Using the General Social Survey dataset, last week I discovered using dummy variables that union members hold higher degrees and more income compared to nonunion members. To expand on that research, I am using a Chi Squares test to examine the relationship between the two variables; respondents’ highest degree (dependent variable) and Does respondent or spouse belong to a union (independent variable). Since both variables are measured as categorical, the Chi-Square test will provide additional insights into the relationship (Frankfurt-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018).
The results show a p-value of .007, significantly less than the threshold of .05, indicating the rejection of the null hypothesis that union members do not hold higher degrees than nonunion members. Since the Chi-Square test does not reveal the significance of the statistically significant relationship, a Cramer’s V test is used, which results in a value of .074. The Cramer V relationship is between 0 and 1.0, with 1.0 being a strong relationship; thus, in this example, the value of .074 shows a weak relationship between education levels and unionized labor. However, even though the relationship is weak, the dataset does show a statistically significant relationship and therefore, we can assume unionized members earn higher degrees than nonunion members.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2018). Social statistics for a diverse society (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Bivariate categorical tests [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. span>
Do Americans have a higher Socioeconomic Status (SES) and education level when belonging to a union?
I created 3 dummy variables for the independent variable, “Does R (respondent) or spouse belong to a union” using the High School Longitudinal Study dataset. My reference variable assumes that neither the respondent or spouse belong to a union. Further, the model summary indicates 34% of SES values are affected by the independent variables and the ANOVA test reveals a significance level of .000, well below the conventional threshold of .05, indicating unions do influence SES and education levels (Laureate, 2016).
In examining the coefficients, SPSS reveals when comparing SES against married couples who are not in the union, SES increases 2.5 – 2.8 units when one spouse belongs to the union, 2.2 units when both spouses belong to the union. Therefore, when comparing respondents, spouses, or married couples within a union, SES increases and so does their higher education level by 4.245 years.
Diagnostics reveals a Durban Watson value of 1.75 and ANOVA value of .008. Further, the collinearity VIF values for each dummy variable are well below 10 at just above 1.0. Lastly, Cooks Distance values are well below 1.0 and do not have undue influence (Laureate, 2.16m).
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016m). Regression diagnostics and model evaluation [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Dummy variables [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
The purpose of this multiple regression test is to examine whether math teachers’ perceptions of collective responsibility and principal support, the independent variables measured as interval-ratio, affect math teacher self-efficacy, the dependent variable measured as interval-ratio. Each variable data was taken from the High School Longitudinal Study dataset (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). Since I am using two independent variables to examine how it affects one dependent variable, multiple regression serves as the best model to complete such task (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). Nonetheless, the multiple regression test reveals a statistically significant relationship between the two independent variables and the dependent variable.
Model and ANOVA
The model summary reveals an R-value of .21, indicating the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is a slight positive correlation between math teachers’ perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility against math teaching self-efficacy. Also, the Adjusted R Square value of .45, indicates 45% of math teachers’ self-efficacy is affected by their perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility (Laureate Education, 2016).
The ANOVA test reveals an F value of 331.63 at a significance of .000, well below the conventional .05 alpha level, therefore, rejecting the null that math teachers’ self-efficacy is not affected by their perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility.
The Unstandardized Coefficients Beta value for math teacher’s perceptions of principal support is .062, meaning for one unit increase in perceptions of principal support, math teacher’s self-efficacy will increase by .062. A one unit increase in math teacher’s perceptions of collective responsibility, math teacher’s self-efficacy will increase by .165. Lastly, the significance of each independent variable is .000, indicating a rejection of the null that there is no relationship between teacher’s perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility against math teacher’s self-efficacy (Laureate Education, 2016). Therefore, we can conclude that teacher perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility do affect their ability to deliver effective instruction.
SPSS was used to analyze the data from the 2014 General Social Survey data set which reveals both hours watching TV and time spent on the internet during the week affect your socioeconomic status.
The Model Summary of the Multiple Linear Regression tests reveals that 40% of socioeconomic statuses are explained by the two independent variables; hours spent watching TV and time spent on the internet. The ANOVA test has a significance of .000, below the .05 alpha level indicating the rejection of the null that there is no relationship between variables.
Nonetheless, analyzing the unstandardized coefficients reveals for every unit increase of hours per day watching TV, SES will decrease by 1.668 units. For every unit increase in internet hours per week, SES will increase by .130 units. The significance of each independent variable is statistically significant at the .01 alpha level and are statistically significant predictors of SES. Thus, in laymen terms, the more you watch TV, the less money you will make and the more time you spend on the internet, the more money you will make. However, there are multiple influences that affect hours spent on the internet, some beneficial to income, some not.
