Westminster has a long history and close association with the College Board, and Dr. Pressly helped put in place the AP curriculum at Westminster. As you know, there is growing debate across the nation regarding the pros and cons of the Advanced Placement program. So, I am curious about your own thinking. Why do we at The Westminster Schools continue to offer Advanced Placement courses? What is the "value-added" for our students in our efforts to offer them the best curriculum and preparation for 21st century learning? Is there a need to consider any modification in our approach in using the AP curriculum? What will best serve our students for what lies ahead?
I would appreciate your thoughts on these questions. Thanks. Bill
35 comments:
Bill
The Blog is a great idea.
IMO the "AP" question is a VERY simple one for Chemistry.
Essentially, with the exception of a few personal foibles, it represents exactly the chemistry that needs to be taught at the advanced high school level. If Westminster were to officially remove AP from the curriculum and ask me to teach an "advanced chemistry course", I would still teach an almost identical course. I think that should tell you all you need to know.
Putting the content to one side for a moment to me the very fact that there is a standardized test associated with the course is infinitely more important. Since all schools even have a lack of standardization in any one building, I have never understood how transcripts from across the city, state, region and country can be compared. It's always been a total mystery to me and I don’t believe (as a scientifically trained person) that I will ever “get it”! What does an "A" or an "80%" mean in my AP class when compared to any other? IMO the transcript is a largely meaningless document in that respect. A standardized test removes that ambiguity. I LOVE standardized tests!
Now, of course I understand that a simple score does not tell you much about the child, but it does give a baseline and a MEANINGFUL comparison - transcript grades don't.
Because of the solid nature of the AP Chemistry curriculum content, and the fact that it provides a standardized test, I would be very sad to see its demise.
The AP program/curriculum/test was invaluable for me; I entered college with course credit for Calculus (B/C), Physics, Chemistry, English, History and was exempted from language (French) due to my AP Exam scores. This allowed me to complete a B.A. in four years, with majors in Education, Mathematics, Philosophy and a minor in Physical Education. It is these types of opportunities for our students that, in my mind, make it important to still offer and participate in the AP program.
In AP Spanish Language, my feelings are very similar to Adrian's. Although I am not crazy about a few of the sections in the AP exam itself, I value the fact that it is a standard exam. Having said that, I am generally not a big fan of standardizing too many aspects of education, but I do feel that having a certain number of reference points with which to work is essential. And right now, there aren't that many out there.
perI certainly understand the thoughts and feelings of people who have devoted their career to teaching AP courses or to those who have benefited from taking many AP courses in preparation for college. As a former AP teacher, biology for five years and chemistry for eight years, my experiences were mostly positive. However, I must add that in both teaching experiences, the AP science class I taught was the student’s second year of the curriculum. The prerequisite to AP was taking an introductory biology or chemistry course. In fact, in AP Chemistry at Marlborough School, introductory chemistry and physics were prerequisites. As a result, I had much more flexibility to go outside the rigid boundaries of the AP syllabus, both in content and laboratory work. At WMS, AP Biology and AP Chemistry are taken as the first, one-year exposure to the curriculum. I think that structure prompts CRASH and BURN teaching and learning.
I think the challenge for any AP teacher in areas of biology, chemistry, US History, European History, Art History, and others is to cover the extensive, sometimes unlimited, scope of the curriculum in roughly 30-32 weeks. In addition, with the science APs it is challenging to implement a really good lab program. The AP labs are “cookbook-oriented” labs. They do not lend themselves to a more inquiry approach to teaching science through experimentation. Lack of time, especially quality lab time, is the “enemy.” Also, I think it is extremely challenging to fulfill a teaching philosophy that embraces critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and analytical and synthetic thinking. In Bloom’s taxonomy, most AP teachers are teaching towards the acquisition of knowledge (content) and understanding the basic foundations of the subject. They are less able to explore his next four levels of high-order thinking: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Teaching these four levels well requires making connections to other disciplines, analyzing data from experiments (science), making connections between different ideas, and evaluating the content being taught.
Now, some might argue that this is not the goal of a typical advanced course in high school. I would argue differently. I think we have a responsibility to help young people, who are preparing to enter high education, to think critically and work effectively in cooperative and independent settings. I think AP courses do not lend themselves to stretching beyond traditional models of teaching (lecturing, standard discussions, reviewing typical problems, etc.) For those reasons and others, I think it is imperative to ask and research the question, is the AP program the right or best way to teach and prepare the inquisitive mind for the 21st Century. I am coming to the place where I say it is not the best way to teach advanced thinking in most disciplines.
Bob - I hear you loud and clear AND I fully understand your position, BUT I am increasingly concerned that the pendulum has (or will) swing too far in the direction that you talk about. I think that the "softening" of the curriculum is way too prevalent and that with it the well intentioned are introducing some unintended consequences.
This is a particular worry in chemistry. NO amount of enthusiasm or problem solving skills or ability to analyze data or curiosity are any good to a student without a solid, FACT based, knowledge intensive understanding of the subject. As I say to the kids, being "interested in science" alone is simply NOT a pre-requisite for success. With "interest" one needs a CONTENT base that allows that curiosity to be useful. Without the content the enthusiasm alone makes one little more than a "mad/wacky scientist" type.
Now, don't get me wrong, you may well be right that the way we deliver AP chemistry at Westminster needs review to allow more of the important skills that you talk of, but I am very anxious that this could come with the erosion of some important knowledge base - let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!
This is a particular problem in subjects where pure, factual knowledge is essential for progress (like chemistry). Perhaps in humanities and arts based subjects "process" can be applied in a more isolated manner, but process without content in science comes with a serious danger of becoming academically less rigorous.
I really worry about the "intellectualization" of science teaching at the expense of learning some cold, hard facts. The facts are the basis for the creativity that leads to really exciting scientific progress. In the context of this discussion I believe that AP chemistry provides that base.
Adrian—I do not believe that an advanced curriculum based on the premise that students learn and do science means that you have to “soften” the curriculum. If the move is made, either at Westminster or on a more national level, to expose students to a more inquiry-based method for learning science, I do not think we will see our students being less prepared to enter the 21st century classroom ready to engage in scientific study.
