U.S. patent application number 10/293868 was filed with the patent office on 2004-01-15 for system for scheduling classes and managing eductional resources.
Invention is credited to Goldstein, Daniel M., Robert, Adrian Bradford, Snyder, Jonathan Scott.
Application Number | 20040009461 10/293868 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 30119037 |
Filed Date | 2004-01-15 |
United States Patent
Application |
20040009461 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Snyder, Jonathan Scott ; et
al. |
January 15, 2004 |
System for scheduling classes and managing eductional resources
Abstract
A method is provided for automatically producing a schedule of
classes for an educational institution having a plurality of
teachers, a plurality of students, and a curriculum. The method
preferably includes receiving designations of a plurality of
curriculum modules of the curriculum, each curriculum module
including educational material, one or more of the curriculum
modules being prerequisite modules for one or more subsequent
modules. The method also preferably includes receiving, as an input
into a computer system, curriculum information comprising an
indication of which of the modules are prerequisite modules for
subsequent modules. An input into the computer system includes
student information comprising, for one or more of the plurality of
students, an indication of his level of competence with respect to
the educational material of one or more modules. The computer
system preferably produces a schedule of classes for teaching the
educational material of at least some of the modules responsive to
the curriculum information and the student information. Educational
material to be taught in each of the scheduled classes includes the
educational material of a respective one of the curriculum modules.
The students assigned to each of the scheduled classes have
preferably attained at, least a predetermined level of competence
with respect to the educational material of the respective modules
that are prerequisite modules for the module to be taught in the
class.
Inventors: |
Snyder, Jonathan Scott; (New
York, NY) ; Robert, Adrian Bradford; (Ann Arbor,
MI) ; Goldstein, Daniel M.; (Efrat, IL) |
Correspondence
Address: |
Jonathan Snyder
Apt. 9E
730 Columbus Avenue
New York
NY
10025
US
|
Family ID: |
30119037 |
Appl. No.: |
10/293868 |
Filed: |
November 13, 2002 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
10293868 |
Nov 13, 2002 |
|
|
|
PCT/IL01/00376 |
Oct 4, 2002 |
|
|
|
60331241 |
Nov 13, 2001 |
|
|
|
60199309 |
Apr 24, 2000 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
434/350 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G09B 7/02 20130101; G06Q
10/109 20130101; G06Q 10/06311 20130101; G06Q 10/10 20130101; G06Q
50/205 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
434/350 |
International
Class: |
G09B 003/00 |
Claims
1. A method for automatically producing a schedule of classes for
an educational institution having a plurality of teachers, a
plurality of students, and a curriculum, the method comprising
providing a computer algorithm adapted for: receiving, as an input
into a computer system, designations of a plurality of curriculum
modules of the curriculum, each curriculum module including
educational material, one or more of the curriculum modules being
prerequisite modules for one or more subsequent modules; receiving,
as an input into the computer system, curriculum information
comprising an indication of which of the modules are prerequisite
modules for subsequent modules; receiving, as an input into the
computer system, student information comprising, for two or more of
the plurality of students, indications of their levels of
competence with respect to the educational material of one or more
modules; and producing, by the computer system, a schedule of
classes for teaching the educational material of at least some of
the modules responsive to the curriculum information and the
student information, wherein educational material to be taught in
each of the scheduled classes comprises the educational material of
a respective one of the curriculum modules, and wherein the
students assigned to each of the scheduled classes have attained at
least a predetermined level of competence with respect to the
educational material of the respective modules that are
prerequisite modules for the module to be taught in the class.
2. A method according to claim 1, wherein receiving the student
information comprises receiving an indication of prior success one
or more of the students has had with one or more of the
teachers.
3. A method according to claim 1, wherein receiving the curriculum
information comprises receiving, for at least some of the
curriculum modules, one or more formats in which the module may be
taught.
4. A method according to claim 1, wherein producing the schedule
comprises: determining that one of the students has attained at
least a first level of mastery of a first one of the prerequisite
modules; determining that the one of the students has attained at
least a second level of mastery of a second one of the prerequisite
modules, the second level being different from the first level; and
scheduling the one of the students to take a class responsive to
the one of the students having attained the first and second levels
of mastery in the first and second prerequisite modules,
respectively.
5. A method according to claim 1, wherein producing the schedule
comprises receiving an input indicative of a desired percentage of
students to be involved in tutoring sessions.
6. A method according to claim 1, wherein producing the schedule of
classes comprises determining when a student has failed to attain a
desired level of mastery of a module and subsequently assigning the
student to study the educational material in the module in a class
configured to facilitate the student to attain the desired level of
mastery.
7. A method according to claim 1, wherein producing the schedule of
classes comprises receiving a first scheduling request and
generating a tentative schedule responsive thereto, and,
subsequently, receiving a second scheduling request and generating
a tentative schedule responsive thereto.
8. A method according to claim 1, and comprising receiving an
assessment of a student's performance in one or more modules taught
by a particular person, wherein producing the schedule of classes
comprises preferentially assigning the student to be taught by the
person if the assessment is positive, and inhibiting assigning the
student to be taught by the person if the assessment is
negative.
9. A method according to claim 1, and comprising receiving, as an
input into the computer system, an indication for one or more of
the modules of a number of textbooks pertaining thereto which are
available to the institution, wherein producing the schedule
comprises scheduling classes to teach the educational material in
the one or more modules responsive to the number of available
textbooks.
10. A method according to any one of claims 1-9, wherein receiving
the student information comprises receiving a designation for
giving priority to scheduling one or more of the students selected
from the plurality of students, and wherein producing the schedule
comprises producing the schedule responsive to the designation.
11. A method according to claim 10, wherein receiving the
designation comprises receiving the designation with respect to
students having a disability.
12. A method according to any one of claims 1-9, wherein receiving
the designations of the plurality of curriculum modules comprises
receiving, for at least some of the modules, an indication of the
relative importance of the module to the curriculum, and wherein
producing the schedule comprises producing the schedule responsive
to the indication of importance.
13. A method according to claim 12, wherein producing the schedule
responsive to the indication of importance comprises designating a
relatively high level of competence to be attained by at least some
students in prerequisite modules for a module having a relatively
high importance to the curriculum, and designating a relatively low
level of competence to be attained by the at least some students in
prerequisite modules for a module having a relatively low
importance to the curriculum.
14. A method according to any one of 1-9, and comprising receiving
an administrative instruction as an input into the computer system,
which designates for students in a first category a first level of
competence with respect to the educational material of at least one
module that is prerequisite for a module to be taught in a class,
and which designates for students in a second category a second
level of competence with respect to the educational material of the
at least one module, the second level being different from the
first level, wherein producing the schedules of classes comprises
producing the schedule responsive to the administrative
instruction.
15. A method according to claim 14, wherein receiving the
administrative instruction comprises receiving with respect to two
or more of the modules, each having prerequisite modules associated
therewith, an instruction that students in the first and second
categories demonstrate different levels of competence in order to
participate in classes teaching the two or more modules.
16. A method according to any one of claims 1-9, and comprising
receiving, as an input into the computer system, teacher
information comprising, for at least some of the plurality of
teachers, an indication of a suitability of the teacher to teach
one or more of the modules, wherein producing the schedule of
classes comprises producing the schedule of classes responsive to
the teacher information.
17. A method according to claim 16, wherein receiving the teacher
information comprises receiving, for at least some of the plurality
of teachers, an indication of a preference of the teacher to teach
one or more of the modules.
18. A method according any one of claims 1-9, wherein receiving the
student information comprises receiving, for at least one of the
students, an indication of a learning disability of the student,
and wherein producing the schedule comprises producing the schedule
responsive to the learning disability.
19. A method according to claim 18, wherein receiving the teacher
information comprises receiving an indication of one or more of the
teachers who have specialized training to teach students with the
learning disability, and wherein producing the schedule comprises
preferentially assigning the one or more of the teachers with the
specialized training to teach a student with the learning
disability.
20. A method for automatically producing a schedule of classes for
an educational institution having a plurality of teachers, a
plurality of students, and a curriculum, the method comprising
providing a computer algorithm adapted for: receiving, as an input
into a computer system, designations of a plurality of curriculum
modules of the curriculum, each curriculum module including
educational material; receiving, as an input into the computer
system, student information comprising, for a first student, a
second student, a third student, and a fourth student selected from
the plurality of students, respective indications of their levels
of competence with respect to the educational material of one or
more modules; scheduling a class to teach one of the modules,
taught by one of the teachers, for the first student and the second
student, responsive to the indications of the levels of competence
of the first and second students; and scheduling a tutoring session
to teach the one of the modules, in which the third student is
designated to tutor the fourth student, responsive to the
indications of the levels of competence of the third and fourth
students.
21. A method for automatically producing a schedule of classes for
an educational institution having a plurality of teachers, a
plurality of students, and a curriculum, the method comprising
providing a computer algorithm adapted for: receiving, as an input
into a computer system, designations of a plurality of curriculum
modules of the curriculum, each curriculum module including
educational material; receiving, as an input into the computer
system, student information comprising, for one or more of the
plurality of students, an indication of his level of competence
with respect to the educational material of one or more modules;
receiving, as an input to the computer system, optimization
parameters which are indicative of an educational focus of the
educational institution; executing an optimization algorithm
responsive to the student information and the optimization
parameters; and generating a schedule of classes responsive to
executing the optimization algorithm.
22. A method according to claim 21, wherein receiving the
optimization parameters comprises receiving an indication of an
amount of emphasis to place, when generating the schedule, on
assessments of prior success of one of the teachers in teaching the
educational material of one of the modules.
23. A method according to claim 21, wherein receiving the
optimization parameters comprises receiving an indication of an
amount of emphasis to place on continuity of a teacher-student
relationship over a plurality of separate modules.
24. A method according to claim 21, wherein executing the
optimization algorithm comprises: generating a list of potential
classes; assigning each student to a class in the list; ranking the
classes with respect to a utility function; eliminating one or more
classes having a low utility; and reassigning students in the
eliminated classes to other classes.
