You gotta just love it when you can cross an item off of the never-ending "bucket list"—right? Well, today marked one of those times for me. Those of you who visit Edutech for Teachers know that I am committed to providing as many "cool tools" as I possibly can to my fans and followers. However, since transitioning from a part-time to full-time technology integration specialist position in January, I haven’t had as much time to create the amount of new content I would like. That’s why the accomplishment of reaching 100,000 visitors to this blog has been extremely significant to me. According to my site statistics, I’m not only getting repeat customers, but the number of new visitors each day continues to grow. Despite the crazy busy mind-boggling schedule—which is actually a good thing—this data provides me with the inspiration to continue trying to find the time to share edtech resources and integration ideas that will be useful in the classroom. So, keep checking back for the latest and greatest apps, tools, digital media and infographics designed for the 21st educator. Most importantly, thank you for being part of this professional journey with me! A special shout out to Clustrmaps for providing bloggers like me with a nifty counter widget and geotracking tool that shows locations of all visitors as well as a cumulative total of visitors to any site. Learn more about how this tool can be utilized in the educational setting here. And last but certainly not least, thanks to my Tech Club students—especially Simply Aubree—for being my most loyal followers! You rock, GG!

Charley Morrow, assessment guru, opens his new blog with a brilliant analysis of one of the biggest issues in today's workplace: Employment Handcuffs (my term--don't blame Charley). More than at almost any other time, today's workers feel stuck where they are. Figuratively, they are handcuffed to their current companies, positions, and bosses.Charley's got hard data on this, but I've seen this too. I've seen people who hate their bosses who just can't find a job when they are competing with five other applicants (there are six applicants for every job available in the United States). Employment Handcuffs leads to depression, anger, sabotage, lack of effort, productivity decline, etc.These handcuffs also puts managers further into the dark then they already are.Management Blindness Worse Than EverManagers are always in the dark about their own leadership performance. The only people that can tell them how well they are doing as leaders are the people they're leading, their direct reports---and their direct reports are scared/inhibited/hesitant to tell the truth about their boss's leadership performance. But now it's worse than ever. Workers are scared to death of losing their jobs. They've seen their friends and colleagues out of work for months or years. They've seen friends, family, or neighbors' houses go into foreclosure. They've heard stories about how people lose their health care insurance after the Cobra has unwound itself. These smart workers won't do anything to upset their bosses---the people who are most likely to fire them. How this Hurts Organizational PerformanceThis hurts manager performance and hurts the productivity and performance of all the employees who have bosses. It's a spiraling down effect. From a CLO's perspective, you better be doing something to improve your managers' performance in this time of employment handcuffing!! Contact me here for consulting advice.How Managers Can See the Light Managers have to ask for feedback from a place of authenticity. They have to want to improve their own performance. Ya just can't fake it. Managers have to listen to any feedback they get. Managers have to make changes/improvements in what they do. Managers have to avoid being defensive---even when the feedback is harsh, cutting, or wrong. Managers have to thank those who give them feedback. Managers have to be patient. Your folks don't trust that you're not going to retaliate. It will take time to build that trust. Managers have to ask for feedback routinely, not just at performance-review time. Managers have to be available. So many managers are just too busy to be available. Stop going to all those meetings with folks senior to you!! Your job is to get work done through your direct reports---you need to be there for them. Managers may benefit from multi-rater 360-degree assessments or other assessment-like interactions. Ask Charley about this stuff. And again, Charley's great blog post is worth the read.Thanks Charley!! And welcome to the Blogosphere!! Glad you're here.

6 Ways to Improve Your Daily Life At The Office Infographic The 6 Ways to Improve Your Daily Life At The Office Infographic offers a unique view on the subject of how to improve the daily life at the office! 1. Not Happy on Your Job? Be Courageous Enough to Admit It! This is the first step. From here things can only get better. 2. Want to Feel More Confident? Impress them With Your Body Language! Look at your co-workers in the eyes. Stretch that back. Start shaking hands. 3. Bored? Try to Find the Little Things You Do Like to Do! Find the fun stuff and focus on it. 4. Worn out? Exercise! A few pushups + 1 cup of coffee - and you’ll feel energized again. 5. Feeling angry? Use a punch bag! Hitting the bag is probably a better idea than hitting your boss! 6. Don’t Be Shy — Ask for a Raise! Bigger salary will make you feel better Via: onthespottitleloan.comThe post 6 Ways to Improve Your Daily Life At The Office Infographic appeared first on e-Learning Infographics.

Check this out (I can't say more):

What happens when people add scientific-sounding words to their arguments--even if the scientific-sounding words have nothing to do with those arguments?Research now has the answer. Here's the research abstract from a recent publication:Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation. We tested this hypothesis by giving naïve adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) × 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design. Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects. Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without. The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.So, if you're swayed by "brain-based learning" and other such scientifically-sounding arguments, you might ask yourself, was the argument really persuasive or was I just fooled into thinking it was.Weisberg, Deena Skolnick; Keil, Frank C.; Goodstein, Joshua; Rawson, Elizabeth; Gray, Jeremy R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.

2015 Best High Schools infographic The 2015 U.S. News Best High Schools rankings feature information on thousands of public schools in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Check out the 2015 Best High Schools infographic for an illustrated look at how the latest rankings played out. The data show that it’s incredibly difficult to achieve a gold, silver or bronze medal under the U.S. News methodology. Of the more than 19,000 eligible schools, only 6,517 were awarded medals, and just 7.7 percent of those received gold. Gold medal schools are those whose students demonstrate the highest level of college readiness. For the fourth consecutive year, Texas’ School for the Talented and Gifted retained its No. 1 spot in the national rankings. It also placed first among magnet schools. Texas had 59 of its eligible schools, or 3.5 percent, earn gold medals, but that wasn’t enough to put it among the top 10 states. Maryland topped that list with 8.6 percent. Via: www.usnews.comThe post 2015 Best High Schools infographic appeared first on e-Learning Infographics.

