QS uses six indicators to rank the world’s top 400 schools on a 1 to 100 scale: academic reputation, student/faculty ration, citations per faculty, employer reputation, proportion of international faculty, and percentage of international students.

For the past five years, US News offered similar rankings across twenty-five subject areas in arts/humanities, engineering and technology, life sciences, natural sciences and social sciences. Based on the QS World University Rankings, its purpose is to “show how American universities compare with other institutions of higher learning.” The top institution overall in the US News rankings is MIT, with Cambridge ranked #2 and Harvard #3.

US schools made up 83 of the top 400 and six of the top ten: MIT, Harvard, Yale, University of Chicago, Princeton and Cal Tech. The other four top-ten spots went to schools in the UK: University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Oxford and Imperial College London. The highest-ranking university outside the US and UK was ETH Zurich (#13), which has a technology focus. The highest-ranking school in Canada was the University of Toronto (#19).

The University of Hong Kong (#23) was the highest-ranking school in Asia. Australia placed seven schools in the top 100 and one in the top 25 (Australian National University at #25), while China placed seven in the top 200. Surprisingly — to me at least — no Indian universities made the top 200.

Top schools in Latin America include Universidade de São Paulo and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. The highest-ranking university in Mexico was the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (#5 in Latin America).

These rankings are fascinating and informative in their own right, and provide a valuable source of comparative data for elite students worldwide who have the academic status and resources to compete for entrance to these institutions. The rankings are also a useful way for academics to monitor how their institutions and programs are faring in the highly competitive global education market.

But perhaps most importantly, global university rankings across subject areas help fill the vacuum of information about study abroad that a recent survey of UK and US students reported. According to the survey, less than 25% of students said they had enough information to make a choice about whether or where to study abroad. This concern was seen as a greater factor than language fluency or reluctance to move far from family and friends.

Cost, of course, is a barrier to many students who would otherwise welcome the chance to experience travel and education abroad. But apparently many students were not aware of financial aid for study abroad that they might have qualified for.

About 20% of UK students and 50% of US students said they were considering study abroad, either for a short stint or a full academic degree program. (Only about 9% of US college students actually study abroad.)

Do you think international subject rankings for universities make sense and are valid and trustworthy? If you advise students on college options, how frequently do you discuss overseas choices with your advisees?

Featured image courtesy of Tim Patterson.

In South Korea, education is seen as absolutely vital to economic success. The nation ranks high in most international comparative assessments of academic performance, ranks at or near the top globally in the percentage of college graduates among its population, and uses more tutoring per capita than perhaps any nation on earth.

As a result of this extreme focus and pressure, academic competition is exceedingly intense — and some individuals inevitably step beyond the bounds of legitimacy and even legality to get ahead. High-profile scandals over plagiarism or phony degrees and other qualifications among public figures are commonplace, for example.

But this week South Korea faced an academic scandal that put it in the global spotlight, as the SAT exams for the entire country were cancelled after allegations of widespread cheating came to light. The exams were scheduled for May 4, and about 1,500 students had signed up for them. Many were hopeful that their scores would help them gain admission to top-flight American universities. (According to the Institute of International Education, over 70,000 South Korean students are currently studying in the US, more than any other countries except China and India.)

The exams were called off on May 1 after the College Board, which oversees the SAT exams, and Educational Testing Service (ETS), which scores the tests, learned that South Korean tutoring companies purportedly had illegally obtained the exam in advance and had distributed it to students. According to a public statement, this choice was made only after every other option had been ruled out.

While SATs have previously been cancelled for individual testing centers or across a small area, this is the first time the test has ever been cancelled across an entire country. Testing fees were refunded for all the students who had registered.

The College Board said it would support criminal charges being brought against any individuals or organizations that may have taken part in the cheating. Currently it is unknown whether any testing centers or tutors have been charged; however, according to local reports authorities (both municipal and educational) are currently investigating all 68 tutoring centers in Seoul, Korea’s capital. At least ten test center staff members have been told not to leave the country, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal also reports that test prep center staff say that cheating is widespread. Some say that copies of official SAT booklets can be purchased from brokers for about US$4,500. The bulk of the demand for illegal SAT exams seems to come from parents, who will stop at nothing to seek advantage for their college-bound children.