The purpose of this bivariate correlation test is to examine whether math teachers’ years of service are correlated with students’ mathematics self-efficacy using the High School Longitudinal study data (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). The correlation test is used to determine the level of association between the two variables and the strength of the association (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). The results of the test indicate a p-value of .047, just under the conventional .05 threshold, therefore rejecting the null that there is not a statistically significant relationship between the two variables. Because of the rejection of the null, a linear regression test can be utilized to determine the strength of the relationship.
Linear Regression Test
The Linear Regression test reveals that for every year of experience a math teacher completes, students’ mathematics self-efficacy increases by .2%. Also, The standardized coefficients value is computed at a level of .017, which indicates a very slight positive correlation between the two variables as it is just above 0 (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). Such statistical data can help provide social change for educators across the globe by helping teachers remain in the field of teaching mathematics. Further, such information could entice further research in examining teacher confidence and ability to deliver seamless instruction.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2018). Social statistics for a diverse society (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). High school longitudinal study [data file].
The Education Technology market is closing in on $1.9B and most public-school systems are utilizing 1:1 initiatives to bring more tech to the classroom (Molnar, 2017). The whole school process is being digitized from registration to homework and it is time to stop and consider the vulnerabilities that are being created through technology. First, consider the technology used in administration; registration software, Learning Management System, Student Information System, Website, local servers, and office software. In administration alone, schools are subject to over five vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks and all these technologies are generally integrated with each other. Now add the classroom to the mix. Until recently, I've used roughly five to seven 3rd party integrations with office software during a school year. Now we have over ten vulnerabilities on any given school year that is subject to exposing student and teacher information across the internet. That information could be addresses, social security numbers, grades, assignments, health records, contact information, and online communication.
It doesn't stop there, how many folks have taken the time to research each EdTech company to verify their stance on privacy or security? How many of us actually read the Terms and Agreements? According to Jonathan Obar, 98% of us don’t read those terms and agreements before signing up. In his study, people actually agreed to sharing their private information with the NSA and surrendering their first-born child as payment to have access to technology, the conditions were found in the Terms and Agreements (Vedantam, 2016).
Now you might be a little relieved to find out that both Microsoft and Google have pledged to protect student privacy; however, Google is currently being sued by the state of Mississippi for their current and past notorious bouts with utilizing student data to drive their ad service - this is how they combat their free service with some revenue. This will be a later conversation, but when companies market their free service, it generally isn't free.
Tips before Signing Up
Tools for Protecting Student Privacy
Consider allowing students to turn on in private browsing through the internet browser and ask that they clear the history before logging off of the computer and at home. Be sure to discuss their digital footprint and how it is utilized in data collection. BrowserSpy is a nice tool to check what your internet browser leaves behind. Look for tools such as Privacy badger to block Ads and prevent advertisers from secretly tracking you (Barack, 2017). Use https://privacy.commonsense.org/ to check out Commen Sense Tech evaluations. Lastly, take the pledge: https://studentprivacypledge.org/.
Our data is continuously being tracked, sold and purchased and it is important for students and schools to know and understand the importance of privacy. Carelessness could result in significant problems for students in the future.
Barack, L. (2017). The Problem with Student Privacy, and How to Protect It. Retrieved from: http://www.slj.com/2017/01/technology/the-problem-with-student-privacy-and-how-to-protect-it/
Molnar, M. (2017). K-12 Ed-Tech Platform and Tools Market Value to Increase to $1.83 Billion by 2020, Report Says. Retrieved from: https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/k-12-ed-tech-platform-tools-market-value-increase-1-83-billion-2020-report-says/
Vedantam, S. (2016). Do You Read Terms Of Service Contracts? Not Many Do, Research Shows. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491024846/do-you-read-terms-of-service-contracts-not-many-do-research-shows
Originally posted: https://elearningindustry.com/educational-technology-and-authentic-learning
Educational technology plays a significant role in designing and developing authentic learning. Its role is not only to provide instruction effectively and efficiently but more importantly, to provide students with an experience they otherwise wouldn't have.
Educational Technology And Authentic Learning: The Significant Role Of EdTech In Authentic Learning Development
Hopefully you have read Designing Instruction For Authentic Learning and Developing Content For Authentic Learning as I will refer to these articles below. This article is meant to open conversations regarding models for effective technology integration.
We have discussed Authentic Learning which is a strategy found under Deeper Learning, its goal is to provide students with critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and collaboration skills. Research shows that through Deeper Learning Approaches students raise test scores, have higher graduation rates, and are more likely to enroll in post-secondary schooling - including trade schools (American Institute of Research, 2016). The data proves that Authentic Learning works and through my previous two articles you should have gained an excellent foundation for designing and developing your course using Authentic Learning – plus check out New Media Horizon Reports for K12 and Higher Ed; you’ll notice Deeper Learning is listed in both. Now it is time to focus on the role of Educational Technology.
