Month: May 2020

Mastery – a personal history

Academics often change their interests as new issues their training is suited to address change. To some extent this is also true of me. However, I can also identify interests that have remained core to my thinking over what is now more than a 40 year career.

When I was in graduate school I read from two sources both published in 1968 that influenced my thinking to this day. These sources from Benjamin Bloom and Fred Keller focused on ways that education could address the needs of individual learners and these ideas for me will always be described as mastery learning. The core idea of mastery learning is 1) that individuals learn at different rates and 2) if these different rates are not taken into account learners will be less efficient in what they could accomplish or more dangerously will fail to accomplish. If allowed to accumulate the knowledge and skills that accumulate serve as the basis for increasing barriers to new learning . Focusing on those with greater learning struggles, over time, this means that learning capabilities begin to differ from others both in terms of requiring more time because of aptitude AND existing knowledge.

The solutions offered by Bloom and Keller were to individualize learning in an attempt to prevent what might be described as prerequisite knowledge deficits. As a graduate student some of my earliest publications (1978 and 1981) focused on research another graduate student and I conducted with a Professor teaching the introduction to biology course at Iowa State.

The core idea of mastery also influenced some of my research nearer to the end of my career. At this point, I was interested in study behavior and how technology supported study might offer feedback to learners to influence the extent of effort they must invest to achieve higher levels of performance. In some ways this research effort quantified the reality of the different amount of time required and demonstrated over and over that it was the more accomplished students who invested in the use of the tools designed to assist students struggling to succeed. A way to succeed is intended to increase motivation, but the reality of what it takes appears to swamp the incentive to use such systems. Perhaps, the university is far too late to begin emphasizing a focus on trading effort for achievement.

I part of the heavy emphasis I invested in the role of technology in education might be described as the opportunity technology seems to offer for individualization. My thinking on this potential was agin motivated by the work of one of the pioneers I credit for kindling my original interest. Bloom conceptualized what I think of as the 2-sigma challenge. He proposed that the upper limit for the potential of educational research was likely identified in the work of tutoring. Tutors working with individuals or very small groups offered a way to respond to individual needs and the advantage demonstrated in the degree to which tutoring augmented the achievement for group-based instruction. To me, well-designed technology supported tactics provided what might be described as a “poor man’s” approximation to tutors. I don’t see technology, at least in the near future, being the equivalent of a gifted and dedicated tutor, but I also don’t see how the finances of providing human tutors as practical. Teachers working with classes of 25+ in elementary and multiple sections of this number at higher levels certainly can’t provide this level of attention.

I am writing about mastery learning again because the idea has resurfaced in the present circumstances of mandatory technology-supported, distance education. Sal Kahn began describing mastery as a way of thinking about what he was trying to accomplish with the Kahn Academy. Another great adaptation I think offers this type of individualization would be Newsela. Reading the same content at different levels is a way to individualize skill levels of reading assuming that background knowledge relevant to the content is not an issue.

I offer details on mastery in other content I have generated. This writing/video includes specific references to key articles. The citations below are what I described related to early and late efforts on my part.

Historical reference:

Latta, R. M., Dolphin, W. D., & Grabe, M. (1978). Individual differences model applied to instruction and evaluation of large college classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(6), 960.

Grabe, Mark, and R. Michael Latta. (1981). “Cumulative achievement in a mastery instructional system: The impact of differences in resultant achievement motivation and persistence.” American Educational Research Journal, 18, 7-13.

Grabe, M. (1982). Effort strategies in a mastery instructional system: The quantification of effort and the impact of effort on achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(4), 327-333.

Grabe, M., & Flannery, K. (2010). A preliminary exploration of on-line study question performance and response certitude as predictors of future examination performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(4), 457-472.

Loading

Screen vs. Print

I am a very experienced screen reader. This has been the case for many years. Ironically, I am interested in the screen vs. print research and I have read much of this research. The screen vs. print issue seems to pop up frequently. [Example1, Example2]. I find my own reaction to be very different in several ways from the conclusions of this research. 

