Of tremendous interest and scrutiny in the community college world the past few years has been the need for remediation and the research into its impact on student learning. Half of all college students take at least one remedial course as part
of their postsecondary experience.
According to a study, "Development, Discouragement, or Diversion? New Evidence on the Effects of College Remediation" by Judith Scott-Clayton and Olga Rodriguez (August 2012. National Bureau of Economic Research), the primary effect of remediation
appears to be diversionary. Students simply take remedial courses
instead of college-level courses.
With data from a large urban community college system, this paper looks at three alternative models of remediation. In addition to credits and degree completion, the researchers examined the initial decision to enroll, grades in subsequent college courses, and post-treatment proficiency test scores.
Sadly, the evidence from this study suggests that remediation does little to develop students’ skills. The diversionary effect of students taking remedial courses instead of college-level courses has the greatest effects for the lowest-risk students.
A PDF version of this paper is available for download at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18328
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
September 27, 2012
March 28, 2012
Right Brain, Write Brain
If she is turning clockwise (to the right), then you are likely to be right-brain dominant, and vice versa.
It's hardly scientific or absolute, but it is an interesting way to enter a discussion on whether right and left brain dominance affects how we learn. (See my earlier post on that side of the topic.) I have had students tell me that they were able to make the dancer change directions. What does that mean?
If you are writing or plan to be a writer, would it be better to be right or left-brained?
According to the popular interpretation of this brain research, the right brain is the feeling side, where imagination rules. It is where symbols and imagery are deciphered and the side that believes, appreciates, and presents possibilities. Fantasy, philosophy, and religion are here and it seems to be the right place for fiction writers and poets.
But don't dismiss the left brain which is seen as the logical side. In this hemisphere of details and facts is also the land of words and language, order and pattern.
It is popular to view the left hemisphere as the domain of mathematicians and scientists, but writers are pretty dependent on facts and getting details down. And you can't always rely on the spelling and grammar checker or an editor to fix your grammar and punctuation.
So, which is more important? Obviously, good writers - especially in an academic setting - need the right and left side of the brain to write in most genres.
Can we develop the less dominant side of our brains to become better writers? Should the right-brained poet work on left-brained activities and writing prompts?
Learning Like Drawing: Left Brain, Right Brain
The idea of right and left brain thinking seems to have moved more into the world of "popular psychology" than academic research the past decade.
We often hear about being able to broadly label students as "logical" or "creative" based on lateral dominance. This is probably a dangerous over-simplification, but there are some good lessons to be found in this research, even if the support for right/left brain thinking is not as strong as it was in the 1980s.
A lot of the early research came from studying people who had a part or the entire hemisphere either injured or destroyed. What was lost? What functions can be assumed by another region (perhaps even in the opposite hemisphere)?
I remember reading Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain when it was published in 1979. It was written by Betty Edwards
, a professor emeritus of art at California State University.
That first edition came from her interpretation of the neuroscience of the time, especially the cerebral hemisphere research which suggested that the two hemispheres of the brain have different functions.
There is a new edition and she has refined her material both based on new research and on the many workshops and seminars she has conducted over the years. What is still there is the focus on drawing techniques and instruction on self-expression through drawing. I always liked her connections for using drawing for problem solving. It remains a very popular drawing-instruction guide.
Edwards' method of drawing and teaching was revolutionary when she published it in 1979. Her premise is that the brain has two ways of perceiving and processing reality — one verbal and analytic, the other visual and perceptual. In her method, the latter dominates.
In fact, she actually wants students to suppress that left brain. Students need to try to disregard their preconceived notions of what the drawn object should look like. Many of us are frustrated when we try drawing a dog or a scene or a person's face because our drawings don't "look like" the source or what we imagine the drawing should be. She wants you to see edges, lines, spaces, relationships, light and shadow, and then seeing them and seeing them as a whole.