This is not the first time there’s been cheating on the SAT in South Korea. In January 2007, 900 SAT scores were cancelled after an unknown number of students who took the test were found to have seen at least part of the test in advance. ETS says its testing security in South Korea has always been “among the most stringent of any country in which the SAT is administered,” but is currently conducting a security review and reevaluating its test center policies.

So where does this leave the students? Another exam date is scheduled for June, but many students no doubt are concerned about another cancellation. Reportedly some kids are planning to take the next scheduled test in Hong Kong or Japan. And as the executive director of the Korean-American Educational Commission said, “[The] Children are given an incredible burden. Who [among US colleges] will trust the scores from here?”

Do you think the College Board and ETS did the right thing to cancel the exams? What do you see as a possible solution to the global problem of academic cheating?

Featured image courtesy of geekgurl7.

SAT vs ACT: Choosing the Right Test [NEW EBOOK]

Download this free 20-Page Ebook for Tutors Now!

Our free 20-page ebook is a step-by-step guide on how to select the right test for your student. Learn everything you need to know about using the PLAN and PSAT to improve student scores, how to leverage learning analytics to select one test over the other, and other tips on how to take the guesswork out of selecting the ACT vs the SAT.

Beginning as soon as the spring of 2015, the ACT college admissions test will be administered digitally. Digital testing can provide faster results — in minutes versus two to six weeks — for both students and colleges.

Since the ACT is designed to test students’ high school learning and reasoning skills, it is already well aligned with the overwhelming adoption of Common Core across all but a few states. The online test version will still have sections to measure math, science, reading and English understanding, along with an optional writing section.

But according to the announcement made yesterday, while the digital tests will still feature a multiple-choice format, they will be expanded to include interactive sections. For example, students might conduct virtual experiments with beakers of chemicals in a simulated science lab, or explain concepts in their own words. The hope is that these “constructed-response” questions will engage students and make them more enthusiastic about the testing process. (If it doesn’t just make them more nervous than they are already.)

The “other” major high-stakes college admissions test, the SAT, recently announced changes in its format. Currently, about the same number of students take the SAT and ACT tests in their paper-based formats. But the ACT has been providing testing services to a number of states that are using computers for statewide testing, and is probably ahead of the SAT in that arena.

Most high school students are presumably comfortable enough with computing technology to embrace the shift to digital testing, and “all the anecdotal evidence is that students prefer the computer,” according to Jon Erickson, president of ACT’s education division. But the paper “fill-in-the-bubble” tests will still be available for those who prefer that format. One reason for this, says Mr. Ericson, is that “We don’t want to measure a student’s computer skills or fears.”

Another reason why ACT will implement digital testing gradually is that it needs time to iron out technical problems. For example, online testing was recently suspended in Kentucky after a series of performance and connectivity glitches, and students who have yet to complete their required end-of-course testing in Common Core subjects (English II, algebra II, biology and US history) will need to take the traditional pencil-and-paper format exam instead.

ACT said that the number of students taking the exams had overloaded its online testing system, but that fixing it was simply a matter of adding additional capacity. About 60% of Kentucky’s school districts were planning to use the online testing system, versus about 35% in 2012. Schools now will be challenged to conduct paper-based testing in time to factor the results into students’ final grades.

Besides Kentucky, several other states also had difficulties with their year-end exams due to the AT online testing systems. A number of ancillary issues also remain unresolved with the digital testing process, such as whether students will be able to use their own devices for testing.

What do you think about the online administration of high-stakes tests, including “instant feedback” on the results? For me, once technical issues are resolved there doesn’t seem to be much of a downside for students. What issues do you see that I’m perhaps overlooking?

Featured image courtesy of punterjoe.

SAT vs ACT: Choosing the Right Test [NEW EBOOK]

Download this free 20-Page Ebook for Tutors Now!

