Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

Announcing announce@list.mathed.net

"Maybe someday you could continue Jerry Becker's email listserv." --David Webb, circa 2015

Dr. Jerry Becker died on April 16 at the age of 85, leaving behind his wife, three children, many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and a very useful set of email listservs. By way of my Ph.D., Dr. Becker is an academic great-uncle of mine, although I never had the pleasure of meeting him. I can't pretend to fill his shoes, but there is something I can do to continue in his tradition by providing a service similar to what he offered for so many years.

Today I'm announcing announce@list.mathed.net. (Self-subscribe here.) It's an email distribution list to share the kinds of things people used to share through Dr. Becker: job openings, conference announcements, requests for articles for journal issues, and other items of interest to the mathematics education community. Instead of sending items to me, subscribers to the list can email the list address directly and I'll moderate items along that appear legitimate and useful. I'll tweak things along the way and, if there's demand for additional lists or services, I can consider offering them. The service is provided by an international GNU Mailman host. The software isn't flashy, but it works and isn't going anywhere. I may not live to 85 to keep hosting the list like Dr. Becker did, but I'll stick around as long as I can and I won't be surprised if Mailman sticks around that long, too.

So who am I and why am I doing this? I'm the mathematics specialist at the Colorado Department of Education, and prior to that I was a high school math teacher and a Ph.D. student at CU Boulder. Regardless if I was working in practice, research, or policy, I've been interested in the organization of education communities and how they communicate ideas. This includes professional organizations, Twitter, the Global Math Department, and forums like MyNCTM. Under the mathed.net domain, I've blogged and maintained a wiki, and at one time spun up an experimental instance of a social network using free software. In my current role with CDE I operate the CoMath listserv, which has been in existence since 1995, and I help edit the Colorado Mathematics Teacher journal. My advisor, David Webb, made the comment above somewhat offhandedly partway through my graduate school experience and it's stuck in my head ever since. Dr. Becker didn't leave his listservs to a successor, and the subscription lists they contained are (as they should be) the private information of his university. But that doesn't mean we can't try starting anew to continue the old.

I've long believed that if mathematics teachers and educators are going to all be part of a professional community, it's going to take many different related sub-communities in many different forms, using different technologies, membership structures, languages, and different target audiences. We're too numerous to all huddle under one hashtag, and too smart to think that our ideas could—or should—fit in one place. Maybe others will start email list services of their own to meet a particular need, or find other ways to communicate. That would be excellent. The more the merrier. We all have a part in this, and my next part is to moderate a new email list. So if you have something to share, or need to have things shared with you, I'll be at announce@list.mathed.net waiting for you to subscribe and post your messages.

Coherence Gap Spreadsheet

I'm overdue in getting this out into the wider world, but I've developed a spreadsheet that incorporates all the coherence connections found in the Coherence Map and adds to that instructional time data about how many lessons and hours a math curriculum spends on each standard. Yeah, it's a lot. But as I talked to math teachers and leaders at the end of last spring, I felt there were a lack of tools available that incorporated both coherence and instructional time, and my solution was a big Excel workbook with lots and lots of rows of lesson data, some long VLOOKUP formulas, and some conditional formatting to make the results readable. If you geek out over spreadsheets and math curriculum planning, I think you'll like it.

The lesson data comes from EngageNY for K-5 and Illustrative Mathematics for Grades 6 through Algebra 2. I didn't have any special preference for one set of curriculum materials over any other (and neither does the State of Colorado), but both of these are open educational resources with lesson alignments and time estimates, so I used them. You can substitute time data in for whatever materials you'd like, but be warned that you're looking at 3500+ rows of data, so either bring a team of people with you or learn to write some code that scrapes data from publishers' websites and formats it for you. (I chose the latter.)

With the help of a pivot table and some lookup functions, what this spreadsheet allows you to do is indicate some percentage of coverage you thought each standard has gotten (if making sense of past curriculum decisions) or will get (if planning for future curriculum decisions). In return, the spreadsheet reports back to you how much instruction for each standard is left unfinished, and how much future instruction (following arrows in the Coherence Map) might be at risk. Just be mindful that the spreadsheet is like a lot of models—wrong, but possibly useful. The instructional time estimates might be flawed, not everything aligns as neatly as I'd like, the data may not really reflect your materials or pacing, and the crude way the coverage formulas work might just be wrong. So if it gives you some data that you just know is flawed, then maybe it is. But if you're patient with it, and you aren't afraid to look beyond the conditional formatting color scheme and dig more deeply into why instructional time is allocated where it is, then I think this spreadsheet can give you something to work with as you make decisions about your curriculum planning.

This was one of my on-the-job projects as math specialist for the Colorado Department of Education, so CDE is hosting the spreadsheet itself. Head on over to the Coherence Gap Spreadsheet page to download the latest version of the file. I also urge you to watch the tutorial video, which I'll also embed here. I kept it as short as I could at 12 minutes, and if you're already familiar with the Coherence Map you can skip the first 2:00.

If you have any questions about the spreadsheet, please let me know. And if you modify the spreadsheet to make it better or more inclusive of more curriculum materials, I'd really like to know about that, too.

A Social Networking Experiment

Last month Andrew Stadel asked a good question:

I've often wondered the same thing. For me, I saw Andrew's question as an opportunity to set up an instance of GNU social, which is an open source, federated social network from the Free Software Foundation with a number of Twitter-like features. What does it mean to be federated? It means there can be many GNU social servers and a user on one server can communicate with users on other servers.

We've grown accustomed to companies running social services designed to keep us within their site. GNU social is more like email: it doesn't matter if you use Gmail, Yahoo, your work email, or you set up your own server in your basement. Every email server can talk to every other email server. If the math ed community ever wanted to go rogue and leave Twitter behind (or Twitter left us), I can foresee the possibility of a social.mathed.net, a social.globalmathdepartment.org, a social.desmos.com, etc., and we'd be free to establish an identity on whichever one we chose and we could still follow and chat with those on other servers.

Now that you know a little about the technology, I'm inviting you to join a temporary "social sandbox" I've set up just so I can learn first-hand what running a social site entails. The installation wasn't difficult -- it probably took me less than an hour to install and configure. It's running on a little test server that might be easily overwhelmed, but that's okay. Just consider anything you post to be disposable, as I will take down the site before the end of 2016.

Try it at socialsandbox.mathed.net.

A Stitch in TWiME Saves Nine

A few people have asked how I assemble each week's "This Week in Math Ed" (TWiME) post, so here's my explainer. It's a good time for me to do this, as this weekend I finally found a way to automate some things.

The Data

For the "Math Ed Said" section of TWiME, I list each day's most-shared post from my list of 1600+ math educators on Twitter. I've been curating this list for years, and by keeping it open in Tweetdeck right next to my timeline it's allowed me to keep my following list smaller and more subject-diverse, while still seeing a big chunk of what math teachers might be talking about in the list. Right now 228 people subscribe to this list, and I do try to keep it curated by only adding people if I see they frequently tweet about math ed. I occasionally have to remove someone if I notice their interests have gone elsewhere.

