Abstract: Positioned in the context of experiential learning, this paper reports findings of a virtual reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction with an in- person field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods course to a local natural history museum. Findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best used after a field trip to encourage student recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good for in their science classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe locations, to explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different eras or events at varying temporal scales. Furthermore, this study uncovered potential equity issues related to VRFTs being seen as a viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips. Further research needs to be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology
Friday, December 27, 2019
Harron, Petrosino and Jenevein (2019) Using Virtual Reality to Augment Museum-Based Field Trips in a Preservice Elementary Science Methods Course
The following paper represents about 2 years of work with pre-service elementary science teachers and the use of virtual reality in developing museum based activities. Great work by doctoral students Jason Harron and Sarah Jenevein on this research.
Abstract: Positioned in the context of experiential learning, this paper reports findings of a virtual reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction with an in- person field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods course to a local natural history museum. Findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best used after a field trip to encourage student recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good for in their science classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe locations, to explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different eras or events at varying temporal scales. Furthermore, this study uncovered potential equity issues related to VRFTs being seen as a viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips. Further research needs to be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology
Harron, J. R., Petrosino, A. J., & Jenevein, S. (2019). Using virtual reality to augment museum-based field trips in a preservice elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4). Retrieved from https://www.citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-4-19/science/using-virtual-reality-to-augment-museum-based-field-trips-in-a-preservice- elementary-science-methods-course
Abstract: Positioned in the context of experiential learning, this paper reports findings of a virtual reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction with an in- person field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods course to a local natural history museum. Findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best used after a field trip to encourage student recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good for in their science classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe locations, to explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different eras or events at varying temporal scales. Furthermore, this study uncovered potential equity issues related to VRFTs being seen as a viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips. Further research needs to be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Merry Christmas to All and to All a Happy New Year
Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Explaining the SES Aspect of the Hoboken Public School District's Abysmal Grade 3 to 8 Performance (Reader Comments Allowed)
Chart 1: 2019 Grade Level Scores (Grade 3 to 8) CLICK TO ENLARGE |
DISTRICT | GRADE LEVELS | |
BAYONNE | 0.67 | Higher |
GUTTENBERG | 0.06 | Higher |
HARRISON/E. NEWARK | -0.09 | Lower |
HOBOKEN | -1.27 | Lower |
JERSEY CITY | -0.24 | Lower |
KEARNY | 0.21 | Higher |
NORTH BERGEN | 0.54 | Higher |
SECAUCUS | -0.03 | Lower |
UNION CITY | 1.24 | Higher |
WEEHAWKEN | 0.6 | Higher |
WEST NEW YORK | 0.87 | Higher |
Of course, in an attempt to explain these results, some people in Hoboken who identify themselves as "supporters of the public schools" have made claims about the difference in the socioeconomic background between public school students and the rest of the City of Hoboken. This argument holds no real substance. The percentage of students on free or reduced lunch in the Hoboken Public Schools is below 50% and in the elementary grades tested (Grades 3 to 8). Going further into the numbers, when considering the PreK to 8 population (since most 8th grade graduates have been educated in the Hoboken Public Schools since pre-school) the precent of free or reduced lunch is below 50% (see Chart 2).
Chart 2: 2018-19 Hoboken Data- Enrollment and SES status CLICK TO ENLARGE |
Nevertheless, because of the SES issue, I asked a researcher at Stanford to comment about how the SES number is derived. What follows is their response along with some additional reference materials. The issues in the Hoboken Public Schools are beginning to gather national attention. People want to know how can these test scores occur when you have 9:1 student teacher ratios, teachers being compensated at salaries far above state and national averages, per pupil spending close to $28,000 per student and so much chatter on social media about how wonderful the schools are doing. People are beginning to notice....
Question (Dr. Petrosino): Can you explain in a little detail how the socioeconomic status of the school district was calculated?
Answer (Stanford Researcher): I looked into how the SES measure was created. The creation of the SES measure is quite complicated, but SES status is essentially a composite created from 6 measures from the ACS survey: median income, proportion of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, child poverty rate, SNAP receipt rate, single mother headed household rate, and unemployment rate for each race group (all, white, black, Hispanic) in each of 7-year spans for both the estimates and their standard errors. I put a link to the documentation along with some things that might be useful or helpful, depending on how in-depth of an answer you need.
The link to the documentation:
I've highlighted some things that might be useful:
1) The exact wording of the all the survey questions for each of the 6 measures are in appendix B of the documentation starting on page 69.
2) On page 63: is a nice table that shows how each of the 6 measures of the SES composite looks at different standard deviations of the SES composite.