The following provides a nice article of how people are learning language on the web. NYTimes ArticleFrom a learning standpoint, here are some research-based reasons that these interfaces might be good in helping people learn a language: Most of the learners are motivated to learn a language. Learners have to engage in retrieval practice, which research shows is a strong support for remembering, and also to test understanding. Learners get feedback on their retrieval-practice efforts. Learners are probably spacing repetitions over time. Learners in their practice are engaged in situations that are contextually similar to the way they might utilize a language--by actually engaging in a conversation. Because they provide a way for learners to overcome the fear of initially speaking to others in a foreign language, learners may be more willing to practice for real, which of course will aid their learning.

First I must explain that there is a difference between empirical research findings and the theoretical formulations that human researchers create to explain their findings. To reiterate, we have: research findings (data) theoretical explanations (rationales that researchers invent) The data can be true, while the theoretical explanations can be wrong.Academic researchers are paid the big bucks---and gain the highest psychic rewards---for developing theories.As you know if you've followed my work for any length of time, I put much more faith in data than in theories. So, while I am about to share criticisms of a theory, I think the research findings are still sound.Here are some recent criticisms of Cognitive Load Theory:-----------------Ton de Jong says: What has cognitive load theory brought to the field of educational design? The three main recommendations that come from cognitive load theory are: present material that aligns with the prior knowledge of the learner (intrinsic load), avoid non-essential and confusing information (extraneous load), and stimulate processes that lead to conceptually rich and deep knowledge (germane load). These design principles have been around in educational design for a long time (see e.g., Dick and Carey 1990; Gagne´ et al. 1988; Reigeluth 1983). Work in cognitive load theory often denies the existence of this earlier research, as illustrated in the following quote by Ayres (2006a, p. 288): ‘‘Whereas strategies to lower extraneous load are well documented…methods to lower intrinsic load have only more recently been investigated’’ (p. 288). In his study, Ayres introduces part-tasks as one of the initial approaches to lower cognitive load. Describing this as a ‘‘recent’’ approach denies much of the history of instructional design. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134.-----------------Roxana Moreno says: Under the light of CLT’s [Cognitive Load Theory's] fundamental limitations, I will make the argument that continuing to use the theory to frame instructional design research is instilling the idea that educational research cannot aspire to have the same scientific value as that of the hard sciences (Diamond 1987). The following are some reasons why this might be the case. When educational researchers are not able to demonstrate that they are making progress, they give further reasons to believe that the learning sciences are a lesser form of knowledge (Labaree 1998). Second, although a strength of CL research is the use of controlled experimental studies—one of the exemplary methods of scientifically based research (Eisenhart and Towne 2003)—it has failed to develop adequate methods that permit direct investigation of the research questions at stake. Science relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across studies by the same or different investigators (National Research Council 2002). Third, in any science, researchers construct towers of knowledge on the foundations of the work of others. de Jong raises a valid concern about the fact that CL research often ignores the existence of earlier research and theories that may better account for the findings than CLT. The dangers of this isolated approach to science are clearly stated by Labaree (1998) ‘‘At the end of long and distinguished careers, senior educational researchers are likely to find that they are still working on the same questions that confronted them at the beginning. And the new generation of researchers they have trained will be taking up these questions as well (p. 9).’’ Lastly, although bias may not be completely avoidable, scientists are expected to be aware of potential bias sources in their work. One safeguard against bias in any area of study is to be open to reflection and scrutiny. It is the professional responsibility of educational researchers to evaluate the state of current knowledge on a regular basis, identify knowledge gaps, and lay the scientific principles for future investigation. Engaging in this ‘effortful’ practice is key in fostering a scientific community and culture. Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135-141. ----------------- Schnotz and Kurschner (2007) say:Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that traditional instruction can and should be re-designed according to principles of cognitive load theory, and that this re-design results in better learning. However, there are also numerous conceptual problems related to cognitive load theory, which sometimes make interpretation of empirical findings difficult. Although the concept of cognitive load has been frequently described in general terms and although definitions have been provided for different kinds of cognitive load, a closer look reveals that the exact nature of these different kinds of load is not sufficiently clear yet. Further clarification is needed regarding the relations between different kinds of cognitive load and whether they can and how they should be manipulated to enhance learning. Other open questions refer to the role of working memory in the process of learning. Although working memory is a key concept in cognitive load theory, it is not sufficiently clear to what extent working memory is in fact required for learning. Finally, further clarification is needed whether and in which way different kinds of cognitive load constrain each other, how they relate to the process of learning and, last not least, how they can be measured. Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508.-----------------So, the theory is shaky, even though it has generated a slew of great research.The data is still compelling, so, among other things, we can still use worked examples. Worked examples are useful for novice learners. Worked examples may hurt more experienced learners. Better to utilize practice problems for more experienced learners.

OK, so I’m a Google Girl. I own it. And I’m proud of it. And that’s because of the wide range of educational tools that this tech giant provides—free of charge—for teachers and students. Plus, Google is my go-to tool personally as well. From devices and apps to digital citizenship resources and YouTubeEDU to the World Wonders Project, maps, advanced searches and the MIT App Inventor, Google products can help transform teaching and learning. And of course, there’s Google Apps for Education, a suite of tools that includes email, documents, presentations and sites that allow students to work together across any device at any time. All of these innovative and edgy uses of technology… All of this power to leverage learning… All of these choices and yet one of my most favorite Google services is one that is actually pretty simplistic: Google Forms. A component of GAFE, forms can be created quickly and easily for unlimited amount of uses for the classroom: assessment, polls, surveys, questionnaires and so much more! And the best part? There is no need to have advanced technology skills to make forms an integral part of your digital toolkit. Still not sold on the whole Google forms concept? Then check out the 81 Interesting Ways to Use Google Form to Support Learning slideshow embedded below. Trust me, it won’t take very long to make you a believer! Even if only three ways suit your needs, that’s three more learning tools at your disposal—right? Of course, the presentation was generated using another Google Apps gem: Google Slides, a tool similar to Microsoft PowerPoint except for it allows for online collaboration among users. That said, if you have a unique way of utilizing forms in your classroom, feel free to add your idea to the collection. Just click on the "Open Editor" option in the settings menu and a copy of the slideshow will be transferred to your Google Drive. From there you can insert a new slide into the presentation. Click the "X" symbol on the toolbar to view a full screen version of the presentation. A huge shout out to Tom Barrett for creating and sharing this fabulous edtech resource! Having trouble viewing the slideshow? Click here to access it in a new window.

