MUCKS

That is what I call online learning, MUCKS vs MOOCs. These kind of courses are for the highly engaged, the highly indpendant learner who has no problem being alone and interacting or interfacing with just a computer.

I took an online course and found it utterly boring. I relish hearing other’s perspectives and having the opportunity to connect and engage. I teach and I can tell by faces often if the material is connecting and who is struggling. At times I can partner kids or encourage them to actually teach as they offer a fresh perspective on old material.

I mentioned in another post about a student who was taking an online course for credit and she hated it. I took the test for her and flunked as I had not read the passage in which to spit back the material exactly as stated.

My last post on Testing Monkeys commenting about John Oliver’s great rant about the subject addresses the idiocy of excessive testing and its affects on students, teachers and parents.

Online learning is the new supposed grand bargain, idea of Howard Schultz at Starbucks. When I asked several Starbuckians about that they rolled their eyes or laughed. No one thinks that is actual college and they don’t believe employers do either. So unless the Ivies plan on issuing degrees from online courses in the immediate future, the whole concept of online learning is one step removed from for profit colleges.

The article in todays Seattle Times discussess the large failure rate in classes oferred by our local Community Colleges which is also being touted as the saving grace to get Americans educated. Yes our race to behind has more bandaids than a kid who ran through a briar patch. The problem is that education is only a temporary fix or bridge but when it goes nowhere and has no longevity it does nothing for no one.

Community colleges work to lower failure rate in online courses
May 4, 2015

Students who take online classes in community college don’t do as well as those who take traditional, face-to-face classes, a new study shows.

By Katherine Long
Seattle Times higher education reporter

Community college students fail online courses at a higher rate than traditionally-taught, face-to-face courses, a new study out of California has found.

The results underscore the findings of a similar study in Washington two years ago. But educators at Washington’s community colleges have been working to try to close the gaps.

The latest study, from researchers at the University of California-Davis, reveals that California community college students were 11 percent less likely to finish and pass an online course than students who took the course in person. Two years ago, a study of Washington’s community colleges found that completion rates for online courses were 6 to 10 percentage points lower than courses taught face-to-face.

Since that study came out, Washington’s community colleges have done training for faculty members throughout the system to improve the quality of online courses, said Laura McDowell, spokeswoman for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC).And SBCTC has adopted a learning management system called Canvas that more effectively delivers online education, McDowell said. The program allows faculty to present course materials, a calendar, grade book, email, discussion boards and online quizzes, and it makes it easier to manage conversations between faculty and students, McDowell said.

A number of colleges have taken additional, specific steps. For example, Seattle Central College’s Center for Extended Learning works to make sure students who sign up understand what they’re getting into before they register for an online class. Highline College has created a faculty learning community to figure out how to infuse technology into basic education classes. And Shoreline Community College has hired people for two new positions that support online students.

This fall and winter, several community colleges in the Washington system will begin offering an online, competency-based associate degree in business, with all credits transferable to a Washington public four-year college. Some of the lessons learned from that program are likely to help the colleges improve all online courses, McDowell said.

Test Monkey

I am all for technology and its use to make things easier, faster and cheaper. Sure but then at what cost does that mean for human interaction and in turn employment?

Well it explains the sudden overdrive in Education reform to be tech centric. This is the idea that online education programs can supplant curriculum, make it more universal, standardized and eliminate human error as in Teacher/Student connection.

Education reform is all about eliminating Teachers and turning education and classrooms into internet centers with monitors and little else. I have experienced it first hand in “alternative” education for those students who have either elected to or dropped out of mainstream schooling. You see them for hours sitting at a screen as one prompt comes up after another. They are test monkey’s.

And it shows as they have little ability to time manage, anger manage, communicate and when asked to put pen to paper to write a calculation or a sentence they simply struggle. Funny I met a teacher today who used to teach at said alternatives and now teaches the advanced placement kids at a conventional high school. He said nothing when I asked why he left and what he thought. He just raised his eyebrows. In other words if he believed in it he would still be there. But what was he doing this morning? Proctoring the AP tests. Nuff not said in this case.

We have become a nation of test taking to assess and determine our worth. It’s not who you are it is how well you test.

Ever been to a school for the elite? They don’t emphasize or do that. In fact in some schools that cater to the tech elite they have no device zones. Interesting that learning falls into the more explorative and socratic method that these same denziens of the valley abhorr when it comes to education for the poor.

Well this article explains why. We need service workers and what better way to train them but get them early on to learn how to sit for hours at a screen and jump with each check the box, hit enter and move on. Save hours of actual training, interaction and well talking and interacting with the poors. If you think CEO’s or Executives are subject to this, think again. Think… that is what is missing from this picture the ability to think, process and in turn respond to each individual as an individual. One size fits all.