The literature, quickly summarized, finds an advantage for print reading over screen reading with a greater advantage for informational than narrative texts. I read nearly everything I read on a device. I strongly prefer to read on a device for informational text particularly when reading longer texts (books vs. journal articles). I understand the methodological danger in anecdotal research even when the case used as evidence is yourself so I have tried to think carefully about why I have come to ignore the research and stick with my preferences. 

Here are a couple of issues I use to bring some personal understanding to the difference between my perception of my own experience and what the literature seems to be suggesting. 

  • The research tends to focus on reading comprehension; read and then complete some measure of comprehension. Most of my reading I would describe as reading to write. I highlight and annotate heavily when I read. I find this far more practical to do on a device allowing me to search my annotations quickly and in some cases use the record of my highlights to provide a basis for creating an outline to be used in writing. The time I spend doing this kind of reading may influence my preferences. First, this type of reading is more interactive than the way one would read in preparation for a post reading assessment not allowing review. Perhaps the interactivity changes the nature of my reading in a way that avoids the skimming some see as the reaction of text on a screen. People read for different purposes (enjoyment, understanding). Reading to write as I define it seems similar to what I would describe as reading to study. I think if I were taking classes having the option of a print or digital textbook, I would prefer the digital version. The issue is not so much if I can remember something immediately or later. The issue is whether at a later time I can review effectively. 
  • I read a lot – probably averaging more than a couple of hours a day. I read many different types of material (books, journal articles, fiction, news) and I do nearly all of this reading on a screen. This has been the case for many years. I wonder about the impact of the amount of experience with online reading of long-form documents.
  • I like to change the size of fonts. I find the fonts in many print sources too small. I am older and I find it easier to read with speed with larger text. 

Loading

Ethics and failed understanding

When I was doing the research for my previous post and doing some searches on my own content I came across this site.

What this site provides is a way to download at no cost, our textbook. You can get it as a pdf, mobi file, and a couple of other options. Going through the letters of appreciation (not to me) and the notes about it being provided under a CC option (creative commons), I could not help but become a little frustrated and a bit angry.

This content was stolen. Our book is sold through Amazon for $9. We sold previous versions of this book through first Houghton-Mifflin and then Cengage for well over $100. We opted out of that arrangement which was quite lucrative because we were unable to convince Cengage to go to a $29 model consisting of a paper Primer and a free web site. Through an arrangement that returned our copyright, we moved our Primer to Amazon ($9) and offer our supplemental resources at no cost on our own server. If you are interested in the logic for our model, search this site for book (I will tag this post so you can read our explanation). In short, there are advantages to our model that include lower cost, less dated content, and greater flexibility in what instructors can assign. This was not a decision we made intending to make more income and without the promotion of a major publishing company we receive a fraction of the income generated by our original paper textbooks.

I find it hard to believe that college students cannot afford to purchase this textbook for $9. Whatever anyone thinks of the cost of textbooks and what complaints one might have about this industry, these issues do not apply to us. Because this is a textbook intended for practicing teachers involved in graduate education and preservice teachers, I find it disturbing that people in this line of work would be so unethical as to steal a $9 book.

Maybe I am being too hard on the students who did this, but I assume they know or don’t want to know. This is a current book and not a book developed through a source of external support to warrant the phony creative commons representation that someone other than me has claimed for this work.

OK – end of rant. Just be honest and respect the effort and skill required to generate the content you use.

P.S. – The day I wrote this post I also responded to the site using a form that was provided. I kind of knew that if the site wanted responses in this fashion instead of via email I was unlikely to receive a response. I have not and the pirated book is still available.

Loading

Search limitations

I have had this question about the power of search that I finally thought of a way to investigate. My question involves the power of search to locate content in sites that use a database backend. So, instead of independent web pages this would be systems that generate a web page on the fly by accessing a database to retrieve content as requested. Blogs work in this way. So do content management systems such as Concrete5.

I am guessing that the search spiders find the static front page of a blog or content management system, but would not necessarily trigger that source to pull up content from the database so that it could be indexed. My concern has been that resources I offer within a content management system are not going to be located when someone searches for something the stored content might address.