For the "Research Notes" section of TWiME, I simply have a bookmarks folder with 30+ journals in it. Each week, Chrome questions my sanity with this:

Opening many tabs in Chrome
Opening many tabs in Chrome


From there, I look through every latest journal issue. Most of the time I can recognize if it hasn't been updated since the previous week. If it's new, I open every article page in preparation for inclusion in TWiME.

For the "Math Ed in the News" section, I added a "math education" topic to Google News and personalized Google News to show me an above-average number of math ed stories.

For anything else, it's something I've come across on my own or had emailed to me, as is the case with much of my Colorado news.

My Tools

TWiME, in its current form, is largely possible due to Nuzzel. Nuzzel does the hard work of watching my Twitter list and tracking what gets shared. Nuzzel does have a newsletter feature, but I've never found those kinds of things very popular or attractive.

Nuzzel
Nuzzel


For most of my writing destined for the web, I use Draft. If you've ever thought, "I wish I had something like Google Docs, but simpler, that let me write in Markdown, and could freeze revisions of my writing in time to compare with later," then you're looking for Draft. I can convert Markdown to HTML with Draft, or with any number of other tools.

Draft
Draft


Making links in Markdown is easier than in HTML:

[This is my Twitter profile](https://twitter.com/MathEdnet)

Typing these out was pretty tedious, so the "Copy as Markdown" Chrome extension has been a great timesaver.

Links in TWiME, One at a Time

I try to set aside most of my Fridays for assembling each TWiME, with most of that time spent reading. Still, with around 100 links in each TWiME post, I end up doing this over and over and over:

Copying links from Nuzzel
Copying links from Nuzzel


There's no keyboard shortcut in Copy as Markdown for this, but I can quickly paste in Draft with CTRL+v to produce a Markdown-formatted link:

[John Golden](http://twitter.com/mathhombre)

I've done it this way almost since the beginning. It's tedious. After months of meaning to find a better way, I finally spent the time that will save me time.

Links in TWiME, Saving Time

Instead of getting TWiME out on Friday, I started exploring how I might automate the "shared by" links in the "Math Ed Said" section. First, I checked out the Nuzzel source and found this:

Nuzzel HTML source
Nuzzel HTML source


There's a ton of whitespace in the Nuzzel HTML, but that's no big deal. The big deal is the "externalUserLink" class, which I could search for to isolate the links to Twitter profiles. I started by saving the source into a text file and using simple cat and grep Linux commands:

johnson@flatiron:~/Documents/MathEdnet$ cat nuzzel-source.txt | grep "externalUserLink"
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/klsilverman">Kirsten Silverman</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/mr_stadel">Andrew Stadel</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/mathhombre">John Golden</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/mathycathy">Cathy Yenca </a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/saravdwerf">Sara VanDerWerf</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/jenblinzler">Jennifer Blinzler</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/jensilvermath">Jen Silverman</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/jensilvermath">Jen Silverman</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/ddmeyer">Dan Meyer</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath">Nancy Terry</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/mathhombre">John Golden</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/BridgetDunbar">Bridget Dunbar</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/AllisonPeet">Allison Peet</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/bstockus">Brian Bushart</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/BeckyAfghani">Rebecca Afghani</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/laura_wagenman">Laura Wagenman</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/WIMathCouncil">WMC - WI MathCouncil</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/TCM_at_NCTM">TCM - NCTM</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/KristinFrang">Kristin Frang</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/MathCoachCorner">Donna Boucher</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/jody_guarino">Jody Guarino</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/MathMinds">Kristin Gray</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath">Nancy Terry</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/MatthewMaddux">Egan J Chernoff</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/quantgal67">Laurie Hailer</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/ilana_horn">Ilana Horn</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/maanow">MAA</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/CmonMattTHINK">Matt Enlow</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/bkdidact">Andrew Gael</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/pmacoun">Phil Macoun</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath">Nancy Terry</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/Vanes63">Vanessa Garcia</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/bstockus">Brian Bushart</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/ryan_psmith">Ryan Smith</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/geogebra">GeoGebra</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/ProfNoodlearms">TJ Hitchman</a>
<a class="externalUserLink" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/j_lanier">Justin Lanier</a

Bingo! That gave me all the "shared by" links on the entire page, and I could manually pick out the ones that matched the most-shared story. Unfortunately, the links aren't in Markdown, and I don't need the class and target parameters in my links. I've done a lot of scripting in Bash and could probably figure out how to do the reformatting, but something told me this was an opportunity to push myself to get more Python experience.

Switching to Python meant I needed equivalent tools for things like grep and cut, which I found explained on Stack Overflow. I've read files line-by-line in Python before, so I could reuse those lines of code from previous projects. Then a thought struck me: Instead of saving the Nuzzel HTML source as a file, how difficult would it be for the script to grab the source itself?

Answer: Really easy. Like "add a library and two lines of code" easy. It's handled by the urllib2 Python module. Before long, I had a script that asked me for a date, fetched the page, then parsed line-by-line looking for storyTitle and externalUserLink with some if statements:

#!/usr/bin/python
import os, sys, string, urllib2

base = "http://nuzzel.com/MathEdnet/mathed?sort=friends&when="
date = raw_input('Enter date, Nuzzel-style: ')
url = base+date

f = urllib2.urlopen(url)

for line in f:
    if "storyTitle" in line:
        url = line.split('"')[7]
        title = line.split('>')[2]
        title = title.split('<')[0]
        print "\n"
        print "**Date**: "+"["+title+"]"+"("+url+")"+"\n\n"+"*Shared by:",
    if "externalUserLink" in line:
        url = line.split('"')[3]
        name = line.split('>')[1]
        name = name.split('<')[0]
        print "["+name+"]"+"("+url+"),",

In 21 lines, I ask for the date, construct the URL, get the source, then find/isolate/format both the story title and the shared-by links. The split command cuts the line into pieces, with me telling it which piece I want. (I'm so glad Nuzzel is consistent with its formatting!) When the script is run, I get this output:

johnson@flatiron:~/Documents/MathEdnet$ bin/sharers.py 
Enter date, Nuzzel-style: 10212016

**Date**: [Marcellus the Giant](http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2016/marcellus-the-giant/)

*Shared by: [Kirsten Silverman](http://twitter.com/klsilverman), [Andrew Stadel](http://twitter.com/mr_stadel), [John Golden](http://twitter.com/mathhombre), [Cathy Yenca ](http://twitter.com/mathycathy), [Sara VanDerWerf](http://twitter.com/saravdwerf), [Jennifer Blinzler](http://twitter.com/jenblinzler), [Jen Silverman](http://twitter.com/jensilvermath), [Jen Silverman](http://twitter.com/jensilvermath), [Dan Meyer](http://twitter.com/ddmeyer), [Nancy Terry](http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath), 

**Date**: [Math with Bad Drawings](http://bstockus.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/math-with-bad-drawings/)

*Shared by: [John Golden](http://twitter.com/mathhombre), [Bridget Dunbar](http://twitter.com/BridgetDunbar), [Allison Peet](http://twitter.com/AllisonPeet), [Brian Bushart](http://twitter.com/bstockus), [Rebecca Afghani](http://twitter.com/BeckyAfghani), [Laura Wagenman](http://twitter.com/laura_wagenman), 