Research the past thirty years seems to show that the locus of particular activities is much less clear cut. Even the very simple idea that brain function lateralization can be seen in right- or left-handedness and right or left ear preference, isn't clear. A person's preferred hand is a good general indicator, but not an indication of the location of brain function.
Of course, we live, teach and learn in a right-handed society. But the he number of left-handed children seems to be increasing. Why? Certainly, we are more relaxed about allowing children who show early preference for the left hand to use it, as opposed to a 1950s tendency to force the right hand for learning penmanship and other simple school tasks. Is technology changing our brains? That's a popular theory being presented. (see The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains
)
In our writing world, language functions (such as grammar, vocabulary and literal meaning) are typically lateralized to the left hemisphere, especially in right handed individuals. Interestingly, while language production is left-lateralized in up to 90% of right-handed subjects, it is more bilateral, or even right lateralized in approximately 50% of left-handers.
The neuroscience even seems to show that depression is linked with a hyperactive right hemisphere. This is beyond my interest or comprehension, but there is evidence of selective involvement in "processing negative emotions, pessimistic thoughts and unconstructive thinking styles", as well as vigilance, arousal and self-reflection, and a relatively hypoactive left hemisphere, "specifically involved in processing pleasurable experiences" and "relatively more involved in decision-making processes".
Beyond drawing, it is probably just as worthwhile for teachers to examine themselves as right or left-brained teachers, as it is to look at their students preferences.
We often hear about being able to broadly label students as "logical" or "creative" based on lateral dominance. This is probably a dangerous over-simplification, but there are some good lessons to be found in this research, even if the support for right/left brain thinking is not as strong as it was in the 1980s.
A lot of the early research came from studying people who had a part or the entire hemisphere either injured or destroyed. What was lost? What functions can be assumed by another region (perhaps even in the opposite hemisphere)?
I remember reading Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
when it was published in 1979. It was written by Betty Edwards, a professor emeritus of art at California State University.That first edition came from her interpretation of the neuroscience of the time, especially the cerebral hemisphere research which suggested that the two hemispheres of the brain have different functions.
There is a new edition and she has refined her material both based on new research and on the many workshops and seminars she has conducted over the years. What is still there is the focus on drawing techniques and instruction on self-expression through drawing. I always liked her connections for using drawing for problem solving. It remains a very popular drawing-instruction guide.
Edwards' method of drawing and teaching was revolutionary when she published it in 1979. Her premise is that the brain has two ways of perceiving and processing reality — one verbal and analytic, the other visual and perceptual. In her method, the latter dominates.
In fact, she actually wants students to suppress that left brain. Students need to try to disregard their preconceived notions of what the drawn object should look like. Many of us are frustrated when we try drawing a dog or a scene or a person's face because our drawings don't "look like" the source or what we imagine the drawing should be. She wants you to see edges, lines, spaces, relationships, light and shadow, and then seeing them and seeing them as a whole.
Research the past thirty years seems to show that the locus of particular activities is much less clear cut. Even the very simple idea that brain function lateralization can be seen in right- or left-handedness and right or left ear preference, isn't clear. A person's preferred hand is a good general indicator, but not an indication of the location of brain function.
Of course, we live, teach and learn in a right-handed society. But the he number of left-handed children seems to be increasing. Why? Certainly, we are more relaxed about allowing children who show early preference for the left hand to use it, as opposed to a 1950s tendency to force the right hand for learning penmanship and other simple school tasks. Is technology changing our brains? That's a popular theory being presented. (see The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains
)In our writing world, language functions (such as grammar, vocabulary and literal meaning) are typically lateralized to the left hemisphere, especially in right handed individuals. Interestingly, while language production is left-lateralized in up to 90% of right-handed subjects, it is more bilateral, or even right lateralized in approximately 50% of left-handers.