Hello!! I'm still alive and kicking but I have found it necessary to decouple myself from public speaking engagements and from my blog and twitter as I continue to work on the following main events: working with my core clients writing and researching my magnum opus (a book focused on channeling research-based evidence into practical learning approaches and one intended to get us workplace learning professionals to take to the streets and storm the fortresses of mediocrity that we have built) working as a volunteer at my daughter's elementary school as we create a new school design coaching my daughter's soccer team, the Huskies I am still here, and am available for: short consulting engagements e-learning critiques (a research-benchmarking process) keynote or other paid speaking engagements online workshops on research-based instructional design and/or learning measurement I'd also be delighted to talk about coaching strategies for youth soccer. SMILE Unfortunately I am not able to be very active with my blog, nor can I accept any public speaking engagements. If you need to get in touch with me, you can contact me in the following ways: email: info at work-learning dot com phone: 888-579-9814 Thanks for your patience, --Will Will Thalheimer, PhDPresidentWork-Learning Research, Inc.    

Arts-Focused Professional Development Infographic When it comes to professional development, arts-focused educators get the short end of the stick. While there are hundreds of thousands of arts educators, professional development that is meaningful to arts-focused work is nearly impossible to find at the school-level. The Arts-focused Professional Development Infographic shows how the arts are being left behind in meaningful professional development and how online learning can play a huge role. Facts about arts-focused professional learning: "K-12 teachers indicate that teachers believe the arts are important in education, but use them rarely. They are hindered by a lack of professional development and intense pressure to teach the mandated curriculum." (Oreck, 2004) "Arts-integrated professional development provides an important sense of community and respect among arts teachers, classroom educators and administration in schools." (Burnaford, 2009) "Online teacher professional development has the same effect on student learning and teacher behavior as more traditional face-to-face models." (Fishman, Konstantopoulos, Kubitskey, Vath, Park, Johnson, and Edelson, 2013) The following national professional arts organizations ALL offer some sort of online professional learning: National Art Educators Association National Association for Music Educators National Dance Education Organization American Alliance for Theatre and Education. Via: educationcloset.comThe post Arts-Focused Professional Development Infographic appeared first on e-Learning Infographics.