**Date**: [Addictive Game for Practicing Combinations for Ten](http://www.mathcoachscorner.com/2014/10/addictive-game-for-practicing-combinations-for-ten/)

*Shared by: [WMC - WI MathCouncil](http://twitter.com/WIMathCouncil), [TCM - NCTM](http://twitter.com/TCM_at_NCTM), [Kristin Frang](http://twitter.com/KristinFrang), [Donna Boucher](http://twitter.com/MathCoachCorner), 

**Date**: [Story Not Available At This Time](http://www.teachingchannel.org/blog/2016/10/21/illustrative-mathematics-collaborate/)

*Shared by: [Jody Guarino](http://twitter.com/jody_guarino), [Kristin Gray](http://twitter.com/MathMinds), [Nancy Terry](http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath), 

**Date**: [Turns Out, Counting on Your Fingers Makes You Smarter](http://www.wsj.com/articles/turns-out-counting-on-your-fingers-makes-you-smarter-1477065563)

*Shared by: [Egan J Chernoff](http://twitter.com/MatthewMaddux), [Laurie Hailer](http://twitter.com/quantgal67), [Ilana Horn](http://twitter.com/ilana_horn), 

**Date**: [Do You Love or Hate Math and Science?](http://www.quantamagazine.org/20161020-science-math-education-survey)

*Shared by: [MAA](http://twitter.com/maanow), [Matt Enlow](http://twitter.com/CmonMattTHINK), [Andrew Gael](http://twitter.com/bkdidact), 

**Date**: [Top 10 Tools for Creating Digital Quizzes](http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2016/10/top-10-tools-for-creating-digital.html)

*Shared by: [Phil Macoun](http://twitter.com/pmacoun), [Nancy Terry](http://twitter.com/NancyTerryMath), 

**Date**: [#ShadowCon16](http://bstockus.wordpress.com/shadowcon16/)

*Shared by: [Vanessa Garcia](http://twitter.com/Vanes63), [Brian Bushart](http://twitter.com/bstockus), 

**Date**: [Cat Maze](http://www.geogebra.org/m/Z3bry2pG)

*Shared by: [Ryan Smith](http://twitter.com/ryan_psmith), [GeoGebra](http://twitter.com/geogebra), 

**Date**: [Master of Liberal Arts - MALA - Graduate Program](http://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/graduate/masters-liberal-arts)

*Shared by: [TJ Hitchman](http://twitter.com/ProfNoodlearms), [Justin Lanier](http://twitter.com/j_lanier),

The output isn't perfect, but it's close. What a huge timesaver! This gives me all the stories and Twitter links I want from the Nuzzel page, and I can manually copy the ones for top story into Draft. I'd need to make the dates right and trim the unnecessary comma at the end of the "Shared by" list while replacing it with an asterisk to make that text italicized. I had been listing the "shared by" from oldest to newest (bottom-up) in TWiME, which the script doesn't do since it's top-down, but I'm really not too concerned about the order.

Then again, I was having fun with my newfound script-fu at this point, and pressed on to find a way to (a) format the dates in the script and (b) grab all seven days at once. That led to this code:

#!/usr/bin/python
import os, sys, string, urllib2
from datetime import datetime, date, time

base = "http://nuzzel.com/MathEdnet/mathed?sort=friends&when="
d = raw_input('Enter date, Nuzzel-style, or enter \"week\": ')

if d != "week":

    url = base+d

    d = datetime.strptime(str(d), "%m%d%Y")
    d = d.strftime("%B %d")

    f = urllib2.urlopen(url)

    for line in f:
        if "storyTitle" in line:
            url = line.split('"')[7]
            title = line.split('>')[2]
            title = title.split('<')[0]
            print "\n"
            print "**"+d+"**: "+"["+title+"]"+"("+url+")"+"\n\n"+"*Shared by:",
        if "externalUserLink" in line:
            url = line.split('"')[3]
            name = line.split('>')[1]
            name = name.split('<')[0]
            print "["+name+"]"+"("+url+"),",

if d == "week":

    dt = raw_input('Enter first day of your week, Nuzzel-style: ')
    dt = datetime.strptime(str(dt), "%m%d%Y")

    d1 = dt
    d2 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+1)
    d3 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+2)
    d4 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+3)
    d5 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+4)
    d6 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+5)
    d7 = dt.replace(day=dt.day+6)

    d1=d1.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d2=d2.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d3=d3.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d4=d4.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d5=d5.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d6=d6.strftime("%m%d%Y")
    d7=d7.strftime("%m%d%Y")

    sevendays = [d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d7]
    print sevendays

    for i in sevendays:

        url = base+i

        d = datetime.strptime(str(i), "%m%d%Y")
        d = d.strftime("%B %d")

        f = urllib2.urlopen(url)

        for line in f:
            if "storyTitle" in line:
                url = line.split('"')[7]
                title = line.split('>')[2]
                title = title.split('<')[0]
                print "\n"
                print "**"+d+"**: "+"["+title+"]"+"("+url+")"+"\n\n"+"*Shared by:",
            if "externalUserLink" in line:
                url = line.split('"')[3]
                name = line.split('>')[1]
                name = name.split('<')[0]
                print "["+name+"]"+"("+url+"),",

You'll see two big if blocks: the top one for dealing with just a single day, and the bottom one for dealing with the whole week. This script still grabs every story from each day, not just the top one, but I like to be able to see other popular stories so that's not a big deal to me. I'm a bit of a clutz with the date formatting. The documentation is pretty helpful, and I think a general lack of experience with Python modules and syntax trips me up or causes me to write more lines of code than I probably need. That's fine with a short script that I'm going to run once a week. It's already going to save me an hour or two, so I'm not worried about losing milliseconds of CPU time.

It feels pretty good to have produced some code that will make my life a little easier. Right now Colorado is in the beginning phases of creating a voluntary set of secondary computer science standards, and it's little projects like this that remind me that even a little bit of scripting knowledge can be powerful. It's something I think every student should have the opportunity to learn and pursue further if they so choose.

Two tech pioneers with contrasting approaches to technology in education

Recently I was catching up on episodes of "Triangulation," an interview show on the TWiT.tv network. The network focuses on technology, and guests on Triangulation are often key people from the (near) history of computing. Two recent guests made comments about technology and education, and the difference could not have been more striking. I'll let you judge for yourself.

First, Scott McNealy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, starting at 26:27 and going through 33:33:



Second, Bill Atkinson, early Apple engineer and creator of MacPaint and HyperCard, starting at 17:17 and going through 22:15:




Maintaining an Online Scholarly Identity

tl;dr: I prefer an ORCID + figshare + Twitter/Google+ combination over services like ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

By 2009 I was taking social media pretty seriously, and with all those links to find, save, and share, I put a lot of thought into social bookmarking. I was trying to figure out how to manage a bunch of overlapping options; at one time or another, I was using Delicious, Diigo, Pinboard, Google Reader, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and FriendFeed. Some of those products had integrations (like sending links from Reader to Twitter) while simultaneously having overlapping functions (like following someone on Reader for the links you were also seeing them post to Twitter). New services popped up all the time, and others faded away or were killed off completely. It was kind of a mess, and it taught me some things about what I valued in my tools: (1) multiple small tools (but not too many) focused on being good at specific tasks could return greater total value than all-in-one solutions, and (2) openness is important, for financial reasons (both mine and the service), interoperability, and exportability.

