timed math tests. Short quizzes might be a more efficient way to memorize multiplication tables, but even advocates caution that there are many pitfalls. 

    1. PROOF POINTS: New higher ed data by race and ethnicity

    Five charts document that white, Black and Hispanic Americans are going to college at about the same rates. But starting does not mean finishing. The likelihood of making it through the coursework and tuition payments and ultimately earning a degree varies by race and ethnicity. 

    1. PROOF POINTS: New research review questions the evidence for special education inclusion

    People often assert that the research shows that students with disabilities learn better when they are included in regular classrooms. But a new meta-analysis says the research isn’t nearly as clear cut as advocates assert; some students with disabilities may be worse off and learn less in general education classes.

    Credit: Photo illustration by Chesnot/Getty Images
    1. PROOF POINTS: A spate of recent studies on the “Google effect” adds to evidence that the internet is making us dumber

    Here’s some news all of us can use. The stuff we’re Googling isn’t sticking in our memories and is quickly forgotten. One experiment finds that we’d retain more if we tried to guess before Googling.

    1. PROOF POINTS: The best way to teach might depend on the subject

    Researchers find that math students learn best through individual practice while English students thrive in groups.

    Credit: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images
    1. PROOF POINTS: Flashcards prevail over repetition in memorizing multiplication tables

    Here’s some concrete research advice for teachers on how to help their students memorize things. Since reading about this flashcard experiment, I’ve been telling my daughter to go straight to the cards and skip the studying. Kids may get frustrated not knowing something and looking at the answer over and over again. But she aced two vocab quizzes. (I was sad that multiplication songs weren’t the winner, but if you are nostalgic for Schoolhouse Rock and Billy Leach, I’ve included bonus links in this piece for you to sing along to.) 

    Credit: Adam Mohr for Simon & Schuster
    1. PROOF POINTS: One expert on what students do wrong

    The University of Virginia’s Daniel Willingham explains why reading our notes, using highlighters and making to-do lists are not the best ways to learn. Read the piece for the most effective methods.

    This story about the top education research stories of 2023 was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Proof Points newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: There is a worldwide problem in math and it's not just about the pandemic

    PROOF POINTS: There is a worldwide problem in math and it's not just about the pandemic

    [ad_1]

    Numbers don’t lie, right? But they also don’t always tell the whole story. That’s the case with the most recent results from a key global education test, the Program for International Student Assessment or PISA. 

    In the past, PISA results have often spurred anguished discussion about why U.S. students are so far behind other countries like Finland, Korea and Poland. But the most recent rankings, released in December 2023, indicated that U.S. 15-year olds moved up in the international rankings for all three subjects –  math, reading and science. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona credited the largest federal investment in education in history – roughly $200 billion – for keeping the United States “in the game” during the pandemic. (The tests were administered in 2022.)

    But that rosy spin hides a much grimmer picture. Rankings may have risen, but test scores did not. The only reason the U.S. rose is because academic performance in once higher ranking countries, such as Iceland and the Slovak Republic, fell by even more since the previous testing round in 2018. Neither India nor China, which topped the rankings in 2018, participated in the 2022 PISA. In math, the U.S. rose from 29th place to 28th place, still in the bottom half of economically advanced nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international organization of 38 member countries that oversees the PISA exam.

    Click here to see a larger version of the 2022 PISA math results by country. Source: OECD PISA 2022.
    Click here for a larger version of the 2022 PISA reading results. Source: OECD PISA 2022.

    The deterioration in math was particularly devastating. American students scored 13 points lower than in 2018, equivalent to losing two-thirds of a year of education in the subject. These were the lowest U.S. math scores recorded in the history of the PISA math test, which began in 2003. More than a third of U.S. 15-year-olds (mostly 10th graders) are considered to be low performers, unable to compare distances between two routes or convert prices into a different currency. Over the past decade, the share of U.S. students in this lowest level has swelled; back in 2012, a little over a quarter of U.S. students were considered to be low performers.

    Only seven percent of American students can do math at advanced levels. The United States has more students in the bottom group and fewer students in the top group than most other industrialized countries that are part of the OECD. (Click here to see an international ranking of low and top performers in each country.)

    The results also confirmed the widespread inequalities in U.S. education. Black and Hispanic students, on average, scored far below Asian and white students. Those from low-income backgrounds scored lower than their more affluent peers.

    Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the OECD, emphasized that the inequities in the U.S. are often misunderstood to be primarily problem of weak schools in poor neighborhoods. His analysis indicates that low math performance is common throughout U.S. schools. Some students are performing much worse than others within the same school, and that range between low and advanced students within U.S. schools is much greater than the range in scores between schools. 

    This new PISA test is the first major international education indicator since the Covid pandemic closed schools and disrupted education. Test scores declined all around the world, but the OECD found there was only a small relationship between how long schools were closed and their students’ performance on the PISA test. School closures explained only 11 percent of the variation in countries’ test scores; nearly 90 percent is attributable to other, unclear reasons. However, the OECD looked at the absolute level of test scores and not how much test scores fell or rose. More analysis is needed to see if there’s a stronger link between school closures and test score changes. 

    This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is export-2023-12-07T18_08_39.826Z-1024x683.png
    Math performance has been deteriorating worldwide for two decades, but the US lags behind other advanced nations. Source: OECD PISA 2022.

    Even if school closures eventually prove to be a more important factor, the pandemic isn’t the only reason students are struggling. Global scores have generally been declining for the past two decades. One hypothesis is that technology is distracting teenagers. Students were asked about technology distraction for the first time on the 2022 PISA. Forty-five percent of students said they feel anxious if their phones are not near them. Sixty-five percent report being distracted by digital devices during math lessons. Up to an hour a day of computer time for leisure was associated with higher performance. But heavy users, those who spent five to seven hours on computers for fun, had lower academic performance, even after adjusting for family and school socioeconomic profiles. 

    Another factor could be the rise in migration across the world. Perhaps declining test scores reflect the challenge of educating new immigrants. However, the OECD didn’t find a statistically significant correlation between immigration and academic performance on average. In the United States, immigrants outscored students with native-born parents in math after adjusting for socio-economic status. There was no difference between immigrants and non-immigrants in reading.

    Japan was one of the few countries to defy the trends. Both its math and reading scores rose considerably between 2018 and 2022. Akihiko Takahashi, professor emeritus of mathematics and mathematics education at Chicago’s DePaul University, said schools were closed for a shorter period of time in Japan and that helped, but he also credits the collective spirit among Japanese teachers. In his conversations with Japanese teachers, Takahashi learned how teachers covered for each other during school closures to make sure no students in their schools fell behind. Some went house to house, correcting student homework.  

    It’s tempting to look at the terrible PISA math scores and say they are evidence that the U.S. needs to change how it teaches math. But the PISA results don’t offer clear recommendations on which math approaches are most effective. Even Japan, one of the top performing nations, has a mixed approach. Takahashi says that students are taught with a more progressive approach in elementary school, often asking students to solve problems on their own without step-by-step instructions and to develop their own mathematical reasoning. But by high school, when this PISA exam is taken, direct, explicit instruction is more the norm.