The truth of the matter is that in the US, we have a very content-based science curriculum (the AP is only one aspect of that) and we do a terrible job of preparing American students to enter college ready, interested, excited, and engaged in pursuing advanced scientific coursework. Less than 15% of high school graduates go on to pursue a career in science (excluding medicine). Those entering the research and engineering fields are few-and-far-between. I would venture to say that few Westminster students enter fields of science as well. I think students are turned off by the memorization, content-grind of typical science courses. They get burned out over time because only a few have the stamina to stay committed.
I would propose that a more inquiry-based curriculum that ties in some of the 21st century challenges we face in environmental science, materials science, genetics, etc. would be more interesting to students. If they see themselves as problem-solvers for the future, there might be more motivation to pursue their study of science in college.
I think FACTs are important to learn and know, but most facts are readily available in books, papers, and on the internet. Students do not have to know all the facts. They have to know how to think, problem-solve, analyze, interpret, and make good decisions. The facts can come more easily than the thinking. This is where I disagree with you. FACT-based, knowledge intensive understanding of the subject is not enough. I believe being interested in science is the fundamental place we have to begin, especially if we are interested in helping students see themselves as contributing to the future. I have seen too many people who are good with the FACTS not being able to think about real problems in creative ways. As a medical microbiologist, who had extensive coursework in immunology, I find myself at a lose over all the new information and language in a typical immunology scientific paper. The FACTS are overwhelming and changing all the time. What allows me to interact with the information is my interest in science, my ability to work through the concepts, and my desire to look at the problems that are being addressed.
AP Chemistry has some core concepts (FACTS) that have to be learned, but I question whether the entire 1,000 pages of a typical AP Chemistry text are necessary as part of a yearlong curriculum. I think it is more possible when the AP course is the second chemistry course a student takes.
I would propose that Westminster is not unique, but it can be a leader in the country in trying to untangle this point-counterpoint that we are engaged in. WMS should not sit on its laurels or history and just go about business as usual in my estimation. The challenges we face in preparing students to solve 21st century problems are too great. We need creative young people going into the field well prepared.
One additional thought pertinent to the discussion Andrian. If you and I are both applying to the same program for advanced study of science in college, I think it is good to have some objective tools to judge which of us is more qualified. Performance on a national standardized test like the AP exam is a useful and important tool to have; however, it is an insufficient tool if it does not test our ability to think creatively and apply our understanding to real world problems. I think there should be more authentic ways or tools to judge which of us is better qualified to succeed and contribute in the programs we compete for. I do not like the fact that taking AP courses and performance on exams weighs so heavily in the decisions. There is no correlation between doing well on those and being an innovative and successful scientist or engineer.
Why not develop criteria that are used in AP Studio Art where you have to submit a portfolio of work that demonstrates your skills as an artist. That adds an authentic component that is not merely driven by a test.
The discussion goes on.
Bob
Essentially we agree on many things, but I think we are likely to remain fundamentally apart on others - that's fine, it makes for a rich debate and much stronger school.
A couple of further points;
1. The chances of AP chemistry exam changing to include a "portfolio" or even a lab exam seems close to zero. For YEARS I have been advocating (in public forums) the need for a lab exam, and for years that appeal has fallen on deaf ears at the College Board.
2. One of your comments confuses me a little, i.e. "Less than 15% of high school graduates go on to pursue a career in science".
Why is this a problem? What is the goal, to get 100%!?
I believe that we do not need more scientists, but better scientists. Chemistry (for example) is simply not going to be accessible to most of the population. There is only going to be a small group that can ever hope to understand it and immerse themselves in it, and as such a "science for all" mentality seems pointless to me. Too often we get caught up in not being able to accept that some people will just never get it. Why? It's seems completely natural that science is NOT for all! If we have 15% of the high school population going into science then the other 85% are spread across ALL of the other fields. Seems like a really good "market share" for science! The question really is, "are those the best kids"?
I guess where we differ is how to get "better" scientists.
3. I agree with your comments about the relative usefulness of the AP score when comparing kids, BUT we have to have SOME objective way of comparing kids otherwise we get to a point where we are not comparing "like with like" (transcripts) - as a scientist I can't abide THAT!
I also love the blog idea!
From the perspective of a Junior High language teacher (who teaches one non-AP high school class), I feel that the overemphasis on the AP exam handcuffs us as language teachers. Although I admit that having a standardized exam is a good idea in essence (Adrian makes a lot of great points), I do feel that there is a natural tendency to "teach to the test" which is not healthy. I have worked on developing curriculum a great deal over the past 13 years, and we always hit a wall because of the AP exam. We never really have the freedom to create the ideal language curriculum (in my mind) because of the constraints presented by the AP exam. When the sequencing of the entire Westminster language curriculum is influenced to that extent by one exam, I take issue with that.
Kristen writes;
"I do feel that there is a natural tendency to "teach to the test" which is not healthy".
My answer is always the same - if the test is a good one (as it is in AP Chemistry) then it's perfectly "healthy"!
Andrian:
I think we do agree on many things, but still are unresolved about a number of them. It may end up that way which is OK too.
It strikes me that it is a fundamental flaw if the College Board has had numerous requests to include more authentic assessment questions--inquiry, process-oriented or portfolio assessment--into their tests but reject the idea. Why when other tests have included it?
Here is the problem with less than 15% of US high school students going into science and engineering fields in my estimation. We are not challenging ourselves to figure out why 85% of our students are "turned off," not interested, pursue other options, etc. We are clearly losing talented, creative, and insightful students to other fields and don't seem to know why. Also, it turns out that around 40% of graduate students in scientific research fields are from foreign countries. Now, there is nothing wrong with having many students from foreign countries coming to US universities to pursue their advanced study in science; however, it also means that we are not regenerating our citizens to contribute to our national and global challenges. It does not have to be 100%, but certainly more like 25% would be a good move. Why don't they come to these careers is the most important question? Is it the way these disciplines are taught to them in high school? I personally want to know the answer to that question.