The current landscape of tools and services for managing an online scholarly identity feels very reminiscent of those social bookmarking days. Part of that online identity includes general social media services, like Twitter and Facebook, but also a bunch of services for academics: Academia.edu, ResearchGate, ORCID, Google Scholar, figshare, SlideShare, ResearcherID, and Mendeley. I'm sure there are others.

My experience with social networks and bookmarking taught me I had three basic needs: establishing my identity, saving resources, and a place to follow and share with others. For my identity, I've used my own website as well as services like about.me. For saving resources (links, mostly), I eventually ditched both Delicious and Diigo and went with Pinboard. For following and sharing, I now stick mostly to Twitter and Google+, with less activity on Facebook and LinkedIn.

With a scholarly identity, I feel like I still have the same three basic needs: establishing my identity, saving resources, and a place to follow and share with others. In academia, your identity is often represented by your curriculum vitae and publication record, and there are ways of maintaining a CV online that go beyond just posting a PDF of the paper version. For saving resources, academics need a repository to save their slides, posters, handouts, pre-prints, and unpublished manuscripts. That leaves a place to follow and share with others. It could be an all-purpose social network, or it could be something more specialized. Here's how I see the services I mentioned playing out across these three needs:

My view of the online scholarly identity landscape

Right away, you see two services, Academia.edu and ResearchGate, making the all-in-one play. They also happen to be mostly closed, profit-seeking services, which has raised the eyebrows (and/or fists) of some academics. Mendeley is nearby but doesn't offer much as a social network. Google Scholar is a bit further from the center, as it lets you follow other academics and be notified about new publications, but offers no way to interact with other people. For the most part, these services — while certainly valuable in their own ways — go against my two criteria of simplicity and openness. Does that mean I don't use them? Actually, I have accounts and profiles on all four of these services, but I don't spend a lot of time on them and I'm very wary of the rights they want over my work. It's tricky to add a publication to your ResearchGate or Academia.edu profile without actually giving them the document, and if you manage to do it they'll hound you for the full-text version. So tricky is Academia.edu in this respect, I've decided to trust it with nothing. For more on the pros and cons of these services, I'll refer you to the post "A Social Networking Site is Not an Open Access Repository" from the Univeristy of California.

That leaves me seeking out tools in the non-overlapping parts of my diagram. Here's what I've come to use most:

Identity: This is probably the easiest choice of them all. My ORCID is like my CV, and its sole purpose is to give researchers a unique identity tied to their scholarly activities and outputs. (See this as a list of ten things, if you prefer.) My profile is filled with a lot of things I entered manually, but when I published an article recently with Springer I gave them my ORCID and got two things: (1) the article was added to my ORCID profile automatically via CrossRef, and (2) I got a little ORCID badge on the article that links to my ORCID profile. Over time, this system is designed to make sure that no person or system confuses me with another Raymond Johnson, and all my works are tied together. I do pay attention to my Google Scholar profile since it's such a widely used and useful search tool, but you can tell Google doesn't put a ton of resources behind it and I'm not sure how many people or services rely on the profile features. Impactstory is a really cool thing that belongs in this category (nearest the center), but it really operates on top of, not instead of, ORCID and other services.

Repository: This is a tougher choice because in addition to having a repository that is stable and secure, there are also intellectual property rights to think about. I have tried hosting files on my own website, as many publishers allow academics to do. That puts a certain amount of responsibility on me, and I have to worry about registering domains, fixing broken links, having a stable URL structure, etc. I'm moving away from that and recently added all my slides and posters to figshare. While figshare does give me a profile page, identity services are really not its thing. Figshare is about sharing all kinds of open-licensed scholarly outputs, including datasets, figures, posters, presentations, and documents. They give you a stable DOI that (I assume) will always point to your file, even if figshare shuts down and someone else takes over the repository. figshare does have its rough edges, and through following their social media activity I can safely say that most of their attention is on behind-the-scenes integrations with services like ORCID, ImpactStory, and APIs that are more for librarians than individual users. figshare also takes some commitment, as you have to choose one of a number of open licenses to post your work publicly (like Creative Commons BY; I wish other CC licenses were available, but they're not), and once you post something there's no delete button. It's not that you've given your property to figshare and they won't give it back; rather, you've licensed your property for the world to see and use and figshare is making sure the world can exercise that right. There are alternatives, like SlideShare, but they're owned by LinkedIn, more business-oriented, and not as open or integrated into academic services.

I currently have two documents that I'm not sharing on figshare and have instead chosen to use our university repository. I could put more on scholar.colorado.edu and rely on the fact that it will probably operate so long as the university exists, but I can't continue to use it after I leave the university.

Social Network: While I get notifications about publications through Google Scholar and ResearchGate, I don't interact hardly at all with other people there. For that, I stick with Twitter and Google+. And that's fine with me, really, as I only have so much mental bandwidth to work with anyway. Once in a while I'll look at the Q&A on ResearchGate but rarely do I see a conversation I really want to jump into like I do routinely on my regular social media accounts.

By going with an ORCID + figshare + Twitter/Google+ combination I feel like I'm getting (and retaining) more value than I would with a single service like ResearchGate. It's a fair amount of work, though, and I'd recommend people not try to maintain too many identities at once. My Academia.edu profile is nearly empty because fewer education researchers I know are there, and it's just too much duplicate work to maintain it and ResearchGate, and my ResearchGate profile still doesn't include everything I list at ORCID. I think the rarer your name is, the less need there is for you to maintain a Google Scholar profile, and you can probably settle on just one repository for public posting of your work. I have a lot of confidence that ORCID will be around for the long haul, unlike some of these venture-funded services that will have to make a profit or likely be shut down. It's not easy to tell who might go the way of Google Reader or FriendFeed, but as we saw with those services, something new came along to replace them and it was easier if we weren't too invested in any one tool.

Oh, and if all else fails, an up-to-date, ready-to-print pdf of your CV is still not a bad thing to have handy.

A day in the life of a Ph.D. candidate

7:30 Wake up, roll over, and begin my day by checking email, Twitter, Google+, and RSS feeds.

8:15 Actually get out of bed and get ready for the day.

9:00 Sit at desk and start working. Listen to Science Friday podcasts on 2x speed in the background. My first task is to apply for a travel grant I'm hoping will help get me to NCTM. Task #2 is to follow up on some other travel funding I applied for.

9:45 Snack.

10:00 Prepare expense report and receipt for student infographics I printed for Inquiry Hub. It amazes me how much technology I use even for a simple task like this: Taking a picture of the receipt with the Microsoft Office Lens app on my phone, uploading it as a PDF to OneDrive, using Adobe Reader to fill out and digitally sign the expense report (with a password saved in LastPass), and using BitTorrent Sync to sync OneDrive to my Linux desktop, where I save files and do most my work. Science Friday has given way to Leo Laporte's The Tech Guy podcasts.
A glimpse of what I have in Pocket Casts

10:30 Work on a new "This Week in Math Ed" post. I was smarter this week and started writing earlier in the week as I saw some of the posts.

