http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/computer-security/how-to-disappear-completely-from-the-internet?click=pp

Integrating Career Awareness into the ABE and ESOL Classroom

The purpose of this course is to prepare you?instructors and counselors?to implement the Integrating Career Awareness into the ABE & ESOL Classroom

(ICA) Curriculum Guide within the context of your situation. The hands-on activities will increase your level of comfort and familiarity with the curriculum guide and the related topics.

Course Dates: January 25?March 7, 2012

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/ICAOverJan12.pdf

Required Text: Integrating Career Awareness into the ABE & ESOL Classroom

(ICA) Curriculum Guide by Martha Oesch and Carol Bower. To order the CD or download the PDF, go to the National College Transition Network website:

http://www.collegetransition.org/publications.icacurriculum.html

Course Instructor: Martha Oesch

Estimated Completion Time: 24 hours/6 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#ica

Helping Students Stay: Exploring Program and Classroom Persistence Strategies

When we focus on helping students stay in programs, we address all the ingredients of program quality and effective instruction. Student persistence is, in fact, an indicator of program strength. In this six-week course, we?ll use the six core ?drivers? of persistence, identified in the New England Learner Persistence Project, to organize and review a wide range of successful persistence strategies, and to prioritize the ones that might have the most impact in our own programs.

Course Dates: February 21?April 9, 2012

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/LPOvFeb12.pdf

Course Instructor: Andy Nash

Estimated Completion Time: 24 hours/6 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#helpstay

*****************

Principles of Diagnostic Assessment and Teaching in Adult Reading Instruction

This six-week course has three parts. The first part consists of readings, discussion boards, and self-quizzes on the components of reading and diagnostic assessment. The second and third parts use the case study approach to give participants the opportunity to practice scoring and interpreting adult learners’ assessments in reading.

Course Dates: March 19?May 7, 2012

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/CaseStudyOvMar12.pdf

Course Instructor: TBD

Estimated Completion Time: 18 hours/6 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#diagnostic

******************

Course registration is also open for our other Spring 2012 offerings.

******************

Introduction to College Transition Math

Through the readings and activities in this course, you will reflect on your own and your students? math backgrounds, examine and experience the college placement test your students take, try out math activities and exercises you can use in your classrooms, and explore the math knowledge and skills you will want to present to your own college transition students.

Course Dates: February 27?April 23, 2012

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/CTMathOvFeb12.pdf

Required Text: Unlatching the Gate: Helping Adult Students Learn Mathematics by Katherine Safford-Ramus (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corporation, 2008), ISBN 978-1-4363-5120-1. Allow at least two weeks for delivery.Bottom of Form

Course Instructor: Pat Fina

Estimated Completion Time: 24 hours/6 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#ctmath

******************

College Readiness for Adults: Beyond Academic Preparation!

The overall objective of this course is to assist educators, counselors, administrators and postsecondary partners to better prepare their students for postsecondary education. Together, we will identify, organize, and reflect on the broad array of readiness skills and abilities that adults need to be successful in postsecondary education and training. Then, each of us will consider how to change our practice to incorporate what we have learned. The course was developed and written by Cynthia Zafft, Principal Investigator for the National College Transition Network, World Education

Course Dates: February 9?March 28, 2012

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/CTReadiOvFeb12.pdf

Course Instructor: Johnna Herrick-Phelps

Estimated Completion Time: 24 hours/7 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#ctreadi

******************

Differentiated Instruction

Adult educators almost always face many different levels of learners in their classrooms, with all the attendant difficulties in teaching. In this facilitated, interactive course, you will learn how differentiated instruction can help produce effective teaching in your classes. You will learn to make the strong learning objectives required to keep multilevel instruction on target. Both research and specific strategies will be addressed. By the course end, you will produce your own lesson plan with effective learning objectives and differentiation suited to your own environment.

Course Dates: March 13?May 7, 2012, with 3 synchronous chats scheduled during Lessons 2, 3, and 4.

Full Course Description:

http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/pdf/DIOverMar12.pdf

Required Text: How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms, 2nd Edition, by Carol Ann Tomlinson (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 2001), Course Instructor:

Wendy Quiones

Estimated Completion Time: 30 hours/6 weeks

Course Fee: $249.00

Registration: http://professionalstudiesae.worlded.org/index.html#di

*****************

Questions? Please e-mail literacy@worlded.org <mailto:literacy@worlded.org%20>

http://libraryliteracy.org/

For a collection of even more stories, you can refer to: http://libraryliteracy.org/learners/stories.html

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/287/backed-into-a-corner

Register online now!  http://www.cvent.com/d/fcqmhf *****Extended Registration Deadline: Midnight tonight! (Nov 16th, 2011).*****

Each course provides participants one-on-one attention from a content-expert facilitator, and is designed to be completed on your own schedule in 8-10 hours over just 2 weeks. Course completion certificate and CEU credit available and included in the $189 course fee.

