Traditionally, it has been assumed that, once an academic holds a Master’s degree or PhD in their discipline, they can share their knowledge and teach students effectively. Most, though, don’t have a teaching qualification, nor have they been offered any opportunities to develop as teachers while studying towards their advanced degree.
This means that many lecturers feel like they have been thrown into the deep end at the start of their teaching careers. There has been some work in this field and many universities now offer formal and informal academic staff development opportunities.
But there is far more to good university teaching than just being able to project your voice, prepare a good PowerPoint presentation or keep your students interested. Academics’ deeply held views about their students must be challenged. They need to question seriously how issues of identity, belonging, privilege, diversity, racism and sexism can be addressed explicitly in the classroom.
Who is best placed to shape university teachers who are more than just technically proficient? This work is done by academic developers in teaching and learning centres in most universities. However, we believe that to do this work well, academic developers themselves need to engage deeply with questions of teaching, curriculum design and transformation.
How academic development has changed
The field of academic development first emerged in South African higher education in the mid-1980s. Its initial purpose was to support the small numbers of black students who had been admitted to historically white, English-speaking universities earlier that decade.
This approach to academic development was in line with the view that students lacked some of the requisite skills and knowledge to learn successfully in their new contexts.
By the early 1990s it became clear that not only were students under-prepared for the university context, but that academics were ill-equipped to teach a rapidly growing and increasingly diverse student body to learn successfully. Academic development then also started to concern itself with curriculum and staff development.
Many academics have common sense views about student learning. They tend to believe, for instance, that if a student is failing a particular course this is a reflection only on the individual student’s abilities.
These and other normative views about teaching and learning need to be challenged. Those who have been in the field of academic development for a few decades have developed more nuanced conceptions of teaching and learning and have been instrumental in helping to build the now extensive knowledge base of the field.
Developing the developers
In South Africa, there are ongoing and urgent calls from a number of quarters for the transformation of higher education.
This discussion is happening alongside debates worldwide about how best to professionalise academic staff. Each country brings a particular set of challenges or circumstances in its own higher education landscape to the table.
Rhodes University’s Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning offers a postgraduate diploma in higher education. There has been, in recent years, an increasing demand for the centre to organise academic staff development courses for a number of institutions in South Africa and on the continent.
We felt it would be more beneficial for the field if the centre worked with academic developers rather than directly with academic staff. This equips academic developers with the knowledge and skills they need to offer staff development courses to the lecturing staff in their own institutions.
Why this approach works
The resulting postgraduate diploma for academic developers is, as far as we are aware, the first of its kind in the world. The programme this year welcomed its third cohort of academic developers from universities around South Africa. The country’s Department of Higher Education and Training funds bursaries for course participants, demonstrating the government’s commitment to improving higher education.
The diploma offers spaces for academic developers to have serious, intellectual conversations. Some of these are about the nitty-gritty of teaching. Other debates deal with the broader context referred to earlier. The course participants consider, for instance, how institutions, teachers, curricula and teaching need to change to contribute to enabling all students to access the “goods” of the university.
Once this work is done, academic developers can return to their own institutions armed with knowledge and skills that can be shared.
Lynn Quinn, Associate Professor of Higher Education Studies. Head of Department of the Centre for Higher Education, Research, Teaching and Learning, Rhodes Universityand Jo-Anne Vorster, Course Co-ordinator, Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning, Rhodes University
By requiring industry-based credentials for CTE students and encouraging all students to interact with industry professionals, Louisiana’s Jump Start program is revolutionizing career education
In Louisiana, only 19 percent of high school students go on to receive a four-year college degree. There are plenty of high-paying jobs available for the other 81 percent, but matching students with these opportunities and making sure they have the right credentials—like a two-year degree or industry certification—has always been a challenge.
For years, Louisiana students have been able to earn a Career Diploma as an alternative to a traditional academic diploma. But the program was seldom used, and students working toward a Career Diploma weren’t being adequately prepared for jobs in high-demand fields.
In short, there was little or no connection between Louisiana’s career education strategy and its workforce needs. State leaders knew they needed a better approach.
The cost of college seems to be on the tips of tongues everywhere now. From members of the United States Senate to conversation overheard in church pews, tuition for entrance into an institution of higher education is now officially a hot button topic. Expect to see it discussed pretty heatedly in the upcoming Presidential election with all sorts of ideas on the docket.
