Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth Berkhouse
  • Home
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • The Seven Minute Scientist
  • About Me
  • Biology With Technology
  • Free Biology Resources for High School Teachers
  • Technology Tools for Graduate Students
  • Amy on The Web
  • Getting Organized as a Grad Student
  • Nerdy Inspiration
  • Blog
  • Five Ways to Get a Busy Professor to Answer Your Emails, That Don't Involve a Bribe
  • 3 Ways to Get or Give a Great Letter of Recommendation
  • The 13 Things That Motivated Me to Get A PhD

Common Core - Fight Against It, or Overcome It?

11/28/2014

0 Comments

 
“When you challenge other people's ideas of who or how you should be, they may try to diminish and disgrace you. It can happen in small ways in hidden places, or in big ways on a world stage. You can spend a lifetime resenting the tests, angry about the slights and the injustices. Or, you can rise above it.”

Carly Fiorina

Every teacher has probably said, at least once in their career, “If you spent as much time studying for your test, as you spent trying to cheat on this test, you’d have gotten an A.” Unfortunately, many teachers now spend copious amounts of time complaining about Common Core and standardized testing. I have seen enormous amounts of time devoted to bashing the CC, bashing the department of education, bashing testing, and bashing reform. Instead of teachers putting all their energy into improving their lessons, some are putting all their energy into the negativity around the Common Core.


In this article, We Need to Do More than Talk about the Goddamn Test, by Jim Horn, he says:
Since 2002, standardized tests have been used to label, demonize teachers, sort and culturally-sterilize students, and shut down schools to benefit the education technology complex and the low-life losers of the charter industry.


By the way, where the hell are the hackers when we need them provide copies of the tests that Pearson and Cuomo keep secret?  Where is Anonymous and their commitment to fairness and democracy??

Obviously, Jim is frustrated with testing. I can completely understand why he thinks the ways he does. I happen to view the Common Core and standardized testing another way. I think the Common Core standards and standardized testing give teachers a clear curriculum path, prioritize disciplinary knowledge instead of “play time” in the classroom, and are giving us valuable data about what works, and what doesn't work in education. Charter schools are giving families choices about which schools they feel are right for their children.


In The New York Times piece that Jim refers to, “We Need to Talk About the Test,” by Elizabeth Phillips, she voices similar frustration. She puts forth a real concern about standardized testing:
I’D like to tell you what was wrong with the tests my students took last week, but I can’t. Pearson’s $32 million contract with New York State to design the exams prohibits the state from making the tests public and imposes a gag order on educators who administer them. So teachers watched hundreds of thousands of children in grades 3 to 8 sit for between 70 and 180 minutes per day for three days taking a state English Language Arts exam that does a poor job of testing reading comprehension, and yet we’re not allowed to point out what the problems were.
What do standardized tests really mean? What is their purpose? Why are they necessary? Every educator has witnessed the decline in the rigor of education over the last 30 years. Do you remember a point in your own education where you stayed up all night studying for a test, creating flashcards, making notes, reading the textbook, and collaborating with peers in cram sessions? Do you think students do these same things today? Are they even willing?  The only hints our teachers used to give us were "Read the chapter." I remember once sitting down to read a whole chapter of my Intro to Biology textbook that weighed 15 pounds. I highlighted, I took notes from it, I did the questions at the end of the chapter. I went to the library. Now, students want a video summary of the chapter, so that they don't have to read.


Where are the places that our students live, that allow them the time to focus on studying? In stable households, where a child can devote time and energy to studying. These are generally middle or upper-class households. I was successful in high school and college because I had two working parents who could provide a stable house, a car, utilities, a desk to study at, and the materials I needed. I wasn’t hungry or malnourished, as are many children living in poverty. I wasn’t distracted by siblings screaming and fighting in the background, by a child of my own, or by parents who were in desperate need of money, or they’d lose the family home. Both of my parents were college-educated, and could help me with my homework, and suggest ways to study. Many students these days are not as lucky as I was, but should we not even TRY to educate them in a rigorous fashion? Many teachers have to deal with IEPs, home life problems, gang problems, poverty problems - they feel like they have to prioritize keeping their students alive, and not teaching. And that makes me sad.