The neuroscience even seems to show that depression is linked with a hyperactive right hemisphere. This is beyond my interest or comprehension, but there is evidence of selective involvement in "processing negative emotions, pessimistic thoughts and unconstructive thinking styles", as well as vigilance, arousal and self-reflection, and a relatively hypoactive left hemisphere, "specifically involved in processing pleasurable experiences" and "relatively more involved in decision-making processes".
Beyond drawing, it is probably just as worthwhile for teachers to examine themselves as right or left-brained teachers, as it is to look at their students preferences.
Teachers with left-brain strengths generally prefer to teach using lecture and discussion. To incorporate sequence, they put outlines on the board or overhead, and they like to adhere to prepared time schedules. They give problems to the students to solve independently. Teachers with left-brain preferences assign more research and writing than their right-brain peers. A reasonably quiet, structured classroom is preferred. The classroom tends to be clean, with items in their place.
Teachers with right-brain strengths generally prefer to use hands-on activities over a lecture format. In concert with the right-brain preference of seeing the whole picture, these teachers incorporate more art, manipulatives, visuals, and music into their lessons. They tend to embrace Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences. They like to assign more group projects and activities, and prefer a busy, active, noisy classroom environment. The classroom of a strong right-brain teacher will typically have materials and books scattered all over.
March 7, 2012
Cite That Tweet
Well, the Modern Language Association is keeping up with citations and now has announced their official format for citing a Tweet.
If you think that Twitter is just for silly stuff, I guess you must have missed news stories from the "Arab Spring" to the earthquake in Japan to reactions to Bank of America fees to the death of Steve Jobs or Whitney Houston. News often breaks first on social networks like Twitter.
The basic format looks like this
Last Name, First Name. (User name). "The entire tweet." Date, Time. Tweet
There is no URL - maybe because (unfortunately) Twitter is really difficult to search for posts that go back more than a few days.
Here are two examples:
Ronkowitz, Ken (ronkowitz). "Everything That Happens In One Day On The Internet http://t.co/wxLu6Lvr" 6 March 2012, 8:26 p.m. Tweet.
poetsonline.org (poetsonline). "The Poet & Writer Evening News is out! bit.ly/e5lWkC" 21 Feb 12 2012, 6:41 p.m. Tweet.
Here is the actual MLA instruction for citing:
Begin the entry in the works-cited list with the author's real name and, in parentheses, user name, if both are known and they differ. If only the user name is known, give it alone. Next provide the entire text of the tweet in quotation marks, without changing the capitalization. Conclude the entry with the date and time of the message (using the reader's time zone)and the medium of publication (Tweet).
I am not sure if the American Psychological Association (APA) has it in their guide yet
.UPDATE: For APA information, take a look at this post (Hat tip to Dr. Lonna Murphy)
February 29, 2012
Write It To Learn It
In January, I read that Indiana University neuroscientist Karin Harman James was doing research on what differences might occur in learning when students were writing (note-taking etc.) by hand in block letters, using cursive, and keyboarding.
What do you think was the finding of the research?
Most of us have heard that learning occurs in a deeper way when learners write down the information. In our own Writing Center at PCCC, we don't allow our consultants to write on student papers. Their comments, suggestions and corrections need to be put on the paper by the student. We strongly feel that this makes the changes clearer and longer-lasting, so that the writer is able to mentally revisit the session when they return to the next draft of that paper.
Almost all of our students bring in typed papers when it is an assignment for a class. Some students bring handwritten work if they are in the early stage or if the assignment is more of the homework variety than a formal assignment.
Everyone seems to value the computer/printed version of a paper more, whether this is conscious or not, especially before we read the words. It "looks better."
James' research has led her to make efforts to raise awareness about the role of handwriting in the learning process. This comes at a time when many K-12 schools nationwide try to decide whether handwriting instruction, particularly cursive, still fits within the curriculum.
Her research used brain imaging technology to document how significant changes in the brain occur depending on whether preschool-age children learn letters by printing or typing. The findings point to the formation of a literary system used for reading -- that is, when letters are printed.