Our free 20-page ebook is a step-by-step guide on how to select the right test for your student. Learn everything you need to know about using the PLAN and PSAT to improve student scores, how to leverage learning analytics to select one test over the other, and other tips on how to take the guesswork out of selecting the ACT vs the SAT.

According to a recent piece in the Stanford News, Stanford’s Lytics Lab is gleaning learning analytics data from MOOCs to understand how people learn. This fascinating line of research offers insight into what turns students off or engages them, how men might learn differently from women, how online forums can support better learning performance, and to what extent mentoring or tutoring other MOOC-takers can help the helper.

The Lytics Lab is a multi-disciplinary collaborative effort that focuses on “use-driven research and data-driven design” to enhance the effectiveness of online learning environments and expand our knowledge about how they function. As an early adopter and leader in online course delivery, Stanford’s renowned MOOCs are “where it’s at” for conducting this research on a large scale and then applying the results.

Stanford’s Learning Analytics group of grad students, professors, researchers and visiting thought leaders, representing disciplines from education to computer science to sociology, meets weekly in “the data cauldron,” to brainstorm. Research projects include development of a dashboard to help MOOC instructors monitor student engagement; a study of peer assessment in MOOCs based on 63,000 peer grades in a single MOOC (wow!); research into what data points gathered during a MOOC can help predict student performance outcomes; and ways to provide automated feedback on computer programming assignments.

Across Stanford MOOCs, data are collected when students take tests, hand in homework, participate in forums, watch videos and do peer grading. The more data is collected and the more analytics are applied to it, the more refined and expansive our understanding of online learning dynamics becomes.

One of the key reasons for studying MOOCs, of course, is to help make them more effective. Why is the dropout rate so great in MOOCs? What motivates people to take them to begin with? Why are some elements of the current MOOC format popular, while others are much less so?

In one study entitled “Deconstructing Disengagements: Analyzing Learner Subpopulations in MOOCS,” three Stanford doctoral students questioned the questions themselves. For example, they discovered that learners take or leave MOOCs for different reasons; so referring to “dropouts” generically is not relevant. Similarly, some learners take a MOOC for certification or skills acquisition, while others are participating for more casual reasons, like intellectual stimulation or enjoyment. So “completion” is likewise not a generically applicable criterion.

Of course, Stanford’s academic community is not the only group looking to apply learning analytics to MOOCs. In this slideshare on “Emerging and Potential Learning Analytics from MOOCs,” presented at the London Knowledge Lab in March 2013, Katy Jordan makes a wide range of observations about what factors may contribute to higher or lower completion rates. But Ms. Jordan stresses that more data is needed and that the questions themselves need to be questioned. Is completion of a MOOC even a valid way to judge achievement or measure learning success?

For more information on how learning analytics and MOOCs are influencing each other:

• Are low completion rates for MOOCs a problem, or is that just fine? http://hackeducation.com/2012/07/23/mooc-drop-out/
• Ms. Jordan’s MoocMoocher blog
• Ms. Jordan’s data on how completion rates relate to assessment types

What do you think are the key questions to ask about the effectiveness of MOOCs and how to measure them?

Featured image courtesy of Cikgu Brian.

SAT vs ACT: Choosing the Right Test [NEW EBOOK]

Download this free 20-Page Ebook for Tutors Now!

Our free 20-page ebook is a step-by-step guide on how to select the right test for your student. Learn everything you need to know about using the PLAN and PSAT to improve student scores, how to leverage learning analytics to select one test over the other, and other tips on how to take the guesswork out of selecting the ACT vs the SAT.

The STEM Master Teacher Corps is a conceived as a national initiative to reward exceptional STEM educators. Teachers who join the STEM Master Teachers Corps are making a formal commitment to “champion the cause of STEM education in their respective communities.” In return, they will receive “additional resources to mentor math and science teachers, inspire students, and help their communities grow.”

Specifically, this initiative aims to offer career advancement and higher pay to the top 5% of K-12 STEM teachers. This cadre of exceptional teachers will mentor other STEM teachers, share best practices, and generally serve as role models across their districts. The initiative will also offer competitive regional grants for “program implementation, specialized training and support for corps members, and funding for program evaluation.”