As it became required that every student be given a chance at a high school education, some teachers may have become more lax so that students "like them." "Popular teacher, and "hard teacher" aren't words students often mutter together. Many teachers teach things that their students enjoyed, instead of covering the entire curriculum. They began offering study sheets, which helped the students get better scores on their teacher-generated tests. The teacher-generated tests showed no consistency between teachers in the same schools, in the district, or in the state. You knew which teachers had easier tests or were more fun, and you clamored to get that teacher. Teachers found they enjoyed teaching so much more when they didn’t have students complaining about how hard their tests were, so they might have told students what exactly was going to be on the test, allowed an open book test, or even allowed students to take group tests. Is a "good teacher" the one parents and students like, or the one who completely teaches the discipline? I'd like to argue that teachers should be both. Both rigorous, and kind. Both thorough, and thoughtful. Both challenging, and fair. I believe all teachers can meet the objectives of Common Core, while keeping their creative flair.


Teachers, like Jim, who was first mentioned, wish they had a cheat sheet for the test. But in essence, they do. They have the standards. What is going to be on the test is thoroughly outlined. Teachers are free to teach their discipline to the best of their abilities, with their own creative flair, as long as they meet or exceed the bare minimum that Common Core requires. The reason Common Core emerged was because there was no consistency in education across America. Good teachers were frustrated with their students, and began dumbing-down the curriculum. Good students were frustrated by their home lives, peer interactions, and hormones, and put less and less energy into their studies.


Standardized testing points out the gaps in educational quality. Just as a doctor does a blood panel during your yearly physical, and then knows where your levels are at, standardized tests tell us what level our students are at, compared to other students across the country. As Elizabeth points out, “yet we’re not allowed to point out what the problems were,” teachers KNOW where the problems are. We know that students come to our classes unprepared from previous grade levels. We know students transfer from other districts, where they received inadequate teaching. We know students are passed on to the next grade, “because they are sweet,” and not because they are smart. Social promotions are part of the problem - letting a child pass on to the next grade level, even if they didn’t master the concepts, because it seems cruel to hold them back.


I would like to challenge every teacher - Instead of spending your precious teacher-energy complaining about the tests, every teacher in every school should vow to spend all their energy helping these kids pass (as many already do). They should research each lesson in their lesson plan and make it better, by identifying the standard it is meant to teach, and increasing the rigor of their lessons (Make one of your lessons better TODAY. Then, make one better tomorrow. Then one the next day…). They can spend their time helping the entire class, instead of leaving the class sitting and waiting, while the teacher attends to one problem student. Teachers can flip their class, so students can watch lectures at home, and teachers help the students through activities or projects during school. And, teachers can turn to experts to help them make more valuable lessons, deal with students in a way that encourages growth and success, and improve themselves as teachers by reading sites such as edutopia and The Teaching Channel.


I witness so much energy wasted, complaining about the tests. I observe teachers getting burnt out. I feel these students being anxious and frustrated. I see parents angry at the schools. And I see a way to fix this. I worked with The UT Austin. Charles A Dana Center “Professional Teaching Model (PTM).” The premise of the PTM is that teachers collaborate to look at what children should have learned in the previous grade, coming into their class. They identify what the children should learn in this grade. And finally, they assess what children will be learning the next year. Here is a worksheet, that shows how this works. This is an amazing model, because it utilizes teachers as the professionals that they are. It fosters collaboration, and constant improvement. And it accomplishes what we all want - more student success.



If every teacher in every school improved one of their lessons every six weeks, instead of hating the standards, can you imagine the leaps and bounds education would take forward? 
0 Comments

Using Big Data and Social Media to Predict Student Success

10/15/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture
The basic premise of this TED talk was that scientists can look at the data from Facebook about what you “like,” and then make predictions about you. In the case Golbeck presents, many smart people have “liked” curly fries from Arby’s. (I also happen to love them!) So, which came first? Do more smart people like curly fries? Or did one smart person, who hangs out on Facebook with people who also happen to be smart, like those curly fries, and then their smart friends saw their like, and liked also?
Jennifer Golbeck: The curly fry conundrum: Why social media “likes” say more than you might think


Do you like curly fries? Have you Liked them on Facebook? Watch this talk to find out the surprising things Facebook (and others) can guess about you from your random Likes and Shares. Computer scientist Jennifer Golbeck explains how this came about, how some applications of the technology are not so cute — and why she thinks we should return the control of information to its rightful owners.

I began thinking about big data, and predicting student success. It’s not just “evil corporations” who would have access to our data. What about the universities, or the government? The movie, Minority Report, was grounded on the premise of the government being able to arrest murderers, before they committed the crimes.