    The new results also highlighted the continued decline of a former star. For years, Finland was a role model for excellent academic performance. Education officials visited from around the world to learn about its progressive approaches. But the country has dropped 60 points over the past few testing cycles – equivalent to losing three full school years of education. I suspect we won’t be hearing calls to teach the Finnish way anymore. “You have to be careful because the leaders of today can be the laggards of tomorrow,” said Tom Loveless, an independent researcher who studies international assessments.

    There was one bright spot for American students. Fifteen-year-olds scored comparatively well on the PISA reading test, with their scores dropping by just one point while other countries experienced much steeper declines. But that good news is also tempered by the most recent scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) test, often called the Nation’s Report Card. Reading scores of fourth and eighth graders deteriorated over the last two testing cycles in 2019 and 2022.

    Overall, the PISA results provide additional confirmation that U.S. students are in trouble, especially in math, and we can’t put all the blame on the pandemic.

    This story about the 2022 PISA results was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: 'Right-to-read' settlement spurred higher reading scores in California's lowest performing schools, study finds

    PROOF POINTS: 'Right-to-read' settlement spurred higher reading scores in California's lowest performing schools, study finds

    [ad_1]

    Blue dots represent the 75 schools that were eligible for the right-to-read settlement program of training and funds. (Source: Sarah Novicoff and Thomas Dee, Figure A1 of “The Achievement Effects of Scaling Early Literacy Reforms” working paper.)

    In 2017, public interest lawyers sued California because they claimed that too many low- income Black and Hispanic children weren’t learning to read at school. Filed on behalf of families and teachers at three schools with pitiful reading test scores, the suit was an effort to establish a constitutional right to read. However, before the courts resolved that legal question, the litigants settled the case in 2020. 

    The settlement itself was noteworthy. The state initially agreed to give an extra $50 million to 75 elementary schools with the worst reading scores in the state to improve how they were teaching reading. Targeted at children who were just learning to read in kindergarten through third grade, the settlement amounted to a little more than $1,000 extra per student. Teachers were trained in evidence-based ways of teaching reading, including an emphasis on phonics and vocabulary, and encouraged to use them. (A few of the 75 original schools didn’t participate for various reasons.)

    A pair of Stanford University education researchers studied whether the settlement made a difference, and their conclusion was that yes, it did. Third graders’ reading scores rose in 2022 and 2023, equivalent to an extra 25 percent of a year of learning, compared to students in schools that weren’t eligible for the settlement payments. Roughly 36 percent of the third graders in these schools reached Level 2 or higher on the California state reading tests, up from about 30 percent before the settlement. (Level 2 equates to slightly below grade-level proficiency with “standard nearly met” but is above the lowest Level 1 “standard not met.”) It’s noteworthy that reading achievement in these schools rose during the post-pandemic period even as reading achievement suffered nationwide. (State testing of all students doesn’t begin until third grade and so there was no standard measure for younger kindergarten, first and second graders.)

    The test score gains might seem small. The majority of children in these schools still cannot read well. Even with these reading improvements, more than 60 percent of the students still scored at the lowest of the four levels on the state’s reading test.  But these reading gains are meaningful for a real-life classroom experience, not a laboratory experiment or a small pilot program, which involved more than 7,000 third graders over two years. The researchers characterized the reading improvements as larger than those seen in 90 percent of large-scale classroom interventions, according to a 2023 study. They also conducted a cost-benefit analysis and determined that the $50 million literacy program created by the settlement was 13 times more effective than a typical dollar spent at schools. 

    “I wouldn’t call the results super large. I would call them cost effective,” said Jennifer Jennings, a sociologist at Princeton University who was not involved in the study, but attended a presentation of the working paper in November. 

    The working paper, “The Achievement Effects of Scaling Early Literacy Reforms,” was posted to the website of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University on Dec. 4, 2023. It has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and may still be revised.

    Thomas Dee, an economist at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education who conducted the analysis with doctoral student Sarah Novicoff, says that the reading improvements at the weakest schools in California bolster the evidence for the so-called “science of reading” approach, which has become associated with phonics instruction, but also includes pre-phonics sound awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary building and comprehension skills. Thus far, the best real-world evidence for the science of reading comes from Mississippi, where reading scores dramatically improved after schools changed how they taught reading. But there’s also been a debate over whether the state’s policy to hold weak readers back in third grade has been a bigger driver of the test score gains than the instructional changes. 

    The structure of the right-to-read settlement offers a possible blueprint for how to bring evidence-based teaching practices into more classrooms, says Stanford’s Dee. School administrators and teachers both received training in the science of reading approach, but then schools were given the freedom to create their own plans and spend their share of the settlement funds as they saw fit within certain guidelines. The Sacramento County Office of Education served as an outside administrator, approving plans and overseeing them.

    “How to drive research to inform practice within schools and within classrooms is the central problem we face in education policy,” said Dee. “When I look at this program, it’s an interesting push and pull of how to do that. Schools were encouraged to do their own planning and tailor what they were doing to their own circumstances. But they also had oversight from a state-designated agency that made sure the money was getting where it was supposed to, that they were doing things in a well-conceived way.”  

    Some schools hired reading coaches to work with teachers on a regular basis. Others hired more aides to tutor children in small groups. Schools generally elected to spend most of the settlement money on salaries for new staff and extra compensation for current teachers to undergo retraining and less on new instructional materials, such as books or curriculums. By contrast, New York City’s current effort to reform reading instruction began with new curriculum requirements and teachers are complaining that they haven’t received the training to make the new curriculum work.

    It’s unclear if this combination of retraining and money would be as effective in typical schools. The lowest performing schools that received the money tended to be staffed by many younger, rookie teachers who were still learning their craft. These new teachers may have been more open to adopting a new science of reading approach than veteran teachers who have years of experience teaching another way. 

    That teacher retraining victory may foretell a short-lived success story for the students in these schools. The reason that there were so many new teachers is because teachers quickly burn out and quit high-poverty schools. The newly trained teachers in the science of reading may soon quit too. There’s a risk that all the investment in better teaching could soon evaporate. I’ll be curious to see their reading scores a few years from now.

    This story about the right to read settlement was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • OPINION: Ask not what can be done with a humanities degree – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Ask not what can be done with a humanities degree – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    “What are you going to do with that?” is a question I heard often from my family as both an undergraduate and a graduate student.

    Yes, I was an English major. My older siblings were going to nursing and medical school and all of my cousins were pursuing engineering, science and business degrees. So there was always an edge to that question every time it came up at family gatherings. A just-under-the-surface skepticism about the usefulness of a humanities degree as job preparation.

    I know now that this question was meant kindly — and was informed by the older generation’s desire to see their children enjoy a return on investment (ROI) on a college education similar to what they themselves experienced as first- and second-generation college-goers.

    College degrees changed the trajectories of their lives. They opened opportunities for economic and social mobility and moved my parents’ generation beyond the experiences of their grandparents and great-grandparents, many of whom, as first- and second-generation immigrants to this country in the nineteenth century, started their working lives as farmers or day laborers.

