Programming Frustrations

It is not often that I get frustrated looking for good tools with which to teach.  I often find inspiration in many places; colleagues offer their ideas, television (thank you MythBusters), and the internet usually mean that I don’t have to re-invent the wheel for material.

But when it comes to good, computer-based modular concepts in chemistry I come up short.  For the past several days I have been scouring the internet’s darkest regions (past the 10th Google page of hits) and have not found appropriately structured content in chemistry.  I have found numerous sources of interactive modules for K-8 education, mostly in English or Math.  Where is all the science?

Looking further into the matter, I started delving into what tools are offered for authoring quality online content.  Since EChemCLASS is a small company and I am still only teaching part-time, I sought out the cheapest programs (read free) I could.  There are several very good programs that have potential for good content authoring.  For example there are many Moodlers out there.  EXE and CourseLab also offer programs that can provide rich content.  Microsoft Learning also provides a free bit of software for educational content authoring.  But all of these programs suffer from the “you get what you pay for” bug.  EXE for example does not like Windows 7 and you have to be running Firefox (an older version it seems).  Moodle requires knowledge of how servers communicate and how Windows 7 doesn’t communicate with Moodle.  Microsoft’s package does a splendid job except for a few vital problems such as no font support and an insanely strange organizational scheme for storing your media content in the course, and of course, it only works as shown if using Internet Explorer.

It is not a matter of the software not talking to the LMS systems (okay, so the LMS we use at EChemCLASS is Open Class which doesn’t have SCORM compliance, yet). It is a matter of needing to know how to make rich content in the authoring software.  To do that, one needs to purchase the gold standard in authoring software in Adobe ($299.99 for Captivate using the educators discount, $1799 for the E-Learning Suite).  With budgets being tightened in this fiscal climate, I don’t know how many districts are able to afford site licenses for their teachers to develop content. 

So what do the poor need to do?  What teacher’s have done for a long time: make due with less.  But for me the complications arise in my sad lack of programming skills.  Yes I did take a computer language in college - C++.  Now ask me how to write a program in C, even though I got an A?  It seems the use of HTML and Java allows us to make amazing content but I don’t know enough HTML and no Java (except that in the mug on my desk).

So this aforementioned frustration is well depicted in the graphic. To be good online teachers we need to be like Inspector Gadget.  But our gadgets keep coming from Sanford and Son’s salvage yard.

So if you know HTML, XML, Java, or any of the host of languages out there---put it to use making educational software that really is easy to use and works.

Progression

Things have been very busy around the EChemCLASS office lately.

We have our own website now, www.echemclass.com.  Check it out.  We have pricing plans listed for 2012, as well as the capability to book appointments.

We also have beta-tested our WizIQ classroom setup for the administration of a chemistry tutoring session (thank you Lori). 

We have also been working on self-contained modules for at-your-own-pace learning of concepts, as well as test-driving a new, free LMS (learning management system) from Pearson.  Use of an LMS would allow us to sell courses tailored to specific concepts in chemistry for people who might not need a tutor but look for a bit more help.  These students would still have access to the tutors through WizIQ for limited questions.

All of this is being done in support of our anticipated launch in January 2012!

And look for deals on EChemCLASS tutoring to happen during the months of January and February!

Please, find us on Facebook, Follow us on WizIQ, Twitter with us @echemclass, Connect with us on LinkedIN, browse us on RCampus, and find us on www.TutorMatch.com!

Technorati Tags: Chemistry,EChemCLASS,Tutoring,Adjunct,Education,Open Class

Will a Revamp of No Child Left Behind Leave Teachers Behind?

 

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are getting ready to release on Friday new waivers for states to bypass some of the stipulations set forth in No Child Left Behind Act.  The administration contends that these stipulations would ease the burden on states trying to achieve under the strict laws of NCLB.  In return for these waivers, the administration mandates that the states change rules that would lead to expansion of charter schools and linking teacher evaluation to student performance.

Let us put aside that this would seem to be overstepping the bounds of the separation of powers since there is no congressional input into the changes.  Let us put aside that NCLB is not effective at increasing student performance.  Let us put aside that the basic premise of NCLB is to make everyone average, thereby destroying the concept of average. Let us instead examine the role of the teacher, as implicated by NCLB and as implicated in the revamped proposal. 