I don't usually delve into K-12 classroom-based research to any great extent. However, as my daughter's elementary school is starting a "redesign" process---and I heard arguments on both sides of the multigrade-classroom issue---I thought perhaps I'd give a quick look at the research available. I had hoped that this would be a quick review, where I would find one or two definitive research reviews in scientific refereed journals, but unfortunately, the research base is rather frail and unclear. Still, I think the following review does provide some wisdom about how to think about multiage classrooms. ------------------------------------------------- Extent of Review              I did a moderately quick review—not an exhaustive review—of a couple dozen recent research articles on multigrade classrooms. This review was conducted in September and October of 2010. ------------------------------------------------- Major Conclusions (See More Specific Recommendations Further Below): The research, although being too scant and too difficult to interpret to make definitive recommendations, generally suggests that multigrade classroom approaches are not likely to produce results that differ substantially from single-grade classrooms. Specifically, it is likely that the quality of the learning methods utilized and the teacher’s performance in the classroom makes more of difference than whether a multigrade or single-grade approach is utilized. Multigrade teaching is generally considered more difficult and onerous than single-grade teaching. If a multigrade approach is utilized, then it should be utilized with due diligence—providing teacher support and development, utilizing team teaching, encouraging many diagnostic opportunities (so that learning can be tailored to learner’s current levels), and so forth. -------------------------------------------------  Context:              Researchers and practitioners use many labels for multigrade education, including the following: multigrade, multiage, mixed-age, vertical grouping, combination, composite, double-grade, split-grade, dual-age, hyphenated, nongraded, etc. These terms are often confused, redundant, etc., making researching and thinking about related issues difficult. In this report, I will use the following terms: Single-grade classrooms are comprised of one grade. Multigrade classrooms are comprised of two (or more) grades. Combination Multigrade classrooms are multigrade classrooms that are utilized for logistical reasons. Pedagogic Multigrade classrooms are multigrade classrooms that are utilized for pedagogic (learning-related) reasons. Sometimes multigrade classrooms are created because of logistical reasons such as declining or uneven enrollments (Veenman, 1996; Burns & Mason, 2002; Mulryan-Kyne, 2007). Sometimes multigrade classrooms are created for philosophical and pedagogical rationale. There are strong advocacy groups for pedagogic multigrade classrooms. Some of this advocacy is at odds with the research—in the sense that they claim overwhelming benefits for multigrade classrooms when the research is more balanced and uncertain (I noticed this myself in reviewing the research, but also see Burns & Mason, 1997). It can be helpful to view classes on a continuum from single-grade classes, to combination multigrade classes, to pedagogic multigrade classes (See Mason & Burns, 1997). While many different arrangements are possible, we can talk in generalities as follows: Single-grade classes have students only from one grade. Combination multigrade classes have students from two (or more) grades and one teacher who teaches them. Pedagogic multigrade classes have students from two (or more) grades but are taught by a team of teachers. Pedagogic multigrade classes also tend to be more focused on providing learners individually-tailored learning content than either single-grade or combination multigrade classes. Teachers in combination multigrade classes are less likely to receive the support and structure they need than teachers in pedagogic multigrade classes (Mason & Burns, 1997). Multigrade classrooms are not aberrations, but are used throughout the world, and are likely to continue and grow in use in the future (Mulryan-Kyne, 2007). ------------------------------------------------- Quality of Available Research:      Unfortunately, it seems that much of the available research is tainted by methodological weaknesses. Specifically, it appears that more experienced teachers tend to teach multi-age classrooms—so that when advantages appear in the educational results, those advantages may be due to teacher experience as opposed to the multi-age classroom itself. In addition, more affluent students are the ones who tend to be taught in multigrade classrooms—so that when research results show advantages, those could be due to socio-economic and educational advantages of parents as opposed to the multigrade classrooms. Quotes from the Research: "Effective research in the area of multiage education is still in its infancy." From Kinsey (2001). "The literature on multigrade teaching is relatively sparse, some of it anecdotal in nature and/or of poor quality." From Mulryan-Kyne (2007). "There is considerable evidence that principals, in an effort to reduce the burden on multigrade teachers, place more able, more independent, and more cooperative students in multigrade classes." From Mason and Burns (1996). Note: This is relevant in that good results in comparison to single-age classrooms may be due to having better students in the class. "No studies in which students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups were found." From Veenman (1995). Note: While such random assignment is the gold standard in research, it is difficult to implement in the classroom. "Because of the lack of distinction between combination and multiage/nongraded classes and the omission of important studies and methodological considerations, it appears that researchers have drawn overly optimistic and erroneous conclusions about the effects of combination classes." From Mason & Burns (1997). Conclusion based on Quality of Available Research: These methodological weaknesses make firm conclusions difficult. Tentative conclusions are still possible. ------------------------------------------------- Teaching is Often More Difficult in Multigrade Classrooms:             It appears that teaching in a multigrade classroom is more difficult than teaching in a single-age classroom. This conclusion comes from those on all sides of the debate, so it is a fairly strong conclusion. Quotes from the Research: "It is commonly stated in the literature that multigrade teaching is more difficult than single grade teaching" From Mulryan-Kyne (2007). "Multigrade classes hold instructional potential for some, but they are potentially onerous for most. Indeed, we argue that multigrade classes lead to a negative instructional effect and that they increase teachers' stress and may jeopardize teachers' motivation and commitment to teaching." From Mason and Burns (1996). "Most teachers, when asked about their feelings toward and organizational and teaching strategies for combination classes, responded negatively and preferred not to teach them." From Mason and Burns (1995). "The professional knowledge and skills that are relevant and necessary to teaching effectively in single-grade contexts are also relevant and necessary for effective multigrade teaching… However, many of these skills need heightened emphasis in the context of the preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching." From Mulryan-Kyne (2007). "[Teachers] report that these classes require more planning, are more difficult to teach, and diminish instruction and curriculum coverage." From Mason & Burns (1997). "We concluded that the difficulties teachers face in multigrade classes are centered around five problem areas: (a) the efficient use of instructional time, (b) the design of effective instruction, (c) classroom management, (d) the organization of independent practice or learning, and (e) the formulation of clear and collectively agreed-upon goals for making the multigrade school work." From Veenman (1996). "…multigrade teachers pressed for instructional time and the mastery of basic skills (e.g., reading, writing, and mathematics) might neglect science, social studies, and other subjects, which would lead to negative achievement effects in these areas." From Mason & Burns (1996). ------------------------------------------------- Academic Achievement Results from Multigrade Classrooms: In the two most credible recent reviews of the research, the findings have shown no differences in academic achievement between multigrade classrooms and single-grade classrooms (Veenman, 1995; Mason & Burns, 1997). However, because of the likelihood that this research is tainted in having better students and teachers in multi-grade classrooms, it is possible that multigrade classrooms produce "at least small negative effects" (Mason & Burns, 1997). Separating the results for combination multigrade classrooms and pedagogical multigrade classrooms is difficult because researchers haven’t always noted this difference. In Veenman’s (1995) review, both combination and pedagogic multigrade classrooms produced non-significant results—in other words, they were found to produce the same academic results as single-grade classrooms. However, as Mason and Burns (1996) pointed out, Veenman didn’t take into account some important potential biases. Mason and Burns write: "We conclude that multigrade classes have at least a small negative effect on achievement as well as potentially negative effects on teacher motivation." Unfortunately, in Mason and Burns (1997) follow-up research review, they only focused on combination multigrade classrooms—NOT pedagogic multigrade classrooms. Their results on combination multigrade classrooms were consistent with Veenman’s in finding no statistical differences, but they warned that "all things being equal, combination classes have at least small negative effects." Such a negative outcome was found in a 2008 study of combination multigrade classrooms in California (Sims, 2008). Conclusions on Academic Achievement: The research is not definitive because there are factors that have not really been teased out as of yet. In terms of academic results, the tentative conclusion is that multigrade classes on average are probably no better and no worse than single-grade classes, but if they are different from single-grade classes, they may be slightly worse. ------------------------------------------------- Social/Emotional Results from Multi-age Classrooms: Veenman’s (1995) research found that a majority of combination multigrade classes performed no better than single-grade classes in terms of attitudes towards school, self-concept, and personal and social adjustment.  