3) On page 40: the construction of the SES measures is described in detailed. (This is very technical (imputation, weighting, standard error shrinkage) to create the SES composite.
Additional resources on Hudson County School Districts:
Sunday, December 15, 2019
December 17- Wearing of Blue for Det. Joseph Seals
Friday, December 6, 2019
Stanford Study Indicates Hoboken District Students Completing Grades 3 to 8 Are FAR BELOW Grade Level Compared to All Hudson County Public School Districts from Similar Socio-Economic Background
Reader Comments Enabled for this post....
An 8th grader educated in the Hoboken Pubic Schools has acquired the education of a student in roughly March of the 6th Grade, 1.27 grade levels below the 8th grade level of students from similar socioeconomic strata. An 8th grader educated in the Union City Public Schools has acquired the education of a student roughly in December of the 10th grade, roughly 1.24 grade levels above the 8th grade for students from similar socioeconomic status.
I recently created a post centered around a Stanford University report which showed that students educated in the Hoboken Public School completing Grades 3 to Grades 8 are now 1.27 grade level lower than students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Note, it is important to remember that this is an "apples to apples" comparison since the students come from similar socioeconomic status.
Thanks to a couple of regular followers, I was asked basically how does the 1.27 grade level lower then students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds compare to other districts in Hudson County?
I thought that was a reasonable question and so I had some colleagues explore the data in greater depth and compiled similar data for Hudson County Public Schools Districts. The results indicate a few things- for instance, a majority of Hudson County School District are doing quite well and their students completing Grades 3 to 8 are scoring well above grade level when compared to students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
Unfortunately, the data also indicates just how poor of an education the students completing Grades 3 to 8 in the Hoboken School District are receiving. I presented the data in both tase form as well as in chart form. It is in chart form where we see the extent of how poorly the results are when compared with students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
These results seem to fly in the face of various declaration and pronouncements of how well the Hoboken Public Schools are doing. These results indicate that there is a systemic problem in the Hoboken Public Schools in the elementary and middle school grade levels. These results seem to indicate that despite one of the highest per pupil expenditures in the State of New Jersey, results lag significantly behind every pubic school district in Hudson County.
What is especially surprising is look at the comparison between Hoboken and Union City. The Union City District has students who are completing Grades 3 to Grade 8 at 1.24 grade levels ABOVE students from districts with similar socioeconomic status. Placed in common terms, an 8th grader educated in the Hoboken Pubic Schools has acquired the education of a student in roughly March of the 6th Grade. An 8th grader educated in the Union City Public Schools has acquired the education of a student roughly in December of the 10th grade.
An 8th grader educated in the Hoboken Pubic Schools has acquired the education of a student in roughly March of the 6th Grade, 1.27 grade levels below the 8th grade level of students from similar socioeconomic strata. An 8th grader educated in the Union City Public Schools has acquired the education of a student roughly in December of the 10th grade, roughly 1.24 grade levels above the 8th grade for students from similar socioeconomic status.
I recently created a post centered around a Stanford University report which showed that students educated in the Hoboken Public School completing Grades 3 to Grades 8 are now 1.27 grade level lower than students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Note, it is important to remember that this is an "apples to apples" comparison since the students come from similar socioeconomic status.
Thanks to a couple of regular followers, I was asked basically how does the 1.27 grade level lower then students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds compare to other districts in Hudson County?
I thought that was a reasonable question and so I had some colleagues explore the data in greater depth and compiled similar data for Hudson County Public Schools Districts. The results indicate a few things- for instance, a majority of Hudson County School District are doing quite well and their students completing Grades 3 to 8 are scoring well above grade level when compared to students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
Unfortunately, the data also indicates just how poor of an education the students completing Grades 3 to 8 in the Hoboken School District are receiving. I presented the data in both tase form as well as in chart form. It is in chart form where we see the extent of how poorly the results are when compared with students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
DISTRICT | GRADE LEVELS | |
BAYONNE | 0.67 | Higher |
GUTTENBERG | 0.06 | Higher |
HARRISON/E. NEWARK | -0.09 | Lower |
HOBOKEN | -1.27 | Lower |
JERSEY CITY | -0.24 | Lower |
KEARNY | 0.21 | Higher |
NORTH BERGEN | 0.54 | Higher |
SECAUCUS | -0.03 | Lower |
UNION CITY | 1.24 | Higher |
WEEHAWKEN | 0.6 | Higher |
WEST NEW YORK | 0.87 | Higher |
CLICK TO ENLARGE |
The following is the raw data which helped prepare this report:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)