Archive

Archive for November, 2014

Personalized INSTRUCTION vs. Personalized LEARNING

November 26, 2014 Comments off

A post from Diane Ravitch yesterday provided a link to a report by UCLA professor Noel Enyedy titled “Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction For Computer Mediated Instruction”.

At the outset of the report, Enyedy offers his definition for Personalized Instruction and differentiates it from Personalized Learning:

It is critical to note that “Personalized Instruction” is not the same as “personalized learning,” even though promoters and vendors of technological systems often use the terms interchangeably. Personalized instruction focuses on tailoring the pace, order, location, and content of a lesson uniquely for each student—as when a software program introduces a quiz at some point during instruction and then, based on the student’s score, either presents the student with new material or with a review of material not yet mastered. It is a rebranding of the idea of individualized instruction first promoted in the 1970s, before the widespread availability of personal computers.

Personalized learning, on the other hand, places the emphasis on the process of learning as opposed to attending exclusively to the delivery of content. Personalized learning refers to the ways teachers or learning environments can vary the resources, activities, and teaching techniques to effectively engage as many students as possible—as when, for example, students with a stronger intuitive understanding of the topic are assigned to small groups and given a challenging task to independently extend their understanding while the teacher concurrently works directly with a small group of students who have less prior knowledge of the topic. This interpretation of “personal” does not imply that each student receives a unique educational experience, but instead that students are provided with multiple entry points and multiple trajectories through a lesson.

Enyedy, after emphasizing that the scope of this study is limited to personalized instruction, does an admirable job of outlining the rationale for expanding the use of technology supported “Personalized Instruction”. He describes and analyzes the shortcomings of the factory school model, noting its inability to provide students with the “critical thinking and independent agency” needed to function in a democracy.

In his description of on-line and blended personalized instruction, Enydey identifies one major problem with its implementation to date: inequity.

Research has found that schools in less affluent areas are more likely to use the technology for remedial instruction and for drill and practice, whereas affluent schools are more likely to use technology in ways that advance problem solving and conceptual understanding. These choices, often left up to individual teachers, have serious implications for equity within the classroom and across schools and districts.

Enydey then attempted to perform a meta-analysis of personalized instruction models, an analysis that he acknowledged was limited because there were not a sufficient number of K-12 systems in place. This meant the lion’s share of the studies he analyzed were at the college level where student agency was arguably higher. But the meta-analysis also incorporated one other flaw, which this paragraph flags:

The study examined the standardized test scores for the same three blended learning schools compared with three other schools in the district to see if the gap between high and low achievers was closed by using blended instruction for one year. The study showed that neither blended learning nor face-to-face instruction in this district was particularly successful at improving the performance of lower achieving students. The gap closed 3% in the blended learning schools compared with the 2% improvement in the comparison schools that used conventional teaching methods.

The flaw is that Enydey, like most policy makers, cannot shake the age-based grade-level paradigm that is the basis of the factory school! If we are to abandon the factory model, we have to also abandon the notion that time is constant and learning is variable…. and therefore abandon the use of our current standardized tests to measure “student learning”. That is, we should not measure how much a student has learned in one year, but devise a means of measuring the extent to which a student is making progress in learning-how-to-learn. To date, we have no means of measuring that and so we continue to measure what it EASY to measure instead of what is IMPORTANT to measure, relying on a factory metric instead of a more holistic metric.

Another flaw in the study is the failure to acknowledge and advocate for more access to technology in schools and, more importantly, in the homes of students nd teachers. This paragraph touches on that topic:

In one RAND study,40 based on the actual expenditures of schools that transitioned to an Intelligent Tutoring System for Algebra 1, the cost increased an average of $120 per student for the one course. This increase was reduced to $70 per student per class in schools with a good existing technological infrastructure. However, as many as half the schools in implementation studies undertaken by SRI Education41 and RAND42 were found to need a substantial investment in their technological infrastructure before they could take advantage of Personalized Instruction.

Presiden Obama’s support for a new surtax on phone services to raise $3 billion for schools is a step in the right direction if we ever hope to address the inequities among schools… but in order to provide each and every student with the same opportunities to learn, as emphasized repeatedly in this blog, we need to provide each and every student and teacher with high speed internet at their doorsteps. Until every child can access the power of the internet in their home and every teacher can access the comprehensive data packages outside of school we will be stuck with the models for teaching and learning we have today.

Enydey does note near the end of his paper that the current models in place: on-line instruction and personalized instruction, may be replaced with something different in the future:

The type of computer technology that many believe will lead to transformational change will be technologies built around the process of learning and that attempt to enhance human-to-human interaction, not supplant it: technologies that spark conversations and inquiry; technologies that support these conversations with tools for visualization, simulation, analysis and communication; technologies that allow the students to create physical or computational objects; and technologies that allow students to share their ideas and solutions with their peers and larger social networks for feedback and refinement. There are many promising new models for how computers should be used to support learning.