The Role Of Educational Technology
Educational Technology should be used to provide students with an experience they otherwise wouldn’t have. Chris Dede, a Harvard University Learning Technologies Professor, argues that “technology as a catalyst is effective only when used to enable learning with richer content, more powerful pedagogy, more valid assessments, and links between in- and out-of-classroom learning” (2014, p. 6). Additionally, we must acknowledge that there is an achievement gap which looks something like a bell curve and that the digital divide is a real thing – consider the digital divide when providing experiences.
We also should acknowledge that educational technology complements our design and development and technology alone cannot create learning experiences. Teaching as a human craft is what makes learning effective, not the technology. We certainly do not want something called digital drill and kill by digitizing teacher-centered instruction (Murray, 2017). On the contrary, we want students to apply the knowledge gained by using technology to do better things rather than do things better (Dede, 2017).
Tips For Integrating Technology And Personalizing Learning
We first need to correlate the technology with our unit and course objectives. If we have our students analyzing literature, then the objective should read the same; analyze literature. We could look at the SAMR Model of technology integration, but I think the model alone limits our objective in providing students with Authentic Learning experiences; however, it is a step in the right direction. Remember, we don’t simply want to digitize business! Again, it is providing students with an experience they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Second, look at Gartner’s Hype Cycle and New Media Horizon Reports to determine what technologies are becoming of age, reaching their plateau, or are on the rise because these technologies are going to be embedded in the real world (note there are a few different industries for the Horizon Report and an education version of the Hype Cycle).
Third, remember that instruction is guided and we control rigor based on guidance of each student, therefore, instruction is personalized as each student needs different guidance. Look at the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) designed by Lev Vygotsky for more information on guidance and personalized learning. Lastly, use technology in every facet of instruction, it can certainly make the delivery of instruction and feedback more efficient with Learning Management Systems and video production. Take this example in public education, I hate taking attendance and writing it down on paper, it wastes time. Instead, use Kipin Attendance through Canvas (LMS) where students have five minutes into the class to record their attendance, this way I didn’t have to call out names or mark each student’s attendance digitally. It knocked off three minutes of wasted time per class – 180 days X 3 equates to 540 minutes or roughly 2.5 weeks of instruction devoted to attendance!
Nonetheless, we say we want students to do better things through their summative assessment. That doesn’t mean we can’t make other facets of instruction more efficient. Remember the questionable rule that if you feel you need to directly instruct, then create a video. It is still direct instruction but hopefully students complete it at home.
There Really Isn’t An Effective Model – That’s The Problem
The SAMR Model certainly gets educators going in the right direction and creates good conversations. It is even better when utilized with the Bloom’s Taxonomy as we attempt to match assessments with objectives. TPACK makes great arguments that this article coincides. Integrating these 3 models is another great start towards an effective model. What we do know is every facet of teaching should integrate technology, but the assessments should require collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration through Authentic Learning.
Do you know a model for effective technology integration? If so, share with us your model or how you integrate technology.
This article is intended to delve deeper into the development phase of the Instructional Design model I use to create Authentic Learning.
Originally posted: https://elearningindustry.com/business-case-learning-technology-systems-points
How To Develop Content For Authentic Learning
Learning by doing is the basis of authentic learning and is considered one of the most effective strategies for instruction (Lombardi, 2007). So why not required this of your students? In my previous article I discussed the importance of assessments and requiring students to apply the skills and theories learned in the course to real world applications while guiding students and requiring that they bridge the gap between the learning materials and the application. This process is not easy and requires a continuous involvement of reflection for both the teacher and student. Keep in mind that the framework has already been completed as you have broken down the summative assessment into units and have written the formative assessments as well as objectives. Nonetheless, learning units should follow this process:
Student Assignments And Activities
Provide the students an assignment immediately following the introduction of a new topic. This is the perfect opportunity for you to guide students through the assignment and assess who is transferring the new information and who needs additional support. This usually occurs through discussion and doesn’t require the full application of the new knowledge, but instead is chunked to gain a greater understanding. Adult learners utilize this space to provide their skills and experiences in the workforce, but other learners can communicate through worksheets, small group discussion, short essay, group activity, etc... As an instructor, be involved in the conversation, the lower grades need more guidance. Instructors need to reflect on where students stand – are they bridging the gap or need further instruction? Reteach if needed. Provide feedback; good feedback, not just red ink. Some units might require two assignments so students can apply their knowledge in the application.