    My aunts, uncles and parents were keenly aware that they themselves had benefited substantially from America’s grand expansion of the public higher education system post-World War II. Though their question burdened me at the time with self-doubt, among other things, they asked it out of a caring sense of concern for my future.

    Decades later, I now have the privilege of serving as the dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at George Mason University, an access-oriented public research university that serves and graduates high numbers of students who are first-generation college goers, military veterans, economically under-resourced or transfer students, or from historically underrepresented groups.

    Related: PROOF POINTS: The number of college graduates in the humanities drops for the eighth consecutive year

    As the idea of higher education as a public good is increasingly questioned or under attack, and as public perceptions of the value of a college degree relative to its cost continue to shift, I often remind my faculty of our fundamental purpose: We are here to educate our students.

    We are here to engage them in the kinds of high-impact discovery learning that public research universities can offer at scale; the kinds of experiences that can change the trajectory of their lives and the lives of their families.

    “What can’t you do with a humanities degree?”

    It is because of my institution’s access-oriented educational mission that I view the release of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ Humanities Indicators report, “Employment Outcomes for Humanities Majors: State Profiles,” as an important occasion.

    Drawing on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the data collected and analyzed in this study should help change national narratives about both the “death” of the humanities and the low ROI on a four-year college degree.

    The first national study of its kind, the report offers a state-by-state comparison of the salary ranges and unemployment rates of college graduates who majored in the humanities with those of, on the one hand, high-school and two-year college graduates and, on the other hand, college graduates in the arts, education, social sciences, business, natural sciences and engineering.

    In doing so, the report tells a very different story than the one you typically see circulating in the media these days. Key takeaways:

    • Earnings: Humanities graduates’ earnings are substantially higher than those of people without a college degree and are often on par with or higher than those of graduates in non-engineering fields.
    • Earnings Disparities: Except in a few northwestern states, humanities majors earn at least 40 percent more than people with only a high school degree.
    • Unemployment: The unemployment rate of humanities majors is around 2-4 percent in every state, similar to that of engineering and business majors and substantially lower than that of people without a college degree.
    • Occupational Versatility: Humanities graduates make up big portions of the legal, museum and library workforces across all states; other significant areas of humanities graduate employment are education, management and sales.

    Without question, the total cost of college attendance should continue to be a concern for all of us. And earnings and occupation are not the only measures of success in one’s career or life. But I am excited, as a dean, to have in hand the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ new Humanities Indicators report and its “State of the Humanities 2021: Workforce and Beyond”report as resources to use to help current undergraduate and graduate students see how humanities majors in all 50 states have put their degrees to work across a broad spectrum of occupations and industries.

    The workforce data in this new American Academy of Arts & Sciences report is the perfect complement to individual storytelling in helping today’s humanities majors think through “What are you going to do with that?” — and see clearly the vast world of work that opens to them through education in these disciplines.

    Related: OPINION: Studying humanities can prepare the next generation of social justice leaders

    “What can’t you do with a humanities degree?” is a tagline we invite the George Mason undergraduate admissions officers to keep top of mind as they begin their recruitment road trips.

    Even as technological change is accelerating and reshaping jobs in ways that will require all of us to reinvent our careers, this American Academy of Arts & Sciences report gives today’s college students a data-informed way to conceptualize both the job opportunities and the career earning trajectories of humanities majors in all 50 states and across many sectors of our nation’s knowledge-based economy.

    Ann Ardis is dean of George Mason University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

    This story about humanities degrees was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Ann Ardis

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: The myth of the quick learner

    PROOF POINTS: The myth of the quick learner

    [ad_1]

    Some kids appear to learn faster than others. A few years ago, a group of scientists at Carnegie Mellon University decided to study these rapid learners to see what they are doing differently and if their strategies could help the rest of us.

    But as the scientists began their study, they stumbled upon a fundamental problem:  they could not find faster learners. After analyzing the learning rates of 7,000 children and adults using instructional software or playing educational games, the researchers could find no evidence that some students were progressing faster than others. All needed practice to learn something new, and they learned about the same amount from each practice attempt. On average, it was taking both high and low achievers about seven to eight practice exercises to learn a new concept, a rather tiny increment of learning that the researchers call a “knowledge component.”

    “Students are starting in different places and ending in different places,” said Ken Koedinger, a cognitive psychologist and director of Carnegie Mellon’s LearnLab, where this research was conducted. “But they’re making progress at the same rates.” 

    Koedinger and his team’s data analysis was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences, in March 2023. The study offers the hope that “anyone can learn anything they want” if they get well-designed practice exercises and put some effort into it.  Raw talent, like having a “knack for math” or a “gift for language,” isn’t required.

    Koedinger and his colleagues wrote that they were initially “surprised” by the “astonishing amount of regularity in students’ learning rate.” The discovery contradicts our everyday experiences. Some students earn As algebra, an example mentioned in the paper, and they appear to have learned faster than peers who get Cs.

    But as the scientists confirmed their numerical results across 27 datasets, they began to understand that we commonly misinterpret prior knowledge for learning. Some kids already know a lot about a subject before a teacher begins a lesson. They may have already had exposure to fractions by making pancakes at home using measuring cups. The fact that they mastered a fractions unit faster than their peers doesn’t mean they learned faster; they had a head start. 

    Like watching a marathon

    Koedinger likens watching children learn to watching a marathon from the finish line. The first people to cross the finish line aren’t necessarily the fastest when there are staggered starts. A runner who finished sooner might have taken five hours, while another runner who finished later might have taken only four hours. You need to know each runner’s start time to measure the pace.

    Koedinger and his colleagues measured each student’s baseline achievement and their incremental gains from that initial mark. This would be very difficult to measure in ordinary classrooms, but with educational software, researchers can sort practice exercises by the knowledge components required to do them, see how many problems students get right initially and track how their accuracy improves over time.  

    In the LearnLab datasets, students typically used software after some initial instruction in their classrooms, such as a lesson by a teacher or a college reading assignment. The software guided students through practice problems and exercises. Initially, students in the same classrooms had wildly different accuracy rates on the same concepts. The top quarter of students were getting 75 percent of the questions correct, while the bottom quarter of students were getting only 55 percent correct. It’s a gigantic 20 percentage point difference in the starting lines. 

    However, as students progressed through the computerized practice work, there was barely even one percentage point difference in learning rates. The fastest quarter of students improved their accuracy on each concept (or knowledge component) by about 2.6 percentage points after each practice attempt, while the slowest quarter of students improved by about 1.7 percentage points. It took seven to eight attempts for nearly all students to go from 65 percent accuracy, the average starting place, to 80 percent accuracy, which is what the researchers defined as mastery.

    The advantage of a head start

    The head start for the high achievers matters.  Above average students, who begin above 65 percent accuracy take fewer than four practice attempts to hit the 80 percent threshold. Below average students tend to require more than 13 attempts to hit the same 80 percent threshold. That difference – four versus 13 – can make it seem like students are learning at different paces. But they’re not. Each student, whether high or low, is learning about the same amount from each practice attempt. (The researchers didn’t study children with disabilities, and it’s unknown if their learning rates are different.)