11:30 Lunch.

11:45 I'm back to work and reviewing recent research. I pause the podcasts to help me keep focus as I'd like to get through a few articles in a relatively short amount of time.

1:00 Break. So much for getting through multiple articles quickly. I started one and decided it wasn't a good fit for the post, then dug too deep into the next and ended up summarizing it on the MathEd.net Wiki.

1:20 Back to the research and writing.

3:15 I finally wrap up the blog post and send it out on Twitter and Google+. Time for another break.

3:45 Email wrangling. In 30 minutes I manage to delete, archive, reply to, or otherwise act upon about 40 emails, which only leaves me with about 100 unread. Try as I might, I've never quite developed habits that keep me at or very near inbox zero.

4:15 Dig into some administrative stuff to follow-up on some of my teaching duties from last semester. I told myself I'd get it done the first week back, and the last minutes of that first week are here.

5:00 I keep working, but turn on Tech News Today to catch some of the day's tech news.

6:00 Dinner time. Watch the Daily Tech News Show to get even more tech news. I'm still not done with the 4:15 task, but I set it aside for awhile.

Wisconsin won 1 match tonight. Ask Northwestern fans -- it could be worse.
7:00 On the bike. I aim for an hour of activity every day, and many days that means I'm on my exercise bike for an hour in the evening. Today I planned it this way so I could watch the Iowa-Wisconsin wrestling dual meet while I pedaled. Today's ride went about 20 miles, which puts me at 289 miles so far this year.

8:00 I finish watching the wrestling meet and send some email. I'm running out of steam at this point so everything I do seems to take longer.

9:45 Wrap up the 4:15 task, which thankfully had little left to do.

Bill Penuel-approved reading.
10:00 I concede that there's not just much productivity left in me today. Like too many days, I finish and think, "Where could I have found time to work on my dissertation?" In this case, I really thought I'd get through my mid-day blogging faster than I did. Writing now wouldn't go well, so I'll settle for some reading. Tony Bryk's book was delivered yesterday, and if I'm lucky I'll stay awake long enough to get through 10 pages.

NCTM's Grand Challenge

This post first appeared at CLIME Connections. I thank Ihor Charischak (@climeguy) for reaching out and encouraging me to think more deeply about these issues, and for letting me repost this here.

The Old and the New

NCTM has a generation gap problem.

What Dan was noticing at the 2013 NCTM Annual Meeting may not have been just about age, but age is a big part of it. During a session at the 2014 NCTM Annual Meeting, Jon Wray reported that the median age of an NCTM member is 57.5 years. 57.5 years! I personally have a fondness for NCTM veterans and enjoy the history of mathematics education, but a median of 57.5 is big when compared to the current distribution of teacher ages, where we see a median age closer to 40-42 and a modal age of about 30:

(Source: Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014)

This age difference is noteworthy for NCTM because older generations, like those in the upper half of NCTM's membership, tend to be relatively loyal to their institutions. But that's not the case for younger generations that now comprise the bulk of new teachers. Millennials often fail to find relevance in institutions, or they share in Generation X's tendencies towards institutional mistrust. Claims like these are symptomatic of NCTM's challenge:

It's not that Millennials don't value the power of being organized — they just tend to use the internet and social media to organize rather than rely on help from established organizations. An increasing number of math teachers are using Twitter and other social networks to organize themselves in both less- and more-formal ways. There might be no better example of self-organization than "Twitter Math Camp," an institution-free math conference where attendees tend to be young, connected, and not members of NCTM. (Attendees also tended to be very white and male, even more so than for the profession as a whole. That's a challenge for TMC and our social networks.)

The degree to which NCTM understands the changing needs of its membership is not entirely clear. On the one hand, NCTM does have an organizational social media presence (Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn) as well as blogs and social media accounts for their teacher journals (TCM, MTMS, and MT). Yet, not so long ago, members of NCTM's Research Committee appeared unaware that such tools could be used for connecting with teachers. In a 2012 report, the committee's recommended strategies for reporting research to teachers focused on journal-based publications and conferences. There were zero mentions of the internet, the WWW, blogs, social media, virtual teacher communities, or anything that would have distinguished their recommendations from plans NCTM might have formulated in the 1980s or before. While the committee's recommendations for how research gets reported in their journals and at their conferences might be sound, an assumption that math teachers will be loyal journal-reading, conference-attending members is not. NCTM's grand challenge is not to refine how well it preaches to its choir.

Thankfully, NCTM is not monolithic and some clearly understand the challenge NCTM faces in being relevant to the various needs of young math teachers. Peg Cagle is one of the better-connected members of NCTM's Board of Directors (Jon Wray is another), and if you click through to see the replies to Peg's question, you'll see a lot about what teachers want and what they feel NCTM is currently providing.

Beyond Content

In 2010 Google's Eric Schmidt famously claimed that every two days we create as much information as we did from the rise of civilization through 2003. While the accuracy of such a statement is difficult to establish, there's no doubt that we are awash with content.

Included in all this content are materials for math teachers, such as curriculum materials, lesson plan sites, instructional videos, test generators, and other teachers' reflections on their practice. What's more, this content is cheaper, more abundant, and more accessible than ever before. When math teachers perceive NCTM mostly as a provider of journals and conferences, NCTM risks becoming just another (and more expensive) content source in a vast sea of content sources. The quality of NCTM's resources certainly helps their cause, but we shouldn't ignore the possibility that people sometimes settle for good enough when they can get something easily at low or no cost. For all its journals and all its conferences, NCTM's game can't be to out-content the rest of the internet.

The internet has spawned many disruptive innovations and NCTM is one of many institutions facing challenges in this content-rich era. Traditional news media is similarly challenged to attract younger subscribers/readers/viewers who are accustomed to using the internet as an abundant source of news coverage, much of which is localized, specialized, and free. We've seen traditional news organizations experiment with variations of familiar revenue strategies, such as targeted advertising and freemium subscription models, but some think it's time for a more fundamental shift in how news media serves the public.

One of my favorite thinkers on the future of news is Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor, blogger, and podcaster. Recently, Jeff has been working to answer the question, "Now that the internet has ruined news, what now?" Jeff has partly given his answer to this question in a five-part series (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) on Medium as he writes his way towards a new book due out in November. At the core of Jeff's vision is a service-oriented journalism based on relationships, where content is just a means to that end, not the end itself. Journalists would position themselves to work closely with communities, privileging community knowledge instead of acting as the content authority and gatekeeper. Social media would be a key tool for building and maintaining these relationships, as Jeff describes in this selection from Part 2 of his essay:

Now we have more tools at hand that enable communities to communicate directly. So perhaps our first task in expanding journalism’s service should be to offer platforms that enable individuals and communities to seek, reveal, gather, share, organize, analyze, understand, and use their own information — or to use the platforms that already exist to enable that. The internet has proven to be good at helping communities inform themselves, sharing what’s happening via Twitter, what’s known via Wikipedia, and what matters to people through conversational tools — comments, blog posts, and tweets that, never mind their frequent banality and repetition and sometimes incivility, do nevertheless tap the cultural consciousness.