These promising new models are predicated on two major changes: one a change of thinking on our part and the other an investment in technology. We need to change our thinking by abandoning the factory school model, which will lead to the abandonment of age-based student cohorts and the abandonment of standardized tests as the measure of “learning”. And, we need to make a he investment in our nation’s technology infrastructure by ensuring that each school and home has the means of providing personalized instruction AND learning to students.

22-Year-Old Leader Resigns Charter Post in New York

November 26, 2014 Comments off

Professor Harold Hill from the Music Man could get a charter in NYS… and probably OH, MI, IN, TN, TX, NC, FL and an increasing number of states. I am certain that each of these states bends over backwards to vet teachers: they all likely require fingerprinting, certification, and screening…. but charters? Those kinds of pesky regulations stifle creativity and disruption.

Diane Ravitch's blog

Ted Morris, Jr., resigned his post as leader of the newly authorized charter school called “Greater Works Charter School,” after numerous revelations about discrepancies in his resume. The charter board still plans to open the school in September 2015.

Peter Greene reviews the accumulation of new details about the young man, age 22, who was granted a charter by the New York State Board of Regents and has a question: If he and other bloggers and one reporter were able to determine in only 24 hours of Internet searching that this young man did not graduate from the Rochester high school that he claimed on his resume, that it was uncertain whether he had earned a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree or a doctorate, why didn’t the New York State Board of Regents know these things before handing out a charter to someone who had never taught or run…

View original post 683 more words

Categories: Uncategorized

The AP Paradox

November 25, 2014 Comments off

Jessica Lahey’s recent NYTimes article, “To AP or Not to AP, That is the Question” did a good job of outlining the dimensions of what I call the AP Paradox. For some students and teachers in some districts, teaching to the AP test is a constraint. In other districts where students are not typically college bound and funds are tight, introducing AP courses that enable a student to earn college credits is an incentive.

Having led districts that serve predominantly affluent and well educated parents and less affluent districts that had relatively few college graduates among the parent population, I have lived through both sides of the argument involving AP testing and ended up with the belief that the value of AP is situational.

In the two affluent districts I led, the reputation of their high schools was well established in college admissions offices and most of the students were applying to competitive colleges who generally do not award academic credit for AP classes. Moreover, in those districts the talent level for teachers was high because the upperclassmen required content that was typically college level. Many of these teachers believed that teaching-to-the-AP-test limited their flexibility and academic freedom and argued, as Lahey noted in her article, that students were free to take AP Tests even if they did not take an “AP Course”. In these districts I fully and whole heartedly supported the teachers’ argument even though some in the community expressed concerns about the loss of status because we didn’t offer explicit AP courses.

In the one largely blue collar district I led the AP “credential” was helpful for students. It helped those aspiring to competitive colleges because it provided a standard that admissions officers in those colleges could use to rate applicants even if they never heard of the high school. It helped first generation college students applying to community colleges or State colleges because it gave them an opportunity to earn college credits as an undergraduate. The AP credential was also helpful in our efforts to expand our programs at the high school level because voters understood that by offering AP Courses we were demonstrating a commitment to academic rigor and helping students prepare for college and the careers that required college degrees. In this district I wholeheartedly supported the Principals, central office staff, and Board in advocating for the introduction and subsequent expansion of AP courses.

And therein lies the AP Paradox. I personally believe that criterion referenced tests are superior to standardized achievement tests, which leads me to fully support the opportunity for students to take the AP tests. Yet I also believe that Boards and administrators should honor the professionalism of teachers; and because some districts (and ETS) believe that AP Tests should be linked to AP Courses and those AP Courses have prescribed curricula the teachers’ flexibility and freedom is diminished. Moreover, the notion that passing one standardized test administered in one sitting can replace a college course is unsettling. Criterion referenced tests can measure accumulation of knowledge but some form of observation or skill measurement is also required to provide assurance that a student has mastered the concepts included in a college course.

To AP or Not to AP? Here’s Lahey’s concluding paragraph, which takes the question out of the school or district level to the personal level… which in the end is where it belongs:

A.P. courses are, for the most part, rigorous, challenging and demanding, and can be a real boon to students motivated by intellectual curiosity and a love of learning. For students looking to please their parents or for those in pursuit of transcript padding and other false academic idols, A.P. courses can be an unpleasant and unhealthy slog. Therefore, in deciding whether or not an A.P. class is “worth it,” students and parents must figure their own motivations and values into the equation.