    The student data that Koedinger studied comes from educational software that is designed to be interactive and gives students multiple attempts to try things, make mistakes, get feedback and try again. Students learn by doing. Some of the feedback was very basic, like an answer key, alerting students if they got the problem right or wrong. But some of the feedback was sophisticated. Intelligent tutoring systems in math provided hints when students got stuck, offered complete explanations and displayed step-by-step examples. 

    The conclusion that everyone’s learning rate is similar might apply only to well-designed versions of computerized learning. Koedinger thinks students probably learn at different paces in the analog world of paper and pencil, without the same guided practice and feedback. When students are learning more independently, he says, some might be better at checking their own work and seeking guidance.  

    Struggling students might be getting fewer “opportunities” to learn in the analog world, Koedinger speculated. That doesn’t necessarily mean that schools and parents should be putting low-achieving students on computers more often. Many students quickly lose motivation to learn on screens and need more human interaction.

    Memory ability varies

    Learning rates were especially steady in math and science – the subjects that most of the educational software in this study focused on. But researchers noticed more divergence in learning rates in the six datasets that involved the teaching of English and other languages. One was a program that taught the use of the article “the,” which can be arbitrary. (Here’s an example: I’m swimming in the Atlantic Ocean today but in Lake Ontario tomorrow. There’s no “the” before lakes.) Another program taught Chinese vocabulary. Both relied on students’ memory and individual memory processing speeds differ. Memory is important in learning math and science too, but Koedinger said students might be able to compensate with other learning strategies, such as pattern recognition, deduction and induction. 

    To understand that we all learn at a similar rate is one of the best arguments I’ve seen not to give up on ourselves when we’re failing and falling behind our peers. Koedinger hopes it will inspire teachers to change their attitudes about low achievers in their classrooms, and instead think of them as students who haven’t had the same number of practice opportunities and exposure to ideas that other kids have had. With the right exercises and feedback, and a bit of effort, they can learn too. Perhaps it’s time to revise the old saw about how to get to Carnegie Hall. Instead of practice, practice, practice, I’m going to start saying practice, listen to feedback and practice again (repeat seven times).

    This story was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • OPINION: Politicians who come to our HBCU campuses must understand and recognize our storied history

    OPINION: Politicians who come to our HBCU campuses must understand and recognize our storied history

    [ad_1]

    The Black college students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) share a common bond with other marginalized groups. Our nation’s history is replete with stories of the relentless fight for equitable voting rights.

    That’s why, as this struggle continues due to the need to combat various voter suppression tactics, college campuses must play a crucial role in promoting a connection between political leaders and their electorate.

    Higher education has the power to formidably facilitate political engagement on campus by supporting greater access to political candidates.

    The voices heard, the debates sparked and the connections made can ignite student political engagement.

    As researchers on the political socialization of Black youth voters at HBCUs, we can offer critical advice for those seeking to engage with HBCU students. Successful political messaging to this demographic lies in authentic engagement that includes a sincere effort to address students’ concerns and priorities.

    Superficial appearances, monologues or insincere support-seeking will not make the intended impact.

    Related:  Could colleges make voting as popular as going to football games?

    When political candidates embark on message and outreach tours, they must be careful not to alienate the critical yet frequently underestimated population of Black youth voters, who too often feel that they only matter to politicians during election season.

    We know this from interviews with over 118 young Black voters at HBCUs, who expressed frustration with politicians who resort to hollow pandering by playing identity politics — for example, “Vote for me because you are Black” — or making superficial statements like “I keep hot sauce in my bag” or “I’ve lit up a joint.”

    Such tactics are a turn-off for these young voters, who want genuine conversations about their rights before discussions about what they should do with their votes.

    The interviews were part of our recently completed, National Science Foundation-supported research investigating the political socialization of Black youth at HBCUs.

    Politicians who invite themselves onto our campuses should prioritize giving students unfiltered access that allows for unscripted interactions and authentic engagement.

    Here are some recommendations based on our findings:

    First, candidates should strategically engage with youth voters by going where they are. The key to engaging young voters effectively lies in the choice of location and method of interaction.

    Instead of speaking in grand auditoriums, candidates should focus on smaller venues — campus cafeterias, quads and student dormitories — to facilitate flexible and genuine conversations.

    Second, candidates should emphasize that they want to learn from students during their campus visits. The significance of these visits lies in the lessons imparted by and the feedback received from students — listening to student voices is essential to make visits impactful. Candidates should convey that they believe students can make valuable contributions.

    Third, these young voters want politicians to pay genuine attention to their needs and aspirations. As one participant aptly expressed, “Show what you’ve done. Why would I vote for you, if you haven’t done anything in my community that shows me that you’re here for me and not just my vote?”

    Finally, candidates should make efforts to keep the momentum of voter engagement going beyond Election Day. Voting is just the beginning, and if candidates gain Black youth voters’ initial support, they may earn enduring support.

    Candidates’ campus visits are opportunities for voters and politicians to cultivate trust and foster stronger relationships beyond Election Day.

    Engagement is not about pandering or making campaign pit stops; instead, it’s about empowering a generation to vote for leaders who truly champion their causes.

    One example: Vice President Kamala Harris has been touring college campuses, including HBCUs, on her  “Fight for Our Freedoms College Tour.”

    However, her lecture-like approach, with moderated discussions, seems to be falling short of establishing a genuine connection. If the tour’s goal is to inspire and empower young voters on topics important to their demographic, it should actively include them in the plan.

    Related: OPINION: To train the next generation of entrepreneurs, look to HBCUs

    Politicians who invite themselves onto our campuses should prioritize giving students unfiltered access that allows for unscripted interactions and authentic engagement.

    Politicians need not search far for exemplars, for academics manifest this practice daily in their classrooms. They engage students in open dialogues, affording them the opportunity to pose unvetted inquiries and receive forthright responses.

    Postsecondary institutions should help facilitate these connections between politicians and students, thus amplifying youth voter voices in a manner that centers them. Simply giving politicians the chance to be visible on campus is not enough and won’t matter beyond Election Day.

    Students want to hear from and vote for leaders who legitimately connect with them and will actively advocate for their causes.

    Amanda Wilkerson is an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida in the Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education.

    Shalander “Shelly” Samuels is an Afro-Caribbean assistant professor in the English department in the College of Liberal Arts at Kean University.

    This story about HBCU students and politics was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Wilkerson and Shalander “Shelly” Samuels

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: Professors say high school math doesn’t prepare most students for their college majors

    PROOF POINTS: Professors say high school math doesn’t prepare most students for their college majors

    [ad_1]

    A survey of college professors indicates that most fields of study don’t require many of the math topics that high school students learn in high school. Credit: Kevin Wolf/ Associated Press

    The typical ambitious high school student takes advanced algebra, trigonometry, pre-calculus and calculus. None of that math may be necessary for the vast majority of undergraduates who don’t intend to major in science or another STEM field. 