Here is how I tested my concern. I recently switched from content stored as individual web pages to the same content stored in Concrete5 (a content management service). I did this so I would not have to continue paying for Dreamweaver to add content to my existing site or to modify existing content. Blogs (e.g., this WordPress site) allow a user to save content as pages instead of posts. These pages can be linked and thus can provide the same functionality as a site constructed page by page using an authoring environment such as Dreamweaver. Blogs and content management systems now provide access to themes and other features that make content creation far easier than used to be the case. If your content is fairly standardized (most pages look the same) and require only the presentation of content (text, video, images), why invest in an approach that allows far more flexibility but at the cost of efficiency and funds? There may be an answer to my question – searchability.

Anyway, my server presently contains redundant versions of book resources one in the form of independent web pages and the other in a database enabled content management system. What I realized was that I could do was conduct a search on a paragraph from this content (both sources) and see what was returned. Google advanced search allows you to search for an exact phrase (see second image) which I copies from a page within the database-based system. The same paragraph appeared on the original page-based site created with Dreamweaver. Instructors may have used this same technique when concerned that students have copied content from the web to include as part of their own writing.

The results of the search confirmed my concern. The search located the page with the target paragraph, but not the same content from the active content management system.

I am now trying to figure out how to promote my content when it can no longer be located through search.

Loading

Online learning vs. remote instruction

The requirement to end the year teaching students at home left many administrators and educators struggling for answers. There was not much time to plan (perhaps what ended up being declared a week for Spring break) and many obstacles to overcome – homes without broadband access and young students (and parents) lacking skills with the delivery tools that were selected. Teachers might also have not spent much time with the tools they were expected to use or at least didn’t have the depth of experience necessary to troubleshoot the inevitable problems that arose.

Some districts simply gave up and called it good for the year. Parents complained of the additional demands they faced and the challenge of finding a way to supervise their children if they were able to work. Districts reported a high rate of no shows. Many were frustrated.

All of the issues aside, I hope educators and administrators have gained some insights as we may be facing the same situation in the Fall and not finding a way forward will not be an option.

As the year ends, I hope administrators query teachers and parents to find insights into what were productive tactics and that these positive experiences can be shared. I found this article from EdSurge that identified a source I had not considered. The article was titled How online learning research can improve remote instruction. My initial reaction was puzzlement as I missed the point. For some, teaching students at home is not novel. There are some students who learn at home online and some who work with students in this fashion. These students and educators have committed to this form of teaching/learning for a variety for reasons, but this commitment has resulted in tactics that work for such circumstances. Certainly, everyone involved has made a commitment to the approach and there are not issues of bandwidth, hardware, or experience involved. These are different issues. What might be helpful from what has been a niche approach at the K12 level are the experiences that been found useful.

Loading

Equity and technology use

The pandemic and related requirements that students learn from home have brought to my attention issues I thought we had moved past. My reference here is to data I have read locally (Minneapolis ara) about the numbers of students unable to participate in online efforts because of the lack of access. Schools had recognized this issue and made mobile hot spots available to families in need so students could meet homework assignments, but the more general expectations that are now in place revealed more need than schools could meet.

We have written a textbook since the middle 1990s and have included comments about equity. Looking at the history of our coverage, I can see a timeline of what we used as “marker variables”. In the early days, the marker was easily quantifiable and was reflected in the student to computer ratio. So, we would compare schools with a high proportion of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch with schools with few students needing this assistance. You would see values like 10:1 and 5:1. What would seem to happen was that the government would recognize such disparities and step in with subsidies such as the e-rate. The next marker was again quantitative and might be the proportion of school computers with Internet access. Soon, most schools were wired and we started to talk about issues such as 1:1 initiatives and more qualitative indicators such as the type of classroom tasks students participated in and the staff available to support educators.