Until then, there are some states making waves with their own plans to improve the cost of college for residents. To combat the rising cost of college, and maybe to appear more progressive, two states will offer free tuition to community college. Tennessee began to offer free tuition to community colleges last year and Oregon recently passed a bill that will do the same for students who reside in the state.
“This past week Oregon joined Tennessee when its Senate passed Senate Bill 81, also known as the Oregon Promise, to offer a free education at community college to eligible in-state students,” according to fool.com.
By the way, fool.com is short for The Motley Fool, an investment website.
Anyway, this comes behind President Obama’s proposal to offer free tuition to community college for any American citizen that may have interest. Of course that comes with limitations and rules but you get the idea.
So maybe Oregon and Tennessee were in front of Obama’s idea.
At any rate, hopefully more states will follow Oregon and Tennessee’s lead. Community college is a great way for any student to start a college “career,” and it’s also cost effective. Bravo to these states for setting a good example on both coasts.
Problematic Internet Use is now considered to be a behavioral addiction with characteristics that are similar to substance use disorders.
Individuals with PIU may have difficulty reducing their Internet use, may be preoccupied with the Internet or may lie to conceal their use.
A recent studythat I coauthored with UNC Chapel Hill doctoral students Wen Li and Jennifer O’Brien and UNC professor Matthew O. Howard examines this new behavioral addiction.
Perhaps not surprisingly, individuals with PIU have been found to experience several negative mental health problemswhich could include depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hostility, social phobias, problematic alcohol use, self-injurious behavior and trouble sleeping (i.e., sleep apnea, nightmares, insomnia, and struggling to stay awake during the daytime).
Our study is the first to look at how PIU affects family relationships among U.S. university students. Intriguingly, we found that college students with PIU report effects that are both negative and positive.
Measuring PIU and its problems
To better understand PIU, we focused on students whose Internet use was excessive and created problems in their lives.
Study participants were undergraduate or graduate students enrolled at UNC Chapel Hill. We required that participants be individuals who were spending more than 25 hours a week on the Internet (time that was not related to school or work). Additionally, participants had to report experiencing at least one health, relationship or emotional problem due to PIU.
To recruit our participants, our team sent out an email on a Friday evening. We were not sure if this would be a good time to reach students, but we were surprised that within two hours, 39 students responded. Of those who responded to our email, 27 students attended our four focus groups and completed our questionnaires.
Roughly half (48.1 percent) of our participants were considered “Internet addicts.” These participants answered “yes” to five or more of our eight questions (e.g., preoccupation; inability to control use; lying about use; depressed or moody when trying to stop).
Another 40.7% were considered to be “potential Internet addicts.” These participants answered “yes” to three or four items. All of the participants met the criteria for PIU using the Compulsive Internet Use Scale, a 14-item scale that included items like difficulty stopping; sleep deprivation; neglect obligations; feelings of restlessness, frustration or irritation when Internet is unavailable.
We used focus groups, which are group conversations guided by a facilitator, to discuss shared experiences or knowledge regarding PIU. Each focus group had six to eight participants.
Here is what we found
Three key themes emerged in the conversations: (1) family connectedness, (2) family conflict/family disconnection, and (3) Internet overuse among other family members.
We had examples of positive connections. Some participants reported that the Internet connected them to their families. For example, participants discussed using Skype, Facebook or email to maintain relationships with family while they were away at college.
A student we call Hannah explained:
But like using Skype helps keep you connected and also when we are at home we watch a movie together, it’s like family time, you know. And um, like you know, if we read the same, like article, then we can talk about it on Skype.
Another student, Lisa said:
I hate talking on the phone. So, that allows me a way to stay connected and especially with my mom who would… Normally, I would just not respond to her at all, but now we have an email dialogue going. That helps us stay more connected.
Despite the positive consequences that participants discussed, we found that across the focus groups, participants spent more time talking about the negative consequences of Internet use.
For these participants, Internet use caused family relationships to disconnect or become conflicted.
Instead of interacting with their family when they were at home, participants reported that they were “on the computer the whole time.” One participant described ignoring her family during her visits home as a result of her Internet use:
My grandma and my parents will complain about my Internet use because I will be sitting in front of the TV and I’ll have my laptop and so will my little sister. We’ll be sitting in front of the TV on our laptops not talking to each other. So, my parents will complain about that.