We are becoming a service economy and service nation. From scheduling programs to eliminate managers, to self service check outs and in, to the robotic conversations scripted and programmed on how to help a customer is just another way for data mining a profit generation for those who actually create these programs.

All of this talk about STEM education, well little of it has to do with actually writing programs, understanding engineering or the skills needed to update, improve or create. We can import those people from foreign countries, hang an H1B1 visa over their head and in turn use their supposed better education to do that heavy lifting.

So in this case if you are older, have language issues or are not net savvy does this mean you are out of luck or in fact if you can simply perform well on the test regardless then you should be candidate number one right? I wonder.

We are becoming a nation of test monkey’s.

Online tests are the latest gateway to landing a new job

By Sarah Halzack,
Published: May 8

If you’re applying for a job as a customer service representative at T-Mobile, you’re bound to encounter Jason Easton, a cranky mock customer who has been on hold for nearly an hour.

“Ah! It’s about time,” he says, demanding to know why his bill has gone up.

From a scrappy space start-up founded in 1982 by three Harvard Business School friends, the Dulles-based company has come a long way.

As Easton rattles off his name and phone number, you’ll have to quickly pull up his account, help him with his bill and determine whether he’s eligible for a $30 credit that he wants.

T-Mobile asks job applicants to take this test before inviting them for an interview because the company has found powerful correlations between the online assessments and success on the job. High scorers tend to resolve customer calls about 25 seconds faster than those who receive low scores. That means they can handle one more call a day and about 250 more a year.

At T-Mobile and legions of other companies, Web-based tests have become a key gateway to landing a job, a potent screening tool that can effectively bump a résumé to the top or bottom of a manager’s pile.

Companies are using these tests to evaluate skills and personalities for job openings at every rung of the career ladder, from bank teller to C-suite executive. They are not merely on-screen versions of decades-old paper employment tests. They are built on the power of big data: Creators have harnessed a massive trove of results to help companies pinpoint the kind of worker who might thrive in a particular job.

Test makers say their offerings bring a consistency and objectivity to a process that can sharply improve the odds of hiring the right person. But in a highly competitive job market in a tepid economic recovery, the increased use of online testing could mean that workers who aren’t digitally savvy or lack Web access might face one more hurdle in getting a job.

“Assessments are right more often than they’re wrong,” said Elliot Clark, chief executive of SharedXpertise Media, a firm that puts on conferences for the human resources industry. “But like anything else, when you do a prediction, the forecast has a percentage of accuracy. The issue is: What percentage of people get screened out that should have gotten a shot?”

CEB, an Arlington-based company that is among the world’s largest providers of such tests, says it is administering 30 million talent tests a year — one for almost every second of every day. Another online test provider, IBM, says it administers 36 million assessments a year, most of which are pre-employment tests.

In 2013, more than a third of new hires reported taking such a test, compared with 18 percent in 2008, according to CEB data.

Some tests evaluate a specific skill, such as how quickly and accurately someone can make change from an onscreen cash register or program software in the Java coding language. Many tests incorporate simulations of scenarios one might encounter on the job. Marriott International, for example, shows housekeeping applicants a photo of a landscaped area at one of its hotels and asks candidates to determine what’s wrong with it. (Perhaps a gardening tool was not put away properly). In one of CEB’s tests for a supervisory role, applicants might have to demonstrate how they would talk to an employee who was coming in late and missing important meetings.

Providers say the tests hold the promise of leveling the playing field for job applicants by removing the chance of bias that comes with a traditional résumé screening. The tests can’t distinguish, for example, if a candidate didn’t attend a top-tier college, is currently unemployed or is a woman or minority.

“In many cases, algorithms can trump instinct on staffing,” said John Boudreau, a professor in the business school at the University of Southern California, adding that decades of research have found that tests can serve as reliable barometers of certain personality traits, such as conscientiousness.

Experts say this type of testing is on the rise now because innovations in technology have made the assessments markedly simpler to administer while improvements in data analysis have made them more useful. The software also helps hiring managers sort through the ever-growing volume of résumés they receive, as the application process increasingly moves online.

T-Mobile, for instance, received about 1 million job applications last year in the United States and hired about 14,000 people. Jared Flynn, head of talent acquisition at the wireless company, said the tests have become a crucial part of the hiring process for store associates, managers and call center representatives. Although hiring decisions are ultimately made based on a combination of test results and interview performance, Flynn says, managers will look first to the “top of the barrel”—in other words, those who scored best on the tests.

“This saves a third to half of the recruiting labor. It’s huge,” Flynn said.

For T-Mobile sales associates, data show that those with high test scores bring in more revenue per hour and that the customers they assist have lower rates of service cancellation. Meanwhile, those who performed poorly on the T-Mobile assessment were twice as likely to quit a job, which can cost the company thousands in hiring and training expenses.