To be clear, Jeff isn't saying journalists should just be replaced by the public sharing of information. Journalists can add value to the community's knowledge by raising new questions, adding context, bringing experts into the conversation, fact-checking, and performing other duties long-associated with quality journalism. What's different, says Jeff, is that "simply distributing information is no longer our monopoly as gatekeepers and no longer a proper use of our scarce resources." Content doesn't go away, but it takes on a supporting role for journalists focused on maintaining personal relationships with their community and its members.

I may be overestimating the similarities between challenges faced by news organizations and by a professional teaching association. But where visions for the future are concerned, I think Jeff Jarvis's service-oriented, relationship-based model for journalism may also be a promising model for NCTM. When I re-read Jeff's essays and mentally substitute "NCTM" for "journalism" or "news," I start to imagine a different kind of NCTM focused on privileging and coordinating the knowledge and relationships of a community of math teachers, one in which journals and conferences are merely seen by members as means, not the ends.

What Now for NCTM

I may be guilty of armchair quarterbacking. I also may be guilty of underestimating how much NCTM members already feel part of a strong professional community built on relationships. During the same panel at which Jon Wray mentioned NCTM's median age was 57.5, he also proudly expressed that he thought of NCTM as a collection of members he could refer to as "we" or "us." That's great for Jon and like-minded members, but that's not where NCTM's grand challenge lies. The challenge is with those who see NCTM as an "it" or a "they," likely young teachers who only associate NCTM with conferences they might not attend and publications they might not read.

I do not profess to be an expert in relationship-building, nor do I believe there to be easy answers. That's part of what makes this a grand challenge. That said, here are a few ideas for moving forward:

  • Don't be faceless. NCTM's blogs and social media accounts are a good start, but to build strong relationships we need to associate with each other as individuals, not as product titles. For example, instead of a @MT_at_NCTM Twitter presence to represent the journal, NCTM needs the editors and authors of Mathematics Teacher to represent themselves online as individuals. The same goes for board members, NCTM staff, and anyone else who identifies with the organization. It's easier to build trust with a person than a brand, and in my two years of helping teachers develop criteria to identify quality resources, I still don't think any indicator of resource quality matters more to a teacher than to have a recommendation from an individual they trust.
  • Find teachers where they are. Perhaps a time existed when it would have made sense for NCTM to build its own social networking site, but that time has passed. We should leverage the networks that already exist and find the teachers there. Some math teachers already use social media for professional reasons and would be easily engaged by NCTM. Other teachers of mathematics, who may only use social media for personal reasons, number in the tens and potentially hundreds of thousands. They may or may not be NCTM members, or regularly interact with other teachers online, but they exist. NCTM needs to organize its membership so that we seek these teachers out, show them that we care, and offer our support.
  • Don't just push, listen. The most common behavior I currently see in NCTM's social media streams is pushing content. To again use @MT_at_NCTM as an example, instead of just pushing out a daily link to an article or calendar problem, show that you're listening to the community. Talk to teachers about what they need and want. Use the journal to respond to these needs and show the community that you're listening. When there's a new article to share, arrange for the authors to engage in discussions and Q&As around what they've written. Again, engage as individuals, and use the @MT_at_NCTM account (and likewise, the other journal social media accounts, blogs, etc.) to highlight and point people to these community interactions.
  • Build a thank you economy and know your members. NCTM should take a few pages from Gary Vaynerchuck's playbook and establish a "thank you economy" with its members. Gary's current business is helping brands with their marketing, focusing more on listening and thanking than with pushing and closing deals. The language Gary uses in his keynotes is NSFW and his message is bold. Here's a 10 minute version and hour-long version of Gary's talks. (Note that these are 3-4 years old but still sound cutting edge. On Gary's clock, that means the next big thing is probably already here.) Gary is a big believer in knowing your customers and using that knowledge to show how much you care. Imagine an NCTM that used social media to know more about you as a teacher — the subjects you were teaching, the textbooks you have, the length of your class period, nuances in your state and local standards, etc., and used that information to help you in ways very specific to your needs. That kind of listening and caring about teachers as individuals builds loyalty.
  • Play matchmaker. At both the AERA and NCTM Annual Meetings this year I heard someone say something like, "We need a match.com for connecting teachers who want to work together" or "We need a website that connects teachers who want to work with researchers." Along with knowing teachers well enough to match them with relevant content and material resources, NCTM should know enough about its membership to connect members with each other.
  • Guide teachers towards mastery. In a 2001 article in Teachers College Record, Sharon Feiman-Nemser discusses what a continuum of teacher education might look like if it began with preservice teachers and continued through the early years of teaching. This continuum would need mentorship and induction programs better than what we have now and, most importantly, someone to coordinate teacher learning across university and school boundaries. For math teachers, NCTM might be the organization that could make this happen. If NCTM knew the strengths and weaknesses of teacher preparation programs, and of individual graduates, and knew more about those individual teachers' needs and experiences, they could position themselves as the facilitator/provider of high-quality, ongoing professional development for teachers. Examples: Maybe I'm a new teacher hired to teach 7th grade, but I student taught with 11th graders — NCTM could build my 1st-year PD around video cases with 7th graders. Maybe my teacher education program was strong in its approach to formative assessment — NCTM could provide support in furthering my practice instead of starting back at the basics. Maybe I switched states for my new teaching position — NCTM could help me better understand how teaching math is different in my new place, and what's worked well for other teachers making a similar move. Yes, this is that big data stuff that scares some people, but I'm not sure the size of the data matters much when it leads to something genuinely helpful.

These are just some ideas. Others will have different perspectives on NCTM's challenges and possible ways to meet them, but I hope this either starts or adds to conversations about math teaching as a profession and we should value in our professional organizations. While I understand why some teachers aren't members of NCTM, I think math teaching is a stronger profession with a strong NCTM. It's a better "we" than a "they." This stronger NCTM lies in a new generation of math teachers, ones who I believe are willing to connect and collaborate as part of an organization committed to forming relationships with them and amongst them, not just providing content to them.

NCTM New Orleans 2014:Levine's The Coming Transformation of American Education: Implications for Mathematics Education

Dr. Arthur Levine - President of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation (amongst other things)

NCTM Research Conference - Monday, April 7, 7:00 pm

Arthur Levine.
Source: http://woodrow.org/about/president/
The 2014 NCTM kicked off this evening with a poster session (which I missed, sadly) and an address by Dr. Arthur Levine, President of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and former President of Teachers College, Columbia University. In this talk, Levine detailed what he saw as six current and future forces that have the capacity to transform education.

Force #1: Demographics

In this section of the talk, Levine focused on demographic shifts, such as an aging population, an increased number of people moving to the Sun Belt, changes in color and diversity, and increasing immigration. Here are some of Levine's thoughts and claims:

  • We're going to see an extraordinary number of retirements, both in our university and K-12 systems, and they must be replaced.
  • There's been a 12% increase in math majors in the past 10 years, but it's really hard to recruit them into math education because other professions are more lucrative.
  • We're going to see a new majority of students in higher education: older than 25, part time, overwhelmingly female, and working. Higher education won't be their primary interest as they juggle responsibilities of work and family.
  • Students of the future aren't going to want higher education with "softball leagues or psychological counseling," as they can get those elsewhere. What they want is convenience, service, reliable financial aid, quality instruction, professors who are current in their fields, and low cost. They won't want to pay for things they don't use and they won't care about elective courses. These students will be prime candidates for online instruction.
  • People are moving to traditionally conservative states and we'll have a "Republican hegemony," at least for the near future. This will stress some education systems and deplete others.