I also think Kristen has a good point about teaching to the test. I think that have proven to be an one-sided way to teach. It doesn't matter to me if the test is a good one. That helps, but it doesn't justify it to me.
But Bob, if science "poaches back" the "talented, creative, and insightful students" then the fields that are currently getting those students will then be left bereft and have to go the "foreign route" in THEIR disciplines and around we go!
Also, it is interesting to note that many of these foreign students come from educational systems that EMPHASIZE the kind of fact based learning that I am talking about - it doesn't seem to have turned THEM off! I think it's a MUCH deeper cultural issue than what is going on in high school science classrooms across the country.
Finally in relation to globalization perhaps it is not really important WHO is in graduate school at GA Tech at ALL, as long as SOMEONE is. By that I mean, does it really matter that America might be falling behind in "science"? Perhaps America can be leader in some other fields like the ones the other 85% of kids are going into!? That question is only slightly tongue-in-cheek because I think it is a serious one for us to ponder. Are we educating the citizens of the world or a narrower cadre?
Excellent conversation.
Hhmm.....
Interesting conversation. First, I hear Adrian's voice, one of an educator from a country that has a national curriculum. In that context, most every comment makes sense.
I also hear Kristen and Robert, loud and clear.
Here are some of my own thoughts based on the comments from all.
There is definite merit to educating young people to be scientifically literate. There are many ways to define exactly what this means, though I propose that it requires students to be able to solve problems creatively, and to be able to build knowledge and understanding within the context of one topic and transfer those to another context. I'm sure we could all think of many other attributes of scientific literacy...
Problem solving is a universal skill that spills over into many disciplines and career work. It is a skill that many employers say is lacking in the current work-force. Hence, the emphasis on this skill.
I agree with Adrian that there are certain tidbits of factual knowledge required for understanding the physical sciences, physics and chemistry. However, I would not know how to decide what that knowledge is except through the context of what students need to know for understanding biological and environmental concepts. As a department, we might be able to collectively decide what the topics are in physics and chemistry that the biology and environmental science teachers deem important. However, these may not be the same topics deemed important for the physics and chemistry teachers.
I have developed a great deal of interest this year in teaching via Problem-based Learning, especially for biology and environmental science. These are disciplines that align themselves very well to investigating socio-scientific issues that tend to interest students and lend themselves to multidisciplinary investigations. Usually, students will be required to produce an "action item" in response to the problem, and students will need to apply knowledge and information from a variety of sources to solve the problem. These issues include things such as stem cells, genetically modified plants, and climate change to name a few. Understanding biology and environmental science is far more meaningful with a background in physics and chemistry. Hence, my conceived need for students to have some factual knowledge in these disciplines. I also think that students, once equipped with a background in the physical sciences, can independently learn much of the science required to solve a problem related to biology or environmental science.
As long as standardized tests remain objective, I don't think they measure meaningful learning or meaningful academic ability beyond memorizing and regurgitating. To a certain extent, they measure how well a student can take a test. I would argue that what we do not do well in education is foster the development of process skills,and most standardized tests do not "force" teachers to develop these skills in their students. Instead, teachers are "required" to "train" students to answer questions correctly. I find that, as an AP teacher, this is part of what I do with my students, teach them the right answers, even though the process of science is not about "proving" the right answer.
Sate or national standardized tests also cannot accommodate the unique cultural and social nuances that exist in our schools, whether they are public or private. In that sense, they do not serve our learning communities.
In terms of young people from other countries attending our technical colleges and universities. There is evidence that many of these people return to their home countries with the skills and knowledge they developed here. I think it is also fair to say that we as a country need to encourage young people to enter science and tech fields because they provide the impetus for economic growth and development. In other words, isn't that untimately where money is made? Writing a great novel is important to our hearts and souls, but does not contribute to the economic growth of a country? Maybe?
I do think that our methods for teaching the sciences does not provide all students with the feedback they need to realize it is something they can care about or can succeed in.
Folks, the conversation about how to teach the sciences has been on-going for over 100 years. That doesn't mean that what we are currently doing is the right or best way.
As for myself, I am VERY ready to no longer teach AP Biology. The curriculum does not allow me to take students where I'd like them to go, and I also believe that it does not tap into the strengths and interests of many students. Whereas, if I could encourage and allow students to pursue problems related to socio-scientific issues that interest them, that are culturally and socially pertinent to their lives, I believe more authentic learning can happen in that context.
However, my experience with AP Biology does not necessarily carry over to the other AP science courses (except AP Physics B, which really stinks as far as I can tell!). For example, I know that Ken and Roy both agree that the AP Physics C curriculum is very appropriate.
I'm sure you have heard enough from me.....
Andrea
Andrea, back when I was a part of the "Relevance" committee as part of the last SACS cycle, we talked a great deal about how a problem/case based approach to the curriculum would both promote the deep understanding of current events required for engaged citizenship and "hook" students into the subject at hand by providing a real-world context.
Your example of using the controversy over stem-cell research as the framework for learning core content in biology was actually one of the hypotheticals we bandied about the table. But again and again when we talked about feasability of a course structure like this one, we ran up against the reality of the time constraints/need for coverage in an AP curriculum.
Clark - you are quite right, such detailed, expansive, in-depth "research" type activities are IMPOSSIBLE within the current AP chemistry framework, BUT I think the framework is great!
I have nightmares about babies and bathwater, and the fact that without the rigorous framework of the AP curriculum, and the "police force" that is the AP exam/scores, that teachers can get fat and happy. The AP course gives ME, SUPREME discipline! It holds me to a specific, nationally determined standard and I am fiercely proud of our results. They are astonishing given the circumstances under which we deliver the course.
I feel that we are TRULY achieving something in AP chemistry partly BECAUSE of the prescriptive framework.