Designed for adult educators, these online mini-courses offer immediately applicable strategies on topics targeted to the needs of adult learners.

**** How Close is Close Enough?: Improving Estimation Skills  (for all levels of learners)

**** Standards-based Writing for Adult  Learners: Getting Started

**** Using Text Structure and Graphic Organizers: Strategies to Enhance Reading Comprehension

For more information on these courses see the Course Descriptions http://tiny.cc/9irbm  or contact us via eff@utk.edu

Cost:  only $189/person for each course – check/money order/purchase order only. Group invoicing available.

Information on Course Assignments and Completion information: http://tiny.cc/plqnw

Please review our Course Technical Requirements before registering! http://tiny.cc/g850r

Register online via:  http://www.cvent.com/d/fcqmhf/4W   Registrants will be invoiced at time of e-mail confirmation, payment (or proof of payment processing – PO#, e-mail with check #, etc.) must be received before course start.

For questions about these or other EFF services please contact us: eff@utk.edu or visit our web site at http://eff.cls.utk.edu/

Discussion Description

Dr. JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall and colleagues from the Center for Applied Linguistics conducted a survey of teacher certification and professional development expectations for adult ESL teachers. The results of the survey revealed that although there are differences among the states, in general, states are paying more attention to issues of teacher quality. During this online discussion, Dr. Crandall will facilitate and discuss issues of teacher quality as they relate to the initial preparation and professional development of teachers of adult English Language Learners (ELLs) from initial preparation and expectations of newly hired teachers to issues related to more experienced teachers, including those who may be experiencing near burn-out from the stresses of several part-time jobs without contracts or benefits.

For a brief biography of the facilitator, guiding questions for the discussion, and a link to a reading related to the discussion, go to

http://lincs.ed.gov/lincs/discussions/englishlanguage/11issues.

If you are already a member of the ELA list, you may simply post messages at englishlanguage@lincs.ed.gov.

To subscribe to the ELA list, go to http://lincs.ed.gov/mailman/listinfo/Englishlanguage/#sub.

Miriam Burt

Moderator, Discussion List for Adult English Language Acquisition (ELA)
Center for Applied Linguistics
mburt@cal.org

Well, according to this article in the New York Times, it seems IBM thinks it is one step closer to making this a reality - it has a computer that can play, and win Jeopardy:

Code-named “Watson” after IBM founder Thomas J. Watson, the IBM computing system is designed to rival the human mind’s ability to understand the actual meaning behind words, distinguish between relevant and irrelevant content, and ultimately, demonstrate confidence to deliver precise final answers. (From the IBM web site)

For more information on Watson – read the entirely of the NYT article – it is quite long.  You can also “play” Jeopardy against Watson  if you’d like (I won, but only barely). 

In addition to the NYT article (which came from a blog post I found in my reader when I returned from vacation), I was interested to note this recent article (through Twitter) from the Pew Research Center: Imagining Life in 2050: Public Sees a Future Full of Promise & Peril; Amazing Science, Familiar Threats

In this article, and in the full report, I found some interesting public opinions about the future and technology 40 years from now:

Fully 81% [of Americans] think computer science will have progressed to the point where a computer will probably or definitely be able to carry on a conversation indistinguishable from that of a human being – passing the so-called “Turing test” – by mid-century.

40% [of Americans] think computer chips will be embedded in Americans for identification [by 2050].

In addition, over 60% of Americans say by 2050 paper editions of newspapers will no longer exist; paper money will definitely or probably cease to exist, with all financial transactions being electronic; and almost no one will send personal letters in the mail .

And this got me thinking – what would be the effect of these kinds of changes on skills needed in the workplace?  What would happen if:

• You could phrase questions to a computer just like you would a human? And get back a response that included intuitive leaps?
• Computers had  processing power equal to or better than the human brain? Without all our frailties, tendency to get emotional or distracted? Without our biases and prejudices?
• The world was generally paperless?  Most reading is done online? Would reading itself be old-fashioned? Would you listen or ‘view’ things rather than read?
• People all had an embedded identification chip? (With a GPS? Or even direct connection to the internet at all times?) Hmmm… I suspect these will be voluntary to start – limited only to the very wealthy to start. When would they be mandated, do you think?