Under NCLB, the teacher needs to meet specific goals in order for students to score well on standardized testing and the district to meet its goals. What this often amounts to is not teaching students, but rather teaching students to the test.  For example Texas mandates the TAKS test, a set of state-based achievement exams.  The teacher often teaches a curriculum that is specifically designed to cover the material on the TAKS exam, to merely regurgitate the information in order to pass the test.  This is no way an indictment of the Texas system, but is an indictment of the system in general. 

We know the educational system is in trouble.  We know there are no easy answers.  We also know that there does need to be accountability in the system.  However, often the accountability falls solely on the teacher.  Teachers who are deemed to be under-performing based on standardized scores face the brunt of the attack.  But this is a poor metric to measure a teacher’s worth.  If a teacher takes someone who performs at a 4th grade level in 6th grade but raises them to the 5th grade level within a year is underperforming.  There are very few truly bad teachers just as there are very few truly bad students.   The problem is in the metrics.

In what has been hinted at for the revamp, the metrics won’t be changed per se but there will now be direct correlation for student performance and teacher evaluation.  I believe this will mean even more pressure for teachers to teach to the test.  The students must perform or the teacher is in trouble.  So how do they evaluate the student performance?

I think one main issue that is not being taken to task is that ultimately student performance is student-centric.  The teacher is not taking the exam; the student must perform on their own.  The accountability needs not be solely the teachers but must include the student as well. If a student fails to perform up to standards, there needs to be consequences.  There must be an impetus for the student to perform. 

Another main issue is the administration of the standardized test.  A standardized test is by definition based on standards and all students must meet standards.  Standardized tests are often given as multiple choice exams for the ease of grading.  If there are portions that are not multiple choice, the cost to states to have them graded is enormous. 

Speaking of standards, we expect students to conform to a standard of knowledge, yet teachers are told that not all children learn the same way, and we must accommodate different learning modalities.  Yet the standards and standardized testing may not accurately assess a student’s abilities.  For example, a kinesthetic learner may not be able to describe how to do something, but could certainly show you how it is done.  Asking all students to comply to one standard test is ludicrous.  If teachers need to accommodate different learning styles, then testing needs to do the same.

A revamp of NCLB is not what is needed.  What is needed is difficult to quantify, and that is why it is hard to put in place.

Blackboard Jungle

 

Yesterday I happened to catch an old movie on TCM, Blackboard Jungle.  It starred Glenn Ford, Vic Morrow and Sidney Poitier.  It is the story of Ford, a new English teacher in an inner city school that has been taken over by gangs, lead by Morrow.  Poitier plays the hard-nosed yet smart student who at the first resists Ford’s attempts, but at the end comes to help and keep Ford teaching.

The movie itself was a good movie and had enough plot and good acting to keep your attention throughout.  But that is not the reason I am posting.  The most important feature of this movie was it was made in 1955 and is still relevant today.  Many of the issues displayed are still very relevant today. 

One of the themes in the movie was racial tension.  And I found it to be quite a diversified student body for a movie from 1955.  The school was an all-boys school that had African-Americans, Anglos, and Puerto Ricans as main characters.  In one scene, Ford is trying to get the students to stop referring to each other through racial epithets.  The lesson then was the same as the lesson today: people are people and should always be taken as individuals. 

One especially interesting scene with regards to the racial lesson by Ford is his being called to the principle’s office to answer for a student complaint.  The principle (who is in a major state of denial over the discipline of the student body) rails into Ford without asking for his side of the story.  In this case, Ford passionately pleads with the principle for his side of the story and wins the principle over.  However, the part that interests me is that even in ‘55, administrations can be seen as viewing the student as the customer (and the customer is always right) and the teachers as customer service representatives who, if the student complains, must be in the wrong.

Another point still valid today (especially today in the protesting of teacher’s unions) is the teacher’s compensation.  In 1955, Ford laments that the teacher makes less than a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, etc.  He likens the compensation of the teacher to the pay rate of a baby-sitter ($2 an hour, according to the movie).  Teachers today can be woefully underpaid (can be does not mean all are) and the unions help to protect teacher’s rights (such as the aforementioned principle-teacher confrontation scene).  With regards to teacher’s compensation, there is little being done to reign in the compensation packages of some administrators.  Instead of blindly attacking teacher’s unions, perhaps we should look into compensation packages of all the parties involved, and not make blanket statements for all teachers and all administrators.  Food for thought.