But isn't fearing the "baby and the bathwater" scenario much the same thing as the "slippery slope" logical fallacy? Opening up the course structure to allow Andrea's desire to "encourage and allow students to pursue problems related to socio-scientific issues that interest them" would necessarily require less breadth of coverage, but it's a logical fallacy to assume that a complete erosion of content rigor (and the creation of "mad/wacky scientist" students) would be the result, particularly in a professional community like Westminster.
Adrian, this must be our week to debate :-) What do you want to spar over at lunch today?
Well, I'm not sure that I put much store in the "logical fallacy" of slippery slopes, or the "logical fallacy" of babies & bathwater! I think (just like stereotypes) that they have a LOT of truth and logic associated with them. On the other hand, what I am EXTREMELY suspicious of is the constant tinkering, "buzz-wording" and intellectualizing of (science) teaching. As a local education professor is fond of saying, "Being able to do literature searches is a very important skill in order to back up whatever you are doing." Why? Well because somewhere in the educational research literature you will ALWAYS be able to find a positive study that will back you up!
Standardized curriculum does exactly what Adrian referred to, it is meant to hold teachers accountable. It seems that, especially in public education, teachers are not professionally "trusted" to do the right thing in the classroom. So, states and districts develop a "canned" curriculum for teachers to follow and hold the teachers accountable with a test at the end of the course.
What I have always wondered about is, Why are only the teachers held accountable? Why aren't the administrators and district leaders held accountable? Afterall, they have the say as to the materials, equipment, supplies, numbers of students, etc. teachers will have in their classes.
Clark, the biology teachers are going to use our first problem this spring with the regular and honors bio classes. The problem is centered around teh Guardisil vaccine that is currently available to girls to protect them from HPV infection. The problem is designed so that students will have to address content knowledge about:
1. How infectious diseases, such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are transmitted
2. How vaccines work to stimulate the immune system
3. How a vaccine is created, who is vaccinated, and its efficacy in the community (herd immunity)
Because I have to spoon-feed so much information to students in my AP class, I won't be able to use the problem, but I am looking forward to how students respond to the assignment. We estimate that students will need 3 weeks to complete their work.
Andrea
It seems to me that the amount of information covered in an AP curriculum is, in some sense, arbitrary, tied as it is to the length of the standard school year. A conscientious AP teacher might feel obligated to cover topics A through Q because that's what will be on the AP exam, but let's hypothesize for a moment. If the school year were longer, an AP course might now cover topics A through V? Or if the year were shorter, the curriculum might encompass only A through N. The degree of rigor would be the same, the emphasis on solid, fact-based knowledge would not change, but the scope of coverage would be different as set by the available time.
So what I hear Andrea saying is that she'd like the freedom to cover only perhaps A through N but to do something different with the extra time that might otherwise have been used to reach Q. I don't see in any way how this means that A through N doesn't get taught with the same rigor and factual integrity as before. And perhaps this extra time is better spent developing a different aspect of the quality science student. A good student needs a lot of fact-based knowledge, yes, but at some point doesn't the idea of increasing opportunity cost/diminishing marginal returns suggest that a different set of inputs would achieve greater overall results?
Or to put it differently, Adrian, if you were given a third semester to work with but had the same obligations in terms of curricul scope, would you do more of the same with that extra time or would you look to incorporate more inquiry and problem solving?
You are quite persuasive about the value of a standardized measurement to guard against excessive curricular "softening," but it seems that this particular measurement, for all of its strenghts, has some real limits on how it affects the scope of our curriculum. In a perfect world, Andrea only has to cover A through N to prepare her students for the AP exam, and she has the time to teach the material in a more multi-faceted approach. She has both the accountability of preparing her students for a rigorous, nation-wide assessment and the time to develop creative problem solving and habits of inquiry in her students.
But of course we don't live in a perfect world, and so we have these issues to wrestle with. I think its fair to ask which is more likely: that Andrea (just to stay with her as our example) will rigorously cover A through N without the accountability of an outside exam OR that our students will develop 21st century creative problem solving skills in a curriculum where "open ended inquiry type labs are simply totally impractical"?
Clark, here’s where we will never agree. When you say, “….our students will develop 21st century creative problem solving skills”, this sounds like pure “edubabble” to me! Who’s to say that our kids are NOT getting precisely that via the traditional AP chemistry curriculum as is?
I’m also REALLY worried that the assumption that “teachers will do the right thing without the accountability of standardized testing” (even in high achieving, high quality, highly reputable establishments) is opening the door to potentially HUGE abuse (it’s not just the kids that might take advantage of less rigor). I feel that schools like Westminster need to be aware of such pitfalls and the assumption that everything will also be rosy is a dangerous one.
Bill
Congrats on opening up a great discussion. I've enjoyed reading the debate re. advanced placement. We do need better scientists but we also need MORE scientists. here is a link to an article about the need for more petroleum engineers.
http://www.dallasnews.com/
sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/
041706dnbusrecruits.4383f785.html
This article points out we are graduating 1/2 of the engineers we need.
a quick read of the national association of colleges and employers website points out
some research on experiential education. While little of the research had statistical significance, students that had practial experience were nearly twice as likely to have a job 3 months after graduation than those without experience. I sense practical involvement and interaction with subject matter allows a student better abilities at connecting and engaging others for every potential purpose.
Regards, Chris
Colleagues:
With regard to recent entries, I have some questions. Where would we like to see the discussion go from here? We have raised some important questions, are we clear on what the essential question is? Is it whether to have AP courses or not? Is the question whether standardized curriculum or tests are effective ways to teach students? Is it whether AP courses have outlived their ability to properly prepare students for the 21st century? I would assume all of these questions are relevant and should be explored in detail.
What are the 21st century skills we want to teach our students? The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php) is a consortium of states that are working on building curriculum aligned with the basic principles. The elements described in this section as 21st century student outcomes are the skills, knowledge and expertise students should master to succeed in work and life in the 21st century. (1) Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes. (2) Learning and innovation skills, creativity and innovation skills, critical thinking and problem solving skills, and communication and collaboration Skills. (3) Information, media and technology skills, information literacy, and media literacy. (4) Life and career skills, flexibility & adaptability, initiative & self-direction, social & cross-cultural skills, productivity & accountability, and leadership & responsibility.