The goal is to grow the Corps to 10,000 members over four years. The 2014 budget request includes $80 million to train teachers and $35 million to launch a pilot program.

Along with many educators and others, President Obama clearly believes that America needs a strong, STEM-educated workforce to compete in the global economy. This type of “investing in America’s future” is controversial, however. Initially conceived in 2012, the “STEM Master Teacher Corps Act of 2013” was reintroduced in February of this year but has yet to be considered or reported on by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, to which it was assigned.

Besides creating the STEM Master Teacher Corps, the new budget also significantly restructures federal spending in STEM education. Funding that had formerly come from multiple agencies is now consolidated under just three: the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Smithsonian Institution.

The total number of federal STEM programs is decreased as part of a “cohesive national STEM education strategy” that is prioritized by education level, from K-12 through graduate programs and on to “informal education.” The total budget request for STEM education is $3.1 billion — a 6.7% increase over the budget enacted in 2012.

STEM programs for which funding is requested include:

• $450 million altogether to create STEM Innovation Networks across high schools and school districts, to support partnerships with local, regional and national STEM resources; especially partnerships between high schools and colleges and employers.
• $123 million to the NSF to help improve retention of undergraduate STEM students and improve STEM teaching and learning among undergrads.
• $65 million to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED) program to support development in “educational technology, learning systems, support systems for educators and other educational tools.”

This expanded STEM focus and funding is likely to lead to an even greater emphasis on STEM subjects, and thus a growing need for effective STEM teachers and tutors.

Do you believe that these proposed expenditures would improve STEM teaching and learning in the US?

Featured image courtesy of betsyweber.

US President Barak Obama’s 2014 budget proposal asks for an “historic investment” in early learning opportunities. President Obama is being applauded for taking a bold step towards removing stumbling blocks that low-income children and other vulnerable preschoolers often face on the path towards success in school.

Per Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, budgets are more than just numbers — they are a reflection of social values. This budget proposal clearly demonstrates the president’s belief in education as vital to America’s competitive viability in a global economy driven increasingly by innovation. It is also a vote for reversing the erosion of the middle class.

Specifically, the fiscal year 2014 budget request calls for $71 billion in discretionary appropriations for education, of which almost 72% goes to financial aid for college students, special education, and aid to schools in poor communities. The remaining 28% is to be invested in early learning: to greatly increase access to preschool, fund K-12 reform, help make college more affordable, and provide services to students living in poverty.

The “Preschool for All” component of the proposed budget requests appropriations of $1.3 billion in 2014 and $75 billion over 10 years in mandatory funding, along with $750 million for competitively awarded Preschool Development Grants. A further $15 billion is earmarked for home care visiting programs to support and educate parents of early learners.

The premise of these expenditures is that a strong middle class is founded on a strong education for every child. Yet many American kids lack access to preschool — currently the US ranks 28^th globally in enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning, and 25^th in public investment in preschool. Less than one-third of US children attend a quality preschool program.

Studies unambiguously show that children who have positive early learning experiences do better in school. Echoing the advice of the recent report from The Equity and Excellence Commission, the goal of Preschool for All is to “enable every American 4-year-old to attend a quality preschool program — one characterized by well-organized learning experiences, guided exploration, art, and storytelling, led by a skilled teacher.”

States will provide the services, with states and the federal government sharing costs. States must meet “essential criteria” to receive federal funds. Initially the federal government will cover more of the program costs, with states gradually taking over funding year by year. The money will come from a new, $0.94 increase in the tobacco tax. (California’s Proposition 10 is an example of successfully using tobacco tax revenue to fund early learning.)

Besides investing in the future of America’s children, if these education items are funded the new budget is also likely to create jobs for preschool teachers, tutors and aides, as well as other jobs in education. At a time when sequestration and other budget cuts are negatively impacting all levels of education, this could be welcome news.

Featured image courtesy of peasap.

