In the past, I’ve written about the differences in learning from printed materials versus on-screen (e.g., monitor, tablet) and that for a number of reasons printed materials were better. But, a question kept gnawing at me – and was also posed to me a few times too – namely if it made a difference if the printed materials were print-outs or actual materials (textbooks, magazines, etc.). Just today I came across an article in Contemporary Educational Psychology which throws a little light on the question.
Ladislao Salmerón, Laura Gil, and Ivar Bråten did a study which investigated the extent to which students’ sourcing )i.e., citing sources) and comprehension can be supported by the reading of real, as opposed to print-out versions of multiple documents. They write in the abstract:
It was found that the reading of real rather than print-out versions of multiple documents on the issue of climate change…
View original post 293 more words
As a non-American it is always difficult to understand how this country handles guns and it can be very patronizing to tell another country what to do or not to do – although I’m really convinced about strong anti-gun laws.
But now President Trump said something about pedagogy that I never had expected. He proposed to let teachers to wear guns as a mean to protect their pupils against shootings. Yes, don’t fight the cause but just fight the symptoms.
This is for me almost impossible to grasp. Yes, he also said that the weapons should be concealed and only given to teachers who know how to handle guns, but still. Relation between teachers and pupils is key, and I’m not sure how helpful a gun in this equation will be. This is an euphemism.
But let me also talk about the almost unthinkable. What if a teachers snaps? It can happen, it still happens and I’ve seen it happening. It’s something we seldom discuss, but everybody in education has seen this once and a while… It shouldn’t happen, but teachers are humans too and there is a lot of pressure in our job. Now add a gun to the story. What could possibly go wrong?
A new research brief, School Climate and Social and Emotional Learning: The Integration of Two Approaches, by David Osher and Juliette Berg at AIR, reviews research on how positive school climates support social-emotional learning (SEL) and how improved SEL contributes to improved school climate in elementary and secondary schools.The authors present research from various journal articles, research briefs, policy guides, and other sources. Key findings were as follows:
- Supportive relationships, engagement, safety, cultural competence and responsiveness, and academic challenge and high expectations create positive school climates that can help build social and emotional competence.
- The relationship between positive school climate and SEL is interactive and co-influential, occurs in all settings and student-teacher-staff interactions, and influences students and teachers directly and indirectly.
- Rigorous evaluations of school climate and SEL approaches have provided some direct evidence that one can improve the other.The authors say that the research and practice communities could benefit from greater clarity and alignment in definitions, goals, messaging, and measurement of SEL and school climate, and understanding of how each one can complement the other.
As a teenager I only had one dream: becoming a rock star. Ok, I admit I’m still having that dream. Remember that bath tub scene in The Commitments, yes, that was me. This morning when I was updating my event-page at Amazon, I suddenly realized that I fulfilled a part of this dream. The next coming months I’ll be going on a World Tour to talk about my new book The Ingredients for Great Teaching.
And the great thing is… there are still talks for more venues in more countries. If you want me to come over to your country – and if I’m not teaching – contact Walter, Desmond & co here.
|Mar 10, 2018
|Haninge, Sweden||Fredrika Bremergymnasiet||Leads Network Day/ResearchED Haninge|
|Apr 14, 2018
|Mississauga, Ontario, Canada||Mississauga Secondary School||ResearchED Ontario|
|Apr 20, 2018
|Barcelona, Spain||TBA||The EGIN annual conference 2018|
|Jun 22, 2018
|Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK||Wellington College||Festival of Education|
|Jul 22-26, 2018
|Potomac, MD, US||St. Andrews Episcopal School||CTTL’s The Science Of Teaching & School Leadership Academy|
|Sep 15, 2018
|Pretoria, South-Africa||TBA||ResearchED South-Africa|
Randomized controlled trial suggests: web-based teaching can improve science understanding for struggling pupils
This is an interesting, large study on web-based teaching specifically aimed at science understanding with a surprising bigger effect for struggling, less able students.
Learn more from the press release:
Web-based learning tools can help deepen science knowledge among all middle school students, and ease the science literacy gap for underachieving students, according to a three-year study published today in the International Journal of Science Education.