    But those same students don’t have many of the math skills that professors think they actually do need. In a survey, humanities, arts and social science professors say they really want their students to be able to analyze data, create charts and spreadsheets and reason mathematically – skills that high school math courses often skip or rush through.

    “We still need the traditional algebra-to-calculus curriculum for students who are intending a STEM major,” said Gary Martin, a professor of mathematics education at Auburn University in Alabama who led the team that conducted this survey of college professors. “But that’s maybe 20 percent. The other 80 percent, what about them?” 

    Martin said that the survey showed that high schools should stress “reasoning and critical thinking skills, decrease the emphasis on specific mathematical topics, and increase the focus on data analysis and statistics.”

    This damning assessment of the content of high school math comes from a survey of about 300 Alabama college professors who oversee majors and undergraduate degree programs at both two-year and four-year public colleges in the humanities, arts, social sciences and some natural sciences. Majors that require calculus were excluded. 

    The 2021 survey prompted Alabama’s public colleges and universities to allow more students to meet their math requirements by taking a statistics course instead of a traditional math class, such as college algebra or calculus. 

    Martin and his colleagues later realized that the survey had implications for high school math too, and presented these results at an Oct. 26, 2023 session of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics annual conference in Washington D.C.  Full survey results are slated to be published in the winter 2024 issue of the MathAMATYC Educator, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.

    In the survey, professors were asked detailed questions about which mathematical concepts and skills students need in their programs. Many high school math topics were unimportant to college professors. For example, most professors said they wanted students to understand functions, particularly linear and exponential functions, which are used to model trends, population changes or compound interest. But Martin said that non-STEM students didn’t really need to learn trigonometric functions, which are used in satellite navigation or mechanical engineering. 

    College professors were more keen on an assortment of what was described as mathematical “practices,” including the ability to “interpret quantitative information,” “strategically infer, evaluate and reason,” “apply the mathematics they know to solve everyday life, society and the workplace,” and to “look for patterns and relationships and make generalizations.”

    “Teachers are so focused on covering all the topics that they don’t have time to do the practices when the practices are what really matters,” said Martin.

    Understanding statistics was high on the list. An overwhelming majority of college professors said students in their programs needed to be familiar with statistics and data analysis, including concepts like correlation, causation and the importance of sample size. They wanted students to be able to “interpret displays of data and statistical analyses to understand the reasonableness of the claims being presented.” Professors say students need to be able to produce bar charts, histograms and line charts. Facility with spreadsheets, such as Excel, is useful too.

    “Statistics is what you need,” said Martin. “Yet, in many K-12 classrooms, statistics is the proverbial end-of-the-year unit that you may or may not get to. And if you do, you rush through it, just to say you did it. But there’s not this sense of urgency to get through the statistics, as there is to get through the math topics.”

    Though the survey took place only in Alabama and professors in other states might have different thoughts on the math that students need, Martin suspects that there are more similarities than differences.

    The mismatch between what students learn in high school and what they need in college isn’t easy to fix. Teachers generally don’t have time for longer statistics units, or the ability to go deeper into math concepts so that students can develop their reasoning skills, because high school math courses have become bloated with too many topics. However, there is no consensus on which algebra topics to jettison.

    Encouraging high school students to take statistics classes during their junior and senior years is also fraught. College admissions officers value calculus, almost as a proxy for intelligence. And college admissions tests tend to emphasize math skills that students will practice more on the algebra-to-calculus track. A diversion to data analysis risks putting students at a disadvantage. 

    The thorniest problem is that revamping high school math could force students to make big choices in school before they know what they want to study in college. Students who want to enter STEM fields still need calculus and the country needs more people to pursue STEM careers. Taking more students off of the calculus track could close doors to many students and ultimately weaken the U.S. economy.

    Martin said it’s also important to remember that vocational training is not the only purpose of math education.  “We don’t have students read Shakespeare because they need it to be effective in whatever they’re going to do later,” he said. “It adds something to your life. I felt that it really gave me breadth as a human being.”  He wants high school students to study some math concepts they will never need because there’s a beauty to them. “Appreciating mathematics is a really intriguing way of looking at the world,” he said.

    Martin and his colleagues don’t have any definitive solutions, but their survey is a helpful data point in demonstrating how too few students are getting the mathematical foundations they need for the future. 

    This story about high school math was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: With dental care, shelter and adult ed, the pandemic prompted a shift in schools’ mission

    PROOF POINTS: With dental care, shelter and adult ed, the pandemic prompted a shift in schools’ mission

    [ad_1]

    The Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 Community School in San Francisco opened its gymnasium to homeless students and their families as part of its Stay Over Program in 2022. It is one example of the many community services that a majority of public schools are now providing, according to a federal survey. Credit: Marissa Leshnov for The Hechinger Report

    Much attention in the post-pandemic era has been on what students have lost – days of school, psychological health, knowledge and skills. But now we have evidence that they may also have gained something: schools that address more of their needs. A majority of public schools have begun providing services that are far afield from traditional academics, including healthcare, housing assistance, childcare and food aid. 

    In a Department of Education survey released in October 2023 of more than 1,300 public schools, 60 percent said they were partnering with community organizations to provide non-educational services. That’s up from 45 percent a year earlier in 2022, the first time the department surveyed schools about their involvement in these services. They include access to medical, dental, and mental health providers as well as social workers. Adult education is also often part of the package; the extras are not just for kids. 

    “It is a shift,” said Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, where she tracks school spending. “We’ve seen partnering with the YMCA and with health groups for medical services and psychological evaluations.”

    Deeper involvement in the community started as an emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic. As schools shuttered their classrooms, many became hubs where families obtained food or internet access. Months later, many schools opened their doors to become vaccine centers. 

    New community alliances were further fueled by more than $200 billion in federal pandemic recovery funds that have flowed to schools. “Schools have a lot of money now and they’re trying to spend it down,” said Roza. Federal regulations encourage schools to spend recovery funds on nonprofit community services, and unspent funds will eventually be forfeited.

    The term “community school” generally refers to schools that provide a cluster of wraparound services under one roof. The hope is that students living in poverty will learn more if their basic needs are met. Schools that provide only one or two services are likely among the 60 percent of schools that said they were using a community school or wraparound services model, but they aren’t necessarily full-fledged community schools, Department of Education officials said.

    The wording of the question on the federal School Pulse Panel survey administered in August 2023 allowed for a broad interpretation of what it means to be a community school. The question posed to a sample of schools across all 50 states was this: “Does your school use a “community school” or “wraparound services” model? A community school or wraparound services model is when a school partners with other government agencies and/or local nonprofits to support and engage with the local community (e.g., providing mental and physical health care, nutrition, housing assistance, etc.).” 

    The most common service provided was mental health (66 percent of schools) followed by food assistance (55 percent). Less common were medical clinics and adult education, but many more schools said they were providing these services than in the past.

    A national survey of more than 1,300 public schools conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that a majority are providing a range of non-educational wraparound services to the community. Source: PowerPoint slide from an online briefing in October 2023 by the National Center for Education Statistics.