SAT vs ACT: Choosing the Right Test [NEW EBOOK]

Download this free 20-Page Ebook for Tutors Now!

Our free 20-page ebook is a step-by-step guide on how to select the right test for your student. Learn everything you need to know about using the PLAN and PSAT to improve student scores, how to leverage learning analytics to select one test over the other, and other tips on how to take the guesswork out of selecting the ACT vs the SAT.

This is the artificial intelligence-based grading model that EdX, a nonprofit co-founded by Harvard and MIT, has just unleashed for the courses it offers on the web. And it will make the automated software available free online to any institution that wants to use it. Are the days of teachers and tutors commenting on essays numbered?

As the New York Times points out, this new service puts EdX at the forefront of a growing ideological conflict over the role of automation in educational testing. There seems to be little controversy over using computers to grade multiple-choice and true-false exams. But relying on artificial intelligence to grade essays is widely criticized by educators and has many vociferous detractors.

According to proponents of the technology, it’s “instant feedback” potential is a highly useful tool, enabling students to retake and iteratively improve their work. But are today’s AI systems anywhere near as capable of grading essays as a real, live educator?

There seems to be little evidence that they are. Indeed, according to the group Human Readers, computerized essay grading is, even at its best: trivializing, reductive, inaccurate, poorly correlated with actual writing performance, and unfair to second-language learners and cultural minorities. As the group’s website states:
“Computers cannot ‘read.’ They cannot measure the essentials of effective written communication: accuracy, reasoning, adequacy of evidence, good sense, ethical stance, convincing argument, meaningful organization, clarity, and veracity, among others.”

Steve Nelson in a HuffPost blog calls the essay grading software “insulting.” He makes the compelling point that “no software can or will ever be able to discern the stuff that rests between the lines of poetry and prose.” Beauty and meaning in language rely on things left unsaid, ambiguous clues, and a broad spectrum of expression that the heart as much as the mind interprets.

Mr. Nelson also points out that automating essay grading “threatens to dehumanize and digitize a significant part of education, from pre-school to post-graduate.” Will future generations learn to write to please machines, rather than experience the give-and-take of interaction with human educators about their thoughts and feelings as expressed in words?

Grading “toolbars” and grammar checkers have been around for a while and undoubtedly have a place in the realm of computer-supported writing composition. But having Microsoft Word tell me I just used the passive voice is a very different thing from having a 2,000-word opinion piece on a thought-provoking topic evaluated by AI software whose algorithms are proprietary.

Interestingly, the EdX software is adaptive, however. It allows a human educator to grade  100 essays first, while it “observes the grading technique.” The software assigns grades according to whatever scoring system the teacher creates (e.g., letter grade or numerical rank). It can also ostensibly provide generic feedback, such as “whether an answer was on topic or not.” But is grading essays simply about “technique,” especially given that English is perhaps the most malleable and plastic language on earth?

Potentially this system can add value in accelerating the grading of short-answer questions. But for me, I don’t think the benefits of quick feedback outweigh the massive disadvantage that the feedback could well be a crock — offering insight into the mechanics of writing but blind to the nuances that are at the core of communication and persuasion.

Whatever its shortcomings and the potentially disastrous long-term consequences of its overuse, essay grading software will save time and money and facilitate the convenience of online learning. Thus it will be embraced widely and quickly, especially in MOOCs and other enormous classes where grading essays is challenging and often relies on a peer-grading model.

According to EdX, “the quality of the grading is similar to the variation you find from instructor to instructor.” No doubt the system will be improved over time. But is it “good enough?” We’ll soon see: the twelve institutions that currently participate in EdX, which offer certificates for the completion of online courses, will be using it.

Featured image courtesy of ntoper.

One thing we do know at this point is that we don’t know much. The College Board has announced few specifics about the planned changes. However, Kaplan’s SAT Test Change Resource Center does a good job delineating what is relevant now:

• Though no release date has been officially announced, the earliest that a revamped SAT would be in the hands of students would be Spring 2015. So the changes could impact today’s freshman class. The classes of 2013, 2014 or 2015 will take the same test that is currently in use.
• When the SAT was last updated in 2005, the PSAT (which is designed as a “preliminary SAT”) changed first. Kaplan rightly points out that it will be interesting to see if the PSAT changes in October 2014 in anticipation of SAT changes coming in Spring 2015.

