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."

Planning for NCTM New Orleans 2014: The Research Conference

Fresh off the plane from AERA in Philadelphia, I have a few moments to share my plans for the NCTM Research Conference. As you can see, I occasionally fool myself into thinking I can be two places at once. Or in one case, four.

Monday

Julie Booth, Francie Eyer, and E. Juliana Paré-Blagoev (Room 217/218)

P. Holt Wilson, Paola Sztajn, and Jared Webb (Room 217/218)

Megan H. Wickstrom (Room 217/218)

William C. Zahner and Robert Afonso (Room 217/218)

Arthur Levine (Room 208/209/210)

Tuesday

Cliff Konold, Richard Lehrer, and Robert DelMas; Patrick W. Thompson, Discussant (Room 214)

Thomas R. Post, William Bush, and Robert Reys (Room 207)

Michelle Cirillo, John A. Pelesko, and Jinfa Cai; Christian R. Hirsch, Elizabeth Phillips, and Sherry Fraser, discussants (Room 214)

Robert P. Moses, Bill Crombie, Andre Hargunani, and José Antonio Orozco; OneLA- Industrial Areas Foundation, discussant (Room 208/209/210)

Members of the NCTM Research Committee, Members of the SIG/RME Board of Directors , J. Michael Shaughnessy, Patricia F. Campbell, Larry Hatfield, and Judith Sowder (Room 220/221/222)

(As you can see above, 10:00 is packed. I want to go to all of them and fear the regret of not seeing Bob Moses.)

Samuel L. Eskelson and Margaret Smith (Room 219)

Daniel Chazan, Orly Buchbinder, Justin K. Dimmel, Ander Erickson, and Kristi Hanby; Patricio G. Herbst and Randolph Philipp, discussants (Room 214)

Stephanie Casey, Nicholas H. Wasserman, David C. Wilson, and Adam Molnar (Room 207)

Corey Drake, Jill Newton, and Denise A. Spangler (Room 205)

Ilana S Horn, Nicole Bannister, Annie Fetter, Shauna Hedgepeth, Ashli J. Black, Justin Lanier, and José Vilson (Room 211)

Charles Munter, Richard Correnti, Anne Garrison, Lynsey K. Gibbons, and Kara Jackson; Deborah Loewenberg Ball, discussant (Room 214)

Raymond Johnson (Room 217/218)

Wednesday

Erica Walker, Daniel Chazan, Marta Civil, and Jacqueline Leonard (Room 219)

Lynsey K. Gibbons, Kara Jackson, Heather Lynn Johnson, and Jonathan N. Thomas (Room 220/221/222)

Philip Uri Treisman (Room 208/209/210)

Frederick Peck (Room 215)

Janine Remillard, Joshua Taton, Kara Jackson, Indigo Esmonde, and Anne Garrison Wilhelm; Mary Kay Stein, discussant (Room 219)

There are two more research sessions on Wednesday afternoon but I may very well take that time to prepare for my talk on Friday and/or try to process some of the above.

AERA Philadelphia 2014: Supporting Common Core-Driven Curriculum Adaptations for High School Algebra

Annual Meeting - Sunday, April 6, 12:25 pm

+Raymond Johnson (@MathEdnet) - School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder and Freudenthal Institute US
+Heather Leary (@kolorkid) - Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder
+Bill Penuel (@bpenuel) - School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder

Abstract: The adoption of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) has created a need for many teachers and school districts to adapt their current curricular materials. Using the methods of design-based implementation research (Penuel et al., 2011), this project partnered with high school algebra teachers, district curriculum staff, and university researchers to support teachers in the selection and use of high-quality mathematical tasks. This participatory design process yielded a set of principles for task analysis that considered qualities of CCSSM alignment, cognitive demand, language, and technology. Results indicate a need for careful guidance in task rating, attention to teachers’ desires to further modify tasks, and possible benefits for task implementation.


This poster broadly summarizes the first year of an ongoing project that brings together education researchers, web developers, school district curriculum supervisors, and a team of district algebra teachers to support Algebra 1 teachers' curriculum adaptations to meet the new demands of the Common Core State Standards. To give a little context to the poster, you can see our research questions address not only the what of curriculum adaptation, but the how - ideally, we want to theorize ways these kinds of collaborations can work and a process other districts can follow to bring these kinds of curriculum changes to scale.

The perspective we take on our research is design-based implementation research, or DBIR. You can learn more about DBIR at learndbir.org. Design research has typically been carried out at the classroom level, and DBIR takes much of that thinking to a larger educational system. Too often professional development is only applied to teachers who struggle to implement new ideas and tools without broader institutional support. DBIR tries to change that by engaging stakeholders throughout the system to tackle persistent problems of practice in a way that is scalable and sustainable.