Mason and Burns (1997) examination of combination multigrade classes found similar non-significant affective benefits. For pedagogic multigrade classes, however, Veenman (1996) found a "very small" effect, showing slight benefits for pedagogic multigrade classes in terms of attitudes towards school, self-concept, and personal and social adjustment. Again, because of the potential biasing effects in terms of student and teacher selection, these results could be due to bias instead of any benefits for pedagogic multigrade classes. Conclusions on Social/Emotional Results: The research is not definitive because there are factors that have not really been teased out as of yet. In terms of social/emotional results, the tentative conclusion is that multigrade classes on average are probably no better and no worse than single-grade classes. If there are very small benefits, they might be obtained in well-designed pedagogic multigrade classrooms—as opposed to logistically-driven combination multigrade classrooms. ------------------------------------------------- Do some Students Benefit More than Others from Multigrade Classrooms?              Although this was beyond the scope of my review—I did come across one recent study that dealt specifically with the question of how different types of students might be affected by a multigrade approach (Ong, Allison, & Haladyna, 2000). First, it should be noted that in this one study, multigrade classrooms tended to outperform single-grade classrooms for all students, regardless of their background. Given that as background, the study found the following: It found no differences between boys and girls. It found that regular students seemed to benefit more from multigrade classrooms than disadvantaged students (that is, Title 1 students). It found that overall non-Hispanic students seemed to benefit more from multigrade classrooms than Hispanic students. Caveat: This was just one study and should be evaluated with caution. ------------------------------------------------- Overall Recommendations Regarding Multigrade, Multiage, Combination Classrooms:          The scarcity, frailty, and equivocation in the research make strong recommendations impossible. Instead, I offer these tentative ideas for consideration: 1. It is likely that the quality of the learning methods utilized and the teacher’s performance in the classroom makes more of difference than whether a multigrade or single-grade approach is utilized. Given this, it appears that choosing a multigrade approach would be acceptable, though the following points should also be kept in mind. 2. If a multigrade approach is utilized, then it should be utilized with due diligence—providing teacher support and development, utilizing team teaching, encouraging many diagnostic opportunities (so that learning can be tailored to learner’s current levels*), and so forth. * Recent research indicates that teachers, tutors, and other learning professionals tend not to be very good at providing instructional explanations at learner’s appropriate levels—but that they can improve on this by specifically being informed of their learners’ level of understanding (Wittwer, Nückles, & Renkl, 2010). 3. Multigrade teaching seems to offer the possibility for alternative methods of learning, including group work targeted to different developmental levels. On the other hand, multigrade teaching by itself is no guarantee of good teaching methodology. 4. It should be recognized that multigrade teaching probably has costs associated with its use. Specifically, teachers may have to invest more effort and care in the process and may have a tendency to tradeoff other desirable educational goals. 5. In some forms of multigrade teaching, especially those that utilize team teaching, teachers have to learn the skill levels (in each discipline) of many more students. Because one of the most important aspects of teaching is providing learners with just the right level of instruction, this may cause students to be underserved at first as the teacher learns their students' skill levels. One way to ameliorate this problem is for students entering a multigrade cycle to be diagnosed through testing, problem solving, and other performance metrics early on. This "slow-start" issue has a flip side—because multigrade classes stretch into two (or more) years, students in subsequent years will probably experience accelerated learning due to deeper understanding of each student by teachers and hence better instructional scaffolding. 6. Teachers with less experience may be especially unprepared for multigrade teaching. With experience, teachers learn how to automate aspects of their classroom performance so that they can utilize their limited working memory capacity to focus on supporting their learners in learning (for example, differentiating their instruction, etc.). Newer teachers will be unlikely to provide the necessary instructional scaffolding to perform at a high level. 7. Students who have behavioral problems or who are less competent in learning may make the task of multigrade teaching more difficult. This may suggest that extra effort and guidance in the early grades is warranted or that a multigrade approach should be delayed until a time when most students are ready to engage fully in the process. ------------------------------------------------- Research References: Burns, R. & Mason, D. (2002). Class composition and student achievement in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 207-233. Burns, R. B., & Mason, D. A. (1998). Class formation and composition in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 739-772. Kinsey, S. (2001). Multiage Grouping and Academic Achievement. ERIC Digest, January 2001. Mason, D. A., & Burns, R. B. (1995). Teachers' views of combination classes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(1), 36-45. Mason, D. A., & Burns, R. B. (1996). "Simply no worse and simply no better" may simply be wrong: A critique of Veenman's conclusion about multigrade classes. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 307-322. Mason, D., & Burns, R. (1997). Reassessing the effects of combination classes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(1), 1-53. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 501-514. Ong, W., Allison, J., & Haladyna, T. M. (2000). Student achievement of 3rd-graders in comparable single-age and multiage classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2), 205-215. Sims, D. (2008). A strategic response to class size reduction: Combination classes and student achievement in California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 457-478. Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 319-381. Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 323-340. Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Using a diagnosis-based approach to individualize instructional explanations in computer-mediated communication. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 9-23. ------------------------------------------------- Some of the articles reviewed but not cited: Song, R.  Spradlin, T. E., & and Plucker, J. A. (2009). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiage Classrooms in the Era of NCLB Accountability. Education Policy Brief, 7, 1-7. Published by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy of Indiana University. Why not cited: This article is not from refereed journal so it may not have been fully vetted. Also, there are hints of bias in the article, for example, (a) providing invited proponents of multiage classrooms to describe its value, without providing a similar counterpoint, and (b) talking about the lack of good research but then plowing ahead with a list of the "benefits (perceived and real)" of multiage classrooms—so in a real sense the article ignores the research by plowing ahead to benefits. Still, I wouldn’t discount this article completely. Its research review seems good when it is limited to reviewing the actual research. Also, it makes recommendations that are mostly consistent with the findings contained in this review, so I can’t dismiss their conclusions. The bottom line is that this review does not add anything to a review of the research, and, because it is not vetted in a refereed journal and appears slightly biased, I think it safer not to cite it as separate evidence. Hoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 5-17. Why not cited: This article looked at only 4 teachers, all who had chosen to be teaching in multiage classrooms. It was really a descriptive research project and did not look at actual learning outcomes. No single-grade teachers were examined so we don’t really know how different results with single-grade teaching might be. Linley, L. (1999). Multi-Age Classes and High Ability Students. Review of Educational Research, 69, 187-212. Why not cited: This article was a review of other reviews, not a review of research studies itself. Also, it focused only on high-ability students. Gerard, M. (2005). Bridging the gap: Understanding young children’s thinking in multiage groups. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 243-250. Why not cited: This article utilized an incredibly biased research design. It took one classroom at one school that used multiage grouping and compared it on standardized exams with the national average. Mariano, S., & Kirby N. (2009). Achievement of Students in Multigrade Classrooms Evidence from the Los Angeles Unified School District. From the RAND Education Working Paper Series (WR-685-IES). Why not cited: This article is not from refereed journal so it may not have been fully vetted. It also uses somewhat opaque statistical methods to estimate findings, not looking directly at actual comparisons between multigrade and single-grade classrooms. I must admit that I don’t fully understand all the statistical employments utilized (for example, "doubly robust regression," "non-parametric generalized boosting," "the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) statistic"). Thus, I may be missing the full implications of the research employed.