Description
CROSS REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims priority of provisional application
No. 60/331,241 filed on Nov. 13, 2001. In addition, this
application is a CIP (continuation in part) of a US patent
application entitled "System for Scheduling Classes and Managing
Educational Resources", to Snyder et al., filed on Oct. 12, 2002 as
the US national phase application of PCT patent application Serial
Number PCT/IL01/00376 filed on Apr. 23, 2001, which in turn claims
priority from U.S. provisional patent application Serial No.
60/199,309 filed on Apr. 24, 2000.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates in general to the field of
educational scheduling software. In particular, it preferably
comprises a novel system for flexibly and dynamically allocating
students to classes and for producing teaching and class schedules.
In a preferred embodiment, the present invention enables
educational institutions to be administered more efficiently, and
has far-reaching effects in improving the quality of the teaching
and learning that take place in educational institutions.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] It has long been recognized that the structure of
traditional educational institutions is not conducive to optimizing
the quality of the teaching and the learning that take place in
them. This is particularly true of elementary, junior and senior
high school education (grades K-12), both public and private, but
is also true even with regard to higher education, vocational
schools, home schooling, and job training within corporations.
[0004] One of the main reasons for this is that in traditional
educational institutions, students having multiple skill and
knowledge levels are grouped together in classes, and are taught
large amounts of curricular material over large stretches of time
(a semester, quarter or even a complete school year). In this
structure, students advance from one level to another within the
educational institution without mastering sufficient amounts of the
curriculum. Their advancement is based upon a "passing grade,"
which is an average grade across a fairly large number of
individual topics and which often is a fairly low grade, such as a
C, that does not indicate any real mastery of the curriculum being
taught. Moreover, students can have below C grades in several
individual topics, and still end up with an average passing grade.
As a result, most students over time develop serious gaps in
mastery of the knowledge base that the curriculum represents.
[0005] In traditional educational institutions, many of the
students grouped together in the same class are often unprepared to
learn the topic at hand, because of the large number of gaps they
have accumulated in their knowledge repertoire. This is a major
problem for teachers, who are compelled to teach to multiple levels
of students at the same time. To handle this, teachers sometimes
try to subdivide their classroom into smaller groups, but this is
generally an inadequate solution, since it means the teacher cannot
focus on the entire class at once. In any event, even subdividing
into groups will not necessarily put all the students within a
group at the same skill or knowledge mastery level. The large size
of the classes (often 30 students or more) is another reason why
the teaching and learning in most traditional educational
institutions is far from optimum. There are different estimates as
to what the ideal class size is, both for the teacher and the
students, but few would deny that an average class size of 15 is
better than 30. Yet, within the current structure of most
educational institutions, the only way to reduce the average class
size is to hire more teachers, or to allow fewer students into the
school, neither of which is typically a realistic option for
budgetary or political reasons.
[0006] An additional reason why teaching and learning in most
traditional educational institutions is far from optimum is that
the curriculum units are too large. It is generally recognized that
some parts of the curriculum are more important than others, and
should be given greater emphasis and reviewed more often. However,
in traditional educational institutions, almost all curriculum
units are spread over equally large blocks of time, sometimes whole
semesters or quarters, and teachers often have little flexibility
to focus on and emphasize the core skills and units of knowledge.
They are forced to go on to new material in order to fill in the
term adequately. Moreover, because of the relatively rigid
structure of the school curriculum, once a topic has been taught,
it is more often than not seldom taken up again, preventing
substantive review and a deepening of the students' knowledge of
the core subjects and skills.
[0007] Another flaw in the structure of traditional educational
institutions is the way in which both teachers and students are
assigned to their classes. The assignment is generally done based
upon subject, grade or year level, with limited regard to factors
that may affect many of the students' ability to learn (such as
prior successful or unsuccessful experience with a particular
teacher) or the teachers' readiness to teach (such as a strong
interest or lack of interest in teaching a particular subject or
topic). It is well known that rapport between teachers and students
is an important factor in the quality of education, and that
certain students do better with certain teachers rather than
others. It is also well known that teachers do a better job when
they teach topics they prefer to teach. Yet, traditional
educational institutions do not take these factors sufficiently
into account when assigning students and teachers to classes. Most
educational institutions do not maintain any records correlating
student success with particular teachers, and even were they able
to maintain such records, existing scheduling software, the rigid
curriculum structure, and the large sizes of the classes make it
difficult to use such information effectively for the benefit of
the students and the teachers.
[0008] Because of their rigid structure, most traditional
educational institutions do not allow for the possibility of
students proceeding individually through the typical semester-long
curriculum, e.g., at substantially varying rates. In high schools,
for example, students are compelled to generally cover all the
material designated as the minimum curricular content for each
grade level. This may work reasonably well for the "average"
student in a particular subject, but affords little room for
accommodation both for the more intelligent and/or more motivated
students on the one hand, and the slower and/or less motivated
students on the other hand. All students, regardless of ability and
motivation, are generally grouped together in classes of varying
sizes, and are required to cover large quantities of curricular
material at the same time and at the same pace. Although some
schools group students into "tracks" ("more advanced" or "less
advanced") for placement in classes, these groupings are generally
fairly crude, and generally also comprise students having different
skill and knowledge levels. As a consequence, the better students
are often not able to reach their full learning potential, and the
slower students are not accorded the special attention that they
need.
[0009] The structure of traditional educational institutions has
also contributed to the unhealthy phenomenon of "social
promotions," especially in elementary and secondary schools,
whereby students who have not mastered even the core curriculum of
one grade level are allowed to "pass" and move on to the next
higher grade level. This practice merely deepens the difficulties
facing teachers who are compelled to teach large numbers of
students grouped together in their classes having multiple skill
and knowledge levels, and who are not capable of learning the same
material at the same pace.
[0010] Social promotions occur even in educational institutions
such as colleges, graduate schools, trade schools, university
extension programs and job training classes, where grade levels per
se are not used. Nevertheless, some general type of representation
of a student's place or level in these schools or programs is often
used, e.g., in a college the student may be described as a
freshman, sophomore, junior or senior; in a medical or law school
the student may be a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year student; and in a
certification program for professional training, the student's
level may be described by how advanced a certificate he is trying
to achieve and where he is in the program. The social promotions
that occur in these institutions may not be as egregious as those
in elementary or high schools, but are nevertheless quite
prevalent--students continue to move upwards through the course of
study with many specific gaps in their knowledge base. This occurs
not only because students advance based upon an overall passing
grade, but also because they may miss classes due to illness or
other necessities of life, they may have poor rapport with a
particular teacher, or they may fail to master material for a
variety of other reasons. "Getting by" often becomes the norm, and
even students who excel in general may not master key components of
a specific course. (In general herein, the term "grade level" is
intended to encompass any type of "educational level" such as
described above.)
[0011] Various solutions have been proposed to rectify the numerous
defects in the structure of traditional educational institutions.
Chief among these has been to abandon or partially replace the
traditional school/classroom structure in favor of individual
instruction, made possible by the advent of the personal computer
and the possibility of "computer assisted instruction." A vast
industry has developed in recent years providing individualized
computer-based courses of instruction in many different subjects,
such as mathematics, foreign languages and the like. However, not
all curricular subjects lend themselves well to this type of
instructional format. In addition, individualized, computer-based
instruction cannot provide important elements of the educational
process which are provided by the traditional structure of
educational institutions, not the least of which are the personal
impact and role modeling of a really good teacher, and the
socializing impact of the school room and the school campus.
Moreover, for political, social and economic reasons, it is simply
not possible to completely abandon the traditional educational
structure based upon group learning in a classroom in favor of an
educational process that is based totally on individual learning
and computer-assisted instruction.
[0012] More recently, online "virtual classroom" education has
become available, which utilizes email lists, high-speed video
links and various interactive tools (such as having a class "vote"
on a particular issue through a computer, or permitting a teacher
to present and draw directly onto an electronic slide-show
presentation). However, online classes are typically dependent upon
access to computers with Internet connections (which sometimes must
also be high-speed Internet connections) for each student. They are
therefore relatively expensive, and require substantial
infrastructure. For this reason, they are generally not available
to populations in the third world and are still not universally
available even in more developed countries. Online classes have
other disadvantages, such as less direct personal contact with
teachers, and, generally speaking, more limited socialization
experiences with fellow students. Human person-to-person feedback
is an essential part of the educational process, and even high-end
online classes (which involve high-speed video links) cannot fully
provide such feedback. Online education may try to emphasize human
interaction through chat rooms and similar technologies, but cannot
fully replace the pedagogical benefits of direct human contact.
[0013] Consortiums such as the IMS Project, or the Instructional
Management Systems Learning Consortium, (www.imsproject.com) have
been created for promoting common standards for distributing online
learning activities, tracking learner progress, reporting learner
performance, and exchanging student records between administrative
systems. The learning management systems IMS supports are able to
keep track of student education plans, schedule courses (including
instructors and resources), enroll people in courses, record course
results, and update student academic progress. Similarly, companies
such as Saba (www.saba.com) and SmartForce (www.smartforce.com)
offer products such as Saba's Learning Enterprise product and
SmartForce's e-Learning platform, which are learning management
systems that dynamically track and administer students' progress.
These systems are focused most heavily on online learning and
therefore have the limitations described above (e.g., high speed
video online technology is generally limited to marketing to
corporations because of its expense). Some of these learning
management systems also promote instructor-based learning and
mentoring. Other Web sites describing services for computer
education and computer-facilitated education are
www.blackboard.com, www.click2learn.com, www.intelliprep.com, and
www.skillscape.com.
[0014] Various school administration software programs are
commercially available, such as those marketed by SchedulExpert,
Inc. (Ithaca, N.Y.), Rediker Software, Inc. (Hampden, Mass.), and
Pentamation Enterprises, Inc. (Bethlehem, Pa.). According to the
information displayed on the websites of these companies
(www.schedulexpert.com; www.rediker.com; and www.pentamation.com),
all of these programs, in one fonm or another, enable school
administrators and teachers to maintain a computerized database of
students, keep daily attendance records and records of grades, and
produce report cards and various other reports. They also describe
various scheduling tools.