The next disparity involved assumptions about whether homework could require Internet access and the proportion of families with high-speed access by income level or some other variable. I thought we had kind of moved beyond the quantitative differences to focus on the kinds of free-time home activities students focused on or the types of home devices (phone, tablet, computer) relative to equity variables.

My surprise was that the pandemic seemed to indicate I had to back up along my assumed timeline with families claiming that children could not connect to complete assignments. PEW provides some data relevant to this issue. A chart based on these data appears below and PEW also writes that 25% of children in homes with less than 30K in income do not have access to a computer.

Loading

Running LOGO in Python

Learning to code as a cross-grade level educational goal seems an educational trend. I attribute this to two factors: a) assumptions about the vocational potential of having coding skills and b) the promotion that coding experiences develop computational thinking which while somewhat ambiguous seems a form of higher-order thinking.

There are many strategies for how to go about learning coding and what type of coding is appropriate for students at different grade levels. We include a chapter on coding in our textbook and I have generated related resources available online. One of the interesting issues I think has received little attention is the transfer value of learning in what might be described as a coding language and environment designed to teach core coding concepts while reducing many of the demands of working in a traditional programming language to the development of proficiency in the traditional language. For example, many of the educational coding environments for younger learners use icons instead of text. 

When I began writing about coding in the early 1990s, I mostly focused on the logic and specifics of LOGO. This was a text-based language, but somewhat forgiving when it came to syntax. Such text-based approaches eventually gave way to icon-based systems assumed to allow a focus on coding concepts without the demands of exact syntax.

A grad student in one of my classes was interested in the Python programming language and found that Python could import a subset of commands for LOGO. She was working on tutorials to guide students in the use of this implementation of LOGO. I had loaded Python on my Mac, but had not really done much with the language. I kind of need a project to motivate my exploration. However, I was familiar with LOGO and this was enough to encourage my exploration. What follows is my description of what others might do to explore. I see some opportunity in the natural transition that might occur using a language within a language. 

Getting your system set up was my biggest obstacle. I will explain why as I continue. 

Get Python from a reliable source

Python will be saved as a folder in your applications list. Python is accessed from the Terminal. The easiest way to activate the Terminal and Python within the terminal is to use the IDLE app that appears in the Python folder [see image]. I just drag IDLE to the toolbar at the bottom of the screen for easy access. IDLE is an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) including a code editor and debugger. The code editor is the tool within which you write Python code.

It is easy to find tutorials for Python on the Internet. The tutorials are great as far as the coding itself was concerned and my background allowed me to make assumptions about how things are accomplished via code. My existing experience with coding in other languages made exploring a new situation fairly easy. Once you are used to defining variables, loops, conditionals, etc., the basics come easily. I have not moved past the basics. What I struggled with were some very basic things I needed to know for saving, loading, and running code. I had to look around for a while to get past writing and running code within the IDLE window. The key came from a YouTube video that allowed me to understand that you simply open a file from within the Terminal and enter your code in this blank file rather than enter code in the Terminal and then save your work as a file. This is evidently so obvious to those creating tutorials that they fail to mention the difference. If you create two files in the ways I have described and examine what is saved in both cases, you immediately see the difference. 

There is little value of me developing complete tutorials as others have already done an excellent job. Here are a couple of resources.

Basics of Python

https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/the-ultimate-guide-to-python-from-beginner-to-intermediate-to-pro/amp/

Python Turtle

Python Turtle

An example I like to use to explain Seymour Papert’s concept of computational understanding of geometry (in contrast to Euclid’s logical or Descartes’ algebraic approach) using the example of understanding “circle”.  The important insight here is what it means to understand and how is understanding different from recalling. So, if you have taken geometry you have probably learned the definition of a circle as “a closed plane figure consisting of all points equidistant from a point”. The circle program I write in LOGO demonstrates what this means. It starts from a point, moves forward the number of turtle steps specified, makes a point, and then returns home. It then turns one degree and repeats the process. Do this 360 time and you have computationally drawn a circle.

The following image demonstrates what this would look like. It shows the Terminal window, the commands in a new file window, and the window containing the result of running the program. 

This video shows the program being executed.

Loading