Andrew said,
I think for me, this year I went home and one of the reasons was just was to have more family time, but what I ended up really doing was staying on my computer pretty much the whole time, which was kind of defeating the purpose of actually going home.
Steve described how his Internet use affected a visit with his brother and his friends at a sports bar:
At one point we’re all watching the basketball game, and all four because we’re all on our phone, and he looked at us and he said, ‘Really guys, I am here for two days, you all just wanna [sic] be on Twitter and Facebook?’ So, while it can enhance with setting up social situations, it can also detract from them once you were actually in them…Yeah, he was very just like…He flew out for the weekend. You know he spent US$300 on an airplane ticket just to sit there and watch me on Facebook.
It’s not just the students
It may not be surprising that college students with PIU reported that members of their families also overuse the Internet.
Some participants expressed frustration at the lack of boundaries or rules in place for their younger siblings or other relatives. A participant we called Melissa shared about her little brother:
He just turned four, but they got him an iPad. Like, which I don’t agree with. I think it’s so stupid, but he is always, always on it. He gets really defensive if you try to take it away or put boundaries on it or something like that.
Small children are getting addicted to their devices as well. Tia Henriksen, CC BY
Hannah, for example, described a cousin whose Internet gaming has impaired his vision, but he is unable to stop playing:
My cousin, he is addicted to video games. And he’s like, I think he is like 10, 12, something like that, I don’t remember. I feel like it’s a stupid game, there’s no deepness to it. You kill someone. They die. You get killed, it starts over again. He can play that for eight hours straight without moving. His eyes are really bad right now. He can’t control himself.
Participants described their parents’ PIU as well. Several participants described their parents as “constantly checking email” for their work. Others described their parents as regularly on computers, phones or iPads “on Facebook” or “browsing.”
My mom talks about me using the phone at the table when we’re eating, cause like if there’s a break in conversation, ‘Oh, Facebook opportunity’ [others laughed and she laughed too]. And then, like, somehow in my mind [the] conversation is over, but it’s really not. So then she’s like ‘You’re always on your phone, what are you doing?’ But then, like two minutes later, she is checking the weather. So I don’t know [she laughed].
A few participants shared that they were the only ones in their family with PIU.
Cindy explained that her family was from another country, which may explain their low Internet use,
I find that I don’t really have family members with an Internet problem, and I am the only one who grew up here. So, that might be…
Gina said,
My parents are technophobes. They don’t even know how to turn on computers.
Although our sample size is small, we followed rigorous approaches to ensure that we obtained the best possible data. We conducted focus groups until we achieved data saturation, which means that when we reviewed the final focus group no new themes were discovered.
The conclusions come through loud and clear. PIU exists and it affects family relationships. While those effects may be both positive and negative, those who suffer adverse consequences from PIU may have difficulty addressing their PIU because of requirements to use Internet for classes via online assignments (e.g., writing blogs), online courses and materials accessed online.
At the root of many of these issues are complex sociological reasons. For example, there is good reason to believe that the rising mortality among white Americans is related to the declining economic fortunes of white working-class men over the past four decades.
But how is the general public to understand these issues? And how are they to know how best to respond to such concerns?
Surely, hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and university press books could provide insights. The problem is this bounty of expert knowledge can hardly be accessed by the general public, politicians or practitioners.
I am the director of the Public Engagement Project at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I lead a peer mentoring group that provides training to scholars on how to be public intellectuals, work with practitioners and policymakers, and influence social change.
But the challenge is that such public engagement does not count within the academy. Faculty evaluations rarely consider articles written for the popular media.
Now, in a move of far-reaching significance, the American Sociological Association aims to start a conversation among university scholars and administrators about how to include “public communication” in the assessment of a scholar’s contributions.
I see this report as critical. When we include public communication – not just peer-reviewed scholarly communication – in evaluating faculty, we encourage them to share their knowledge with the members of society who could most benefit from it.
The problem
It was late in my Ph.D. training at the University of California Berkeley that it dawned on me how the knowledge produced in my discipline was not getting out of the proverbial ivory tower.
During a heated argument about the American economy, my brother took issue with my assertion that for many Americans real wages had stagnated since the late 1970s.
The year was 2000 – before the 2008 recession, before Occupy Wall Street, before Bernie Sanders. The changes in the economy and the social policies that had for decades been driving the stagnation at the bottom of the income distribution and growth at the top were well-established within sociology.