[0015] ScheduleExpert is described as providing a tool for
automated course scheduling in post-secondary educational
institutions, being able to assign a course to a specific room, to
one set of rooms, only to rooms that have particular features or
attributes, or to rooms within a specific building or within a
specified walking distance of the course's ideal location.
ScheduleExpert is further described as being able to identify the
schedule that best satisfies user-specified relative importance of
six performance criteria, including avoiding conflicts of classes,
ideal number of teaching days for faculty, preferred class times
for faculty, faculty desire for consecutive classes, and minimizing
distance from an ideal building.
[0016] Pentamation is described as an interactive software package
designed to automatically schedule courses into class periods while
assigning them to teachers and rooms based upon possible meeting
codes and suitable allocation of resources.
[0017] Rediker is described as producing a schedule of classes
either in an automatic mode or an interactive mode. The school
administrator enters the courses taught in the school, the courses
each student must take, the number of sections (up to three) any
one course will have, optionally assigns a teacher to each section
and optionally indicates any periods in which each section should
not meet. In automatic mode, the program will tell the
administrator when each section should meet so that there will be
the fewest number of conflicts. In interactive mode, the program
informs the administrator which periods would be best for a given
course or section and when the teacher is available, the
administrator selects the period, and then the program and the
administrator proceed to select the other courses in turn.
[0018] Eagle Rock School and Professional Development Center in
Estes Park, Colo. carries out several educational practices that
exemplify a trend seen in a small number of schools across the
country. As described by Lois E. Easton ("If Standards Are Absolute
. . .", Education Week, Apr. 12, 2000, pages 50, 52-53), these
include the advancement of students based on competencies and not
on grade level; varied student pathways through individualized
learning plans; the possibility of a "class" taking place not only
in the classroom, but at other sites such as a pharmacy or a fish
pier; students traveling all over the world via the World Wide Web
to get the information they need; different styles of learning for
different students; and varying assessment techniques.
[0019] The book "Designs for Science Literary" by Project 2061 of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (F. James
Rutherford, Director Emeritus, Project 2061), published by Oxford
University Press, which is incorporated herein by reference,
describes systems for flexible curricula assembly.
[0020] Kumon Math and Reading Centers are described on the World
Wide Web (www.kumon.com) as providing a method of learning which
includes individualized instruction in which a student advances
according to individual ability rather than age or grade level, a
curriculum in math and reading which presents concepts in small
increments, and development of mastery of skills through repeated
practice.
[0021] In an article entitled "New Features for Learning Management
System," (ALN Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 2, December, 1999,
www.aln.org), which is incorporated herein by reference, Bruce A.
McHenry discusses spontaneous group formation of students and
teachers to help them in online learning environments. McHenry
writes: "Students' paths through the content, determined by their
questions and satisfaction with the answers, will serve to identify
cohorts of like minded students and the teachers that help them.
These patterns of association will be also become factors for the
Q&A finding function previously based on distance (feature 1)
and semantics (feature 2). Perhaps more importantly, the
associations will help to identify groups of individuals who can
move through the material at about the same pace. On-line study
sessions could then be scheduled in order to foster live group
discussion and private conversations among these individuals."
[0022] U.S. Pat. No. 5,864,869 to Doak et al., describes a
computerized method for use by teachers, for creating, editing and
maintaining generic and subject-specific lesson plans, grade sheets
and other information and reports. Teachers input in advance of the
school term, which is up to a year in length, the total number of
pages of text to be covered during the term in each subject they
will be teaching. The software accesses pertinent information about
the school calendar, and allocates the number of pages or
percentages of the teaching tasks for each day. At the end of each
week, the teachers input the number of text pages completed or the
percentage of the tasks that were completed, and the computer
prints out the next week's lesson plans, after reallocating the
remaining pages of texts or tasks to fit the time remaining in the
term for completion of the tasks.
[0023] U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,485 to Siefert, describes a system for
computer-assisted instruction of a school's curriculum to
individual students, enabling the students to learn the material at
home. A learning profile is established and maintained for each
student, which indicates the student's capabilities, preferred
learning style, and standing. Based upon the profile, the software
selects appropriate material for presentation to the student during
each learning session. The program assesses whether the student has
mastered the material. If he has not mastered the material, it is
presented to him in a different way. If repeated different
presentations of the material fail to instill mastery, a video
conference is established between the student and a teacher.
[0024] Each of these patents is incorporated herein by
reference.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0025] It is a goal of some aspects of the present invention to
solve many of the problems inherent in the structure of traditional
educational institutions. Another goal of some aspects of the
present invention is to enable traditional educational institutions
to function better, optimizing both the teaching experience for the
teachers and the learning environment for the students. Embodiments
of the present invention achieve these goals by making it possible
for traditional educational institutions to utilize all the
resources at their disposal in an efficient manner, while
eliminating many of the defects inherent in the rigid structure of
these institutions.
[0026] In some preferred embodiments of the present invention,
these goals are achieved by combining a sophisticated computer
program for managing the various resources available in an
educational institution with a modularized structuring of the
curriculum taught in the educational institution. In accordance
with these embodiments, the curriculum of the educational
institution is defined on the basis of a relatively large number of
discrete, typically small units of instruction or "modules," with
the various modules inter-related one with another in a complex
structure of dependencies. These dependencies may be limited to
individual curricular subjects, but may also cross subject areas
and thus be multidisciplinary in scope.
[0027] In an educational institution that utilizes a modular
curriculum in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, students advance individually through the curriculum by
attaining a demonstrated degree of competency in the subject matter
of individual modules (or groups of modules), and not by the
"completion" of entire subjects, grades, semesters, or calendar
years. Since the curriculum is preferably based upon a relatively
large number of modules which define a complex structure of
dependencies, students advance through the curriculum along many
different and discrete routes, each advance conditional upon
attaining competency in the modules that are prerequisites of a
subsequent module. And, although each student advances through the
curriculum individually, the teaching of most of the curricular
modules is group-based, in classes comprising only those students
who are eligible to take the class, based upon their competency in
the modules, which are prerequisites for the module being taught in
that class.
[0028] The combination of a modularized curriculum and a
sophisticated resource management program makes it possible to
devise teaching schedules and schedules of classes that optimize
various parameters which directly or indirectly affect the quality
of the teaching and learning that takes place in the educational
institution. Preferred embodiments of the present invention adapt
software algorithms that are known in the art to optimize these
parameters, within the constraint of generally only placing
students in classes for which they have attained substantial
competence in the subject matter of the modules which are
prerequisites for the modules being taught in the classes, as
described more fully herein below. By way of illustration and not
limitation, typical parameters to be optimized may include: (a)
class size; (b) expressed teacher preferences to teach particular
curricular modules; (c) expressed student preferences for a
particular module or a particular subject or a particular teacher;
(d) data indicating the success of a particular teacher with
respect to a particular student or a particular module; (e)
geographical distance that must be traversed by students and
teacher between successive classes; and (f) preferential scheduling
of modules whose subject matter comprises the "core" of the
curriculum.
[0029] Although a person skilled in the art will appreciate that
there are many ways for generating a generally optimized schedule
based on a set of constraints and a set of variables to be
optimized, a simple embodiment of the present invention provides
for a score to be given to each of these parameters, and for
optimizing software to search through a large number of possible
schedules for the entire school, in order to determine a set of
class schedules which generate a maximum score.
[0030] According to a preferred implementation, the present
invention will accomplish one or more of the following:
[0031] (1) It will improve the teaching and learning environment in
the classes, by assuring that students of generally equivalent
skill and knowledge levels are grouped together in the same
class.
[0032] (2) It will enable teachers to emphasize core skills and
knowledge, and to deepen the students' knowledge of these core
areas as they progress through the various curricular levels, by
providing greater review and more exposure to these core
modules.
[0033] (3) It will result in a reduction of average class size.
[0034] (4) It will ensure that students master at least the most
important, core parts of the curriculum, while minimizing gaps in
their knowledge base.
[0035] (5) It will give teachers and/or students significant
flexibility in choosing the subjects and/or topics they are
interested in teaching and learning.
[0036] (6) It will make it possible for students to be assigned to
classes with teachers or student-tutors with whom they have done
well in the past, thereby increasing the likelihood of their
obtaining maximum benefits from the classes.
[0037] (7) It will make it possible to utilize efficiently the
skills of students as mentors and tutors of other students.
[0038] (8) It will allow students to proceed at their own pace.
[0039] (9) It will facilitate the integration of special education
students within the traditional school structure and facilitate the
training of teachers of special education students.
[0040] (10) It will end "social promotions."
[0041] (11) It will enable both the school and the students to cope
better with absences due to ill health or other disruptions in the
students' lives.
[0042] (12) It will limit the damage caused by less competent
teachers, and maximize the exposure of students to teachers who
perform well in particular modules, thereby increasing the overall
average effectiveness of the teaching staff of the institution.
[0043] (13) It will facilitate the integration of non-native
speaking students within the traditional school structure.
[0044] (14) It will make possible the extensive retraining of less
competent teachers by more competent teachers as part of each
teacher's schedule.
[0045] (15) It will make possible the customization of teaching, so
that students will more often be able to be exposed to teaching in
appropriate styles.
[0046] (16) It will make possible efficient sharing and mass
implementation of proven pedagogical approaches through the use of
curriculum and scheduling "templates."
[0047] (17) It will reduce overcrowding in educational institutions
globally by making better use of all available educational
resources.
[0048] (18) It will make possible the mass implementation of a
small learning community model, whereby a large educational
institution is broken down into many small mini-academies, and the
curricular content, curricular emphases, scheduling priorities,
tutoring approaches, and the amount and type of teacher and student
choice for each academy are inputs to scheduling software.
[0049] (19) It will allow some students, e.g., students with
disabilities, to be assigned personal scheduling priorities which
are higher than the personal scheduling priorities of other
students, so as to help these students advance academically by
being preferentially placed in classes which are most suitable for
them.