Force #2: Economy

Here Levine talked about the shift from an "analog" economy to a "digital" economy and the jobs that either went abroad or no longer exist. Some claims:

  • Entry-level job skills are higher-skilled, with a particular demand for STEM knowledge and skill.
  • States are increasing their graduation standards to the highest levels in history and saying dropouts aren't acceptable, like they could in the past when dropouts could more easily find steady jobs.
  • We're going to find that the fastest growing job fields are STEM fields.
  • Levine says governors who he talks to only talk about economic development and STEM.
  • Everyone will have to be fluent in two languages - words and numbers. We thought we needed to teach kids Chinese, but instead we realized we need to teach them how to code.
  • The symbol of the industrial era is the assembly line. Our schools looked like that and, for a time, it worked. Students moved through by age, taking courses measured in Carnegie units devised in 1910. Now time is variable, process is variable, and we're switching from process to outcomes and a focus from teachers to students. States are imposing standards and outcomes, and this means more accountability and regulation.
  • We're going to see a proliferation of equity lawsuits. Equity used to mean access to the same process. Now students need access to the same outcomes. We've started to see the rise of these lawsuits and they're going to go "through the skies" in the coming years.

Force #3: Relationships with Government

More thoughts from Levine:

  • The emphasis in education is economic development, with STEM on the rise and humanities on the decline.
  • Higher education has shifted from a growth industry to a mature industry. Truman convened a committee in 1947 to engineer for growth. Now it's different. We're not trying to bump from 70% completion rates to 90%. Instead, we're trying to tighten regulations and become more efficient, doing more with less money.
  • If you look at the Obama education plan, you see choice, charters, and accountability. We used to have a name for people who supported those things: Republicans. Republicans and Democrats now only differ on two big education issues: Republicans trash unions in public, while Democrats do so in private, and they disagree on vouchers.
  • Educational improvement has been on the agenda for 30 years. Baby boomers are such a large segment and when they agree on what they want - which isn't often - they get it. Boomers had kids in the 1980s and they demanded great schools. "If you were running for dog catcher or president, you needed an education plan." Now boomers are older and their issues are their parents, if they still have them, and they want health care, elder care, and social security. There are limited budgets and health care will compete with education for public dollars.

Force #4: Technology

Technology is a marker and driver of change, and Levine predicts that curricular materials will change drastically, making traditional textbooks a thing of the past. The same technologies that we use to construct virtual environments like possible sci-fi visions of the future will be used to make rich simulations of history. No longer will students be limited to reading about fifth-century Athens; instead, they can go there virtually, where they'll virtually interact with classmates from around the world. Levine continued with thoughts on "digital natives":

  • "This year's freshmen were born in 1995. That's like last week."
  • "I asked a student in a focus group, 'How are you adapting to new technology?' He said, 'It's not technology unless it happens after you're born.' It's just reality, digital natives at analog universities being taught by digital immigrants."
  • "Sometimes what we call cheating students call collaboration and file sharing. These students float in miles of data one inch deep. If we're hunters, they're gatherers. If we do depth, they do breadth."

Force #5: Privatization

For Levine, this one is relatively simple. Education is very appealing to the private sector. They see it as a growth industry that's counter-cyclical: the market for education goes up when the economy goes down, and education is subsidized with dependable cash flows. Private says they educate more efficiently and with stronger leadership, so we can expect to see more and more money from the private sector in both post-secondary and K-12.

Force #6: Knowledge Producers

Publishers and other content producers are all after the same information, says Levine. He recalled a conversation he had with someone in the educational content/publishing industry:

Publisher: "We're not in the book business anymore. We're in the knowledge business. We have products in 15,000 schools and we offer professional development. No higher education institution can match that."
Levine: "Where are you getting your content from?"
Publisher: "We hired full-time content providers."
Levine: "I thought to myself, 'I don't know anyone who is a content provider,' so I had to ask what one was. What the publisher described is essentially what I would call 'professors.' So we're competing for the same people, except he can offer bonuses."

Implications

Levine summarizes with the claim that we'll see an increase in education providers, with a blurring about what's private and what's public. We'll also see a blurring of local and global. We've transitioned before, says Levine, when our country went from a predominantly agricultural economy to an industrial economy. The Latin and Greek classes the educated elite enjoyed weren't of much use in an industrial economy, so new universities were created that were more specialized and technical, like MIT, along with land-grant universities straddling the worlds of arts and sciences and community colleges that made higher education local. Our coming transformation will re-position faculty as assessors, prescriptors, diagnosticians, while learning will increasingly become outcome based.

More from Levine:

  • We're going to see three kinds of higher ed institutions: brick, click, and brick-n-click.
  • For students, we'll see more choice, "anytime" studies (study anyplace, anytime, any style/mode)
  • "If students are going to school and every choice doesn't look like 15 weeks, 3 hours a week, there's got to be a way to calibrate it all, and I think we'll do it based on outcomes."
  • "I think we'll see a change in high-stakes assessment. Imagine if our GPS gave us results every hour. What would it tell us? 'You're 80 miles out of the way. Recalculating.' That's not useful. Assessment will move from largely summative to formative, formative, formative until it's summative. I think we're also going to see data, data, evidence, evidence as we focus on outcomes and learning. We'll ask what George W. Bush once asked: 'Is our children learning?'"
  • We're also going to see much more lifelong learning. "Now we have students taking all their courses just in case they'll need them." In the future, courses will be delivered just-in-time.
  • I think we'll see talent prioritized over the institutions where talent works. Is it more important to have 100,000 students in a class, or be faculty at Stanford? Someone with 100,000 students doesn't need Stanford. They'll say, "I'm the product. I don't need their branding." These faculty won't have jobs - they'll have agents. Faculty will want MOOCs, consulting deals, book deals, TV deals, and they'll negotiate for them. This happened in Hollywood; for a time the movie studios dominated, but now we go for the actors and don't care about the studio. That will become increasingly true in higher education.

Lastly, Levine believes that mathematics and STEM is in a spotlight we haven't seen since the Sputnik era. So what do we do? This won't last forever:

"When it comes time to talk STEM and math, right now the media is much more likely not to come to us instead of Bill Gates. He's seen as being ahead of where we are. But these are the fields of the future, the ones our children will depend upon. I think universities are still the right ones for the job. Ninety percent of STEM educators are prepared there. Research shows that nobody's better than we are at this."

Results from the SRI Study of Khan Academy

SRI released their two-year, Gates-funded study of Khan Academy and I've read through their research brief. Regardless of what I summarize here, you should read it, too. It's an easy read and it will help you understand the limitations of the study and prevent unnecessary conclusion-jumping.