Certainly, acquiring factual knowledge is important, but there is so much more embedded in this document on preparing students for the 21st century. It is my feeling that our standard preparation through the AP curriculum is very narrowly defined, especially when the AP course is the first course a student is taking in that discipline. There is a much greater chance that given time constraints the teacher will mainly focus on acquisition of knowledge, testing whether it has been programmed into short-term memory, and preparing for the final AP exam. So much is left out when the teacher focuses primarily on content. For one, I think students get bored, overwhelmed and typically turned off. I wonder how many Westminster students (as a percentage of all students educated over time) have gone on to contribute in meaningful ways to the world of research science. With the great education they have received, I would venture to guess that the number is very small. Is that what we want?
There are ample studies which show that students retain very little of the content stored in short-term memory from their content-based courses in secondary school. They retain very little of the content, but will retain the process skills they learned through many of those courses. So why do we focus so much on content and objective-based tests of content acquisition?
Peter Blum, a professor at UCLA, wrote a recent article in Education Week entitled, Are Advanced Placement Courses Diminishing Liberal Arts Education? He writes, “In conversations with students, moreover, I have found that most approached their AP courses as merely another tedious hurdle to be overcome in gaining admission to selective colleges and universities. Students’ candid remarks over many years have only reinforced my conclusion that AP participation, for many, is primarily an exercise in memorization and exam passing—the antithesis of genuine liberal learning.” He also points out from his experience, “Many students sheepishly admit that they forgot the AP material soon after the exam, a process they often repeat as undergraduates. Such comments suggest that their AP efforts were a response primarily to pressure from parents, peers, and institutions seeking high college-admission statistics.”
Now Adrian is right that you can discover research to support any side of the argument. Jay Matthews writes in a recent Washington Post article, “In the midst of a national debate over whether Advanced Placement courses place too much pressure on U.S. high school students, a team of Texas researchers has concluded that the difficult courses and three-hour exams are worth it. In the largest study ever of the impact of AP on college success, which looked at 222,289 students from all backgrounds attending a wide range of Texas universities, the researchers said they found "strong evidence of benefits to students who participate in both AP courses and exams in terms of higher GPAs, credit hours earned and four-year graduation rates." So are AP courses a worthy experience for high school students. Probably the answer is YES and NO.
I think we need to get off of our seats and admit that the question as to whether AP courses are good or not good for high school students is an OPEN question. We cannot be rigid or protective of our AP territory to remain closed to the question: are AP courses as taught providing students with the skill-set they will need to be competitive in schools of higher education or be prepared to enter the 21st century workplace? If the answer is yes, and we believe that taking AP as a first and only experience in that area is a good thing, then maybe we proceed with business as usual. However, if we find out otherwise, then I think we should not be afraid to change course. By the way, I think the whole assessment piece is very important. I do not believe standardized, multiple choice, and problem-based tests are the most effective way to judge effective learning.
Enough for now! Where do we go from here?
Bob
My question at this point in the discussion is this: How would good scientists test out the different hypotheses to determine the true merits of the differing claims? It would seem to me that this "debate" is a good candidate for scientific experiment, beyond editorial opinion. So, how do we get to what good scientists consider RESULTS LEADING TO DIRECTION? This conversation is deeply enlightening for me, and I am grateful that you, all of you, would engage the discussion at this level. Let's keep this going for the sake of discerning how we might best attend to the education of our students. Bill
Participants in the Blog on AP:
I have been reading a book, the Falconer, by Grant Lichtman. A very good piece to read. It would take to long to summarize the premise, but let me quote something from the book that applies to many aspects of our discussion.
Bob
He writes, "We all learn from experience better than by instruction." No doubt, we have heard versions of this throughout our lives. But I think it is a powerful statment. In the traditional classroom, we assume students have little experience and so we must "fill" their empty heads with knowledge, facts, factoids, and the like. While they may need the knowledge we give them (that has been given to us), we might get more from them if we allowed them to experience the work we want them to do. What does that mean and what would the classroom look like? As a scientist/science educator, I don't think it means doing standard, cookbook labs from 4th grade through 12th grade. It is more than that. The challenge is to create this new type of classroom.
I judged a science fair today at a local public school (grades 6-8). While there were some good questions, it is so interesting how mediocre the questions were, as well as the students' understanding of the process of science. They really did not do well (for the most part). I think it is our failure to teach them not their failure to learn.
And on we go.
Most of the comments on AP courses in this blog have centered around the science curriculum. Other departments have very different experiences. While several of the AP courses in the Science department are the first course a student is taking in that particular subject,students in our AP Spanish Language classes(sophomores, juniors, or seniors) have generally been taking Spanish since early on in the elementary school. The exam itself was completely revamped 3 years ago to reflect language usage (both written and spoken) instead of theoretical grammar or vocabulary list content. It is still a standardized exam, but one that focuses on integrated skills and language performance. Very different from the old AP Spanish Language exam.
BTW, I think that Andrea's Guardasil vaccine problem, designed so that students will have to address content knowledge about:
1. How infectious diseases, such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are transmitted
2. How vaccines work to stimulate the immune system
3. How a vaccine is created, who is vaccinated, and its efficacy in the community (herd immunity)
would be a fantastic starting point to then connect a science course with a politics and/or economics class where students would explore the political and economic interests behind vaccination policy and then maybe a math class, where students could figure out the relationship between the compliance rate for a new vaccine and the trustworthiness of the FDA that approved it.
So, while on the one hand I would not trash the AP program given the way things are right now, if the school wants to make a credible effort and assign sufficient resources to move in a new direction by redesigning its whole curriculum to make it more inquiry driven, relevant, and experiential, count me in.