However the changes are rolled out, based on past experience they are likely to be gradual and well publicized. For example, the 2005 changes were announced in detail three years in advance of their implementation.

Further, as Megan Stubbendeck points out in a recent interview, the changing mechanics of the test (such as the types of questions and skills being practiced )are in many respects less relevant to achieving optimal performance than the unchanging fundamentals of high-stress test-taking: dealing effectively with time pressure, taking practice tests in an environment that mimics actual test conditions, developing strategies to guess effectively, and so on.

What are some predictions about the scope of potential changes? The ArborBridge blog hypothesizes that the structure of the SAT could shift from a paper-based to a computer-based format, as the GMAT and others have already done. This could significantly alter how test-takers approach the test.

For example, if the SAT switches to a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) format, test-takers will deal with one question at a time — no skipping and going back. And with each correct or incorrect answer, the test “adapts” by making itself more or less difficult. Likewise, current strategies to deal with the increasing difficulty of questions across SAT sections will be outmoded. In the CAT format, each question must be dealt with entirely on its own.

The SAT could also move from paper to computer but keep its current structure and format (as the MCAT has recently done). But taking tests on a computer versus on paper still requires different preparation. For example, students will need to practice mapping out notes and arguments related to essay passages separate from the actual text — no more written markup. Test-takers will also need to transcribe shapes in math problems and similar information from the screen to paper, rather than being able to work directly on the paper test.

How might the content of the SAT change? It is likely based on David Coleman’s remarks about the relevance of test content, as well as the ongoing shift to “common core” standards nationwide, that the revamped SAT will be more closely aligned to these standards. This could mean:

• A continued focus on vocabulary, which the common core standards emphasize.
• Greater use of charts, graphs and multimedia representations of data, as the common core deems the ability to relate to data in these formats as highly relevant in modern life.
• Possible incorporation of more “global” texts from other cultures, making it harder to prep for this part of the exam and lending an advantage to students who read widely outside of class.
• A shift toward math questions that emphasize the reasoning behind problem-solving, perhaps requiring tutors to emphasize a “why” versus “how” approach to learning.
• A greater emphasis on argument analysis — these have been appearing more frequently on the GMAT, LSAT and other tests.

Once speculation gives way to addressing known changes with concrete responses, tutors and test prep organizations that are flexible and well-versed in strategies used on a wide range of standardized test types will be at an advantage when the class of 2016 starts looking for test prep advice.

Custom word cloud courtesy of Tagxedo — a fun, free and easy-to-use word cloud creation site.

What advice can you confidently give that will enable students to maximize their success? Every student’s situation is different, of course: from which test they plan to take to what kinds of test prep they can afford to how they prefer to study to how much time they can devote to study and practice. And there are so many test prep options, from private, in-person tutoring to group classes to online programs to free practice tests.

Mary Ann Dorsher of ACT Ready makes a great point: it’s not all about figuring out what’s going to be on the test – it’s about getting the support needed to approach the exam with confidence. Feeling “in control” and knowing what to expect and how to deal with the challenges (time limits, guessing, etc.) can have a big impact on performance.

For those who have sufficient discipline and confidence to prepare on their own, free online study aids might be all that is needed. These enable students to become familiar with the test layout and the content of each section, as well as the nature of the questions themselves – and this basic level of familiarity, combined with taking practice exams, covers the essentials.

Many high schools also offer a few free classes before or after school, near test dates, to provide this basic level of prep. Other schools provide more intensive test prep classes that run for several weeks and are designed to be affordable and effective (usually under $250).

Most teachers and tutors also know that the testing organizations themselves offer free test prep support online, including “official” practice tests. There’s also a relatively new program that the US Army has introduced to help recruits with test prep, which is free and available to everyone regardless of whether they plan to join the Army: it’s called March 2 Success and it offers practice tests, an e-learning curriculum, financial aid information and more.