The perception action cycle has completed one rotation by using the assignment and providing feedback. Students have a new perception of the learning topic now. The cycle will start over again once students apply the new knowledge or transfer knowledge. Keep in mind that the application has already been designed as it was discussed in the previous article. However, it may need developed (written directions, exemplary work, etc…) and/or tweaked. Once students complete the application, provide feedback, analyze the data, and then go back to the design phase as noted in the previous article to make adjustments to the course. No course is ever too awesome and things change, edTech changes and the tools in the career fields change.
Feedback As The Most Important Aspect Of The Learning Process
Dr. Orlando wrote a fantastic piece on how to provide feedback like a coach instead of a teacher:
“As teachers we spend a lot of time telling students what they did wrong, but very little time showing them what doing it right looks like. Modeling good work is a key component of feedback—and improving student or player performance.” (2014)
He continues to discuss how education has created this grade-obsessed cultural monster where students and teachers alike are too fixated on the product instead of the process and that we lose focus of the objectives. Correlate this with Dr. Dweck’s book titled Growth Mindset and you can see how guidance and feedback control the learning process instead of limiting the outcome to a single grade. This process is much easier when creating authentic learning instead of direct instruction and a multiple-choice exam to assess transfer of knowledge.
An applied approach to Instructional Design where the Backwards Design model is integrated into the design phase of ADDIE to create Authentic Learning. Increase the transfer of knowledge effectiveness rate by allowing students to become active learners instead of passive receivers of information.
Originally Published: https://elearningindustry.com/designing-instruction-for-authentic-learning
How To Design Instruction For Authentic Learning
The following process will review each phase of ADDIE as it focuses on integrating Authentic Learning. It is important to note that there are many other pedagogical strategies for Deeper Learning. In addition, the role of edTech is directly correlated to Instructional Design and allows instruction to become more efficient; for more information see the New Media Horizon Reports. Also note, the ADDIE model has been modified. Here is what you need to know about designing instruction for Authentic Learning.
Analyzing The Student Population
This is much easier in educational institutions than in corporate learning, but it is important to know and understand the students you are serving. Design the instruction so that all students will be successful. This model requires instructors to become facilitators in the learning process. They will provide the framework that each student will build upon. Each student should have the opportunity to take their learning and correlate it to existing knowledge, it is the role of the instructor to know the student’s existing knowledge and to identify which students need additional guidance or less guidance and continually reflect based on the effectiveness of the delivered instruction.
The Design Phase of ADDIE is where the integration of Backwards Design comes into play. Begin by writing objectives for the course, these are not set in stone as you will probably go back and change them; however, it is a good starting point. Then, design a summative assessment based on those objectives. Be sure the assessment requires students to apply the skills/theories learned in the course to a real-world scenario or skill – increase the rigor and require problem solving and critical thinking. The summative assessment should correlate to some sort of career oriented skill based on the content being taught. Adjust the objectives of the course or the summative assessment until they meets your needs. This phase integrates the Authentic Learning aspect.
Once your summative assessment and course objectives are finished, work backwards by breaking down the summative assessment into units and then write objectives for those units. Each unit should require students to apply the concepts being taught within the unit to a career oriented task. Sometimes the application of each unit requires students to work towards their summative assessment, but if possible require students to apply that skill set twice; once in the unit and then again for the summative assessment at the end of the course. Adjust the course objectives or the summative assessment if needed. Assessments should require students to think critically, problem solve, create, and collaborate.
What has been completed:
This phase is where you build upon each unit’s objectives and applications (formative assessments) by creating all learning materials. Include curated material, videos, discussions, and any additional formative assessments. In eLearning, most units consist of learning materials (course readings and videos), discussion posts, and an application (formative assessment). This is also the phase where authoring tools are utilized. Developing course content should always provide students with the skills to complete the application, but again, the instructor should guide students through the process. Keep the course highly rigorous and require students to make connections between the content and assessments. Allow them to correlate the applications to their existing knowledge, but emphasize critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity. Go back and adjust objectives and formative assessments to help with rigor.
This phase needs multiple different professionals such as eLearning experts, Instructional Designers, and instructors to review the course. Learning should be seamless and scaffolded to whereas the transfer of knowledge is inevitable. Some may need to move back to the development phase or even the design phase of some units for the flow to remain seamless.
It is important to recognize that evaluation occurs after the delivery of all instruction. It occurs during and after a unit as well as the course.
Continuing The Instructional Design ProcessDesigning courses or trainings require a continuous evaluation during all phases which is why this model is used to design initial courses; however, it is not a one size fits all and changes are made frequently as designers move from one phase to the next and back again. Some might argue this is the downfall of ADDIE especially when budgets are not available, but effective instruction isn’t made rapidly in the field of education. On the contrary, rapid learning may be applicable to an immediate need for learning in the private sector which would make this model ineffective.