How would these types of changes affect what cognitive and “technology” skills you would need? As an amateur futurist, I predict (for 2050, mind you):

• Humans would be needed to do fewer “routine” or “basic skill” jobs. Computers could handle most human-interaction tasks at a fast-food restaurant, for example, or customer service/tech support calls/tasks.
• Computers would begin to design more innovative computers faster than humans could. Meaning the pace of technology advances/changes would increase even further.
• Writing things by hand will seem old-fashioned and quaint. No one will write in ‘cursive’ any longer – just as no one writes in Copperplate now.  (Some folks will be able to write in cursive - but they won’t bother.)
• Reading (or writing) long blocks of unbroken text – 100′s of pages – will be uncommon and limited to older, previously written materials.  New stories will be told in computer generated images. Visual literacy skills will be very important. (Hmm, this means a new employment opportunity might be ‘converting’ old materials to visuals.)
• People will begin to have a more and more personal relationship with computers/technology. They will begin to feel it is a part of them, and ‘naked’ without a connection to ‘the network.’

In short, cognitive skills – the ability to think, reason, decide, evaluate, innovate, create, etc. - will be even MORE important than they are today. The ability to read and write would be less important than it is today.  With technology interfaces more intuitive and pervasive, what we traditionally think of as “tech skills” will likely be less important. Between now and 2050?  Folks will still need to read, write, type, and ‘figure out” non-intuitive technology tools, but more and more of these types of tasks will be done by the technology around them.  Employers will be looking for folks who can do what computers still cannot – be creative, innovative, collaborative, and/or provide a caring, human connection.

Before you dismiss me as  just a wishful thinking geek or radical technologist, think for a moment on this time line:

• Today our focus for the 21st century is on *everyone* having Technology skills, post-secondary education/training, or career-readiness skills.  If you don’t have SOME specialized post-secondary training, you are struggling to make a living.
• 40 years ago, the focus was on getting folks HS diplomas and into college. Those without a HS degree were shifted to lower paying, less attractive jobs.  College degrees got you the REALLY good jobs.
• Only 90 years ago, in America, everyone was legally required to learn to read and write (and calculate) – those that could not, began to hide their lack of skills or worked lower level  jobs.
• 150 years ago, in America, the ability to read was considered so powerful and so enlightening that it was a CRIME to teach reading to slaves - over 1/10th our total population in 1860.
• 500 years ago, distribution of the printed word to the common man became cheap and easy, and non-secular writings began to flourish – the ability to read and write made you superior as an employee for many work sectors – but these abilities also caused suspicion and conflict for 100s of years to come.
• 1000 years ago, only scholars read and wrote, and most of it was secular (in the western world at least) – you could gain great wealth and power without ever reading or writing a word. 
• 2500 years ago, Socrates argued the written word as inferior to spoken discourse for learning and thinking – what skills were thus needed for academic success? 
• 5000 years ago, the first alphabet was created – what workforce skills were important then?  What skills were needed to “succeed?”

The scary part is – I could still be alive in 2050.  I’d be 89 – what WILL I see then?  My daughter would be 43 – same age I am now.  What will SHE live to see?

From my backlog of e-mail, here is more evidence that simply increasing access to equipment/software/internet does not necessarily lead to an increase in necessary technology skills (or even thinking skills).

Children With Home Computers Likely to Have Lower Test Scores, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (June 19, 2010) — Around the country and throughout the world, politicians and education activists have sought to eliminate the “digital divide” by guaranteeing universal access to home computers, and in some cases to high-speed Internet service.

However, according to a new study by scholars at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, these efforts would actually widen the achievement gap in math and reading scores. Students in grades five through eight, particularly those from disadvantaged families, tend to post lower scores once these technologies arrive in their home.

Vigdor and Ladd concluded that home computers are put to more productive use in households where parental monitoring is more effective. In disadvantaged households, parents are less likely to monitor children’s computer use and guide children in using computers for educational purposes. [emphasis added]

I found this highly intriguing, but knowing that articles don’t always tell the whole or unbiased picture, I found and skimmed the original report:

Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement by Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd and Jacob L. Vigdor, Duke University, July 29, 2008. 