The most important theme that I took from the movie had nothing to do with the “hot-button” issues of either today or yesterday, but the tenacity of Ford’s character.  He persisted trying to teach and restore order and give hope to his students long after many others would have quit (after being assaulted, after having marital problems caused by student interference, and from almost losing a child due to student blackmail), he stayed.  He believed in the prospect of education.  He believed he made a difference.  He believed in the student. 

Every teacher, at all levels, experiences moments and times when the “job” overwhelms them.  They get little recognition and much scrutiny.  And there is that doubt, that nagging that we aren’t making a difference, or the differences we make aren’t enough.  There is the doubt that we can continue this career.  Yet we persevere.  We take small victories and celebrate them. We carry on.  Because what we do matters. 

I am glad I caught this movie.

Technorati Tags: Education,chemistry,science,tutoring,chemical literacy,teaching

New Semester, New Building, New Challenges!

     As I write this, I have been prepared for a new semester of my adjunct teaching for several days.  I have prepared as much in advance as I can, assembled grade books, prepared new handouts, uploaded content to the LMS system, etc.  However, this semester there are two really big unknowns:  a brand new Math and Science building, and a bunch of new technology! 

     It is hard for anyone to prepare for these changes, but it is especially hard for adjuncts.  Most of the time, adjuncts are not privy to the information full-time faculty receives.  For example, I was not even sure of the existence of the rumored smart boards until I had a chance to catch-up with a full-timer.  Also, I have heard rumors about better computer access by students.  This could really change my preparations! 

     So as we begin the new semester, it will be a learning curve for all: students and faculty alike!  We just need to stay focused and stay on top of the changes and the challenges.

     And for me, the preparations for the new business are coming along nicely.  This is another challenge that I am personally facing this semester and I really cannot wait to get up and running!  So have a good semester and keep a look out for more business and education posts!

Virtual Classroom

     Yesterday I attended a training class on the use of virtual classroom technology (www.WizIQ.com).  This is the same technology I will be using to tutor students online.  The technology is all JAVA based (looks like I should learn JAVA stead of drinking it), and is amazingly user-friendly. 

     The trainer (and the virtual classroom website) was based in India.  The quality of the audio in the virtual presentation was not the best but not prohibitive either.  The PowerPoint presentation was smooth as was  the whiteboard controls. Also, the ability to play audio and video files (podcast, YouTube, etc.) within the classroom setting is phenomenal.   I found this amazing that I could take a class from someone on the other side of the planet and still have a smooth interaction.  I have used Skype before and have had problems talking to people in Houston, Texas let alone India!

     I am quite enamored of the technology and would love to see it used more often in the US.  Currently, most of the instructors using the technology are in Asia and are geared toward supplemental instruction for the college entrance exams in India.  Not only is this tech beneficial for non-traditional methods of instruction, the controls of the classroom also make this a good place to teach a traditional style lecture class. 

     What great strides have been made in technology!  And a big thank you to Rohit for the tutorial and the interesting discussion of True Blood!

The Debate…

I found an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (www.chronicle.com/article/To-Justify-Every-A-some/128528). Western Governors University has hired 300 adjunct professors to do nothing but grade.  The reasoning is that professors who teach the classes themselves can skew grades just from having contact with the students.  This leads to grade inflation.  The article states average grades have risen for thirty years and the most common grade given at the university level is an A.  The article then goes on to debate the merits of the standard professor-as-grader system and the new systems (including artifical-intelligence driven grading of essays) being implemented.

Both sides of the argument, pro-status quo and pro-independent grading have valid arguments.  But the most telling portion of the article to me is the reflection of grade inflation on higher education.  Are students genuinely better today than they were 30 years ago?  Or is the grade inflation indicative of a shift in higher education toward a service mentality (meaning that colleges and universities are serving the public, i.e. customers and the customer is always right).  I have heard 'round-the -water-cooler discussions of these topics before.  The debates have been very often both optimistic and pessimistic.  Which belief is right?

Like many issues that are worth discussing, there is no clear-cut answer.  There needs to be discussion, debate and dialog  not only at the intra-collegiate level but at the inter-collegiate as well.  And while we are at it, why not include the K-12 educational systems as well?  If it weren't for K-12, there wouldn’t be a higher education to strive for.  I think it would benefit everyone to continue to discuss new, innovative strategies to help students succeed.  After all, student success is what education is about, and that’s something we all agree on.