Here's what I'm taking away from the research brief:

Methodology: Researchers selected 20 schools and 70+ teachers across nine sites for this study, choosing a range of school types from a pool of volunteers. One public elementary school accounted for 8 of the schools, 50 of the teachers, and about half of the 2000 students that participated each year. The participants had "tight relationships" (p. 2) with Khan Academy, and feedback from the schools led to modifications in the program. Other than one site in one year, the participants in the study did not use Khan Academy as their primary curriculum, and the use of Khan Academy varied across settings and over time. This study isn't designed to establish causal claims, so we shouldn't make any. But that's okay — we can still learn a lot from education research that can't determine cause and effect. I see this as an efficacy study, not an effectiveness study (Sloane, 2008). Researchers do efficacy studies to judge if a program might be doing any good under idealized conditions. If an efficacy study suggests a program has value, then we can move to an effectiveness study with a more rigorous design to see if the program "works" in real-world conditions. (Unfortunately, this kind of organization and the funding to support it is not the norm.)

Favorable Findings: Khan Academy was generally well-liked by both students and teachers. Student engagement seemed high and teachers liked the modular nature of the materials, which made it easy to use as a supplement for the regular curriculum. At two research sites, increased time spent on Khan Academy was associated with better-than-expected test scores, decreased math anxiety, and increased confidence in math ability. Again, don't jump to conclusions — this represents just some of the students and the methods weren't rigorous. Increased time on something leading to improvement isn't all that surprising, and we should want to see further study.

Unfavorable Findings: Although teachers who used them thought they were somewhat to very useful, about 40% of teachers didn't refer to Khan Academy's student progress data more than once a month. Seventy percent of teachers who rarely or never used Khan Academy data preferred to use their own observations and assessments to judge student performance. Teachers also experienced difficulty finding content that was appropriately aligned. The study says Khan Academy responded to these things and made improvements. That's a good thing.

There is a lot more to see in the research brief, and even more in the implementation report. Browsing the latter, I see some interesting things, such as:

  • Of the 14 schools participating in both years of the study, 11 appeared to significantly decrease Khan Academy usage in the second year. Researchers found this was likely due to less direct support from Khan Academy in year two and shifting goals and priorities (pp. 23-24).
  • Students in the study aren't watching many Khan Academy videos (pp. 26-27).

I'm sure there's a great deal more there, and I encourage you to note anything you find in the comments.

You can still count me among Khan Academy skeptics — while I don't doubt there are some positive outcomes, I'm not sure Khan Academy fits into our best visions for teaching and learning mathematics, something I've written about on several occasions. For me, it's not all that helpful to know a program "works" unless I have a way to judge how well it "works" compared to other options, and in this case there's a lot of research yet to be done to find those answers. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting more big Khan Academy research any time soon. It took longer than expected for this study to be released and I started to wonder if it would be released at all. Given the study's limitations and use of only a subset of the data to make positive associations to outcomes I question if Gates or any other funder is ready to pony up the funding for a more rigorous study. That's too bad, because Khan Academy isn't going away and there are going to be more questions about how schools should use it, if we can be sure it's worth using at all.

References

Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A ., Mislevy, J., & Hafter, A. (2014). Research on the Use of Khan Academy in Schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Education.

Sloane, F. C. (2008). Randomized trials in mathematics education: Recalibrating the proposed high watermark. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 624–630. doi:10.3102/0013189X08328879

Teaching Statistics: Textbook Considerations

I have the pleasure of teaching an undergraduate basic statistics class this fall for the third consecutive year. It's not a class I had any specific preparation to teach, but I've tried to make up for that by becoming familiar with some of the statistics education literature, bolstering my content knowledge (although I doubt it will ever be as wide or deep as I'd like), getting access to good resources, and being mindful of the needs of my students.

First, it would help to know a little bit about the course. Most strikingly, the class only meets once a week on a Thursday from 4:30 to 7. If you're used to teaching 180-day school years, you really have to wrap your head quickly around the idea that you're only going to see these students 15 times before finals. Also, despite the class being taught in the School of Education, it's not required of any education students. Instead, the class consists mostly of students from two majors: Sociology and Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences. Honestly, most of them admit to avoiding math classes, but they usually need the stats class to apply for graduate school. As for the content of the course, here is how it is described in the university catalog:

Introduces descriptive statistics including graphic presentation of data, measures of central tendency and variability, correlation and prediction, and basic inferential statistics, including the t-test.

And that's it. As someone who works almost daily with the Common Core State Standards, building a course around such a sparse description would be quite a challenge, especially for a first-time instructor. When I talked to Derek Briggs about teaching the course, he advised that I use his preferred text, Statistics by Freedman, Pisani, and Purves. I'd recently used Agresti and Finlay's Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences for my qualitative methods courses, and while that book suited me pretty well, I was open to something different so I ordered the Freedman text for my class.

In hindsight, the Freedman text was fine, and the Agresti text would have been fine, too. Both were decently well-written and had plenty of problems to assign, but that's the thing — I was looking for a text that offered considerably more than explanations followed by problem sets. I really wanted something that supported students working together in groups during class, making sense of the material as we went along.

One book that had gotten my attention was Workshop Statistics: Discovery with Data by Rossman and Chance. I recognized Beth Chance's name immediately from some of the stats education literature I'd read, and felt good that this text would offer what I was looking for. I used the text last year and was not disappointed, and will be using it again this year. Below is a summary of some of the reasons I like Workshop Statistics.

Context Continuity

In the front matter of the book, Workshop Statistics contains a list of activities by application — in other words, they've categorized all the problems by context and indexed exactly where those contexts get used. The list of related problems appears again with each problem in the text (inset in picture above), so it's easy for me or my students to refer back or forward to where that context appears. I believe in teaching mathematics rooted in context when possible, so I found this an especially helpful way of finding problems that might be relevant or interesting to the students in my class.

Preliminaries

Every topic (lesson) in the text opens with some preliminary questions. Some involve data collection, which is great, but at the very least it gives students an opportunity to consider a question and how we might answer it. If Dan Meyer has made anything clear, it's that we shouldn't teach math as finding answers to questions that nobody has bothered to ask.

In Brief

The end-of-topic summary certainly isn't unique to this text, but the "You should be able to" statements are very handy for writing objectives for standards-based grading. (I hope to write about my SBG approach in a future post.)

Online Supports and Simulations

Besides both online instructor and student resources, the text uses a number of custom applets that often really help illustrate some of the concepts in the course. Some are Java, but a number have been converted to JavaScript for use on more platforms. I've avoided having students use software beyond a spreadsheet, and some of these applets have saved us from having to purchase SPSS (expensive!) or trying to use R (steep learning curve!).

Activities

The in-class activities use some interesting contexts and support groups working together. If anything they can be a bit over-scaffolded, but that relieves me from having to lecture much and I can spend most of my time going group-to-group in the classroom and dealing with questions more intimately.

Overall

There are a number of smaller things that I'm fine with, although they aren't deal-makers or deal-breakers. The pacing of the text is good — if we cover about two topics a week, we finish the text and pretty much everything one would expect in a basic statistics course. The order of the topics is sensible, too. Typically, it makes sense to put descriptive statistics before inferential statistics, and to work from one-variable stats to two-variable stats. This book is no different. Some texts put linear regression earlier, and where probability should land in a book seems to be negotiable. The placement of those topics in this book is fine for this course and the progression from topic to topic was very manageable.

Other than my first day activity, I haven't written much about teaching stats, but look for me to change that this semester.