How-to-Study Blog

The just released High School Student Engagement Survey reported lots of boredom and disinterest on the part of high school students. The survey included responses from nearly 135,000 students across the U.S. What is instructive are the reasons students cited for being bored. The primary reasons included material that is not interesting (80%), material that isn’t relevant to their lives (more than 40%), material that is too difficult (about 25%), material that is too easy (about 33%), and lack of interaction with teachers (about 33%).

This is important information. If schools were a business dealing with customers, steps would certainly be taken to reduce customer dissatisfaction. It is not a stretch to think of high school students as customers. What steps can be taken to reduce their dissatisfaction?

In an article in the Education Life section of the New York Times, 11/1/09, Rachel Aviv discussed the issue of SAT test conditions. She quoted Robert Shaeffer of Fair Test, a nonprofit organization that works to prevent misuse of standardized testing. According to Shaeffer, if the SAT is truly standardized, it should be given in the same setting, for the same length of time, and in the same calm and quiet environment. According to Shaeffer, this is simply not the case.

The reality is that some students take the SAT in individual classrooms, while others take the test in large cafeterias. The quality of proctors varies as does the amount of distracting noise such as automobile horns and sirens. Anecdotal reports include taking the test at a site where the school bell went off every 45 minutes, taking the test in downtown Manhattan while a protest with drumming and chanting raged outside, and taking the test while the proctor sat in front planting flowers in vases and arranging piles of pebbles.

There seems no way to control these factors. Students should be encouraged to carefully select test sites. The test conditions factor is still another reason why college admissions personnel should take many other aspects of students’ applications into account when making decisions.

Well it’s deja vu all over again. We remember the intensive emphasis on math and science education that followed Sputnik. Secretary of Education Duncan recently emphasized the need for more and better trained math and science teachers in the years ahead. He recognized that this may require incentives such as salary differentials and loosened certification requirements to attract outside talent.

It is imperative that our education system produce the skilled mathematicians and scientists to maintain our place in an increasingly technological world. While incentives such as those proposed by Duncan will anger many and run into union obstacles, we think Duncan is on the right path here.

Math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress continue to remain sluggish. On the most recent test, just 39% of fourth graders and 34% of eighth graders scored at or above the proficient level. The distressing fact is that math achievement grew faster before No Child Left Behind than since this law was enacted. The score gaps between white and minority students show no signs of diminishing.

There are many factors that may account for the lack of progress. Whatever the factors, the sad truth is that many of our students’ math skills are not where they should be. Some may blame the economy, others may blame poor teaching. Whatever, this situation must be fixed if we are to compete in today’s increasingly technological world.

There is increasing emphasis on using standardized tests to assess student progress. Most of these tests include open-ended items that require students to write responses using their own thoughts and words. The responses are typically scored on a 5-point or 6-point scale.

In a recent New York Times column (9/28/09), Todd Farley opined that the problem here is not with the tests as much as it with the test scorers. Farley related his experiences scoring state tests for testing companies. Farley pointed out the reality that open-ended items are scored by subjective humans who are prone to errors. He concluded that the score a student earned depended to some extent on which scorer viewed his or response.

Farley proposed that scoring be done only by professionals who have made a commitment to education, rather than by part-timers such as he was. This is the case in some circumstances. It should be the universal case.

In a humorous addition to the article, Tucker Nichols proposed some rules for scorers. These included adding one point if you suspect the student dresses well, and adding three points if you are hungry. He was joking, wasn’t he?

The National Wildlife Federation recently issued a report concluding that providing students with more time outdoors increases their academic performance. The report suggests that limiting outdoor time may reduce students’ attention as well as increase their tendency toward aggressive behavior. The implication for schools is to offer students the opportunity to learn in a natural environment when feasible. There is also an implication for parents – sometimes you just have to turn off the TV and computer. We concur, but don’t forget the sunscreen and insect repellent.

A recent report commissioned by the Education Department examined research on online vs. traditional classroom teaching from 1996 to 2008. There was a small but statistically significant difference in favor of students doing some or all of their course work online. While most of the comparative studies were in college and adult learning settings, some were in K12 settings.

This is certainly an interesting finding. We live in a time when technology is replacing people in many occupational areas. We’ve heard for many years that teachers will some day be replaced by computers. Can this be the beginning? We doubt it.

One consistent finding across all learning research is that one-to-one tutoring is the most effective teaching technique. In a New York Times column (9/12/09), Steve Lohr points out that this model is obviously not a practical one. Lohr notes that online learning is a technological variation of one-to-one tutoring. He cites Christopher Dede, a professor of education at Harvard, who posits an interesting baseball metaphor. According to Dede, a good human tutor can deliver a “home run.” Online teaching may not deliver a home run, but it certainly can deliver “good solid singles.”

There is an emerging trend toward allowing middle school and high school students to choose the literature they read in school. Variations on this approach are known as “reading workshop.” On the other side, there is the traditional approach of assigning the books that students read. Many literacy specialists support the reading workshop concept, arguing that giving students a say in what they read motivates them to read. Other specialists are concerned that students will not choose to read high quality literature. The middle ground is to allow students some choice in selecting books to be read, while assigning others.

There is virtually no research to support or negate the reading workshop approach. We support assigning high quality literature so that all students read the same books, facilitating meaningful group discussion. We are concerned that given a choice of what to read, too many students will choose low quality books that are at an easier level than those they are capable of reading.

We welcome any thoughts on this issue.

A recent study by the Center on Education Policy indicated that No Child Left Behind is raising the performance of low-achieving children. Surprisingly, the study further indicated that the performance of high-achieving children has risen as well. This is an unexpected result since No Child Left Behind provides no incentives for schools to accelerate the progress of high-achieving students.

However, in a New York Times column (8/28/09), Tom Loveless and Michael Petrilli cited several flaws in the study. They concluded that low-achieving students are indeed making significant gains, but that high-achieving students have been making much smaller gains. Indeed, their gains have been no greater than those before the enactment of No Child Left Behind.

Since the beginning of No Child Left Behind, many educators have expressed concern that some students would be left behind – the gifted. We applaud the heartening results for low-achieving students. What can we do to attain similar gains at the other end of the achievement curve?

Just what is the purpose of education? Idealists emphasize that education should produce citizens who are politically informed, environmentally conscious, and capable of critical thinking. Pragmatists emphasize that education should produce citizens who have the reading, math, and science skills to meet the evolving needs of the corporate culture.
Where do you stand?