As Quincy Jones once remarked, "I’ve always thought that a big laugh is a really loud noise from the soul saying, "Ain’t that the truth." That said, Edu-fun Friday is a series devoted to adding some humor to the lives of teachers who visit this blog. After all, there’s nothing better than ending the week on a positive note! Plus, do we have the best topics to provide us with some comic relief or what? I’m pretty sure I have a few of these on my iPad—ha, ha! A shout out to artist Mark Anderson for the edtech laugh!

This blog post is excerpted from the full report, How Much Do People Forget? Click here to download the full report. You may also access the report---and many other reports---by going to my catalog page by clicking here. Everybody Wants to Know—How Much Do People Forget? For years, people have been asking me, "How much do people forget?" and I’ve told them, "It depends." When I make this statement, most people scowl at me and walk away frustrated and unrequited. I also suspect that some of them think less of me—perhaps that I am just hiding my ignorance. But I try. I try to explain the complexity of human learning. I explain that forgetting depends on many things, for example: The type of material that is being learned The learners’ prior knowledge The learners’ motivation to learn The power of the learning methods used The contextual cues in the learning and remembering situations The amount of time the learning has to be retained The difficulty of the retention test Etc. More meaningful materials (like stories) tend to be easier to remember than less meaningful material (like nonsense syllables). More relevant concepts tend to be easier to remember than less relevant concepts. Learners who have more prior knowledge in a topic area are likely to be better able to remember new concepts learned in that area. More motivated learners are more likely to remember than less motivated learners. Learners who receive repetitions, retrieval practice, feedback, variety (and other potent learning methods) are more likely to remember than learners who do not receive such learning supports. Learners who are provided with learning and practice in the situations where they will be asked to remember the information will be better able to remember. Learners who are asked to retrieve information shortly after learning it will retrieve more than learners who are asked to retrieve information a long time after learning it. I try to explain all this, but still people keep asking. And then there are the statistics I keep hearing—that are passed around the learning field from person to person through the years as if they were immutable truths carved by Old Moses Ebbinghaus on granite stones. Here is some information so cited (as of December 2010): People forget 40% of what they learned in 20 minutes and 77% of what they learned in six days (http://www.festo-didactic.co.uk/gb-en/news/forgetting-curve-its-up-to-you.htm?fbid=Z2IuZW4uNTUwLjE3LjE2LjM0Mzc).  People forget 90% after one month. (http://www.reneevations.com/management/ebbinghaus-curve/) People forget 50-80% of what they’ve learned after one day and 97-98% after a month. (http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infocs/study/curve.html) Never mind that these immutable truths conflict with each other. So, I will try one more time to convince the world that forgetting depends. To accomplish this, I explored 14 research articles, examining 69 conditions to see how much forgetting occured, representing over 1,000 learners. The following graph details the amount of forgetting for each of the 69 conditions: Conclusions This graph and the indepth analysis in the full article revealed four critical concepts in human learning—truths that every learning professional should deeply understand. The amount a learner will forget varies depending on many things. We as learning professionals will be more effective if we make decisions based on a deep understanding of how to minimize forgetting and enhance remembering. Rules-of-thumb that show people forgetting at some pre-defined rate are just plain false. In other words, learning gurus and earnest bloggers are wrong when they make blanket statements like, "People will forget 40% of what they learned within a day of learning it." Learning interventions can produce profound improvements in long-term remembering. In other words, learning gurus are wrong when they say that training is not effective. Different learning methods produce widely different amounts of forgetting. We as learning professionals can be more effective if we take a research-based approach and utilize those learning methods that are most effective. Telling Findings From the Research People in the reviewed experiments forgot from 0% to 94% of what they had learned. The bottom line is that forgetting varies widely. Even within a restricted time range, learners forgot at wildly differing rates. For example, in the 1-2 day range, learners forgot from 0 to 73%. Learners in the 2-8 year range forgot from 16% to 94%. The obvious conclusion here is that learning varies widely (and wildly) and cannot be predetermined (except perhaps by deities, of whom, I think, we have not even a few in the learning field). To be specific, when we hear statements like, "People will forget 60% of what they learned within 7 days," we should ignore such advice and instead reflect on our own superiority and good looks until we are decidedly pleased with ourselves. Even when we looked at only one type of learning material, forgetting varied widely. For example, in Bahrick’s classic 1979 experiment where learners were learning English-Spanish word pairs, learners forgot from 12% to 63%. Even more remarkably, if we include those cases where learners actually remembered more on the second test than the first test, learners’ "forgetting" varied from -41% to 63%, a swing of 104 percentage points! Again, we must conclude that forgetting varies widely. Many of the experiments reviewed in this report showed clearly that learning methods matter. For example, in the Bahrick 1979 study, the best learning methods produced an average forgetting score of -29% forgetting, whereas the worst learning methods produced forgetting at 47%, a swing of 76% points. In Runquist’s 1983 study, the best learning method produced average forgetting at 34%, whereas all the other learning methods produced average forgetting of 78%. In Allen, Mahler, and Estes’ 1969 experiment, the learners given the best learning methods forgot an average of 2.3%, whereas the learners who got middling learning methods forgot an average of 14.3%, and learners given the worst learning methods forgot approximately 21.7%. The bottom line is that the learning methods we choose make all the difference!! Check out the full report to learn more about the following: What you should do as a learning professional (in light of these findings). Whether the learning-curve notion still applies. What wisdom each of the 14 research articles revealed. The methodology used in the research. The calculation of forgetting.  