Let’s say a college, who has its students go “like” their Facebook page, could do a data analysis of all the students on it’s Facebook site. That school could then categorize their students into those who complete their degrees, and those students who fail out or quit. Maybe there is a certain pattern that successful students take, and a certain like pattern that unsuccessful students demonstrate. What if liking Starbucks was an indicator of student success (drink more coffee, study longer) and liking the local bar (take out stress, let’s go drink!) was an indicator of student failure?


It’s often been said that the SATs, the ACTs, or GPA do not adequately predict who is going to be successful in college. What if social media data patterns DO tell us who is successful or not?


To take it a step further, what if schools made it so part of your college application package was to HAVE TO like the college page? Then, the school could collect data about you… What if the school sees a pattern in your Facebook likes that is that of an unsuccessful student, and then never lets you in? What if you didn’t know your data was being used in that way? What if the data shows that minorities have patterns of unsuccessful behavior? Could social media data discrimination be the next big outrage?


Or, what if this data was put towards helping students already enrolled? If the college sees a students starting a pattern on Facebook that shows distress - end of the semester complaining, substance abuse, withdrawing from friends - what if the school then stepped in to intervene? Just like in 1997, when I was in undergrad, the Resident Assistants would report you to the student life department if they thought you showed patterns of failure (sleeping late, missing classes, drinking, filthy room, not showering), what if Facebook is now used to look for patterns?


The data is there. Big Brother is here. My question is, should we not let scientists analyze our data? I might be HAPPY if Facebook reported to the college that I was showing a pattern of failure I didn’t recognize myself, and then got me help. I might not be happy, however, if my Facebook showed a pattern of failure, and the school kicked me out, because I was no longer worth “the investment.”


What if my employer could analyze me to see if I was worth hiring? (WHOOPS! They are already watching you at work)


What if doctors could predict which patients would comply with their directives? (WHOOPS! Neuroscientists already can)


What if Target could predict I was pregnant, and then send me coupons? (WHOOPS! Target already figured out a teen was pregnant, before she told her dad)


Here are the top ten movies that predicted the future, before it actually happened.


Chilling, thought-provoking, and raises more questions than it answers. What if I applied to a college, and they told me, “We analyzed your social media patterns, and those patterns show you only have a 23% likelihood of achieving your degree. Therefore, you don’t get in.” What if I could be in that 23% who DID succeed? Shouldn’t I be allowed to try? Or does the college know IN FACT that I CAN’T be successful, and won’t let me waste my money? Or does the school let me in, and THEN use my data to shape me, mold me, personalize my education to MAKE ME a success? Who gets to decide - me, Facebook, or the university?



2 Comments

Is the Path Out of Poverty the Path Right Back Into Poverty? Is Pushing For "Diversity in STEM Education" a Bad Idea?

4/4/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
STEM education is in the news, and is often touted as the best college career path ANY student can take. STEM is also criticized for not having enough minority student interest. Historically, STEM is very white, and very Asian. Pushing low-income, first-generation minorities into STEM fields may not be the “great idea” that it appears to be, from the outside. The headline on The Inside Higher Education blog reads:

New Push to Boost Numbers of Minority STEM Ph.D.s

California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of California campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles jointly announced a new effort Thursday to increase the number of minority Ph.D.s in science, mathematics and technology fields. The four universities will create "a unique, cross-institutional community of underrepresented minority Ph.D. students, postdoctoral scholars and faculty members in the targeted fields; developing faculty training to better recognize and help these students thrive and advance; and conducting research that includes annual surveys of Ph.D. students about what factors impact their attitudes, experiences and preparation for the future," the announcement said.

On the surface, this seems like a noble goal. Get more minority students into STEM. Exciting! But, on the same website, is this headline about how blacks and Latinos are taking on more debt than their white counterparts:

Debt, Race and Ph.D.s

Colleges and universities -- not to mention many businesses -- have been pushing for gains in the numbers of black and Latino students who earn doctorates, especially in STEM or social science fields.

A new study may point to one hindrance in making progress toward this goal. Black and Latino graduate students are more likely to borrow and more likely to borrow larger sums to earn a Ph.D. than are white or Asian graduate students. The figures are particularly striking for African Americans and for STEM fields.