But it was not so well-known outside of the discipline. The reaction of my well-educated, well-read and normally agreeable brother attested to that.
It was at that moment that I realized that the fruits of my profession – all those painstakingly researched facts and carefully considered analyses – were not reaching even reasonably well-informed people.
Since cofounding the Public Engagement Project in 2007, I have seen this problem over and over again. Crucial research-based information on, for instance, housing discrimination, health impacts of chemicals in our everyday environment or the causes and consequences of health inequities, remains largely unknown to the outside public and politicians. This is information that could inform and have an impact on policy.
So, how did we end up in this situation?
There are many forces at play. An important one is that research universities only reward peer-reviewed research. They do not teach scholars – or count the time it takes – to communicate with anyone else.
Where are the academics?
This disconnect between research – often publicly funded – and the society that stands to benefit from it has not gone unnoticed.
For example, in 2014, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called on faculty to make their voices heard. In his column “Professors, We Need You!”, Kristoff wrote,
“Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don’t matter in today’s great debates.”
Scholars such as Steven Pinker and Jill Lepore have argued that faculty must learn to seize, rather than shy away from, the power of story and idiom. Such creative tools need not diminish heft, as professors often fear. Instead, they can help communicate complexity.
In fact, many initiatives inside and outside the academy are now seeking to address the absence of professors in public dialogue and debate.
The National Science Foundation requires grantees to spell out the “broader impacts” of projects. And private foundations are supporting new channels of communication between academics and decision-makers. Other initiatives, all over the country, are aiming to shore up the public communication capacities of scholars, including this very publication, The Conversation.
A challenge though has been our disciplinary training which emphasizes “methodological and theoretical” contributions. That makes it hard for us to explain the broad significance of our work to noninitiates.
Academics can become mired in academic jargon, or just fall silent.
But like any new skill, mastering writing for the public requires community, commitment, courage, and a lot of practice.
The Public Engagement Project at the University of Massachusetts offers an example of crucial peer support. A group of seven to nine faculty, drawn from across the disciplines, engage each year in peer mentoring of colleagues during a semester-long Public Engagement Project Faculty Fellowship.
Why it matters
The process of learning a new language can be humbling. But the benefits are tangible.
For example, one Fellow, who prepared a policy memo to share with lawmakers, was asked to provide scientific advice to her national senator. Her public outreach also resulted in her appointment to the U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
In another example, a general interest article written by a chemistry professor reached more readers than the scholar had in all the preceding decades of work.
The benefits of taking work to a lay audience are significant. PopTech, CC BY-SA
In my own work on adolescent sexuality, culture and families, I have found that my articles for general audiences resulted in much greater visibility for my academic publications.
Furthermore, as a result of writing for practitioners and lay readers, new ideas emerged for future research projects, and other opportunities came up for public engagement.
What was most rewarding was that I found a way to reach parents with information that could improve their relationships with their teenage children.
A significant benefit that I have seen in my work with the Public Engagement Project Fellows is that it helps scholars clarify their thinking. In a recent article, researchers Jonathan Wai and David Miller report similarly:
“not only did the process [of writing for the public] improve the quality of our writing, but it also brought more clarity to the way we were thinking about scientific problems.”
We know faculty public engagement matters for society. From my experience, I also also know that it matters for individual faculty. They report a greater sense of purpose, fulfillment, a better mastery of their topic area and new chances for future funding.
But does the public engagement work they do – the hours they spent crafting an op-ed or a policy brief, and cultivating relationships with policymakers, practitioners or the news office – matter in the eyes of those tasked with assessing their productivity and their value?
The answer all too often is no.
That is where, the American Sociological Association’s August 20 report, “What Counts?,“ comes in. The report draws attention to the place where the rubber meets the road in any academic’s career – namely, the process of being granted tenure. The report proposes that universities consider how to include the work of faculty who engage in public communication in tenure and promotion cases and in overall faculty assessment.
Tenure is the make-or-break of academic life – a process through which a faculty member either gets promoted or loses a job. What counts in this process are publications in peer-reviewed journals or university press books.
Public communication is seen, at best, as a nice, but unnecessary bonus.
Research matters
“What Counts” does not tell individual sociologists, members of tenure and promotion committees, or administrators that faculty should engage in public communication.
What it does is recognize that many faculty do already engage in public communications, and that such work has much to contribute to the world and the discipline.