Today’s students are no doubt immersed in a variety of technologies from a young age. They’re wired, digitized and quite frankly, their skills and knowledge never cease to amaze me. They have no fear so they experiment, think and innovate in ways that have no limits—which from an educational point of view is just awesome! Tools, apps and devices present students with endless ways of expressing themselves via audio, images, video and multimedia projects. But as educators, it is not only important to encourage our students to push the technological envelope, but it’s equally essential that we teach them to navigate the digital world in a responsible manner. Unfortunately, students (and people in general) have the tendency to ignore the fact that media is regulated and requires compliance of copyright rules and fair use guidelines. Just like they need to be taught the basics of math and science, students need to learn that just because media is accessible, downloadable and free that this does not necessarily mean it’s acceptable to reuse it in a project of their own—especially without possible restrictions. That said, the nifty infographic shown below can serve as a great resource for teaching students how to properly cite images and graphics obtained from the Internet. Thanks to Med Kharbach, author of the Educational Technology and Mobile Learning blog, for sharing this useful visual!

Myths and Mysteries of Informal Learning Infographic Informal learning is the unofficial, unscheduled, impromptu way most people learn to do their jobs. People acquire the skills they use at work informally — talking, observing others, trial-and-error, and simply working with people in the know. Formal training and workshops account for only 5% to 20% of what people learn from experience and interactions. Most corporations however over-invest in formal training while leaving the more natural, simple ways we learn to chance. The Myths and Mysteries of Informal Learning Infographic outlines why we shouldn’t ignore informal learning and describes the models developed by Jay Cross, Dan Pontefract and "70:20:10″, which put a framework around this style of learning. Read also: How to support informal learning Why Matching Informal and Formal Learning Is in Style Via: www.goodpractice.comThe post Myths and Mysteries of Informal Learning Infographic appeared first on e-Learning Infographics.

Check out this article which claims: "Science of mind is one of the most important intellectual developments in the last half century. It should not be obscured by neurobabble." This might be a follow-up post to an earlier one I wrote that showed how easily we are fooled by scientific claims.  

The Neon Elephant Award 2010 went to a researcher whose work has had a profound impact on the workplace learning-and-performance field. Click here to see who won... Click here to learn more about the Neon Elephant Award...

The Learning Landscape Model is a research-based model---evolved over the last decade---that can be used to guide workplace learning-and-performance designs, discussions, and explorations. It is based on the fundamental cognitive architectures of learning, remembering, and prompting as three distinct cognitive operations, all of which are needed to maximize workplace learning-and-performance results. While previous models have often forgotten forgetting or forgotten prompting mechanisms (like job aids), the Learning Landscape is complete. Perhaps more importantly, it is actionable, for example, it can be utilized to have productive discussions between us as learning professionals and our business partners. Finally, the Learning Landscape Model can be used to improve learning measurement significantly over the 4-levels or roi models. Check out the video of the Learning Landscape Model... Or utilize this link if your filters don't allow YouTube...