Still, the research has not yet determined whether the benefits of teaching cursive outweigh the time spent in students learning it, or the benefits of keyboarding, such as easier revision, access to spelling and grammar checking.
She presented her finding at a summit sponsored by the educational materials company Zaner-Bloser. That's a name I remember from my own days of learning cursive. The company points to a link between handwriting and literacy development. Their "vertical manuscript" has children learning "to write the same letters they see in books, strengthening the reading-writing connection. Learning to print focuses the students' attention on the distinctive shapes and features of letters, leading to improved letter recognition."
Of course, when the word processor first began to enter the classroom, there were many debates about whether or not tools like spelling and grammar checking were good or bad. I heard that "They will learn the rules by seeing the corrections" and "Teachers will get better first drafts" as often as I heard teachers say that "Students will learn nothing if the computer does it for them." I'm not sure that that particular debate has ever been closed, although the word processor is a very solid part of the education process.
Until we have more definitive results, is it safe to conclude that writing down what you are learning - using any method - helps the learner retain information better than just hearing it and trying to remember?
MORE
What do you think was the finding of the research?
Most of us have heard that learning occurs in a deeper way when learners write down the information. In our own Writing Center at PCCC, we don't allow our consultants to write on student papers. Their comments, suggestions and corrections need to be put on the paper by the student. We strongly feel that this makes the changes clearer and longer-lasting, so that the writer is able to mentally revisit the session when they return to the next draft of that paper.
Almost all of our students bring in typed papers when it is an assignment for a class. Some students bring handwritten work if they are in the early stage or if the assignment is more of the homework variety than a formal assignment.
Everyone seems to value the computer/printed version of a paper more, whether this is conscious or not, especially before we read the words. It "looks better."
James' research has led her to make efforts to raise awareness about the role of handwriting in the learning process. This comes at a time when many K-12 schools nationwide try to decide whether handwriting instruction, particularly cursive, still fits within the curriculum.
Her research used brain imaging technology to document how significant changes in the brain occur depending on whether preschool-age children learn letters by printing or typing. The findings point to the formation of a literary system used for reading -- that is, when letters are printed.
She is also beginning research involving cursive writing with college students. Preliminary results seem to indicate that they remembered information better one week later when they transcribed a paragraph in cursive, compared to printing it (by hand) or using a keyboard.
"These kinds of findings point to there being something really important about printing and potentially also about cursive," said James, associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. "These are both fine motor skills, so they might be equally important in understanding cognitive development in children."
Still, the research has not yet determined whether the benefits of teaching cursive outweigh the time spent in students learning it, or the benefits of keyboarding, such as easier revision, access to spelling and grammar checking.
She presented her finding at a summit sponsored by the educational materials company Zaner-Bloser. That's a name I remember from my own days of learning cursive. The company points to a link between handwriting and literacy development. Their "vertical manuscript" has children learning "to write the same letters they see in books, strengthening the reading-writing connection. Learning to print focuses the students' attention on the distinctive shapes and features of letters, leading to improved letter recognition."
Of course, when the word processor first began to enter the classroom, there were many debates about whether or not tools like spelling and grammar checking were good or bad. I heard that "They will learn the rules by seeing the corrections" and "Teachers will get better first drafts" as often as I heard teachers say that "Students will learn nothing if the computer does it for them." I'm not sure that that particular debate has ever been closed, although the word processor is a very solid part of the education process.
Until we have more definitive results, is it safe to conclude that writing down what you are learning - using any method - helps the learner retain information better than just hearing it and trying to remember?
MORE
- Handwriting: A Basic Building Block of Literacy - Steve Graham, Ph.D., Senior Consultant for Zaner-Bloser Handwriting, discusses his research which indicates that developmentally appropriate handwriting instruction supports literacy development.
- Handwriting Within the Context of Literacy - looks at trying to increase literacy levels
- How Legible Handwriting Enhances the Writing Process and Assessment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)