Researchers introduced four interactive online science units, which students and teachers accessed with computers or tablets, into 13 middle school in two US states.
The online units were tested in a randomized, controlled trial with over 2,300 students and 71 teachers. While all participating students improved their science knowledge, the results were particularly notable for less able students.
Students with learning disabilities improved 18 percentage points on assessments of science knowledge from pre-test to post-test, and English language learners increased 15 percentage points. Pupils taught the same content with traditional methods, such as textbooks, showed only 5-point gains.
The results are especially important given that students with learning disabilities and English language learners have been historically marginalized in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Despite recent gains, a wide educational attainment gap remains for these students, making them less likely than Caucasian and Asian pupils to complete science coursework in school and pursue STEM careers.
“These significant findings demonstrate that the online curriculum was effective in improving science knowledge for students who struggle with science,” said Dr Fatima Terrazas Arellanes of the University of Oregon, Principal Investigator of the project.
“Well-designed instructional technology really works to lessen the science literacy gap among diverse groups of learners. Technology offers an engaging and motivating environment for learning, and we are just beginning to understand how we can use it effectively to support students with learning disabilities and English language learners.”
The online units were structured with lessons and activities like textbooks, but the content was much more interactive. Guided by their teachers, students learnt science through watching videos, playing educational games, conducting virtual experiments, and collaborating with their classmates.
The content was especially beneficial to students who struggle thanks to embedded eText supports, such as text-to-speech (hearing online text read aloud), pop-up vocabulary definitions, interactive diagrams, digital note-taking, and captioned videos.
Going forward, the challenge will be for researchers and policymakers to develop more evidence-based online tools that teachers can implement with students in their classrooms. The ultimate goal is to help all students, and especially those who struggle, to increase society’s science literacy and forge careers in STEM fields.
Dr Terrazas Arellanes added: “Our work adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that instructional technology has a place in the classrooms of today and tomorrow — especially for science and especially for students with learning disabilities. We have shown that these tools are not only effective, but can be easily integrated.”
Abstract of the study:
The purpose of this study was to document the design, classroom implementation, and effectiveness of interactive online units to enhance science learning over 3 years among students with learning disabilities, English learners, and general education students. Results of a randomised controlled trial with 2,303 middle school students and 71 teachers across 13 schools in two states indicated that online units effectively deepened science knowledge across all three student groups. Comparing all treatment and control students on pretest-to-posttest improvement on standards-based content-specific assessments, there were statistically significant mean differences (17% improvement treatment vs. 6% control; p < .001); no significant interactions were found between treatment condition and learning disability or English learner status, indicating that these two groups performed similarly to their peers; students with learning disabilities had significantly lower assessment scores overall. Teachers and students were moderately satisfied with the units.
What is grade inflation? Wikipedia gives two descriptions:
- grading leniency: the awarding of higher grades than students deserve, which yields a higher average grade given to students
- the tendency to award progressively higher academic grades for work that would have received lower grades in the past.
In this study, we need to take the second description into account. Grade inflation in this second sense is something a lot of people think, other people say it’s not the case and this study says… grade inflation at English primary schools can increase the price of surrounding houses by up to £7,000. Do note this is a working paper and not a peer reviewed study!
From the press release:
The study finds that as parents are drawn to areas with what appear to be higher school scores, the demand for housing escalates and poorer residents are driven out. The researchers examined data from more than 23,000 neighbourhoods in England, using results of more than five million students enrolled since 1998.
The study, published as a QMUL School of Economics and Finance Working Paper, looked at the period from 1998 to 2007, when English schools used a process called ‘borderlining’ to regrade exams from students who narrowly missed out on a higher Key Stage result.
Erich Battistin, Professor of Economics at QMUL and lead author of the study says the period provides a “perfect test environment” to interrogate an important policy question: can grade inflation change the composition of neighbourhoods?
Borderlining was abolished in 2007 by the Department of Education, following evidence that the procedure caused grade inflation in primary schools for thousands of students. However, the effects of grade inflation that accumulated over one decade before the abolition of borderlining triggered inequalities across neighbourhoods that are persistent and identifiable through to the present day.