The Top 15 LMS Stats and Facts For 2015 Infographic There are many research studies, polls, and reports that offer us invaluable insight and forecasts about Learning Management Systems. The Top 15 LMS Stats and Facts For 2015 You Need To Know Infographic presents the important LMS Stats and Facts For 2015 that will give you a glimpse into the future of LMSs and who are the key players today. If you’re looking for a new LMS, then these figures may even help you fine-tune your list of necessary features and functions your LMS should have. To find out more please visit: Top Learning Management System Statistics and Facts For 2015 The LMS Market It is estimated that the LMS Market will grow by about 23.17% [1] between the years 2017 and 2018. Currently, it’s a $2.5 billion industry in the corporate sector, without calculating revenue from the academic sector, as well [5]. LMS Popularity In Terms Of Number Of Users In terms of actual users, Moodle has the most users in the LMS market. It currently boasts an estimated 73.8 million users. Edmodo comes in second and Blackboard rounds out the top 3, with around 20 million users each [2]. LMS Popularity In Terms Of Number Of Customers Satisfied customers can give a clear indication of who is successfully building customer loyalty through effective business practices and a winning product. Edmodo has the largest number of customers, an estimated 120k. Moodle is second on the list, with 87.1k customers and Collaborize Classroom is third, with 48k customers [2]. Cloud-Based LMSs vs. Installed LMSs In 2015, there seems to be a tendency towards cloud-based LMSs, as 87% of the respondents were found to use a web-based LMS, compared to only 13% who have an installed LMS [5]. SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) LMSs At the end of 2015, the SaaS market revenue is expected to be about $22 billion. The most popular cloud-related corporate projects are: 1. Internet Private Cloud (35%), 2. Cloud Provider Assessment and Strategy Planning (33%), 3. Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) at (31%), and 4. SaaS (30%) [1]. LMS Usage Per Industry LMS usage is not only limited to corporations and educational institutions. Recent Report [5] shows that the top industries that use LMS software are: 1. Education 21% 2. Technology 12% 3. Manufacturing 9% 4. Healthcare 7% 5. Consulting 7% 6. Software development companies 4% 7. Non-profit organizations 3% 8. Real-estate 3% 9. Event management 3% 10. Governmental institutions 2% LMS Access How users access LMS systems is another aspect to consider. A recent survey [4] demonstrated that: 1. 89% access LMSs from their desktop computer, 2. 76% from their laptop, 3. 25% from their tablet, and 4. 19% from their smartphone User Satisfaction With LMSs In terms of user satisfaction, 63% of users seem to be very satisfied (25%) or just satisfied (38%) with their LMS [5]. Other aspects on which users seem to perceive that LMSs have a positive impact include: 1. Higher course completion rates (65%), 2. Cost effectiveness of training (45%), 3. Increase in employee’s productivity (37%) and 4. Higher retention rates (21%) [5]. LMS Perceived Benefits With respect to perceived LMS functionalities: 1. 73% of those surveyed, indicated a belief that LMSs main function is testing, 2. 68% training administration, and 3. 53% record keeping [4]. Though from another study we have additional information about user perceived benefits, indicating their belief that: 1. LMSs may be ideal for blended learning (53%), 2. They can function as portals (53%), and 3. That they may be excellent tracking tools (41%) [5]. LMS Perceived Functionality Deficiencies Among the desired features users believe their current LMSs are lacking are: 1. Live and video conferencing options (38%), 2. Mobile learning options (27%), 3. Gamification (22%), and 4. Social learning options (20%) among others [5]. LMS Corporate Investment Plans No significant changes are expected in 2015 with respect to corporate investment plans on LMSs, as 90% of small-to-medium businesses and enterprises indicated that their 2015 budget to spend for LMSs is approximately the same with previous years [4]. LMS Customer Loyalty Customer loyalty is another important indicator of the perceived impact of the LMSs on users. Research has indicated that 1. Only 31% of LMS buyers have switched from their previous LMS to a new one. 2. On the average, 32% of organizations have been using their actual LMSs for the last 2 to 5 years [5]. Reasons For Switching To Another LMS Despite proved loyalty to their current LMS, organizations that have decided to switch to another LMS solution, express as main reason for such a shift the following [5]: 1. 66% additional features required 2. 28% lack or inadequate provider’s support 3. 22% the LMS was too difficult to be used 4. 13% changing needs due to rapid organizational growth that the current LMS system could no longer support 5. 6% have switched to another LMS system because of the cost, fact that shows that organizations are willing to pay for LMS solutions that meet their needs. LMS Selection Criteria The most important factors that influence the purchasing decision of an LMS, based on the Capterra’s LMS research [5] are: 1. Functionality by 53% 2. Price by 32% 3. LMS support provided by 5%, 4. Implementation training 4% 5. Company reputation by 3% 6. Software popularity by 3% Time Needed For Making A Purchasing Decision With respect to the time needed to make a final decision about the proper LMS to buy, research has shown that: 1. 69% of decision makers’ need up to six months before placing an order. 2. 35% of these decision makers evaluate four or more LMS alternatives before making their final decision. 3. 21% of these decision makers evaluate three LMS alternatives. 4. 28% of these decision makers evaluate just two LMS alternatives. 5. 6% of these decision makers admitted that they have reached to a decision after evaluating one LMS only [5]. An LMS is an invaluable tool for eLearning professionals and all signs point to it being so for many years to come. Hopefully these key LMS statistics and facts for 2015 have offered you the information you need to choose the learning management system that’s just right for your learners’ needs.   Via: elearningindustry.comThe post Top LMS Stats and Facts For 2015 Infographic You Need To Know appeared first on e-Learning Infographics.

Now more than ever teachers are embracing technology and finding new and innovative ways to integrate devices, apps and tools into the classroom. In fact, many educators claim technology is a catalyst for more effective teaching and learning. Did you know that 75% of teachers surveyed state that technology reinforces and expands content, motivates students and accommodates multimple learning styles? With stats like that, it’s no wonder teachers love technology! Hopefully you are—or will become—one of them! Check out the infographic below to learn more about the edtech phenomenon!   A shout out to OnlineUniversities.com for creating and sharing this super cool visual!

As an entrepreneur, I'm always curious about entrepreneurship. I came across this article by Cardiff Garcia in The Observer (the magazine of the Association for Psychological Science). It highlights similarities and differences between entrepreneurs and most people. You can read the article (best method), or just read my synopsis (okay method): How Entrepreneurs are the Same (as most other people): They don't care any more about financial success than most people. They don't care more about money. They don't care any more about following family traditions. They score the same on the trait of conscentiousness. They do not crave more risk. They are no more ruthless. They are not more spontaneous. They are no more outgoing. They are not more agreeable. They don't have better problem solving approaches. How Entrepreneurs are Different (compared to most other people): They possess a greater belief that they will succeed when compared to most people. They are less likely to care what others think of them. They display more intensity toward their work. They are willing to sacrifice more (in terms of time with family and/or money earned). They find it harder to balance work and their family lives. They find it harder to get support from friends and family for what they do. They score higher on "need for achievement," for example by setting difficult but obtainable goals. They score higher on "self efficacy," the belief that they can accomplish certain tasks (not tasks in general as it turns out).  They are much more stress tolerant. They are more likely to expect success (generally and in specific situations). How Entrepreneurs are About the Same or Just Slightly Different (compared to most other people): Slightly more autonomous than most other people. Slightly more likely to believe they control their own destinies.  Just marginally more risk takers. How entreprenuers are Sometimes Different (than other people): Entrepreneurs in tech industries are more innovative, but entrepreneurs in other industries are not. The Article's Bottom Line Being an entrepreneur is tough. Entrepreneurs need to be up for the rigors of entrepreneurship.

IBM's Watson beat two Jeopardy champs in answering questions this week.  Does this mean that soon computers will be able to replace people in answering questions? For us as workplace learning-and-performance professionals, does this mean we'll be doing less training of people, and more training of machines? Probably depends on lots of things as to how soon this happens. For example, folks doing technical support probably won't be replaced as soon if the systems/equipment on which they are providing support are updated regularly or modified substantially. Anyway, this will affect our field---indeed it is already affecting our field to some extent as computers already provide support for folks who are answering questions---but when this reaches a tipping point we'll just have to wait and see. Article in NYTimes NPR On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook    

See the full post on my book blog... Click here to view...