[0050] There is therefore provided, in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention, a method for automatically
producing a schedule of classes for an educational institution
having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of students, and a
curriculum, the method including:
[0051] receiving designations of a plurality of curriculum modules
of the curriculum, each curriculum module including educational
material, one or more of the curriculum modules being prerequisite
modules for one or more subsequent modules;
[0052] receiving, as an input into a computer system, curriculum
information including an indication of which of the modules are
prerequisite modules for subsequent modules;
[0053] receiving, as an input into the computer system, student
information including, for two or more of the plurality of
students, indications of their levels of competence with respect to
the educational material of one or more modules; and
[0054] producing by the computer system a schedule of classes for
teaching the educational material of at least some of the modules
responsive to the curriculum information and the student
information, wherein educational material to be taught in each of
the scheduled classes includes the educational material of a
respective one of the curriculum modules, and wherein the students
assigned to each of the scheduled classes have attained at least a
predetermined level of competence with respect to the educational
material of the respective modules that are prerequisite modules
for the module to be taught in the class.
[0055] Preferably, receiving the student information includes
receiving an indication of prior success one or more of the
students has had with one or more of the teachers.
[0056] For some applications, receiving the curriculum information
includes receiving, for at least some of the curriculum modules, an
age by which a student is expected to have achieved competency in
the module. Alternatively or additionally, receiving the curriculum
information includes receiving, for at least some of the curriculum
modules, a link to one or more lesson plans for teaching the
module. Further alternatively or additionally, receiving the
curriculum information includes receiving, for at least some of the
curriculum modules, one or more formats in which the module may be
taught.
[0057] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the student information
includes receiving, for at least one of the students, an indication
of one or more languages understood by the student, and wherein
producing the schedule includes producing the schedule responsive
to the one or more languages.
[0058] In a preferred embodiment, producing the schedule
includes:
[0059] determining that one of the students has attained at least a
first level of mastery of a first one of the prerequisite
modules;
[0060] determining that the one of the students has attained at
least a second level of mastery of a second one of the prerequisite
modules, the second level being different from the first level;
and
[0061] scheduling the one of the students to take a class
responsive to the one of the students having attained the first and
second levels of mastery in the first and second prerequisite
modules, respectively.
[0062] Alternatively or additionally, producing the schedule
includes designating a time period for assessing a level of mastery
of one or more of the students in the educational material of a
given module.
[0063] For some applications, producing the schedule includes
receiving an input indicative of a desired percentage of students
to be involved in tutoring sessions.
[0064] Typically, receiving the designations of the plurality of
curriculum modules includes receiving, for at least some of the
modules, an indication of the relative importance of the module to
the curriculum, and wherein producing the schedule includes
producing the schedule responsive to the indication of
importance.
[0065] If appropriate, producing the schedule of classes includes
determining when a student has failed to attain a desired level of
mastery of a module and subsequently assigning the student to study
the educational material in the module in a class configured to
facilitate the student to attain the desired level of mastery.
[0066] Preferably, the method includes receiving, as an input into
the computer system, teacher information including, for at least
some of the plurality of teachers, an indication of a suitability
of the teacher to teach one or more of the modules, wherein
producing the schedule of classes includes producing the schedule
of classes responsive to the teacher information. For example,
receiving the teacher information may include receiving, for at
least some of the plurality of teachers, an indication of a
preference of the teacher to teach one or more of the modules.
Alternatively or additionally, receiving the teacher information
includes receiving, for at least some of the plurality of teachers,
an indication of prior success the teacher has had in teaching one
or more of the modules.
[0067] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the student information
includes receiving, for at least one of the students, an indication
of a learning disability of the student, and wherein producing the
schedule includes producing the schedule responsive to the learning
disability. In this case, receiving the teacher information
preferably includes receiving an indication of one or more of the
teachers who have specialized training to teach students with the
learning disability, and wherein producing the schedule includes
preferentially assigning the one or more of the teachers with the
specialized training to teach a student with the learning
disability.
[0068] In a preferred embodiment, producing the schedule includes
determining an average of respective levels of mastery, achieved by
at least one of the students assigned to the class, in the
prerequisite modules for the module to be taught in the class. For
example, determining the average may include determining a weighted
average.
[0069] For some applications, producing the schedule includes
designating at least one of the classes to have a single instructor
and a single student. For example, designating may include
designating one of the students to be the single instructor
responsive to the student information received about the designated
student. Alternatively or additionally, designating the one of the
students to be the single instructor includes designating the one
of the students responsive to a level of mastery of the designated
student in a module to be taught by the designated student.
[0070] There is further provided, in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention, a computer program product for
automatically producing a schedule of classes for an educational
institution having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of
students, and a curriculum, the product including a
computer-readable medium having program instructions embodied
therein, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the
computer to:
[0071] receive designations of a plurality of curriculum modules of
the curriculum, each curriculum module including educational
material, one or more of the curriculum modules being prerequisite
modules for one or more subsequent modules;
[0072] receive curriculum information including an indication of
which of the modules are prerequisite modules for subsequent
modules;
[0073] receive student information including, for one or more of
the plurality of students, an indication of his level of competence
with respect to the educational material of one or more modules;
and
[0074] produce a schedule of classes for teaching the educational
material of at least some of the modules responsive to the
curriculum information and the student information, wherein
educational material to be taught in each of the scheduled classes
includes the educational material of a respective one of the
curriculum modules, and wherein the students assigned to each of
the scheduled classes have attained at least a predetermined level
of competence with respect to the educational material of the
respective modules that are prerequisite modules for the module to
be taught in the class.
[0075] There is still further provided, in accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the present invention, apparatus for
automatically scheduling classes for an educational institution
having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of students, and a
curriculum, the apparatus including:
[0076] a data port (13), adapted to receive designations of a
plurality of curriculum modules of the curriculum, each curriculum
module including educational material, to receive curriculum
information, including designations of some of the curriculum
modules as prerequisite modules and of some of the curriculum
modules as subsequent modules, to receive, for at least one of the
subsequent modules, a designation that one or more of the
prerequisite modules are associated with the at least one
subsequent module, such that participation by one of the students
in the at least one subsequent module is dependent on the student
having completed at least one of the one or more prerequisite
modules associated with the at least one subsequent module, and to
receive student information, including completion indicators for
each prerequisite module, which completion indicators are
indicative of students who have completed the prerequisite module;
and
[0077] a processor (12), adapted to receive the designations of the
curriculum modules, to receive the curriculum information, to
receive the designation for each subsequent module of the one or
more prerequisite modules associated with the subsequent module, to
receive the student information, and to automatically produce a
schedule of classes for teaching at least some of the modules, such
that each class includes at least one teacher and at least one
student.
[0078] There is also provided, in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention, a method for automatically
producing a schedule of classes for an educational institution
having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of students, and a
curriculum, the method including:
[0079] receiving, as an input into a computer system, designations
of a plurality of curriculum modules of the curriculum, each
curriculum module including educational material;
[0080] receiving, as an input into the computer system, student
information including for a first student, a second student, a
third student, and a fourth student selected from the plurality of
students, respective indications of their levels of competence with
respect to the educational material of one or more modules;
[0081] scheduling a class to teach one of the modules, taught by
one of the teachers, for the first student and the second student,
responsive to the indications of the levels of competence of the
first and second students; and
[0082] scheduling a tutoring session to teach the one of the
modules, in which the third student is designated to tutor the
fourth student, responsive to the indications of the levels of
competence of the third and fourth students.
[0083] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the student information
includes receiving assessment data, with respect to the plurality
of students, indicative of respective levels of competence of the
plurality of students in the educational material of some of the
modules, scheduling the class includes scheduling a plurality of
classes to teach two or more of the modules of the curriculum
responsive to the assessment data, and scheduling the tutoring
session includes scheduling a plurality of tutoring sessions
responsive to the assessment data.
[0084] There is additionally provided, in accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method for
automatically producing a schedule of classes for an educational
institution having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of
students, and a curriculum, the method including:
[0085] receiving, as an input into a computer system, designations
of a plurality of curriculum modules of the curriculum, each
curriculum module including educational material;
[0086] receiving, as an input into the computer system, student
information including, for one or more of the plurality of
students, an indication of his level of competence with respect to
the educational material of one or more modules;
[0087] generating a first schedule of classes for the plurality of
students, responsive to the student information, for teaching the
educational material of some of the modules;
[0088] receiving, prior to completion of all of the classes in the
first schedule, an assessment of levels of competence of some of
the plurality of students in the educational material of the some
of the modules; and
[0089] generating a second schedule of classes for the plurality of
students, different from the first schedule, responsive to the
received assessment.
[0090] There is yet additionally provided, in accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method for
automatically producing a schedule of classes for an educational
institution having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of
students, and a curriculum, the method including:
[0091] receiving, as an input into a computer system, designations
of a plurality of curriculum modules of the curriculum, each
curriculum module including educational material;
[0092] receiving, as an input into the computer system, student
information including, for one or more of the plurality of
students, an indication of his level of competence with respect to
the educational material of one or more modules;
[0093] receiving, as an input to the computer system, optimization
parameters which are indicative of an educational focus of the
educational institution;
[0094] executing an optimization algorithm responsive to the
student information and the optimization parameters; and
[0095] generating a schedule of classes responsive to executing the
optimization algorithm.
[0096] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the optimization
parameters includes receiving indications for at least two of the
modules of their respective relative levels of importance within
the curriculum.
[0097] Alternatively or additionally, receiving the optimization
parameters includes receiving an indication of an amount of
emphasis to place on scheduling one or more student-to-student
tutoring sessions.
[0098] Further alternatively or additionally, receiving the
optimization parameters includes receiving an indication of an
amount of emphasis to place, when generating the schedule, on
assessments of prior success of some of the students with some of
the teachers.
[0099] Still further alternatively or additionally, receiving the
optimization parameters includes receiving an indication of an
amount of emphasis to place, when generating the schedule, on
scheduling a student with a learning disability into a class with
students without learning disabilities.
[0100] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the optimization
parameters includes receiving an indication of an amount of
emphasis to place, when generating the schedule, on scheduling a
student having a first language as his primary language into a
class with students having as their primary language a second
language, different from the first language.