    The number of full-fledged community schools is also believed to be growing, according to education officials and researchers. Federal funding for community schools tripled during the pandemic to $75 million in 2021-22 from $25 million in 2019-20. According to the  education department, the federal community schools program now serves more than 700,000 students in about 250 school districts, but there are additional state and private funding sources too. 

    Whether it’s a good idea for most schools to expand their mission and adopt aspects of the community school model depends on one’s view of the purpose of school. Some argue that schools are taking on too many functions and should not attempt to create outposts for outside services. Others argue that strong community engagement is an important aspect of education and can improve daily attendance and learning. Research studies conducted before the pandemic have found that academic benefits from full-fledged community schools can take several years to materialize. It’s a big investment without an instant payoff.

    Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether schools will continue to embrace their expanded mission after federal pandemic funds expire in March 2026. That’s when the last payments to contractors and outside organizations for services rendered can be made. Contracts must be signed by September 2024.

    Edunomics’s Roza thinks many of these community services will be the first to go as schools face future budget cuts. But she also predicts that some will endure as schools raise money from state governments and philanthropies to continue popular programs.

    If that happens, it will be an example of another unexpected consequence of the pandemic. Even as pundits decry how the pandemic has eroded support for public education, it may have profoundly transformed the role of schools and made them even more vital.

    This story about wraparound services was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • PROOF POINTS: Flashcards prevail over repetition in memorizing multiplication tables

    PROOF POINTS: Flashcards prevail over repetition in memorizing multiplication tables

    [ad_1]

    A study published in 2023 in the journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology documented that second graders memorized more multiplication facts when they practiced using flashcards rather than by repeating their times tables aloud. Credit: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Young students around the world struggle to memorize multiplication tables, but the effort pays off. Cognitive scientists say that learning 6 x 7 and 8 x 9 by heart frees up the brain’s working memory so that students can focus on the more demanding aspects of problem solving. 

    Math teachers debate the best way to make multiplication automatic. Some educators argue against drills and say fluency will develop with everyday usage. Others insist that schools should devote time to helping children memorize times tables. 

    Even among proponents of memorization, it’s unclear which methods are the most effective. Should kids draw their own color-coded tables and study them, or copy their multiplication facts out dozens of times? Should they play multiplication songs and videos? Should they learn mnemonic tricks, like how the digits of the multiples of nine add up to nine (1+8, 2+7, 3+6, etc.)?  My daughter’s gym teacher used to make students shout “7 x 5 is 35” and “6 x 8 is 48” as they did jumping jacks. (It was certainly a way to make jumping less monotonous.) 

    To help advise teachers, a team of learning scientists compared two common methods: chanting and flashcards. 

    The 2022 experiment took place in four second grade classrooms in the Netherlands. The teachers began by delivering a lesson on multiplying by three. Using the same scripted lesson, they explained multiplication concepts, such as: “If I grab three apples, and I do this only one time, how many apples do I have?” 

    After the lesson, half the classrooms practiced by reciting equations displayed on a whiteboard:  “One times three is three, two times three is six…” through to 10. The other half practiced with flashcards. Students had their own personal sets with answers on the reverse side. Both groups spent five minutes practicing three times during the week for a total of 15 minutes. (More details on the experiment’s design here.)

    When the teachers moved on to multiplication by fours, the groups switched. The chanters quizzed themselves with flashcards, and the flashcard kids started chanting. All the students practiced memorizing both ways. 

    The results added up to a clear winner. 

    On a pre-test before the lesson, the second graders got an average of three math facts right. Afterwards, the chanters tended to double their accuracy, answering six facts correctly. But the flashcard users averaged eight correct. Students were tested again a full week later without any additional practice sessions, and the strong advantage for flashcard users didn’t fade. It was a sign that flashcard practice not only produces better short-term memories, but also better long-term ones –  the ultimate goal.

    Students scored higher on a multiplication test after practicing through flashcards (retrieval practice) than by chanting aloud (restudy). Source: Figure 1 of “The effect of retrieval practice on fluently retrieving multiplication facts in an authentic elementary school setting,” (2023) Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology.

    The study, “The effect of retrieval practice on fluently retrieving multiplication facts in an authentic elementary school setting,” was published online in October 2023 in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Though a small study of 48 students, this classroom experiment is a good example of the power of what cognitive scientists call “spaced retrieval practice,” in which the act of remembering consolidates information and helps the brain form long-term memories.  

    Retrieval practice can seem counterintuitive. One might think that students should study before being assessed or quizzing themselves. But there’s a growing body of evidence that trying to recall something is itself a powerful tool for learning, particularly when you are given the correct answer immediately after making a stab at it and then get a chance to try again. Testing your memory – even when you draw a blank – is a way to build new memories. 

    Many experiments have shown that retrieval practice produces better long-term memories than studying. Flashcards are one way to try retrieval practice. Quizzes are another option because they also require students to retrieve new information from memory. Indeed, many teachers opt for speed drills, asking students to race through a page of multiplication problems in a minute. 

    Flashcards can be less anxiety provoking, provide students immediate feedback with answers on the reverse side and allow students to repeat the retrieval practice immediately, running through the deck more than once. Still, kids are kids and they easily drift off task during independent practice time. With a timed quiz, the teacher can be more confident that everyone has benefited from a round of retrieval practice. I’d be curious to see flashcards and quizzes pitted against each other in a future classroom experiment. 

    As charming as multiplication songs are – I have a soft spot for School House Rock and my editor fondly recalls her Billy Leach multiplication records – they are unlikely to be as effective as flashcards because they don’t involve retrieval practice, according to Gino Camp, a professor of learning sciences at Open University in the Netherlands and one of the researchers on the study.

    That doesn’t mean we should jettison the songs or all the other memorization methods just because some aren’t as effective as others. Researchers may eventually find that a combination of techniques is even more powerful. Still, there are limited minutes in the school day, and knowing which learning methods are the most effective can help everyone – teachers, parents and students – use their time wisely.

    This story about multiplication flashcards was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • How AI can teach kids to write – not just cheat – The Hechinger Report

    How AI can teach kids to write – not just cheat – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s note: This story led off this week’s Future of Learning newsletter, which is delivered free to subscribers’ inboxes every other Wednesday with trends and top stories about education innovation.

    While the reading and math “wars” have gotten a lot of attention in education in recent years, writing instruction has not received that same focus. That is, until the release of ChatGPT last year.

    There isn’t really an agreed-upon approach to teaching writing, according to Sarah Levine, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. But now that ChatGPT is here to stay, experts like Levine are trying to figure how to teach writing to K-12 students in an age of AI.

    “The question that teachers are having to ask themselves is, what’s writing for?” she said.

    ChatGPT can produce a perfectly serviceable writing “product,” she said. But writing isn’t a product per se — it’s a tool for thinking, for organizing ideas, she said.

    “ChatGPT and other text-based tools can’t think for us,” she said. “There’s still things to learn when it comes to writing because writing is a form of figuring out what you think.”

    Earlier this year, Levine and her team conducted a pilot study at a high school in San Francisco. Students in an English class were given access to ChatGPT to see how they engaged with the tool.