-Agnes
Agnes raises a good point. The AP courses, as well as exams, have unique structures in the different disciplines. In AP English, there are a significant number of texts that I believe are recommended. Many schools will not offer AP English as a course, but offer junior or senior semester electives that cover certain genres, authors, etc. If students do vocabulary, grammar, writing, literary analysis, etc. on the genre they study, they are being prepared. There is not a set, standard curriculum. The AP exam (the literature exam) covers broad areas or topics. Questions are created that allow the student to draw on his or her experiences with literature. I think the points being discussed pertain mostly to AP courses and exams that rely mostly on students mastering specific content and less on skills. AP courses in English, foreign languages and math that students take sequentially for many years are typically more approachable or broadly supported. For example, in my career I have never heard an AP Calculus teacher complain or worry about his or her course and the exam. They fit together like a hand in a glove.
Bob
I wholeheartedly agree that the AP validity discussion is subject specific, and that one should be careful not to generalize - that is why I have been careful to reference only the subject that I know about in my posts. I think that's the extent of our agreement, Bob!
I came across something interesting. Not earth shattering, but relevant to our conversation. In the Falconer, by Grant Lichtman, he writes, "Questions are waypoints on the path of wisdom. Each question leads to one or more new questions or answers. Sometimes answers are dead ends; they don't lead anywhere. Questions are never dead ends. Every question has an inherent potential to lead to a new level of discovery, understanding, or creation, levels that can range from the trivial to the sublime." How do we help students become "good questioners," learners who are stimulated to move to the next level because their questions take them there?
Bob - you have to remember that (ESPECIALLY in chemistry), some questions are TOTALLY "unanswerable" AT THIS LEVEL! It is not appropriate to solve huge swathes of really hard chemistry problems with high school students - they don't have the required knowledge.
Participants:
I have been doing some research on the AP program. The College Board has recently completed some course and exam reviews for science and history APs. In looking at their materials I am very interested in the approach they took to retool the courses and the exam. There is more to study, but here are some observtions:
1. They refer to topics that will no longer be included--most of them seem to be topics that were marginally included in the past. Is there really a reduction in amount of material needed to be taught?
2. They have expanded the scope of ideas or skills that need to be taught under the section, AP Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning Expectations. The list is HUGE.
3. They have done little to figure out how ALL this fits into a small, limited basket (school days and time in class). Can it be done in a way that achieves their stated goals, "develop a stronger conceptual framework in a discipline and develop advanced skillsin conducting investigations, modeling and testing hypotheses, and building and defining knowledge?" I question whether they have considered the feasibility of achieving their goals.
3. In the AP Sciences, the College Board states, "The AP Chemistry course is designed to be taken only after the successful completion of a first course in high school chemistry. Surveys of students who take the AP Chemistry
Exam indicate that the probability
of achieving a grade of 3 or higher is significantly greater for students who successfully complete a first course in high school chemistry prior to undertaking the AP course. Thus it is strongly recommended that credit in a first-year high school chemistry course be a prerequisite for enrollment in an AP
Chemistry class. In addition, the recommended mathematics prerequisite
for an AP Chemistry class is the successful completion of a second-
year algebra course." It would seem to me that Westminster's program is not falling in line with these recommendations from the College Board. Is that a problem? Andrian, you have pointed out that you would agree that a first-year course is desirable.
4. It is really unclear from the documents how the College Board intends to change the AP Science Exams to align with their changes in philosophy. For example, they outline how "a testable question based on a case study, proposed relationships, or from observations or data involving identified variables" is an important skill to teach. Does that mean that future exams will have case study questions built into the exam? Some questions remain as to how this will be implemented.
I assume some of the same principals apply to AP Biology, AP Physics.
I have yet to review the materials on the history APs.
Thoughts?
Bob
>1. They refer to topics that will no longer be included--most of them seem to be topics that were marginally included in the past. Is there really a reduction in amount of material needed to be taught?
Well, in chemistry, ”marginally included” is not really applicable. The current proposed list of removal is pretty substantial. Having said that, there is SO much stuff in the course as it is, this will DEFINITELY not free up enough time for any kind of meaningful inquiry (IF that’s its purpose).
>2. They have expanded the scope of ideas or skills that need to be taught under the section, AP Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning Expectations. The list is HUGE.
The list is HUGE but the overwhelming majority of this is being done already! Formalizing it is just “edubabble” to give the APPEARANCE of something new – all window dressing!
>3. They have done little to figure out how ALL this fits into a small, limited basket (school days and time in class). Can it be done in a way that achieves their stated goals, "develop a stronger conceptual framework in a discipline and develop advanced skills in conducting investigations, modeling and testing hypotheses, and building and defining knowledge?" I question whether they have considered the feasibility of achieving their goals.
“Feasibility” is not really the College Board’s problem! Just like the audit, another piece of window dressing that without policing means absolutely nothing!
>4. In the AP Sciences, the College Board states, "The AP Chemistry course is designed to be taken only after the successful completion of a first course in high school chemistry. Surveys of students who take the AP Chemistry Exam indicate that the probability of achieving a grade of 3 or higher is significantly greater for students who successfully complete a first course in high school chemistry prior to undertaking the AP course. Thus it is strongly recommended that credit in a first-year high school chemistry course be a prerequisite for enrollment in an AP Chemistry class. In addition, the recommended mathematics prerequisite for an AP Chemistry class is the successful completion of a second-year algebra course." It would seem to me that Westminster's program is not falling in line with these recommendations from the College Board. Is that a problem? Adrian, you have pointed out that you would agree that a first-year course is desirable.
Well, for whatever historical reason, Westminster has always delivered AP Chemistry to sophomores as a first course. As long as the kids keep getting the stellar AP scores that they do, one could certainly view that as “successful”.
>5. It is really unclear from the documents how the College Board intends to change the AP Science Exams to align with their changes in philosophy. For example, they outline how "a testable question based on a case study, proposed relationships, or from observations or data involving identified variables" is an important skill to teach. Does that mean that future exams will have case study questions built into the exam? Some questions remain as to how this will be implemented.
You CANNOT test these types of skills without a lab exam – I’ve been saying this for (literally) years and years!
Hi All,
Fantastic discussion so far! As many of you know, this is a key issue I've been researching and working on quite intensely over the last few years, so perhaps I could add a couple of perspectives that haven't been aired yet.