[0101] In a preferred embodiment, receiving the student information
includes receiving an indication of a suitability of at least one
of the students to be tutored. Alternatively or additionally,
receiving the student information includes receiving an indication
of a level of success that one of the students has had with one of
the teachers.
[0102] For some applications, the method includes generating an
electronic template including the optimization parameters, for
transfer to another educational institution, to facilitate
scheduling of classes at the other educational institution.
[0103] If appropriate, generating the schedule of classes includes
designating one of the teachers to teach at least one of the
classes, and assigning another one of the teachers to attend the at
least one of the classes.
[0104] There is also provided, in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention, a method for automatically
producing a schedule of classes for an educational institution
having a plurality of teachers, a plurality of students, and a
curriculum, the method including:
[0105] receiving, as an input into a computer system, student
information including respective personal scheduling priorities for
each of the students; and
[0106] generating a schedule of classes based on preferential
treatment of some of the students responsive to their personal
scheduling priorities.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0107] The present invention will be better understood and
appreciated on the basis of the following detailed description in
conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
[0108] FIG. 1 is a simplified graphical representation of apparatus
for implementation of a preferred embodiment of the present
invention;
[0109] FIG. 2 is a simplified graphical representation of the
dependency structure of curricular modules, in accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the present invention;
[0110] FIG. 3 is a simplified flow-chart showing one set of
procedures for selecting and assigning students and teachers into
classes, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention;
[0111] FIG. 4 is a simplified flow-chart showing another set of
procedures for selecting and assigning students and teachers into
classes, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention;
[0112] FIG. 5 is a simplified flow-chart of a set of procedures for
optimizing the assignment of students and teachers to classes, in
accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention;
[0113] FIG. 6 is a simplified flow-chart of an additional set of
procedures for optimizing the assignment of students and teachers
to classes, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the
invention; and
[0114] FIG. 7 is a simplified flow-chart of an additional set of
procedures for optimizing the assignment of students and teachers
to classes, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the
invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0115] Reference is now made to FIG. 1, which provides a simplified
graphical representation of apparatus for implementation of a
preferred embodiment of the present invention. The apparatus of
FIG. 1 comprises a computer network 10, including a data processing
server 12 and one or more personal computers (PCs) or other
computing devices 14. Server 12 comprises a data port 13, and
associated with server 12 is a data storage device 16, which may be
housed on server 12 or on a separate computer. Optionally
associated with each of the one or more PCs 14 are one or more
printers 18. All the components of network 10 may be physically
installed and located within a single educational institution, and
interconnected on a local area network (LAN). However, in a
preferred embodiment of the invention, server 12 and data storage
device 16 are not located within the educational institution
itself, but at a distant location, while PCs 14 and printers 18 are
located within the educational institution. Preferably, network 10
is Internet-based, with each of the network components
interconnected via the Internet (or an Intranet network). It will
be appreciated that when network 10 is Internet-based, PCs 14 and
printers 18 may be located anywhere (such as at teachers' or
students' homes), provided a connection to the Internet is
available. Most preferably, access to server 12 is restricted, and
the data thereon is password protected, available only to
authorized individuals (such as the staff and administrators of the
educational institution). When network 10 is Internet-based, user
access is preferably by means of a Web browser on each of PCs 14;
however, any other means of access via the Internet may be used. To
ensure robustness and enhance security (either as a back-up or a
distributed storage system), server 12 itself may comprise two or
more servers associated with each other, either connected directly
by cable or via the Internet or any other networking apparatus.
Data storage device 16 may also be a network of data storage
devices, a number of separate data storage devices, or any type of
distributed database. Alternatively, in a simple form, network 10
may comprise a single computer located within the educational
institution that combines the functions of server 12, data storage
device 16, and PC 14.
[0116] Computer network 10 is preferably utilized in conventional
ways, in combination with software developed in accordance with
principles of the present invention, so as to input, store and
maintain on data storage device 16 specific data pertaining to the
curriculum, teachers and students of the educational institution
(hereinafter collectively: "educational resource data"). In
accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention,
the software enables the administration of the educational
institution to utilize the inputted and stored educational resource
data so as to efficiently and effectively manage the day-to-day
administration of the institution, including allocating students to
classes, and producing teaching schedules for the teachers and
class schedules for the students.
[0117] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the curriculum of the educational institution is defined
by means of a relatively large number of curriculum modules, each
module encompassing a relatively small, discrete unit of curricular
material. Typically, the modules range in duration from two hours
to 30 hours of instruction time, but may also be of shorter or
longer duration. In certain subjects, such as the humanities and
the social sciences, modules may be of longer average duration. It
is noted that for educational institutions in which schedules must
be assembled as seamlessly as possible, module durations are
typically but not necessarily restricted to a relatively few number
of durations, to make it easier to fit the schedules together as
neatly as possible. For other applications, such as on-site job
training, where the modules are taught as a small subset of a
larger workday and therefore do not have to be fit together as
seamlessly, permissible module durations may generally be more
flexible. Similarly, online learning formats may permit more
flexible durations as well, for some applications. The curricular
modules are typically inter-related one with another in a complex
structure of dependencies. These dependencies may be limited to
individual curricular subjects, but may also cross subjects and be
multidisciplinary in scope.
[0118] Reference will now be made to FIG. 2, which provides a
simplified graphical representation of the dependency structure of
sample curricular modules, in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention. It will be seen from FIG. 2
that the modules define a complex hierarchical structure, in the
form of an acyclic directed graph, in which one or more of the
"higher" modules are dependent on one or more of the "lower"
modules. The dependencies may be "direct" or "distant." Thus, in
FIG. 2--
[0119] Math Module M12 is directly dependent on Math Module M6;
[0120] Chemistry Module C6 is directly dependent on Chemistry
Modules C1, C2 and C3;
[0121] Physics Module P8 is directly dependent on Math Module M12
and Chemistry Module C1;
[0122] Chemistry Module C20 is directly dependent both on Math
Module M12 and on Chemistry Module C14, and it is also distantly
dependent (at one level of distance) on Math Module M6 and on
Chemistry Module C6; and
[0123] Biology Module B34 is directly dependent on Chemistry Module
C20 and it is distantly dependent both on Chemistry Module C14 and
on Math Module M12 (as well as on the more distant modules on which
these latter modules depend).
[0124] In the above dependency structure, for example, the topic of
Chemistry Module C20 may be "Balancing chemical equations," and
this module is dependent both on Math Module M12 ("Basic algebraic
skills") and on Chemistry Module C14 ("The periodic table"), since
a student must know both basic algebra and the elements of the
periodic table in order to learn how to balance chemical
equations.
[0125] It will be appreciated that FIG. 2 provides only a very
partial representation of the complex dependency structure of the
curricular modules of an educational institution, in accordance
with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. Thus, for
example, Math Module M6 is directly and distantly dependent on one
or more "lower" modules which are not shown, and there are also
modules "higher" than Physics Module P18 and Biology Module B34
which are not shown, but nevertheless depend directly and distantly
on either or both of these and/or on other modules not shown. In
addition, certain modules (not shown in FIG. 2) may be directly
dependent on two or more other modules in the alternative, rather
than cumulatively; for example, a module whose subject matter is
"Introduction to Linguistics," may depend either on a module whose
subject matter is "French Syntax" or on a module whose subject
matter is "Spanish Syntax."
[0126] The number of curricular modules comprising the curriculum
of an educational institution will vary from institution to
institution, and will also vary over time within any given
institution, as the teachers develop new curricular material or
redefine the structure of the curriculum. As an example, in a
typical high school there are generally more than 300 curricular
modules comprising the curriculum of grades 9-12. In a typical
university, there would be a much greater number of modules (e.g.,
thousands), although students would only traverse through a small
number of these during their university career. In some educational
institutions (such as high schools), additional modules comprising
remedial content may be included with the standard curricular
modules. In high schools, for example, these would include modules
covering topics typically studied in the lower grades, and in
colleges, these would include modules typically studied in high
schools.
[0127] The large number of curricular modules, in combination with
the complex structure of interdependencies, make it possible for
students to advance through the curriculum of the educational
institution in diverse ways, with each student potentially defining
his own individual pathway through the curriculum. In the
representation of curricular modules in FIG. 2, for example,
students who have completed Math Module M12 have three possible
pathways open to them: (1) advancing to Math Module M26; (2)
advancing to Physics Module P8; and (3) advancing to Chemistry
Module C20 (the latter option is available only to those students
who have also completed Chemistry Module C14). Some students may
advance to all three of these modules in parallel; others may do so
in sequence; and still others may never advance to one or another
of the modules, depending upon their individual programs of
study.
[0128] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the students of an educational institution in which the
principles of the present invention are implemented advance from
one module to another only when they are eligible to do so.
"Eligibility," in this regard, is preferably defined by the
administration and/or teachers of the educational institution by
means of a two-tiered set of rules which establish (a) which
modules are "prerequisites" for other modules, and (b) what level
of competency must be attained by the students in the subject
matter of the prerequisite modules before they are eligible to
advance to the "higher" modules for which the lower modules are
prerequisites.
[0129] In general, a "prerequisite" of a module is every other
module on which the module is directly dependent. However, an
educational institution may determine that one or more distant
modules or levels of modules are also to be considered
"prerequisites" for the modules that depend on them. This may be a
general rule for all the modules taught in the educational
institution, or a more limited rule either for modules of certain
subjects only or for certain modules specifically identified. As an
example, with reference to FIG. 2, Math Module M12 and Chemistry
Module C14 is each a "prerequisite" of Chemistry Module C20.
However, an educational institution may decide that Math Module M6
and Chemistry Module C6 are also "prerequisites" of Chemistry
Module C20.
[0130] Alternatively, the educational institution may establish a
rule that all modules that are one, two, or more dependency levels
below a given module are considered its prerequisites.
[0131] The educational institution also preferably determines the
level of competency that must be attained by students in the
subject matter of the prerequisite modules. In general, this should
be a relatively high level, as evidenced by the students obtaining
at least a specific threshold grade in an assessment of the subject
matter of each of the prerequisite modules. However, the rules in
this regard may be quite flexible. Thus, the educational
institution may determine different threshold grades with respect
to different prerequisite modules, or it may determine one
threshold grade for all modules in one subject area, and a
different threshold grade for all modules in other subject areas.