And in light of the reoccurring theme on The Chronicle of Higher Education, Insider Higher Ed, The Huffington Post, and countless other websites, it is becoming almost impossible to find a tenure-track, high paying job. One article talks about rejection, frustration, giving up searching, and living in despair. Here, a report from Congress about adjuncts, and the lower compensation and unpredictable schedules they face:

The median respondent salary was $22,041, below the federal poverty line for a family of four ($23,550), although the typical course load was difficult to ascertain from the online forum (with adjuncts reporting as many as 10 courses per semester). Some 89 percent of respondents teach at two or more institutions, and most can’t depend on assignments from semester to semester. Many also said they relied on help from family members and government assistance to survive, despite having advanced degrees. More than 50 percent of respondents had Ph.D.s and 30 percent held master’s degrees.

Respondents also reported low prospects for advancement to tenure-line or full-time jobs, and 89 percent said they received no professional support for teaching or research from their institutions. The average length of time respondents said they’d worked as an adjunct was 10 years. The median length of time was four years.


“Growing up in a poor neighborhood … I believed earning several college degrees would be my path out of poverty, but that is no longer the case,” one adjunct said.


So, is the path out of poverty a path right back into poverty? The likelihood of achieving the tenure-track dream is so small and wrought with emotional turmoil and anxiety, is it worth it to push minority students down this path? They may end up in a worse place – saddled with student loan debt, stuck in an adjuncting position that pays below the poverty level, and without the necessary skills to advance in a non-academic position – than they were before they began “pursuing their dreams.” Is higher education the path out of poverty, or the dream-crusher that mounts added liabilities and wastes precious time? How do you know when higher education is the problem, or the solution?

1 Comment
    Picture
    Dr. Amy B. Hollingsworth

    Author

    Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth has worked in education for over 20 years. Most recently, she was a Learning Coach at the NIHF STEM School in Akron. She served as the Executive Director of Massillon Digital Academy. She was the District Technology Specialist at Massillon. She also was the Natural Science Biology Lab Coordinator at The University of Akron. She specializes in Biology Curriculum and Instruction, STEM education, and technology integration. She has written six lab manuals, and an interactive biology ebook. She has dedicated her life to teaching and learning, her children - Matthew, Lilly, and Joey, her husband Ryan, and her NewfiePoo Bailey.

    What's Amy Reading?

    • College Insurrection
    • The Chronicle of Higher Education
    • Digital Learning in Higher Ed
    • HuffPo College
    • Girls in STEM
    • The Simple Dollar
    • Tim Ferriss
    • Edudemic
    • Mashable
    • Inside Higher Ed
    • Gawker
    • io9

    Archives

    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Academia
    Adjuncting
    Adjuncts
    AIDS
    Animal Research
    Animal Testing
    Being In Pain
    Best Ideas
    Big Data
    Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation
    Bill Gates
    Biology
    Blogging
    Brainstorming
    Budgets
    Bullying
    Career Paths
    Challenges
    Charter Schools
    Choices
    Civilization
    College Ready
    Common Core
    Community Colleges
    Creation
    Creativity
    Critics
    Cruelty
    Culture
    Debt
    Degrees
    Democracy
    Discipline
    Discrimination
    Diversity
    Dream Big
    Easy Courses
    Ed Tech
    Education
    Engaged
    Engineering
    Evaluation
    Evolution
    Experiments
    Facebook
    Facebook Memes
    Faculty
    Failure
    Finance
    First Generation
    Flexibility
    Flipping Classes
    Fluff Majors
    For-profit Institutions
    Free Apps
    Gender
    Global Education
    Goals
    Good Habits
    Google Docs
    Google Scholar
    Government
    Grad School
    Guppy
    Hard Courses
    Higher Ed
    Humble
    Inequality
    Inside Higher Education
    Inspiration
    Low Income
    Majors
    Minorities
    Money
    Motivation
    My Faith
    Natural Sciences
    NCLB
    Negative Talk
    Pedagogy
    PhDs
    Politics
    Positive Attitudes
    Poverty
    Professional Development
    Professionals
    Professional Teaching Model
    Psychology
    Q Methodology
    Racism
    Religion
    Rigor
    Rules
    Science
    Scientists
    Social Media
    Social Sciences
    Society
    STEM
    Strength
    Stress
    Students
    Student Success
    Success
    Support
    Syllabi
    Teaching
    Technology
    TED Talks
    Tenure-Track
    Test Bashing
    Testing
    The Game
    The Humanities
    Time Management
    Universities
    U Of Akron
    Vaccines
    Value
    Videos
    Vocational Classes
    Web 2.0
    What Is Education Worth?
    Women
    Writing
    Youtube

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.