I can begin with the perspective of a Westminster graduate who went on to a very scientific and technical career spanning Cornell, NASA, Caltech, MIT, and several high tech start-ups wherein technical innovation has been absolutely fundamental. From this perspective, the AP credits earned at Westminster were very helpful in satisfying general distribution course requirements at Cornell, so that I could be more selective and focus on taking courses that advanced my technical interests. The AP credits were useful in terms of TIME advancement and efficiency of focus.
But in terms of motivation and inspiration and subject matter knowledge, the AP effort was a wash. The materials were uninspiring to say the least, being mostly memorization and repetition of techniques spoon fed to students. They bore a tiny bit of resemblance to the materials and pedagogy at Cornell, less so at Caltech, and offered no similarity at all to the teaching approaches at MIT which were mostly centered around learning how to figure things out yourself, synthesize them, and apply them to your own inquiries. Worse, what passed for "Science" in the AP program at Westminster, and most other high schools are similar in this regard, bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to what a practicing scientist or engineer faces on a daily basis. There was no wonder, no discovery, no "ah-ha" and no personal satisfaction other than focusing on achievement and teacher satisfaction.
I would even go so far as to argue that the curriculum was more focused on history of science, rather than the actual practice of modern science which is about figuring out things you don't already know, rather than simply reviewing and memorizing what has already been discovered and repeatedly practicing already solved problems.
Worse yet, in that area, the AP approach failed to teach me the actual skills, practices, and habits, (including things like group collaboration which are often absent from individual instruction over textbook presentations and simple cookbook labs) that were essential to my career success. And while I did learn fundamental concepts and useful historical context, much of the material was out-of-date by the time I needed it in professional practice, and it turned out that the process and approach and practice that I received later in college was more timeless and ultimately more important.
So from the Westminster student perspective, I would say that I ended up in a technical discipline DESPITE the AP approach (which hasn't changed all that much since 1982 when I graduated, an interesting observation in and of itself), but that having acquired AP credits, I did appreciate the extra flexibility they offered in course scheduling and focus in the execution of my academic plans. If it hadn't been for the exposure I received from my parents (father was a practicing engineer, and mother was a lifetime Biomedical scientist/professor) telling me in their words "what REAL science and engineering were actually like,as opposed to excruciating exercises in boring repetition at Westminster," I would never have considered it a viable academic or career option.
The second perspective I can offer is as a practicing technologist, who has had to interview (thousands), hire (hundreds), train, and lead practicing scientists and engineers, from recent college graduates through decorated industry veterans in order to build entirely new economic engines for the United States.
The major lesson from this experience is that as an employer and leader that has to make big NEW things happen, is that the fundamental task at hand is a creative process of innovation, and that the vast majority of schools utterly fail to train people how to be creative or how to innovate. From the technical job pool at large, there is a veritable army of people who know technical details and have gotten good grades and have all sorts of AP credit (something that completely fades from view and is completely irrelevant after a person's first job hiring-wise).
There is a smaller subset of people who can apply their knowledge outside of the textbook contexts where they are comfortable.
There is a very tiny minority of people, I would say less than 10% of technical hires, who can be relied upon to train themselves to figure out what they need to know regarding a particular challenge without explicit management.
And there is a vanishingly small percentage of people, less than half a percent of our hires, which can come up with completely creative and innovative ideas, processes, solutions, products,etc.... that were not obvious extensions of what have been done before. Many of these have broad technical subject matter, but not all of them.
What has been really informative, is my experience in leading this pool of professionals and observing the efficiency, the impact, and the productivity of each of these pools.
In terms of innovative and profitable company output, the numbers are simply astounding. One truly creative and innovative person can literally produce the same technical or scientific product as 20 "competent and well-trained" engineers who lack the creative or innovative element. I have even know and worked with a two or three people where the ratio actually went as high as forty-to-one, a figure many strain to believe. But I, and the companies I have built are witness to their success.
And beyond productivity, there are simply new ideas and new products and new discoveries that would never have arisen in the first place if we hadn't had that ONE person in two hundred, who had the creative AND technical backgrounds in combination.
That is a STAGGERING economic lever, and clearly a driver of individual companies on the small scale, and a potential economic gold mine if it can be leveraged on the national scale. So as a CEO, I have always held out for the 0.5% folks so that I wouldn't have to hire another 20 folks to do work with less impact as well as the extra managers to hire and coordinate an army instead of an individual. This was largely the key motivator for me to start WISE, because I discovered that it really is possible to TRAIN people to be technically creative, but that it can't happen in the traditional lecture and standardized testing context.
The third perspective I can offer is that of the WISE institute and the work we have done with the leading technical universities. The short story here is that MIT, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and most of the absolutely top-tier technical universities have all come to the conclusion that standardized testing, and AP requirements in particular, have perverted the educational system to focus on fact and subject matter to the almost complete exclusion of process and mentorship in the PRACTICE of science, inquiry and innovation. They also have concluded that the "mile wide and inch deep" curriculum also does a disservice to developing practical skills and deep understanding of the essential materials as a result of the unreasonable breadth. In their words, true understanding requires actual facility in the practice, and not just regurgitation of facts, so we have to start training them from scratch."
MIT, for example, as a result, no longer accepts AP credit in any field except Calculus, and is now considering dropping that as well to help high schools get more comfortable with the idea of abandoning the standardized test focus. They, and others, most notably Olin College, are removing lectures and transitioning all the introductory scientific and technical programs to project-based collaborative curricula. Lecture halls are being remodeled into large open rooms with circular tables seating 8 students.
To be sure, this is a trend that is only beginning at the nations leading technical universities, the centers of US innovation, and will take time to spread to the other colleges. There is therefore, the very real issue about following the few leaders when the rest of the world is still reading from the old sheet of music that served us in the age of industrialization. But I do think it is inevitable given the success of these programs in producing more innovative engineers and scientists. It will take even more time to propagate into high schools, though several leading institutions like Lawrenceville and the Urban school have abandoned the AP focus with little or no impact on college admissions or student success or placement within the colleges (most of whom now test for course placement rather than simply rely on AP scores).