For example, an educational institution that focuses on math and
science may set a higher threshold grade for all math and science
modules and a lower threshold grade for all modules in the
humanities. In some circumstances, the educational institution may
establish a different threshold grade in certain modules for
certain categories of students (such as learning disabled
students). For example, in certain circumstances, the educational
institution may establish a different threshold grade (required
assessment level to complete a module) in certain modules for
certain classes of students or individual students. This could, for
example, be a strategy for assuring that certain categories of
students graduate on time, if they are having problems in a
particular subject (such as a learning disabled student whose
impairment made a certain subject particularly difficult).
Alternatively, students majoring in a particular topic may have a
higher threshold passing grade for a given module than students who
are not majoring in that topic. Preferably, therefore, the
scheduling algorithm is operative to schedule students to retake a
given module, if appropriate, responsive to the particular passing
threshold set for each student in that module.
[0132] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a
student satisfies the level of competency requirement for certain
modules simply by attending a class or activity. For example, some
classes may have a community service component associated
therewith, for which attendance alone is required.
[0133] The educational institution may also implement some type of
"weighted average grade" across a set of prerequisite modules. In
this case, certain modules are deemed more relevant and therefore
accorded a "heavier" weight than other modules deemed less
relevant, which are accorded a "lighter" weight. A student would be
deemed eligible for a class in a "higher" module if his weighted
average grade across all the prerequisite modules passes a
predetermined threshold, even if he has not yet achieved the
specific threshold grade which is required for one or more of the
individual prerequisite modules. Using such a rule, a student could
become eligible for a class in a "higher" module, but still be
required to complete the prerequisite modules in which he has not
achieved the specific threshold grade required for those
modules.
[0134] The assessment of the students' level of competency may be
based on any method that is pedagogically sound, including the
results of written or oral tests, "portfolios" of student work
(either individually based or group based, or both), and the like.
If assessments are group based (such as a group project), teachers
may decide whether to give each student in the group the same
assessment, or whether to include some individualization of the
assessment, e.g., by including a one-on-one interview component for
the project assessment. In some circumstances, for example upon the
initial implementation of the present invention in an educational
institution, some of the assessments may not be based upon testing
or project work, but upon the reasoned evaluation of a teacher who
is familiar with the student and his abilities. In the event that
actual student assessment information is lacking or is not
available, for a particular module or in general, presumed or
temporary assessments may be provided. Such assessments preferably
would be coded as such, and provision made for obtaining actual
assessments at a later date. Given that prior assessment
information is likely to be based upon entire semesters or quarters
of work, all of the modules that comprise a course already taken
may be coded at the same level of the course, as a temporary
measure until better assessments have been performed, or even
permanently if the modules are deemed less central.
[0135] The information concerning the modules which comprise the
curriculum of the educational institution is preferably stored on
data storage device 16 in a format that makes it possible to
quickly and readily access the information. This may take the form
of a database table, a suitably formatted file, a system of
software objects, or any other data format as is known in the art.
The information that is stored typically comprises one or more
identifiers, which identify each of the curricular modules and the
module or modules on which each module directly depends. Additional
information may also be associated or linked with the identifier of
each module, such as the subject category of the module, the age by
which a student is expected to have achieved competency in the
module, a textual and/or graphical description of the module,
lesson plans for teaching the module, references to the textbooks
being used, including chapters and page numbers, special equipment
needed to teach the modules, and one or more formats in which the
module may be taught, such as an on-line class, a traditional
classroom class, etc.
[0136] In a similar fashion, data storage device 16 is preferably
utilized to store information concerning the students enrolled in
the educational institution. The student information that is stored
typically comprises one or more identifiers identifying each
student, and, when known, his level of competency with respect to
the subject matter of each of the modules. Additional information
may be associated or linked with the basic student information,
such as biographical data, learning disabilities, primary and
secondary languages spoken, medical needs, or other pertinent
data.
[0137] Although each student preferably advances through the
curriculum on an individual basis (as explained above), the
teaching in the educational institutions in which the present
invention is implemented is typically group-based, as it is in
traditional educational institutions. However, the groups or
classes of students are generally not defined by the age of the
students or by "grade" level, as is commonly practiced in most
schools, but rather by the curricular modules and the level of
competency of the students assigned to the classes. In institutions
utilizing principles of the present invention, the software
preferably is operative to select and group together in each of the
classes only those students who are in fact "eligible" for the
classes, based upon the students' levels of competency in the
modules which are prerequisite modules for the module being taught
in the class. As a consequence of this selection process, all or
most of the students in each class will have equivalent or nearly
equivalent skill and knowledge levels with respect to the topic
being taught in the class, and the quality of the teaching and the
learning in the classes will therefore be greatly enhanced.
[0138] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, data storage device 16 is also utilized to store
information concerning the teaching staff of the educational
institution. The teacher information that is stored comprises one
or more identifiers identifying each teacher and his "level of
readiness" to teach each of the modules. Preferably, "level of
readiness" provides a weighted measure not only of the teacher's
formal qualifications to teach the subject matter of the module,
but also of one or more additional factors that impact upon the
quality of his teaching. Such factors may include the degree of the
teacher's interest in teaching the module (as compared to other
modules he is also formally qualified to teach), the success he has
had in the past teaching the module, and the like. In accordance
with a preferred embodiment, the software is operative to assign
teachers to classes in the various modules based upon the teachers'
levels of readiness, so that in general only teachers with a
relatively high level of readiness will be assigned to teach each
of the classes.
[0139] Reference is now made to FIG. 3, which is a simplified
flow-chart of basic procedures that may be utilized to assign
students and teachers to classes, in accordance with one embodiment
of the present invention. It will be appreciated that the method
shown in FIG. 3 and described in the text is just one of many ways
to implement the invention as disclosed herein.
[0140] Procedure 110: The program accesses the educational resource
data stored on data storage device 16, including the curriculum
information, the teacher information, and the student
information.
[0141] Procedure 120: The program computes, for each student, the
set of modules he is eligible to take, based upon (a) the set of
curricular modules he has already taken, and assessments he has
received in those modules; (b) the dependency relationship of the
modules; (c) the rules concerning which modules are prerequisites
of other modules, and what level of competency is needed for
advancement to a higher module; and (d) the student's competency
level in the subject matter of the prerequisite modules. Additional
factors may impact upon the number of modules included in a
student's set of eligible modules; for example, if a student has
elected not to take certain subjects which are offered as part of
the curriculum of the educational institution, the modules
pertaining to these subjects will not be included in the student's
list of eligible modules, even though he may in fact be eligible to
take classes in these modules.
[0142] Procedure 130: The program computes, for each module, a
roster of the students who are eligible to take a class in the
module, based upon the results of Procedure 120.
[0143] Procedure 140: The program sorts the rosters of students
obtained in accordance with Procedure 130 by one or more sort
orders and ranks them accordingly. The sort order may be based on
size (the number of students on each roster), the need to have a
minimum number of students in each class (both now and in the rest
of the school year), on the relative "weight" or importance of the
modules within the overall curriculum of the educational
institution, on the weighted preferences of the teachers or
students to teach or study the modules, or any combination of
these, as determined by the educational institution.
[0144] Procedure 150: The program checks for the availability of a
teacher to teach any of the modules ranked in accordance with
Procedure 140. If a teacher is available, the program proceeds to
Procedure 160. If a teacher is not available, which typically may
occur after many iterations of these procedures as more fully
explained below, the program proceeds to Procedure 230.
[0145] Procedure 160: The program identifies the highest ranked
module for which a teacher is available and selects this module for
scheduling a class.
[0146] Procedure 170: The program selects, from the roster of
students of the module selected in accordance with Procedure 160, a
predetermined number of students and assigns them to a class in the
subject matter of the module. The number of students selected for
the class will be based upon a range of factors as determined by
the administration of the educational institution, such as
classroom size, subject matter of the module, and the like. Which
students are selected from the eligible students will also be based
upon a range of factors, such as the age of the students, the
presence of students requiring special attention, the weighted
preferences of the students for the subject matter of the module,
and the like.
[0147] Procedure 180: The program assigns the available teacher to
the class. If multiple teachers are available to teach the class,
the program chooses the teacher based on a range of factors, such
as teacher preference for teaching the modules, past performance of
the available teachers with the students in the class, and the
like.
[0148] Procedure 190: The program marks the students assigned to
the class as not eligible to subsequently take the module, and
eliminates them from the rosters calculated according to Procedure
130. These modified rosters are used in subsequent iterations of
Procedure 140.
[0149] Procedure 200: The program marks the teacher who has been
assigned to the class as not being available to teach.
[0150] Procedure 210: The program checks whether or not there are
any students who have not yet been assigned to a class. If there
are no students who have not been assigned to a class, the program
proceeds to Procedure 220. If there are students who have not been
assigned to a class, the program proceeds to Procedure 140 and
schedules another class if possible by repeating Procedures 140,
150, 160, 170, 180, 190 and 200.
[0151] Procedure 220: After all students have been assigned to
classes, the program assigns any residual teachers, if there are
any, to one or more non-classroom activities.
[0152] Procedure 230: If there are no teachers available for any of
the ranked modules, which typically will occur after repeated
iterations of the above procedures, the program assigns any
residual students/teachers to a non-classroom activity such as a
study hall, a library session or the like.
[0153] Reference is now made to FIG. 4, which is a simplified
flow-chart of basic procedures that may be utilized to assign
students and teachers to classes, in accordance with another
embodiment of the present invention. It will be appreciated that
the method shown in FIG. 4 and described in the text is just one of
many ways to implement the invention as disclosed herein.
[0154] Procedure 310: The program accesses the educational resource
data stored on data storage device 16, including the curriculum
information, the teacher information, and the student
information.