To make the simulations as realistic as possible, CEB uses professional voice actors and bases the movements of its 3-D animated characters on those of a person in a motion-capture suit.

At IBM, which makes tests as part of its Smarter Workforce initiative, Zahir Ladhani, a vice president, said the assessments help companies hire better salespeople by making them rethink assumptions about the kind of person who will thrive in that role.

“The perception out there is [you need] outgoing and persuasive,” Ladhani said. “But our studies show you want somebody who’s sensitive and helpful.”

Josh Bersin, principal of the human resources consultancy Bersin by Deloitte, said his firm estimates that employment testing is a $1 billion market.

“They’re very, very good things for both sides,” Bersin said.

Still, Web-based tests might present obstacles for some workers.

Many of CEB’s tests, for example, cannot be taken on a mobile device. That is by design, because the company’s research has shown that people score lower on cognitive ability or problem-solving tests when they’re taken on mobile devices. CEB is trying to figure out why. One hypothesis is that people who use mobile devices are taking the tests while on the go and, therefore, distracted.

“As scientists and as ethical professionals, we’re keeping the brakes on it a little bit,” said Ken Lahti, CEB’s vice president of product development and innovation.

Run Long for the Short of It

I think that might be some type of sports metaphor or close enough but when it comes to education we are running in all directions.

We have the push for STEM education, science technology engineering and math, the idea that this is an all encompassing curriculum that will turn all students into graduates into fields that they will find long term work and income. And we have the struggle to attract women into the field which lends to the further isolation and male hierarchy that dominates a profession, hey but GM finally put a chick behind the wheel.

And then we have the idea that education online will solve that dilemma twofold – by offering degrees at affordable rates. And then we have this little caveat today that online colleges are really holding or producing many students let alone graduates.

Then we have the idea that just having a degree is the magic key to suddenly long term wages and growth and occupation. And we have degreed people with six figure debt making our coffees, which will soon be replaced by robots.

Below is a breakdown of how college pays or not. The facts speak for themselves. Numbers don’t lie they do when they are manipulated in ways that make it so. Hard to know. There is no one answer, no one solution but there is however a need for some type of measurement and control so those who need to know can do so in a manner that allows them full knowledge and acknowledgement that the road well or even less traveled is one done with a GPS.

——————————————————————————–

December 9, 2013, 12:01

College Pays, Sort OfBy NANCY FOLBRE

Here’s the good news: Young adults who have finished college continue to earn significantly more than mere high school graduates.

.The gap between the median earnings of high school graduates and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher – the red versus the purple lines in the graphs here – remains wide. The difference, over a lifetime, is more than enough to justify the expense of attaining a bachelor’s degree.

Here’s the bad news: Adjusted for inflation, median earnings for young men with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2011 were significantly lower than they were in 1971. Young women have slightly improved their position (by $630) since 1971. But as a comparison between the two graphs shows, their median is still lower than that of male high school graduates in 1971.

The College Board report that provides the basis for the charts above shows that the trend in real earnings of young college graduates is worse if restricted to those with a bachelor’s degree alone, but the historical time series for that category doesn’t go back as far.

Since 2000, the real average earnings of college graduates ages 25 to 34 with a bachelor’s degree alone have declined by about 15 percent. Does anyone seriously believe that college graduates today are less skilled or less productive than they were in 1971? Most of them are handy with hardware and software (not to mention “cloudware”) that didn’t even exist back then.

A large percentage of them are majoring in business in hopes of finding a job. Today, they are often instructed to head for majors in science, technology, engineering and math (the STEM disciplines), where they will almost certainly fare better than other graduates. But they still have a hard time finding jobs in their field of study.

Mal-employment – a more descriptive term than “underemployment,” which also includes involuntary part-time work – is growing, with more than a third of recent college graduates in jobs that don’t require a college degree.

Many college graduates are simply displacing less-educated workers from the jobs they once held, scrambling up the attic stairs to the roof of a bungalow whose first floor, inhabited by mere high school graduates, is now largely underwater.

The good news is that the stairs are still in place, and educators and policy makers should be urging young people toward them. But the finish-your-degree exhortations of reports like the College Board’s “Education Pays” and a Georgetown University report, “The Undereducated American,” should be tempered by the warning that college-educated workers in the United States are now subject to a combination of global market forces and public policies that are reducing their economic prospects.

Much recent debate over the causes of economic inequality has focused on the extent to which technological change (robots in particular) can take the blame. But whatever the causes, the political consequences of a continuing decline in the real average wages of young college-educated workers will be momentous.

It will undermine faith that a market economy always rewards effort, intelligence and skill, increasing awareness that most working people, not just those who didn’t go to college, are vulnerable to impersonal forces of supply and demand.

It might also increase appreciation of public policies that value both students and workers as something more than short-run inputs into a global market machine.