It urges leaders in the discipline to start a conversation about counting this work in tenure and promotion. It outlines three criteria for evaluation: The first criterion is the content of the writing. The second is quality and rigor. And the third is public impact.
Finally, the ASA report notes that women and minority scholars are less likely to gain access to high-status news outlets and more likely to be attacked when they take public positions on contentious issues.
So, “What Counts?” also asks the question of “Who Counts?”
For when we return to such pressing issues, like the rise of Donald Trump and the Black Lives Matter movement, what stands out is the question of whose voice counts and who feels not heard. This question pertains not only to people in the streets and at the rallies, but also to experts.
Research matters. It can help us understand and act in the world – in a more informed way.
When First Lady Michelle Obama reminded Americans during the Democratic National Convention that she lives in a house literally built by slaves, it once again sparked discussion of slavery in the United States’ history.
The White House is not the only famous building built by enslaved African-Americans. Slaves and the wealth created by their forced labor were used to build many American institutions. For example, the Smithsonian Institution’s storied “castle” was built using limestone quarried by slaves. Universities too benefited from slavery and enslaved labor.
We are slavery scholars who are attempting a challenging task – helping recover the lost stories of those individuals who built some of America’s oldest institutions.
Building schools with slavery
Donors made rich by the products of slave labor endowed schools in the North and South. Sometimes those donors willed enslaved laborers to schools and to churches. That is how a religious order – the Jesuits – ended up as owner of hundreds of enslaved humans in Maryland in the 1830s.
The sale of humans to endow Georgetown is only one of the most dramatic examples of how wealth made from slavery supported education and universities. In some years the vast majority of students at the University of Alabama came from slave-owning families. Even at less elite southern colleges, more than 50 percent of students came from slave-owning families.
The profits from slavery funded education. Indeed, this was often an explicit part of the wills left behind by slave owners. For example, when one Alabama slave owner, Absalom Morton, died in 1845, his will instructed that his slave, David, be rented out and the profits used for his cousin’s education.
Faculty, too, owned enslaved African-Americans.
For instance, Frederick Barnard, the namesake of Barnard College in New York City, owned several female slaves when he was the chancellor of the University of Mississippi before the Civil War.
Schools did their part to promote slavery as well. For example, in 1825 when slave owner John Robinson died, Washington College (now known as Washington and Lee University) in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley inherited about 80 people from him.
This is the story we’ve been looking to tell: Robinson instructed the college to not sell the slaves for 50 years. He further instructed that the “strictest regard be paid to (the slaves’) comfort and happiness.”
But when the college found that renting them proved a burden, it sold about 50 of them to Samuel Garland of Lynchburg, Virginia for about $US20,000.00, roughly $500,000 in today’s dollars.
Robinson Monument, Washington and Lee. Alfred Brophy, CC BY
What happened to the Washington College slaves?
Samuel Garland bought these slaves to work on his family land in Hinds County, Mississippi. So, Washington College’s slaves most likely walked from their home near the James River in Lexington, Virginia, down through Knoxville and then on to the Garland land in Mississippi, a journey of around 800 miles.
Robinson Hall, Washington and Lee University. Alfred Brophy, CC BY
Samuel Garland made a fortune in Mississippi off enslaved labor. But like many who made their fortunes in the deep South, he used his money to live in Virginia. He built a mansion on “Garland Hill” in Lynchburg. By the time of his death in 1861, Samuel Garland had slaves on two plantations in Hinds County and another one in Coahoma County.
Rebuilding lost histories
But no one should forget that these are just dramatic vignettes about a system that held millions in bondage.
Hundreds of thousands of humans were sold as chattel and moved from the upper South to the lower South of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana before the Civil War. Families were ripped apart and tremendous efforts were exerted to reunite after emancipation.
Millions were held in bondage. Slave quarters at the Whitney Plantation in Wallace, Louisiana. Edmund Fountain/Reuters
What happened to those families?
Last year, Georgetown started to track down the descendants of those enslaved people who were sold by the Jesuits. This spring they found some of the descendants of those people sold nearly 200 ago. Many live in Louisiana and some have retained the Catholic faith of their ancestors.
The New York Times editorial board suggested one form of repair should be scholarships for descendants who attend Georgetown. Georgetown’s president has met with some descendants and is listening to their ideas about how best to acknowledge and repair this legacy.
That leads to questions about other schools, too. What happened to those dozens of enslaved African-Americans who were forced to leave their homes and walk 800 miles to labor on Garland’s plantations?