[0155] Procedure 320: The program computes, for each student, the
set of modules he is eligible to take, based upon (a) the set of
curricular modules he has already taken, and assessments he has
received in these modules; (b) the dependency relationship of the
modules; (c) the rules concerning which modules are prerequisites
of other modules, and what level of competency is needed for
advancement to a higher module; and (d) the student's competency
level in the subject matter of the prerequisite modules. Additional
factors may impact upon the number of modules included in a
student's set of eligible modules; for example, if a student has
elected not to take certain subjects which are offered as part of
the curriculum of the educational institution, the modules
pertaining to these subjects will not be included in the student's
list of eligible modules, even though he may in fact be eligible to
take classes in these modules.
[0156] Procedure 330: The program creates a list of potential
classes, based upon the results of Procedure 320, creating a class
for each module for which there is at least a predetermined minimum
number of eligible students. In the event the number of students
eligible for a class in a module is greater than the maximum
permitted class size, the program may compute the number of
parallel classes needed to accommodate all the students and add
these to the list of potential classes.
[0157] Procedure 340: The program makes an assignment of students
to the classes on the list of classes based upon an assignment
algorithm which maximizes an overall objective function with
respect to the modules and the students of the educational
institution. The selection of classes from among the list of
classes and the selection of students from among those eligible for
a class is based upon one or more weighted parameters, as more
fully described herein below, such as the relative importance of
the module within the framework of the curriculum of the
educational institution, the students' weighted "preference" for
specific modules from among a choice of modules, and the like. In
this initial assignment, the program is operative to assign each
student to a single class, without any constraint being imposed
with regard to the number of teachers available. At the conclusion
of this procedure, the number of classes to which students have
been assigned typically will be very much larger than the number of
teachers available to teach at any one time. In the event multiple
parallel classes for a single module were created in Procedure 330,
students typically will be assigned so as to fill each class in
turn; however, under certain circumstances, several of the classes
may only be partially filled.
[0158] Procedure 350: The classes to which students have been
assigned in accordance with Procedure 340 are ranked on the basis
of their contribution ("utility") to the overall objective
function. A fraction of those with the lowest utility are
eliminated, subject to override based upon specific needs of the
students or the educational institution. For example, a class with
less than the minimum number of students would not be eliminated if
it were absolutely essential for the students who were assigned to
the class to take the class at that time. Similarly, a
predetermined number of classes from each subject category would
not be eliminated, so as to maintain a distribution of classes
across the various subject categories.
[0159] The program repeats Procedure 340, reassigning the students
and redistributing them among the classes remaining after the
elimination of the fraction of low utility classes in accordance
with Procedure 350. If the number of classes is equal to or less
than the number of available teachers, the program continues with
Procedure 360; otherwise, the program repeats Procedure 350, again
eliminating a fraction of those with the lowest utility. The loop
ends when the number of classes to which the students are assigned
is equal to or less than the number of available teachers.
[0160] Procedure 360: The program assigns the available teachers to
the classes to which students have been assigned at the conclusion
of one or more iterations of Procedure 340, based upon an
assignment algorithm for the teachers which maximizes an overall
objective function with respect to the modules of the selected
classes and the students assigned to the classes. The assignment of
the teachers is based upon the teachers' degree of readiness to
teach a class in each of the modules (as explained above) and one
or more additional weighted parameters, more fully described herein
below, such as the expected performance of the group of students
who have been assigned to each class with the assigned teacher, in
view of the combined past performance of the students with the
teacher.
[0161] Procedure 370: The program reassigns and redistributes the
students among the classes to which teachers have been assigned,
utilizing a refined utility function for each student based upon
not only the criteria of Procedure 340 but also upon the student's
expected performance with the teacher assigned to the class. This
has the effect of redistributing the students among the classes to
which teachers have been assigned in a manner that maximizes the
students' chances of success with the teachers. In the event that,
at the end of Procedure 360, no teacher has been assigned to a
class to which students have been assigned during the last
iteration of Procedure 340, the class is eliminated prior to the
execution of Procedure 370, and Procedure 370 is executed only with
reference to the classes to which teachers have been assigned.
[0162] Procedure 380: In the event that, at the conclusion of
Procedure 370, one or more teachers have not been assigned to
classes, or one or more students have not been assigned to a class,
the program will typically assign such students to an alternative
activity, such as study hall, and may assign such teachers to a
non-classroom activity, such as tutoring, study hall supervision
and the like.
[0163] It will be appreciated that the procedures set forth above
with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4 may be invoked not only to
selectively assign students and teachers to classes, but also to
produce a schedule of the classes being taught in the educational
institution. In this embodiment of the invention, the software
program is operative to repeatedly select and assign students and
teachers to classes, and to do so as many times as needed, so as to
cover any predetermined period of time, such as a full school day,
several weeks, or longer.
[0164] The basic procedures for assigning students and teachers to
classes over extended periods of time are similar to those outlined
with reference to FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, but include adaptations and
additions which are necessary or desired to take into account the
element of time that is an essential feature of such a scheduling
program. Thus, after all the students have been assigned to
classes, in accordance with the procedures of FIG. 3 or FIG. 4,
these classes would be scheduled for the first period of the school
day. The program would then be operative to start the selection and
assignment process again, after eliminating the module to which
each student has been assigned from the student's list of eligible
modules. (If, after a student has completed all classes in the
module, he is found not to have achieved the minimum competency
level required for the module, the module would once again be
included in the student's list of eligible modules.) This same
limitation would not apply to the teachers, since there is nothing
wrong with the same teacher teaching the same module to different
students even several times a day (although some limitation to
prevent "burn-out" could be implemented in an embodiment of the
invention). The process of selection and assignment to classes is
repeated until all class periods for a given day are scheduled, and
a similar process is carried out for each day of a predetermined
number of days. Preferably, due to the dynamic nature of the
scheduling process, the advance scheduling is done for relatively
short periods of time, for as many weeks or months in advance as
are needed to give the teachers time to prepare and the students
time to get the necessary class materials, etc. However, the
scheduling may also be done for shorter periods of time, such as
days, or longer periods of time, such as a half-year or
greater.
[0165] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, in cases where
scheduling is done for a period of time that includes multiple
consecutive modules (such as a 3-month period which features
several sets of consecutive 1-month modules), the schedule may be
generated a few months out and then revised as new information
comes in regarding student success or failure in the earlier set of
modules. In this case students and teachers would be given their
schedules for several months out, but then given revised schedules
in the case of changes.
[0166] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the scheduler
may also be operative to assign assessment tasks to teachers. So,
for example, an educational institution may have as a general
default that all teachers do all assessments for their own classes.
Alternatively, the teachers within a given teaching department may
rotate grading or conducting assessments amongst themselves for
each other's classes in order to help produce a more transparent
and standardized assessment within the educational institution.
Alternatively a certain amount of rotation and a certain amount of
grading one's own classes could be used. Third party assessments
(such as state assessment exams or assessments provided by private
companies) may also be used to provide greater standardization, as
appropriate.
[0167] The schedule of classes produced in accordance with the
present invention may be articulated in various ways. The simplest
is a daily listing in terms of "class periods," for example, 1st
period, 2nd period, etc. In a more complex version, the schedule
provides actual time slots for each of the classes, indicating
start time and/or end time, as required by the administration of
the educational institution. Preferably, the schedule also
indicates the classroom number for each of the classes, based upon
the information inputted into data storage device 16 with regard to
the physical facilities of the educational institution, including
the maximum number of students that can be accommodated in each of
the classrooms, and special features that may be contained or
associated with any of the classrooms (such as a laboratory, a
screening room, etc.). Further preferably, the schedule is
optimized with respect to these parameters, and/or with respect to
one or more of the other parameters described herein, and/or with
respect to parameters which would be deemed suitable for
optimization by a person of ordinary skilled in the art upon
reading this description.
[0168] In addition to producing a schedule of classes for the
educational institution as a whole, the program preferably produces
individual schedules, providing each teacher with a schedule of the
classes he is expected to teach, and each student with a schedule
of the classes he is expected to attend.
[0169] In accordance with a preferred embodiment, which would be
particularly useful for an educational institution having a large
campus and many classroom buildings, the database would also
include information about the relative distances between the
various classrooms, and the scheduling program would take this
information into account when assigning teachers and students to
classes, so as to minimize the distances teachers and students
would have to traverse when moving from class to class.
[0170] The proper implementation of some embodiments of the present
invention utilizes information reflective of assessments of the
students' competency levels in the various curriculum modules. Such
assessments preferably are inputted into the database by the
teachers or by the school administration on an ongoing basis, and
are immediately available for utilization by the software for
purposes of future scheduling of classes.
[0171] In a preferred embodiment, the program is also operative to
include "assessments" as part of the scheduling process. For
example, for modules of relatively brief duration, the program
would be operative to automatically schedule a period of
predetermined length, dedicated to the assessment of the students,
at a predetermined period of time after completion of all classes
in the subject matter of the module. Such an assessment period may
be scheduled for the students who have completed a specific module,
or for a larger group, comprising students from several modules
each of whom will be assessed on the subject matter of the specific
module he has completed. In some cases, the assessment of the
students may occur within the time slots allocated for teaching the
module, and no specific assessment period would then be
scheduled.
[0172] The information concerning the various possible forms of
assessment may be associated with the basic information for each
module, or may be associated with the basic information for each
teacher. The latter arrangement would allow each teacher the
freedom to decide which type of assessment technique to employ,
including when the students should be assessed, whether they should
be assessed individually or in groups, whether the groups should
include only the students of the module or also students of
additional modules, the duration of the assessment period, and the
range of time, if any, that should intervene between the completion
of the teaching of the module and the assessment period.
[0173] The results of assessments are preferably inputted into the
database on an ongoing basis, and are then available for use by the
program for purposes of scheduling new classes. The inputting may
be manual, but if the assessment mechanism is computer-based and
graded, then the input may be automatic.
[0174] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, students may repeat a module several times on their way
to achieving the necessary level of competency. Preferably each
time a student repeats a module, he will be given more attention to
assist in achieving the necessary level of competency. For example,
he may be assigned to a smaller class, he may be given a more
competent teacher in the module, or he may be assigned a tutor to
assist him.