My final perspective is through WISE's work with several innovative schools who have gone through formal processes over a few years to strategize around the AP issues in particular. My one suggestion in this regard is that instead of looking at our challenge as that of deciding an AP vs. non-AP course, I would recommend stepping back a bit and consider a few broader question, as Robert mentioned earlier.
"What are the real skills and assets we should be endowing our students with to prepare them not only for college advancement, but for their entire professional careers?" I think the fundamental need here is for technical creativity and purposely trained skills in innovation.
"Is a national need to transition a failing manufacturing economy to a necessary foundation of technical innovation significant enough to warrant a shift in educational emphasis, and a purposeful mission to mentor, sponsor, and inspire a broader demographic of technical leaders?" I think the answer to this question is a resounding YES!!!
In conclusion, I don't think this has to be an either/or situation. I think we need to do better at training the subject matter, preferably in a fashion that is not so off-putting and in a fashion that is closer to the actual practice of the disciplines so students can learn the subject matter in the context of that practice and enjoy the inspirations that derive therefrom. And I also think that entire curricula and pedagogic approaches need to be refreshed and revamped, and in many places including Westminster, brought in from scratch, so that the real practice flourishes alongside the subject matter components, modeled by teachers who mentor their students.
But then in total, this discussion may come down to time, schedules and broad curriculum distribution requirements. If there could be a way to offer more courses focused on the process and the practice, support for more FIRST and Science Olympiad and Intel/Siemens type programs as electives, then there could be a more gentle and longer term approach to AP reform.
Many schools have done quite well in this direction both by:
1.) Expanding the science curriculum with more science requirements including a lab research course,
2.) Offering broader electives (more of them and more advanced courses)
3.)Reforming the AP preparation to include more lab and inquiry components at the expense of explicitly covering the shallower ends of the AP requirements list
4.) Greatly expanded participation in extracurricular science programs like FIRST, Science Olympiad, Intel/Siemens, Summer university and corporate internships etc...
And the result of all of these was a broad IMPROVEMENT the AP performance scores, improved graduation of technically oriented students, and improved admissions to technical universitites.
The most notable example of this approach being the Thomas Jefferson (now no longer a science magnet but a general magnet) public high school in VA, where IMSA and a few others are similar.
But would could or should be de-emphasized to allow for more technical opportunities? What requirements could become electives? What should become a new requirement? Can simple changes to the class schedule offer more efficient long time blocks for innovative work.
I can go on for a while, and would move on next to talking about our experience with students and the impact of our new approach...but I'd rather stop here and wait for some responses to make things more interactive! I look forward to reading all of your comments.
cheers,
-Phillip
Phillip writes;
>Worse, what passed for "Science" in the AP program at Westminster, and most other high schools are similar in this regard, bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to what a practicing scientist or engineer faces on a daily basis. There was no wonder, no discovery, no "ah-ha"……
I am not remotely surprised that Phillip says this since, as far as I can tell, the AP chemistry course is/has NEVER purported to be a course that is supposed to "resemble" what a "practicing scientist" encounters on a "daily basis", nor has it (or IMO SHOULD it) necessarily be in the business of promoting "wonder", "ah-ha moments" or "discovery".
Phillip's comments also dovetail VERY closely with something that I have said throughout my career and that is, "we are NOT doing REAL science it high school at ALL". We KNOW all the answers and we are NOT conducting scientific research under the very real constraints of financial pressures, life and death decisions and other profound considerations. In that respect I entirely agree with Phillip's comments. What we disagree about is the level of frustration that particular fact provokes and the need for us (in high school) to be doing something significantly different!
I remain VERY confused.
Phillip and Adrian:
There does come a point where this excellent conversation needs to move into another sphere--the Science Department at Westminster School. Much of this conversation is about pedagogy, science teaching methods, and student learning. Also, many of these ideas do crossover to other disciplines, so the conversation might also go to the Academic Leadership Team.
As I have written in previous comments, focusing on content, requiring students to master problem-solving techniques, and requiring them to show their mastery of content knowledge for a standardized test is a limited teaching/learning experience. It does not mirror the type of learning or thinking students are required to do in higher education or in the "field." I agree with Adrian we are not doing the kind of teaching that fully prepares students for these experiences in high school. However, I disagree with him and would promote that we should change our pedagogy and probably our curriculum to teach 21st century skills (www.21stcenturyskills.org). Also, there are schools were students are doing much more authentic scientific learning/discovery. Phillip mentioned IMSA, Thomas Jefferson and High Tech High in San Diego (http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-age-technology-high-tech). Check out the article in Edutopia on High Tech High. They are doing some interesting things.
I believe the AP program represents 20th century thinking about how to teach students at an advanced level. By the way, fewer and fewer colleges and universities are granting advanced standing for AP courses. And those that still do are moving from 3-5 as a passing grade to either 4-5 or 5. Colleges recognize the values and limitations in AP courses, especially from schools that do not have a track record (not Westminster). The College Board has not adapted well to the changes in how we teach or can teach courses in the 21st century. Also, the exams have not changed significantly. Maybe that will change, but until they adapt and look at what students really need to prepare themselves for a world that is changing rapidly, I don't hold much hope for AP courses teaching students what they need or motivating (engaging) them to pursue advanced work beyond the AP. Check out the December 7th article on the experiences in the Scarsdale School district where they have dropped the AP program (NY Times online, December 7th, Scarsdale Adjusts to Life Without AP Courses).
I would encourage other AP teachers to enter into this conversation AND/OR broaden the conversation to the department level or the ALT level.
Bob
Phillip writes that it is becoming increasingly obvious that "the vast majority of schools utterly fail to train people how to be creative or how to innovate." Consequently, we need "a shift in educational emphasis."
Robert suggests that we move this conversation to the ALT level, or the AP teacher level, or the department level. If we are going to move forward as a school, it is essential that we all get involved in this conversation.
Agnes
Post a Comment