The results of the study, co-authored with Dr Lorenzo Neri from QMUL, show that a three percentage point increase (from a baseline of 26 per cent) in the number of students who perform above expectations at Key Stage 2 increases local house prices by 1.5 per cent.
The effect on prices is more dramatic in areas with more than one good school. According to Dr Neri, this is due to a “hedging effect,” where parents gravitate more strongly to areas that have a number of highly-rated schools. He says that in these areas the combined grade inflation of more than one school can increase house prices by three per cent, or £7,000.
“What our study shows is that even very small levels of grade inflation can make a significant impact on house prices,” says Professor Battistin. “The reason for this is well documented by previous studies: parents respond to even the smallest marginal differences in the performance of local schools. Over time, this has a significant effect on the composition of the local neighbourhood and makes the area less affordable for poorer families.
“It’s not new to show that prices and demography are influenced by quality — but what we show is that they can be affected significantly even by a false perception of quality. It’s not really there, it’s just statistical noise — sometimes generated by the benign intentions of markers to bump up marginal students, not necessarily for accountability purposes.” He adds that the results are relevant in the context of recent cheating scandals, in the UK and elsewhere, which he says need to be understood in terms of policy implications as well as in the context of standards and behaviour.
The researchers also show that the effects spill over to the composition of businesses and demography in local areas. They demonstrate that neighbourhoods in the catchment of schools with more grade inflation experience a more pronounced increase in the number of grocery shops, restaurants and coffeehouses surrounding schools, most likely because local retailers respond to the arrival of richer homeowners.
The researchers compared similar blocks in the catchment of schools which, without borderlining, would have scored the same quality in national performance tables. The underlying assumption is that prices across these blocks would have changed similarly over time had manipulation not occurred.
They found a sharper price change for blocks in the catchment of schools where scores were the most inflated. The research methods included the use of large administrative databases and econometric analysis exploiting micro-level data on students, schools, house transactions and businesses. Results survived to the inclusion of neighbourhoods’ socio-economic characteristics at a very fine level; furthermore, regulation regarding the borderlining practice, coupled with a series of robustness checks, ensured that a clear causal relationship can be established.
Abstract of the working paper:
We show that grading standards for primary school exams in England have triggered an inflation of quality indicators in the national performance tables for almost two decades. The cumulative effects have resulted in significant differences in the quality signaled to parents for otherwise identical schools. These differences are as good as random, with score manipulation resulting from discretion in the grading of randonly assigned external markers. We find large housing price gains from the school quality improvements artificially signaled by manipulation as well as lower deprivation and more businesses catering to families in local neighbourhoods. The design ensures improved external validity for the valuation of school quality with respect to boundary discontinuities and has the potential for replication outside of our specific case study.
Ok, I had to read this title a couple of times, but this seems important taken into account that it’s predominantly a correlation for which people try to find explanations and thus speculate. But that this correlation exists is for me the big news: countries with greater gender equality have a lower percentage of female STEM graduates.
From the press release:
Countries with greater gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found. Policymakers could use the findings to reconsider initiatives to increase women’s participation in STEM, say the researchers.
Dubbed the ‘gender equality paradox’, the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway or Sweden.
The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University in the UK and the University of Missouri in the USA, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively highly-paid STEM career more attractive.
The study, published in Psychological Science, also looked at what might motivate girls and boys to choose to study STEM subjects, including overall ability, interest or enjoyment in the subject and whether science subjects were a personal academic strength.
Using data on 475,000 adolescents across 67 countries or regions, the researchers found that while boys’ and girls’ achievement in STEM subjects was broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys’ best subject. Girls, even when their ability in science equalled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehension, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects. Girls also tended to register a lower interest in science subjects. These differences were near-universal across all the countries and regions studied.
This could explain some of the gender disparity in STEM participation, as Gijsbert Stoet, Professor in Psychology from Leeds Beckett University explains:
“The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice.” he said. “So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren’t their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they’re likely to choose to study something else.”