Here we find that the researchers had access to administrative data for ALL NC 5th-8th grade students from 2000-2005 – over 500,000 student surveys/observations per year – WOW! This allowed both cross-student and within-student analysis over a three year period.  The authors specifically note that the period studied is BEFORE the Facebook/Twitter phenomenon, but during a period of significant growth in computer and internet access. Within this document we find these statements [emphasis added]:

• Relative to students with no computer at home, those who use a home computer for schoolwork once or twice per month score between 4 and 5 percent of a standard deviation higher on both reading and math tests.
• Students who own a computer but never use it for schoolwork [regardless of ov erall computer usage pattern] have math test scores nearly indistinguishable from those without a home computer.
• Students reporting almost daily use of their home computer for schoolwork score significantly worse than students with no computer at home.
• …transitioning from no home computer access to any of these use categories [rarely, monthly, weekly or daily use] is associated with a statistically significant decline in both reading and math test scores.
• students who transition from having no home computer to having one and using it for schoolwork almost every day post relative test score declines on the order of 4% of a standard deviation in both reading and math. …the most plausible explanation is that students who transition into the highest computer use category are using their computers for much more than just schoolwork, and these non-productive uses are actually crowding out productive study time.
• Results for both reading and math indicate that the negative effect of computer ownership on both math and reading holds fairly steady over the first three years.

The researchers conclude:

Our preferred specifications indicate that 5th through 8th grade students [from 2000-2005] generally perform best on math and reading tests when they do not have access to a computer at home. Conditional on owning a computer, the “optimal” rate of use is infrequent, twice a month or less. For the average student, introducing home internet service does not produce additional benefits. For school administrators interested in maximizing achievement test scores, or reducing racial and socioeconomic disparities in test scores, all evidence suggests that a program of broadening home computer access would be counterproductive.  [emphasis added]

So – programs to simply ADD hardware, software, and internet access to homes (or schools) are likely to have a NEGATIVE effect on traditional academic performance, unless partnered with efforts to ensure productive use of those tools as relates to those academic areas.  Just putting them AT a computer does not mean they will learn more. They still need those crucial Thinking Skills in order to use the computer for learning effectively. According to this study, this means not ONLY training teachers in effective uses of computers in the classroom, but ALSO training parents on productive uses of computers IN THE HOME.

Hmmmm… so what does this mean for children with parents who have low-literacy skills?  While the researchers did not focus their analysis on this factor, it was included in the research data they presented. Examining the tables and graphs presented we find that:

• Parents with less than a HS diploma were FAR less likely to HAVE a computer in their homes (or internet access) during this time period – 60% had computers as compared to 85% on average and as much as 90% overall by 2005.
• Of homes with a computer where parents had less than a HS diploma, student computer usage rates of ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ were 8% higher than homes where parents had at least a HS diploma or associate’s degree.
• The decline in math and reading scores associated with the introduction of a computer into the home were highest for homes where parents had less than a high school degree – higher by far than declines noted for race or economic factors (free lunch participation).

In fact, the researchers do make the following statements about parent influence on computer usage:

The evidence is consistent with the view that internet service, and technology more broadly, is put to more productive use in households with more effective parental monitoring of child behavior. Survey behavior indicates that students very commonly use the internet, and computers more generally, both to work on school-related projects and for personal entertainment. In households with insufficient [parental] monitoring, unproductive uses may not only crowd out productive computer time, but may also crowd out offline studying.

Disadvantaged students may also receive less instruction in how to use a computer, either because their schools have poorer resources, because their parents have less technical expertise, or because their parents are simply less available.   [emphasis added]

 So low-literate parents seem to need skills in effective and productive use of computers for learning in order to isupport and increase their child’s performance in traditional academic areas. Which means that they TOO need those critical ‘meta-skills’ we’ve been touting on this blog! [I love it when empirical research backs up our theories/arguments! ]

In the conclusion of their paper, researchers Vigdor and Ladd do acknowledge that additional computer access/training may have other, more positive purposes/value:

Of course, administrators may have other goals aside from improving math and reading test scores. Computer literate students may enjoy improved job opportunities later in life, or may be poised to take better advantage of online resources once their internal mechanisms for behavioral regulation have fully developed. Evaluations of the Texas Technology Immersion Project have shown improvements in student proficiency with technology and student discipline (Shapley et al., 2007). It is not clear, however, whether computer literacy actually leads to better employment outcomes (Krueger, 1993; DiNardo and Pischke 1997), ** and also not clear whether access to home computers in the early secondary school years is critical to later computer literacy.

Not really a rousing endorsement, huh?  Essentially, the researchers are clearly biased against education systems spending money on “increasing computer access in the home” and feel those funds could be better spent elsewhere.  I’d point out, however, that just dumping hardware/internet in the home, without comprehensive training and support to parents (including basic literacy training) was, like so many “access” efforts, likely doomed to fail from the start.