What did it mean to be torn away from family and friends? To be uprooted after the promise of remaining near all they knew?
Looking for descendants
We are writing about this in part because we want to remind people that there are many such stories of slavery and uprooting, of pain and sorrow, of perseverance and strength.
Legacy of slavery: statues of child slaves at the Whitney Plantation in Wallace, Louisiana. Edmund Fountain/Reuters
In the stories of a few we can trace the trajectory of our nation’s history, reconnect families and attempt to confront the demons of our collective pasts. If we wait any longer these memories and connections will be lost.
Many don’t want to remember. And that is understandable.
As historians we want to provide maps for those who do want to know now, and for those who will want to know in the future.
We are looking for people who are descended from those enslaved African-Americans once owned by John Robinson, then by Washington College and later by the Garland family. In an effort to capture any memories passed down through the generations, and to possibly reconnect relatives, we want to interview anyone who knows anything about these people and their families.
If you or anyone you know is willing to speak with us please contact us at [email protected].
**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
By Amber Woods
For many teenagers and college students, studying and homework are an unwanted part of their lives. As a young person you would rather be spending homework time doing the other things, which often makes it hard to concentrate and not to get distracted.
Finding the right environment
Procrastination and distraction are the two common enemies when it comes to homework and studying. If you truly want to spend as little time as possible doing your homework and studying, it vital that you prepare your environment so that it is free from distractions. The environment in which you carry out your homework has a significant effect on your productivity. It is therefore important to find out where you feel the most comfortable and productive so do not be afraid to try out different places. If you are studying at home, for instance, your bedroom may not be the most comfortable or productive place for you. Try the dining room, the study, or even create a workplace in the garage, just as long as it works for you.
Before you start with your homework or studying put away and turn off everything that could distract or interrupt you. Your desk should be clear of all books that you will not need during the study session, and there should be no articles or gadgets that will distract you from your work. Switch your cell phone to silent and put it away out of sight. If you are going to be working on a computer, log out of Facebook, Twitter, Skype, your email account and any other apps that will easily distract you. Also, if you are a clock-watcher you need to put anything that displays time out of sight. Simply set the alarm on your cell phone for when you plan to take a break or finish studying. Likewise, if you find yourself spending time staring out of the window, switch on the light and close the curtains.
Getting comfortable
It is important to be comfortable, although not too comfortable! A work station or desk with a comfortable chair is perfect, whereas reclining in a comfortable armchair, or lying on your bed with your books is not going to be conducive to a fruitful study session. You need to make sure that your study environment is well ventilated and not too hot or too cold. If you are hot you will become lethargic and sleepy, and if you are too cold you will be uncomfortable and have trouble with your concentration. If you not able to control the temperature of the environment then you need to dress appropriately and find a spot where you feel most comfortable when doing your work.
Avoiding distractions
Distractions really are the enemy of effective study. You must try to eliminate from your environment anything that you personally find distracts your attention when you are studying. Most people prefer to work in a quiet environment in order to concentrate as they are unable to screen out noise. Others actually find a quiet environment distracting as any sudden sound breaks their attention. The same is applicable to movement; some find movement distracting and others are not affected by it at all.
Before starting your homework or studying make sure that your mind is clear of any other distractions. Make sure that you have completed your chores that need doing, make any necessary phone calls, check and reply to any text messages or emails that you need to and so on. Having all of these things out of the way will free your mind of these distractions enabling you to stay focused on your work.
Make sure that you are not tired when it is time to study as you will not be able to make the best use of your time, and your ability to retain the information you are studying will be hampered. Regular breaks during long periods of study are advisable; perhaps a ten minute break after an hour of study, or a twenty minute break after an hour and a half.
Playing music
Music can distract your attention, but for some people it actually puts them in the mood and helps them to get on with their studies. Various research has been carried out with differing results, but the general opinion is that light background music works for many people, and can actually improve memory retention. Loud heavy music is not recommended and nor is listening to music through headphones as it is believed to decrease a person’s memory retention.
Effective study is all about self discipline and finding the correct environment which suits your style of studying. Not all people are the same, so you really do need to work out what works best for you. When you do find something that works, try to duplicate it again.
____
Amber Woods is a blogger from Chicago who currently lives in Canada. She’s creative, passionate about learning new things, loves creatinginfographics, and enjoys writing about education in an easy-to-understand manner.