    Some were given prompts that asked them to create an argument based on directions, such as, “Some people say we should have a new mascot at our school. Some people say we should keep our old mascot. What do you think?” Other prompts were more creative, such as asking students to write an outline for a movie script about a new superhero based at their school.

    Levine and her team found that students looked to ChatGPT, primarily, for help in two categories: Ideas or inspiration to get started on the prompt questions (for example, “What kind of mascots do other schools have?”) and guidance on the writing process (“How do you write a good ghost story?”).

    “What the kids are now getting from this AI is what expert writers already have: a big bank of examples that they can draw from when they’re creating,” Levine said. Using ChatGPT as a sounding board for specific questions like these can help students learn to be stronger writers, she added.

    Related: How college educators are using AI in the classroom

    While the study is ongoing, the early findings revealed something surprising: Kids weren’t excited about ChatGPT’s writing. “They thought it was ‘too perfect.’ Or ‘like a robot,’” Levine said. “One team that was writing said, ‘We asked ChatGPT to edit our work, and it took out all of our jokes so we put them back.’”

    Levine said that, to her, that was the big takeaway of the pilot. She’s heard teachers say they struggle to help students find their voice in writing. When students could contrast their own writing to ChatGPT’s more generic version, Levine said, they were able to “understand what their own voice is and what it does.”

    Mark Warschauer, a professor of education at the University of California, Irvine, has spent years studying how technology can change writing instruction and the nature of writing itself. When ChatGPT was released, he decided to tailor some of his research to study ways generative AI could help students and teachers, particularly English language learners and bilingual learners.

    Like Levine, Warschauer, director of the university’s Digital Learning Lab, said he believes ChatGPT can help students who struggle with writing to organize their ideas, and edit and revise their writing. Essentially, it could be used as an early feedback tool to supplement the work of a teacher, he said.

    As part of a project on the effectiveness of ChatGPT as a tool for giving students feedback on their writing, his team at the Digital Learning Lab placed student essays that had already been evaluated by teachers into ChatGPT and asked the AI to provide its own feedback. Then experts blindly graded both the human and AI feedback. While the experts found the human feedback was a little better overall, the AI feedback was good enough to provide value in the classroom. It could help guide students as they progressed on an assignment, allowing teachers to spend more time with students who need extra support, Warschauer said.

    Warschauer’s team has also partnered with UC Irvine’s school of engineering to create an intelligent writing coach, to be called PapyrusAI. The tool, which the teams plan to release next year, would be tailored to help middle school and high school students improve their writing through intensive coaching, he said.

    In addition, he said, the tool is being designed to provide a safe and protected way to use AI, to address parents’ and educators’ concerns about student data and privacy on ChatGPT, which stores students’ data.

    Stanford’s Levine also sees value in using ChatGPT to coach students on writing. 

    “A lot of teachers feel intimidated when it comes to teaching writing, because they themselves don’t necessarily feel like they’re the best writers,” Levine said. ChatGPT can help teachers fill in gaps in writing instruction by working as students’ debate partner or coach she said.

    ChatGPT could also help teachers more quickly analyze trends in student writing, identifying areas of success or struggle. If students “don’t understand how to connect one idea to another,” Levine said, Chat GPT could provide this feedback instead of teachers having to write, “Try connecting these ideas using a transition,” on every paper. Teachers could then devote more time to developing lessons that focus on that skill.  

    “Writing should be and is a human experience,” Levine said. Teachers can retain that experience, even when using AI. If they help students learn how to use the new tool effectively — much as they now use spellcheck or Grammarly — students will understand that ChatGPT is “more or less a giant autocomplete machine, as opposed to a place that has facts,” she said.

    “If we think that clarifying your own thinking is something worth doing, then we need to teach writing,” Levine said. “In other words, writing is a way of learning. It’s not just a way of showing your learning.”

    This story about AI writing was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Javeria Salman

    Source link

  • OPINION: We need targeted funding for racial equity in our public schools. California may have some lessons for all of us

    OPINION: We need targeted funding for racial equity in our public schools. California may have some lessons for all of us

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans recently returned to one of their favorite targets for spending cuts: the country’s most vulnerable youth and the schools that serve them. Their plan would represent a major setback to efforts to achieve racial equity in our nation’s public schools.

    During the latest battle over preventing a government shutdown, Republicans called for cutting Title 1 education grants earmarked for low-income students by 80 percent, which would mean a loss of nearly $15 billion in funding for schools with sizeable populations of these students, disproportionately affecting schools that serve more children of color.

    We already see this racial logic playing out in the efforts of red states to use school funding as a political football. In Tennessee, the house speaker and lieutenant governor have teamed up to explore rejecting federal education funds altogether. They hope to shirk federal oversight on matters related to inequality, including civil rights protections based on race.

    Given the patterns in funding schemes across the country, it is clear that we need to set aside targeted school funding on both the state and local levels with the express purpose of remedying injustices inflicted upon particular groups of students.

    Yet the reality is that government funding decisions about education have long been a way to install and preserve racial inequality in our society. And since these inequalities have origins in funding malpractice, to remedy them, the government must use targeted funding for racial equity going forward.

    Related: ‘Kids who have less, need more’: The fight over school funding

    School funding stems from three major sources: federal, state and local. Looking at average breakdowns from recent data, we see that U.S. schools receive about 47 percent of their funds from their state government, 45 percent from local and 8 percent from federal.

    This means that states and districts can counteract any proposed federal cuts with concerted efforts to reinvest in vulnerable youth. But even states with Democratic leadership have struggled to do so.

    For example, in Pennsylvania, where I call home, the state’s funding scheme has been found unconstitutional for providing inadequate and unequal funding. Recent investigations have revealed how damaging the effects of this system have been on districts where a majority of students are students of color; one study, from the advocacy group The Education Trust, found that “districts with the most students of color on average receive substantially less (16 percent) state and local revenue than districts with the fewest students of color, equating to approximately $13.5 million for a 5,000-student district.”

    Related: OPINION: Pennsylvania’s school funding is a case study in the future of inequality

    The state of California, and its largest city, Los Angeles, however, have initiated thoughtful and large-scale efforts to right the wrongs of governments past. California’s funding formula and Los Angeles’ program to holistically support Black students are both concrete efforts to tinker with school funding to move towardequity, rather than away from it. In a nutshell, these programs exemplify meaningful, targeted investments in marginalized populations and represent a significant course reversal from much of United States history.

    Though these two programs in California have flaws, which I detail below, there are real lessons that leaders across the country can glean from them in order to make real, lasting change in their own locales.

    I spent the previous five years in California training teachers and studying school improvement. This year, we are arriving at the 10th anniversary of the state’s Local Control Funding Formula, which changed how schools were funded and allows for greater flexibility in how local education agencies meet the needs of three targeted student populations: low-income, foster youth and English learners.

    These programs exemplify meaningful, targeted investments in marginalized populations and represent a significant course reversal from much of United States history.

    Results so far include a demonstrable gain in test scores for these “high-need” students, including a 13 percentage point increase in the number of students meeting or exceeding standards on state tests in districts where 95 percent of students are high-need.