I do find, however, that this paper adds to the research showing the importance of parental literacy skills in K-12 student performance and success.  Teach the parent, reach the child!

**OK, I find this statement laughable – especially since they are citing research that is OVER 10 years old at the time their paper was published.

“Developed in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders including content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents… [we think that the] standards establish clear and consistent goals for learning that will prepare America’s children for success in college and work. ” [Read press release]

Many in the K-12 field and the field of Adult Literacy Education have been closely following the development of the Common Core Standards (see our 4/21/2010 post). It is expected that these standards will have a dramatic effect on WHAT is taught, WHEN, and HOW in all education fields. Upon (an admittedly quick) review of these standards, I noted these things overall:

• The English Language Arts and Mathematics Standards documents have signficantly different formats/approaches (clearly written by different folks). Thus how these two documents address technology skills is very differently.
• The Language Arts document is organized around a set of “College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards” in 4 areas (Reading, Writing, Speaking & Listening, and Language) - skills they feel students should have upon exiting K-12 education. They also provide a ‘vision’ of students who are “College and Career Ready in English Language Skills.”   
• The Math document contains a general list of “Standards for mathematical Practice” – processes and proficiencies important to all mathematical processes (technology is only mentioned in one place here in the entire document). The remainder of the document focuses on grade-specific “Standards for Mathematical Content” listing the procedures and understandings students should have at that level. They note however, that order may vary and hope that implementation of the standard may “…allow research on learning progressions to inform and improve the design of standards...”
• The Language Arts document includes skills as applied in Social Studies and Science, and strongly emphasize the integrated nature of language skills with all other disciplines. The Mathematics Standards do not seem to do so.
• Overall the Language Arts document seems richer and more well developed.  There is much more mention of technology integrated throughout. [But, then, it was written by *writers* not mathematicians, who tend to think about writing in a different way ]
• Technology: While I have not yet had the chance to read every paragraph under every grade level, I believe the writers of both documents have approached technology as a tool, not a set of skills in itself, and mention of technology is found mostly in the more “overarching” sections of the documents.
• Lastly, it feels (to me) like there is something of a bias in these standards towards skills needed for success in higher education settings, although Career Readiness is mentioned throughout, there seems (to me) an emphasis of prepration for more academic environments.

So – what do these standards say about Technology skills for success?

The Mathematics Standards document says simply this, under Standards for Mathematical Practice:

5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
Mathematically proficient students consider the available tools when solving a mathematical problem. These tools might include pencil and paper, concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a calculator, a spreadsheet, a computer algebra system, a statistical package, or dynamic geometry software. When making mathematical models, they know that technology can enable them to visualize the results of varying assumptions, explore consequences, and compare predictions with data. Mathematically proficient students at various grade levels are able to identify relevant external mathematical resources, such as digital content located on a website, and use them to pose or solve problems. They are able to use technological tools to explore and deepen their understanding of concepts.

The English Language Arts Standards document has more to say in several different sections:

Key Design Considerations:  Research and media skills blended into the Standards as a whole
To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society, students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and report on information and ideas, to conduct original research in order to answer questions or solve problems, and to analyze and create a high volume and extensive range of print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new. The need to conduct research and to produce and consume media is embedded into every aspect of today’s curriculum. In like fashion, research and media skills and understandings are embedded throughout the Standards rather than treated in a separate section. (emphasis added)

In the Language Arts ‘vision’ statement – “Students Who are College and Career Ready in Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, & Language”:

They use technology and digital media strategically and capably.
Students employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language use. They tailor their searches online to acquire useful information efficiently, and they integrate what they learn using technology with what they learn offline. They are familiar with the strengths and limitations of various technological tools and mediums and can select and use those best suited to their communication goals.

In three of the four College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards:

Reading:
7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

Writing:
6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others.
8. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.

Speaking & Listening:
2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally.
5. Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations.
And also – New technologies have broadened and expanded the role that speaking and listening play in acquiring and sharing knowledge and have tightened their link to other forms of communication. Digital texts confront students with the potential for continually updated content and dynamically changing combinations of words, graphics, images, hyperlinks, and embedded video and audio.

WOW, that’s a lot to think over!  And you may have other things you want to investigate in this new document as well.  So Bill & I are going to give ourselves a chance to ruminate, and compare this standards document to both our list of meta-skills and the overall philosophy behind this blog and get back to you on this later.  (We’re going out of town soon and need to go do other stuff!)

In the meantime, you think on it too – and PLEASE feel free to make comments!