If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields.
I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue?
There are a few reasons why more young women than men are choosing a college education. The first is that there are more trades that do not require a college degree that appeal to men. The second is that economically speaking, women earn a better living with a college degree than without one in comparison to men. Though there is still a wage gap (in 2012, women earned just 80.9 percent of the salaries of their male counterparts), women see the value their earning potential can gain from achieving a college diploma.
I hear people asking this question all the time: What are K-12 educators doing wrong when it comes to preparing young women for STEM careers? It’s a valid one.
But based on the statistics I’ve listed here, shouldn’t we also be asking this question: What are K-12 educators doing when it comes to preparing young men for a college education?
It all comes down to the weight we assign to the worth of a college education. If a diploma is simply a way to earn more money over a lifetime, then perhaps men are doing the intelligent thing by launching into the workforce early and without student loan debt. That logic is flawed, however, when taking into account the fact that blue-collar jobs are declining in favor of white-collar ones. A young man making a lifelong career decision today simply cannot predict what educational demands will be placed on his field in another 10, 20 or 30 years.
Money aside, there are other pitfalls in a disproportionate number of men going to college. Statistics show that marriages where the couples have differing education levels more often end in divorcethan couples with the same educational achievements. And even before divorce is an option, women who set college educational goals may not want to settle for men with less motivation – at least when it comes to academics. If this trend continues, social dynamics may be impacted.
I wonder how much of this trend is based on practicality and how much is based on a lingering social convention that women need to “prove” themselves when it comes to the workforce. Do women simply need a degree to land a job in any field? If so, the opposite is certainly not true for men – at least not yet. Will the young men in our classrooms today have a worse quality of life if they do not attend college – or will it be about the same?
What do you think is at the core of the widening gender gap in education?
IiStandardized testing in K-12 education is a perennial hot button issue. Proponents feel that measuring knowledge in these rigid ways helps lift the entire educational system. Critics say the measurements do nothing but encourage “teach to the test” methods and narrow the scope of what instructors are able to teach if they want to have acceptable test results. These arguments are nothing new, but they are now seeing a new audience.
What if the same principles of K-12 standardized testing were applied to colleges and universities? Americans spend over $460 billion on higher educational pursuits every year, yet there is no official worldwide system in place to determine whether students are learning what they should, compared to other schools. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development unveiled research on whether a global testing system for college students is possible. The group will continue to review its findings and decide if it wants to push for implementation of the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes test, abbreviated as AHELO.
Right now the comparison system for colleges and universities lies in the many rankings that are released each year by sources like U.S. News & World Report and hundreds of bloggers who weigh in on the topic. The AHELO would be a “direct evaluation of student performance at the global level…across diverse cultures, languages and different types of institutions.” It would provide institutions feedback meant to help them “foster improvement in student learning outcomes.” In a nutshell, the test would not actually measure student achievements as much as shine the light on instructors that need some improvement.
To K-12 students, this sounds familiar. To college faculty, the idea is fraught with landmines. Why? Likely, it’s because of the following factors:
How can one test take into account so many variables in higher education across the globe? Would instructors be punished by the institution, or even worse held to some misguided accountability scale by peers, if students did not rank highly enough on an AHELO, or some other test? If college is a time for fostering critical thinking skills, would a standardized test take away some of that freedom?
College instructors and administrators are right to have doubts, and particularly before any testing mandates go into effect. Take the classic college entrance exams – the SAT and the ACT. Though research has found little correlation between results on these tests and actual knowledge or intelligence, they are a standard part of college admissions. It is more difficult to reverse a testing mandate than to fight it off at the outset.
It is easy to see why colleges and universities are leery of standardized testing in colleges, but K-12 instructors should be too. Presently, K-12 instructors guide students through the formative education years, dealing with standardized tests and other demands of contemporary teaching. Success with those students is ultimately determined by two other numbers: graduation rate and college placement. At that point, a K-12 teacher’s job is done, at least in theory. Adding another layer of teacher testing (cleverly disguised as core knowledge testing) at the college level could have an impact on K-12 instructors too.If the AHELO is designed to “foster improvement” in the higher education schools that are tested, who is to say that those ideals of improvement will not then be extended to the K-12 schools that came beforehand? A student who demonstrates below-college-level proficiency in language or math would in theory not be the product of college that failed him or her – that student’s incompetency would be a result of a previous school, or schools. Could a global test for college actually negatively impact the K-12 schools that preceded it?