Design work with curriculum has been theorized by McKenney, Nieveen, and van den Akker (2006) to focus on iterative cycles of work towards the development of three products: design principles, curricular products, and professional development. These are in order of importance and reflect our values in this project. Our first priority is not a higher quality curriculum, although that is a strongly desired outcome. But to reach that outcome, our highest priority is giving teachers a set of principles for evaluating the quality of the materials they use and choose from every day. With these principles in place, quality resources to choose from, and a professional development program to tie the two together, we aim to create curriculum reform in a way that's sustainable. Two web-based products have supported this work: first, the Task Rating site, where teachers evaluate tasks given our co-designed principles. The rating data collected in this site is used in professional development for reflection and debate. The data also informs our second web tool, the Curriculum Customization Service. This site catalogs the high-quality mathematical tasks identified in the rating process alongside digital versions of the district curriculum as well as resources from NSDL, the National Science Digital Library. Teachers with accounts on the service can save resources into playlists for lesson and unit plans and use an uploading and sharing tool to share their curriculum with colleagues.

Our findings are preliminary. First, we found that mathematical tasks acted as a boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989; Star, 2010), an object around which we could organize our work despite each community (researchers, district supervisors, teachers, and web developers) having somewhat different perspectives on the role of mathematical tasks.

We found some tensions in our first year of work. A persistent tension related to the modification of mathematical tasks. Although the goal of the project was to adapt the curriculum, there was an effort taken to have teachers consider tasks as written. This was difficult for teachers due to another tension, their consideration of tasks given the unique contexts of their classrooms. While we value those contexts, rating tasks using the design principles was difficult to do consistently when teachers saw not the task as written, but a different version of the task that they would likely enact. Lastly, the most difficult design principles to develop were those that evaluated the language used in tasks. Through multiple revisions, rubrics for rating task language incorporated more structure from both research and an understanding of ongoing district effort to support language learning.

At year's end, we had collectively rated 40 tasks, most of which were cataloged in the Curriculum Customization Service. We also looked for consistency in ratings. Rater agreement varied depending on the principle applied to the task and the task itself. Preliminary measures indicated raters were generally in 60% agreement in their rating of cognitive demand, and alignment to the Common Core varied between 50%-80%. This work to measure agreement is ongoing and do not support any conclusions as yet.

The second year of the project has focused on supporting the implementation of tasks, using ideas like the task launch (Jackson et al., 2012) and a focus on promoting quality classroom discussions. We expect our work next year will be the difficult work of scaling, within the district to other Algebra 1 teachers and possibly to those in other partner districts.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award #1147590). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF.

References

Jackson, K. J., Shahan, E. C., Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2012). Launching complex tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(1), 24–29.

McKenney, S. E., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. E. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Routledge.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826

Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001

AERA Philadelphia 2014: Travels and Tribulations

I'm in Philadelphia for this year's Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, or AERA. This conference is a big undertaking — I think of it not just in terms of the 15,000+ people and their research, but the collective time, effort, and money that goes into everyone's travel arrangements, hotel reservations, and conference registrations. It's a big number, whatever it is, and as an attendee of the conference I feel like I have a duty to see that the funds that sent me here are well-spent.

To those ends, I had planned to catch an early flight from Denver and to get to Philadelphia in time to attend some late-afternoon sessions and tonight's AERA presidential address. I didn't make it. I spent most of the day yesterday getting my posters ready and packing for a 10-day AERA-NCTM conference marathon. Instead of getting a good nights' rest, I packed and prepared into the early morning and headed to catch the early bus (3:20 AM!) to the Denver airport. I ended up missing that bus by just seconds but caught the 4:40 AM bus which still gave me ample time to get through DIA for a 7:00 flight.

We got on the plane, backed away from the gate, sat for a moment, and then heard the pilot explain that there was a problem and we'd be pulling back into the gate and waiting for maintenance to give the plane a look. His explanation was intriguing: There were two ignition systems for the engines, and the systems for each engine work independently of the other. Somehow, one of the systems had failed on both engines, which the pilot said was very unusual. To make things even more strange, the plane next to us was having the exact same problem. We sat there in the plane for almost 3 hours before the problem was resolved (how, we were never told), our plane was de-iced, and we were in the air.

I had hoped to be in Philly at 12:30 local time but it ended up being closer to 3. Then I waited for a hotel shuttle to arrive and was the last of 10 people to get dropped off at their hotel. By then it was about 5:30 here, which meant my total trip had taken about 12 hours and I'd done it on no sleep. With 9 days of conferences ahead of me, now I'm just looking for some rest. Really, at times like this I can't help but ask, "Why does anybody bother?" Rested, tomorrow I hope to spend a day at the convention center answering that question.

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