The researchers also looked at how many girls might be expected to choose further study in STEM based on these criteria. They took the number of girls in each country who had the necessary ability in STEM and for whom it was also their best subject and compared this to the number of women graduating in STEM. They found there was a disparity in all countries, but with the gap once again larger in more gender equal countries. In the UK, 29% of STEM graduates are female, whereas 48% of UK girls might be expected to take those subjects based on science ability alone. This drops to 39% when both science ability and interest in the subject are taken into account.
Co-researcher Professor David Geary from the University of Missouri said: “Although countries with greater gender equality tend to be those where women are actively encouraged to participate in STEM, they lose more girls from an academic STEM track who might otherwise choose it, based on their personal academic strengths. Broader economic factors appear to contribute to the higher participation of women in STEM in countries with low gender equality and the lower participation in gender-equal countries.”
Countries with higher gender equality tend also to be welfare states, providing a high level of social security for their citizens, compared to those with lower gender equality which tend to have less secure and more difficult living conditions. Using the UNESCO overall life satisfaction (OLS) figures as a proxy for economic opportunity and hardship, the researchers found that in more gender equal countries, overall life satisfaction was higher.
Professor Stoet said: “STEM careers are generally secure and well-paid but the risks of not following such a path can vary. In more affluent countries where any choice of career feels relatively safe, women may feel able to make choices based on non-economic factors. Conversely, in countries with fewer economic opportunities, or where employment might be precarious, a well-paid and relatively secure STEM career can be more attractive to women.”
Professor Geary adds: “Essentially when you lessen economic concerns, as is the case in gender-equal countries, personal preferences are more strongly expressed. In this situation, sex differences in academic strengths and occupational interests more strongly influence college and career choices, creating the STEM paradox we describe.”
Despite extensive efforts to increase participation of women in STEM, levels have remained broadly stable for decades, but these findings could help target interventions to make them more effective, say the researchers.
“It’s important to take into account that girls are choosing not to study STEM for what they feel are valid reasons, so campaigns that target all girls may be a waste of energy and resources,” said Professor Stoet. “If governments want to increase women’s participation in STEM, a more effective strategy might be to target the girls who are clearly being ‘lost’ from the STEM pathway: those for whom science and maths are their best subjects and who enjoy it but still don’t choose it. If we can understand their motivations, then interventions can be designed to help them change their minds.”
Abstract of the study:
The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects
I found this preprint of a new study via both Stuart Ritchie and Wouter Duyck and it’s quite relevant. Besides some people who still are convinced nurture is almost everything – I’m looking at you, Anders – most of us have experienced that some traits are heritable. But how well are we in guessing this correctly? Well, women with multiply kids are best at it, which seems not so strange to me:
Explanation about the graph:
Comparison of absolute mean difference scores in accuracy of heritability judgments across surveyed human traits for men, women, and full sample for those without children, one child, and two or more children. These estimates represent the magnitude of distance between each participant’s judgment of heritability and the published estimate on a 0 (only environmental factors) to 1 (only genetic factors) scale. Lower mean distance (y-axis) therefore represents better judgment of heritability across all traits. Error bars represent +/- standard error of the mean.
And how did the people predict the different traits?
And this next graphic compares the average prediction with the actual average found in studies:
The fact that genes and environment contribute differentially to variation in human behaviors, traits and attitudes is central to the field of behavior genetics. To the public, perceptions about these differential contributions may affect ideas about human agency. We surveyed two independent samples (N = 301 and N = 740) to assess beliefs about free will, determinism, political orientation, and the relative contribution of genes and environment to 21 human traits. We find that beliefs about the heritability of these traits cluster into four distinct groups, which differentially predict both beliefs about human agency and political orientation. Despite apparent ideological influences on these beliefs, the correspondence between lay judgments of heritabilities and published estimates is large (r = .77). Belief in genetic determinism emerges as a modest predictor of accuracy in these judgments. Additionally, educated mothers with multiple children emerge as particularly accurate in their judgments of the heritabilities of these traits.