As with any measurement of teaching and learning, the AHELO and other similar initiatives need close scrutiny before becoming global law. I am not sure of the necessity of such a system and it will take some hard arguing by the other side to convince me otherwise.
Are you in favor of standardized testing in colleges and universities? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Is today’s competitive environment making high school students pursue a polished resume and not their passion?
As a university vice president and an admissions dean, we’ve just finished contacting students whom we did admit, did not admit and would have liked to admit, but simply couldn’t.
Regardless of outcome, each group had in its midst students who have been caught up in the growing phenomenon of credentialism, a practice of relying on formal qualifications, that too often undermines what should be four wonderful years of self-discovery in high school.
More than a numbers game
Whether it’s taking an Advance Placement course that really doesn’t interest them, holding office in an organization because it will “look good,” on their resume or playing a sport that they really don’t enjoy, students are too often trying to impress, instead of trying to discover, enjoy and grow.
Every student seeking admission to college wants to present a “strong case.”
But what’s becoming increasingly clear to admission officers like me and to guidance counselors who advise high school students, is that “credentialism” is being practiced more and more by students, high schools and institutions of higher learning.
To some degree we have ourselves to blame.
College rankings rely heavily on metrics and lets face it, people love being on the “A” list. In some cases, the metrics are about the school; in others, about the students who apply and are admitted.
We begin, despite our best intentions, to question not whether a student is a good match for our institution but how admitting the student will affect our “profile.”
Too often I worry that colleges feel obligated to play the “numbers” game and admit students solely on the basis of board scores, grade scores, number of AP courses, number of extracurricular activities, number of recommendations and so on.
Students are not pursuing their passion
As a result, many students – urged on by their parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and, yes, colleges and universities – conduct their lives as though the only purpose is to build a resume to get into the “best” school they can.
So what’s wrong with that?
For colleges and universities,that means we assess students on professed interest and performance that don’t always reflect what the student is really all about and capable of doing. And that’s not good for the student or the institution.
It subverts our desire not just to recruit and admit a class but to create a class, one whose members will thrive synergistically, often energized more by their differences than by their similarities.
For students, it turns their high school careers into a grab bag of experiences, many of which were pursued to impress others rather than for self-discovery and the pursuit of interests and excellence for their own sake.
Don’t get me wrong.
Many students are truly driven by the best motivations to understand their interests, abilities, and aspirations.
But too many are told they need to go to the right schools, study the right courses, participate in the right activities, have the right friends, volunteer for the right programs, plan for the right careers…and on and on.
What often results is an early and unwelcome appreciation for Thoreau’s observation that, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”
Too many students fail to understand that they are quintessentially “a work in progress,” always in the process of becoming, never finished. (Most adults aren’t much different.)
And in our rush to help them prepare for the rest of their lives, we prevent them from taking full advantage of what’s going on right now in their lives.
Students deserve better, from everybody who is pressuring them to display success to impress rather than for its inherent self-worth.
Colleges need to restore love for learning
Can colleges and universities help?
We can proclaim that we seek more than numbers, more than honors, more than achievement for its promotional value. And we can demonstrate our commitment by accepting students whose accomplishments are rooted in exploration, passion, self-discovery and even plain old fun.
We tell students that college is a launching pad for successful careers and lives. And that’s what it should be.
Both high schools and colleges may do students a grave disservice if we suggest that resume-building trumps exploration in pursuit of self-awareness and fulfillment.
So what should we be telling our young people as they undertake their journey to what we pray will be successful lives and careers?
Here are some things that I suggest to help guide that journey:
Establish what really matters to you so you’ll have a compass.
Invest in yourself. You have gifts that need to be developed.
Do the best with what you have. It’s OK if you aren’t good at some things.
Take risks. But be smart about it.
Own it – it’s your life. Take responsibility for it.
Build integrity; above all else, this is what matters.
Find mentors who inspire you.
This isn’t meant to be a “feel good” list.
And it isn’t just a list meant for the students. We must remain committed to a holistic evaluation.
As educators, we need to restore equity, perspective and a reverence for excellence for its own sake.
We need to connect our kids with the wisdom – from family, friends and trusted institutions – that previously helped each generation blossom, for their individual and collective benefit.
If we can’t come together to change the system, then shame on us.