    These numbers could have been even higher, however, had there been greater compliance at the district level. The same report noted that roughly 60 percent of districts reported spending “less money on high-need students than they were allocated for these students. Nearly 20 percent spent about half or less.”

    Further, advocates argue that California’s funding formula does not do enough to target the needs of Black students in the state, who continue to face an accumulation of disadvantages both in and out of school. This was one impetus for even more targeted funding in California’s largest district: Los Angeles Unified.

    In February 2021, Los Angeles approved a reform initiative known as the Black Student Achievement Plan. This plan set out to address rampant racial disparities in the district, pulling together $36.5 million in funds from the school police department budget and the district’s general fund.

    The money went toward many important endeavors, including reforms of school discipline and curriculums and hiring support staff such as counselors, school climate coaches and nurses.

    Additional resources were provided according to need, with schools serving the highest number of Black students also receiving psychiatric social workers, attendance counselors and funding for restorative justice programs.

    Early data found some notable gains, including increases in graduation rates, completion of courses required for admission to California State universities, enrollment in Advanced Placement courses and attendance. These successes, while modest, provide evidence that targeted funding for Black students can improve how schools serve them.

    But the problems with LA’s program are also instructive. An April report found that, similar to the deployment of the state funding formula, nearly 40 percent of the allocated funds were not used after the first year of the program, while the rollout and follow-through varied greatly across school campuses.

    Those findings were later corroborated by an ongoing evaluation study, which noted that several LA schools dealt with unfilled positions related to the Black Student Achievement Plan while others tended to overwhelm program staff with responsibilities beyond their job descriptions.

    These struggles show how, to fulfill their promise, programs like California’s targeted funding formula and Los Angeles’ plan for Black students must: (1) hire appropriate numbers of staff with clear job responsibilities, (2) communicate actively with communities about the purpose of the funds, (3) check-in regularly with schools to keep track of the funds they have left to spend and (4) consistently support the educators making use of the funds.

    While there will certainly be differences in state policies, school district size and budgets, more states and districts should heed the lessons, both good and bad, from California.

    Given how much pressure we collectively put on schools to improve society, setting aside specific funds for programs to support the most systematically disadvantaged students constitutes an educational imperative. These important California models can pave a path forward with more explicit commitments to racial justice.

     Julio Ángel Alicea is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Camden. A former public school teacher, his research interests include race, urban education and organizational change.

    This story about equitable school funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Julio Ángel Alicea

    Source link

  • OPINION: Here’s why a costly college education should not be the only path to career success – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Here’s why a costly college education should not be the only path to career success – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    More than 40 million Americans — roughly one out of every seven adults — have earned college credit but have no degree to show for their time and money.

    Florida native Alix Petkov is one of them. He enrolled in college right after high school with the idea of becoming a psychiatrist. Unaware that this career choice required medical school — and unable to afford college, much less a graduate education — Petkov changed majors twice and found himself making only halting progress toward a bachelor’s degree.

    An on-campus job in information technology rekindled his interest in computers, but the gig paid just $10 per hour, and his computer science classes covered the same things he had already picked up at work.

    So Petkov quit college roughly 30 credits short of a degree, with $16,000 in student loans and a credit card balance of $4,000 from paying living expenses.

    He burnished his tech portfolio with freelance computer work, applied for IT jobs, worked in restaurants and stewed over his frustrating experience, later saying that “College only destroyed me.”

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Like millions of other learners, Petkov was forced into an outdated and bureaucratic model of higher education that’s not designed for how people navigate learning and work today.

    Far too many learners are pausing their education long before they earn a credential because they run out of money, time or patience. Or they wind up in a program that lacks the support and structure to meet their individualized needs and goals.

    Related: The college degree gap between Black and white Americans was always bad. It’s getting worse

    Learners need better access to lower-cost, shorter-term programs that help them achieve their career goals.

    Federal and state governments and postsecondary institutions can and should adopt policies and practices that will help students build career pathways and make alternatives to a college degree more accessible, affordable and practical.

    To achieve this, federal and state policymakers must ease some of the guardrails meant to protect learners from making “bad” decisions — after all, some of these guardrails have stifled postsecondary innovation and limited competition between college and noncollege options, ultimately restricting learners’ choices. Students must also receive better information about college and noncollege pathways and outcomes both before they begin a program and while they are enrolled.

    College isn’t always the best option for every learner.

    Petkov said he received little — and often incorrect — information in high school and college about higher education and potential alternatives. No one advised him, for example, that he could save thousands of dollars by completing university-required general education classes at a local community college.

    Looking back, Petkov admits he would have pursued a different path altogether if he had a better up-front understanding of the costs and courses required to complete a degree.

    His story, which he shared with me this summer over a video call after I requested an introduction, illustrates why students need more transparent financial counseling and more options for using financial aid beyond the limited college options currently afforded by student aid programs.

    Giving high school students information about program costs and financial aid well before they apply to college will aid their decision-making. Students should be able to use Pell Grants for noncollege alternative programs that have proven track records of moving students into jobs that pay family-sustaining wages.

    Petkov said it didn’t become apparent until later that his financial aid and campus job wouldn’t cover all of his college expenses. Because he was awarded Pell Grants, he borrowed less than other students.

    But Pell Grants can be used in just one setting: college. Had Petkov been allowed to use the federal subsidy to pursue a college alternative — like an accelerated tech or healthcare upskilling program from a noncollege provider — he would have done that instead.

    Related: OPINION: Often overlooked vocational-tech schools provide great solutions to student debt, labor shortages

    Because of time and expense, college isn’t always the best option for every learner. Mounting evidence on program-level outcomes shows that far too many of the options that the government deems “safe” simply because they are accredited have failed learners and left them no better off than if they had not pursued college at all.

    Petkov didn’t find his true path until more than a year after he quit college. While searching online for IT jobs, he stumbled on information about Merit America, a nonprofit offering low-cost programs that prepare people for tech careers. (Merit America is a grantee of the Charles Koch Foundation, part of the Stand Together philanthropic community, where the author is a senior fellow.)

    Merit America built on Petkov’s existing IT knowledge to give him new tech skills that allowed him to push past self-doubt and launch a successful career. After completing the program, Petkov landed a tech coordinator’s job at a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., that started him at $45,000 — more than twice what he was making in food service.

    Two jobs later, he’s currently the IT director of an executive coaching firm and makes a little more than $100,000 per year. A University of Virginia analysis shows that Merit America completers see an average annual wage increase of $24,000 three or more months after finishing the program.

    Merit America is among the growing number of providers preparing students for placement into high-demand tech and healthcare careers. Yet students from low-income backgrounds who rely on financial aid and loans often get little guidance about such college alternatives and may instead be advised to pursue a college degree.

    It’s time to open more doors to short-term, noncollege options, so that students like Petkov can access more personalized options to help them thrive.

    Steven Taylor is a senior fellow on postsecondary education at Stand Together Trust. He leads the postsecondary education and workforce policy portfolio and partnership strategy.

    This story about debt but no degree was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Taylor

    Source link