For those who have the time and money, test prep companies offer a huge variety of test prep packages in addition to one-on-one tutoring at hourly rates (typically $50/hour and up). For example, Sylvan Learning Center offers six four-hour classroom sessions (plus online access) for $995. Kaplan Test Prep offers six three-hour sessions (online or face-to-face) for $599.

Another resource that is practical and affordable is Socrato’s online learning analytics service. Socrato augments the support of teachers, tutors and self-directed learning by offering online practice testing combined with fine-grained analysis of the results that help test-takers pinpoint their strengths and weaknesses – enabling them to “learn from their mistakes.”

This data can help students develop more confidence as well as improve performance and make the most of their precious study time. Learning analytics software analyzes students’ performance from literally hundreds of perspectives, offering multiple views on the data, from performance by section to breakdowns of where and how points were lost within each section. While students can interpret results themselves, it’s most beneficial for a tutor or teacher to interpret the output of Socrato’s learning analytics engine and break the correlations down into straightforward study suggestions that address a student’s specific needs.

In short: if your role as a tutor or teacher is to help students prepare for the SAT, ACT, PSAT or several other high-stakes tests, Socrato is there to help. Unlike some other online test prep services, the goal of Socrato is to support the “human connection” in the test prep process. It can help you make an approaching test seem less intimidating, giving students more of the confidence and experience they need to succeed.

Featured image courtesy of tjook.

As tutoring has become more and more popular, and tutoring options and modalities more diverse, motivations for hiring tutors have changed. Increasingly tutoring may be seen as a way to “enrich” a student’s educational experience – but that isn’t necessarily the same thing as improving the quality of his or her education, or an appropriate support for success in a class, on a high-stakes test or with learning in general.

As this article by James Mendelsohn, PhD indicates, sometimes parents seek tutors for the wrong reasons. They may be anxious about their childrens’ academic and economic future. This puts the onus on tutors to be clear on when tutoring is appropriate, what constitutes effective tutoring, and how to increase the likelihood that the time you spend tutoring will be have strong positive outcomes for your students.

As Mr. Mendelsohn states, “Tutors bear a responsibility for ensuring that they are working in the best interests of students, which sometimes includes recommending to parents that it is unwise to tutor a child.” Another part of that role is to strive to help learners rise above the need for tutoring. Also implicit is a need to be aware of, and responsive to, the potential cognitive and emotional impacts of tutoring on students’ development.

A major “reason for tutoring” that might not be appropriately addressed by tutoring is a desire on the part of parents for their child to excel. Such students are often already working hard, and don’t really want tutoring. Is forcing tutoring on them sending the message that their ability and effort isn’t “good enough” and they can’t do well on their own?

As tutors, it’s important to reflect on whether some parents might be seeking tutoring not to provide an enriched education or to help kids discover passions and intrinsic motivations, but to drive their children towards a fast-track/elite higher education process. Here’s the question: Does tutoring support the development of intellectual independence – a student’s ability to solve problems, seek information and learn on his or her own? Or does it potentially undermine it?

In this context, the development of patience, resourcefulness and confidence are more important than test results. (And potentially they’re better predictors of success in college and in life than test results, too.)

So when is tutoring necessary or beneficial? Here are some warning signs to ask parents about:

• Falling grades. If the drop is sharp, parents might have waited too long before considering tutoring.
• Excuses about not doing homework. Often this means the student is falling behind or not performing up to their ability level.
• Excuses about not liking teachers. This can be a red flag that extra help with concept beyond what’s available in class would be beneficial.
• Low self-confidence. Poor performance in the classroom, especially in the tangible form of bad grades, can quickly undermine self-worth. Often a tutor can help where parents are simply frustrated.

In all these situations, whatever the reasons behind them, tutors can often help simply because they are not the parents or the teachers – they have a “clean slate” with the student. Simply by focusing on the student’s needs and offering time and support can do wonders in many cases.

Featured image courtesy of eli brown.