[0175] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, and as elaborated in several examples herein below, the
administration and/or teachers of an educational institution may
assign different "weighted values" to the various modules, certain
modules being deemed "heavier" and others deemed "lighter." (This
weighting of the modules is distinct from the weighting of modules
in their role as prerequisites for other modules, as described
above.) The modules accorded a heavier weight are typically those
that comprise the "core" of the curriculum.
[0176] The weighted values assigned to the various modules are then
utilized by the program as a factor in the process of selecting
students and assigning them to classes. Modules that have been
assigned a higher weighted value, because they comprise the core of
the curriculum, will be accorded greater emphasis and priority.
[0177] In certain circumstances, for example in colleges, the
weighting of certain modules may vary as a function of the student
populations that will be assigned to classes in the modules. For
example, one or more math modules, which are, required both for
chemistry majors and for math majors may have one weight (or a
range of weights) for the chemistry majors and a different weight
(or range of weights) for the math majors.
[0178] The weighting of the modules may have additional application
for the scheduling process. For example, the educational
institution may decide that the students in the school are required
to repeat one or more times classes in the core modules (even
though they have achieved competency in the module), and the
program would then be operative to schedule students for such
repeat classes at certain intervals. In addition, the various core
modules may have associated with them several different teaching
and assessment methods, such that for each repetition of the
module, students will be exposed to a different teaching and/or
assessment method. For example, a module may first be taught in a
standard lecture format with the assessment in the form of a
multiple-choice quiz, and when repeated it would be taught in the
form of a hands-on activity with a written project as the
assessment method.
[0179] The weighting of the modules can also be used for purposes
of preferential assignment of teachers to teach the modules. For
example, in the assignment of teachers for core modules, the
teachers who have a higher competency level than other qualified
teachers would be selected first as teachers of the core
modules.
[0180] The weighting of the modules may also be utilized as a basis
for the timing and scheduling of assessments. For example, the
educational institution may decide that students should be
repetitively assessed in the subject matter of the core modules,
and the program would be operative to schedule assessment periods
for these modules at appropriate times and intervals.
[0181] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention,
the students of an educational institution would also be able to
indicate their weighted preferences for certain aspects of the
curriculum, and this information would be utilized by the
scheduling program for preferential assignment of the students to
classes. In one application of this concept, the students would
indicate their preferences with respect to various curricular
subjects or categories (not individual modules), providing an
indication that they prefer to spend more time learning certain
subjects than others. In such an event, the scheduling program
would maximize the assignment of students to classes in modules
that fall within these curricular subjects or categories. In
another application, the students would be able to access the list
of modules for which they were eligible, and input a weight for
each of them. The scheduling program would utilize this information
in maximizing the objective function for assigning the students to
classes, as explained above. In general, however, a student's
preferences would not be taken into account if he failed to achieve
competency in one or more modules and the differential between his
actual age and the standard age at which competency in the modules
was expected to have been achieved exceeded a predetermined
maximum. In such an event, the student would typically be assigned
to classes in these modules regardless of his preferences.
[0182] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the teachers of an educational institution may be
accorded the option of determining one or more parameters that have
pedagogical significance for the modules that they teach. For
example, different teachers may prefer to have different amounts of
time to teach the same module. In such a case, teachers who prefer
more or less teaching time than the standard would be able to
indicate the duration they need. Another example would be special
equipment or special teaching conditions, such as a biology teacher
determining that a particular module on ecology should be taught on
a riverbank rather than in a classroom. The teacher would input
this special requirement, and the program would be operative to
schedule that meeting place for the class, rather than a
classroom.
[0183] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention,
the teachers of an educational institution may combine one or more
modules into a single "super-module." This would be particularly
useful for purposes of teaching an inter-disciplinary project,
involving several topics which may not be inter-related on the
basis of the normal dependency structure of the curricular modules.
However, it could also be used for other purposes, such as to
assure that a sequence of several modules within the same subject
be taught as a unit, rather than as individual modules spread out
over an unknown period of time. The combining of several modules
into a single "super-module" preferably is temporary, and the
definitions of the individual modules remain intact. Students would
be eligible to take a "super-module" only if they have fulfilled
the prerequisites for all of the modules involved. The flexible use
of "super-modules" can be a powerful tool for teachers in
developing new and innovative approaches to the teaching of various
topics, without necessitating a restructuring of the curriculum as
a whole. For example, a super-module entitled "Solar Energy as an
Alternative Source of Power" may combine modules from biology,
chemistry, and physics.
[0184] A preferred embodiment of the invention will schedule
several months in advance, so that teachers will have adequate time
to prepare classes. In cases where the invention schedules in
advance two or more consecutive modules at a time, the invention
may be operative to force modules in a given sequence to be offered
consecutively, even though prior modules have not yet been assessed
as mastered. So, for example, the math department may prefer to
promote a particular pathway through the math curriculum that
consists of modules M35, M36, and M37, because these modules are
highly related and teachers prefer that they be taught
consecutively. If the staff wanted to force the modules to be
taught together in consecutive order regardless of how students do
in the earlier module(s) (M35, M36), they could create a
super-module out of modules M34, M35, and M36, and all three would
be generally guaranteed to be taught in one sequence with no gaps
of time in between.
[0185] However, if the staff wished only to typically keep these
three modules in consecutive order (with no significant gaps
therebetween in students' schedules), but also wished to permit the
modules to be repeated (prior to continuing the sequence) should
students not do well enough in the earlier modules, the staff could
preferably so indicate. The scheduler would then be operative to
schedule the modules for students in consecutive order in advance,
but would also be operative to subsequently reschedule students out
of the sequence (or into repetition of earlier modules and back
into the sequence) should the students not pass the earlier
modules.
[0186] In one preferred embodiment of the invention, the program
would by default schedule students in consecutive modules and then
reschedule students who fail to pass earlier modules in the
sequence. In another embodiment of the invention, the program would
allow teaching staff to indicate that they wished certain
consecutive modules to be scheduled in sequence without significant
gaps in time therebetween, or else the program would naturally put
gaps between the consecutive modules to make sure students had been
assessed and had passed previous modules in a sequence before being
placed in subsequent modules.
[0187] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, teaching staff
would indicate which module sequences should preferably be given in
consecutive order (without gaps in time between them), and the
scheduler would be operative to prioritize scheduling those modules
consecutively in advance, and to reschedule them when necessary.
Alternatively or additionally, the scheduling algorithms could be
biased towards putting modules consecutively for certain sequences
of modules, in accordance with indicated choices of teaching staff.
Teaching staff could indicate through "connection strengths"
between modules how important it is to place them consecutively,
and the scheduler could be operative to focus on consecutive
placement of modules with the greatest connection strengths between
them, wherever possible. For example, a connection strength could
be represented as a number between 0 and 100, where 0 would
indicate no necessity to put two modules consecutively in order
without gaps, and 100 would preferably force the scheduler to
consecutively schedule two (or more) modules. Alternatively, the
scheduler could be operative to schedule modules in consecutive
order when possible, without any indication of connection strengths
between modules.
[0188] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the program may also be operative to assign students to
classes responsive to the student information concerning primary
and secondary languages spoken, written, and read by each of the
students. This embodiment of the invention will be particularly
useful in achieving the maximum integration of students for whom
English is not a native language with students for whom English is
a native language, so as to enhance their opportunities to learn
English. In this embodiment, at least some of the modules will have
associated therewith an indication of the minimal competency level
in English that is required for a non-native speaking student to be
assigned to a class in the module together with native English
speakers (the class being taught in English). Similarly, at least
some of the modules will have associated therewith an indication of
the minimum competency level in English (probably lower than the
previous level) that is required for assigning such students to a
class to be taught in English exclusively for non-native speakers.
Non-native speakers whose competency level in English is even lower
may be assigned to a class in the module taught in their native
tongue. In another embodiment, certain modules may be identified as
being especially useful for integrating native and non-native
speakers, and the program would be operative to assign students to
classes in these modules such that appropriate proportions of
native and non-native speakers are present in these classes.
[0189] The competency levels of the students may be based on
standardized tests or assessments of the students in one or more
relevant language modules. The minimal competency level may be a
single measure for overall English language skills (speaking,
reading and/or writing), or may consist of separate measures for
each of speaking, reading, writing, and other language skills. In
the latter case, a weighted average measure of each of the separate
measures may be used to determine student eligibility to take a
given module taught in English. For example, the teaching staff may
decide that a primarily visual/spatial geometry math module
requires greater competency in spoken English than in writing or
reading ability. Although these embodiments of the invention have
been described with reference to English as the primary language,
it is appreciated that similar applications are possible with
reference to any other language as the primary language, and with
multiple additional secondary languages.
[0190] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, not all modules
have strictly academic content. For example, some modules may be in
sports. Others may be in the arts. Some of these modules (e.g.,
music) may be placed in the curriculum hierarchy with prerequisites
indicated. However, other modules may be excluded from the
necessity of prerequisites, and may therefore be offered in
generally any order. For example, students may select from amongst
different choices for their physical education classes, and the
ordering of those modules typically does not matter. In these
cases, the scheduling algorithms may be operative to schedule these
modules last, as fillers or as relatively low priority items in the
scheduling process. As appropriate, these may be scheduled based
only on certain minimum requirements, such as gym class twice a
week in a class having students of the same general physical age.
In this manner, greater flexibility can be gained for other modules
where scheduling priority is more crucial for student success, due
to the nature of the subject matter.
[0191] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the scheduler
may also be operative to schedule in certain other non-academic
time periods, such as lunch periods or study halls. These time
periods may be treated as modules, or may be simply blocked out for
certain students for certain parts of the schedule (e.g., a
rotating lunch period across a large high school). Alternatively,
these periods may be scheduled as very long (e.g., up to one year
in length) modules, to prevent the need for continuous
scheduling.
[0192] It is generally recognized that peer tutoring is an
important pedagogical tool with many benefits, including serving as
a useful review of the topic for the tutor, helping the tutor to
think about the topic in a new manner, helping the tutor to develop
useful skills, and helping the tutee to learn the material in a
close, one-on-one situation. Despite this fact, most traditional
educational institutions rarely take advantage on a large scale of
the benefits of peer tutoring, and few incorporate it as an
important part of their pedagogical program. In accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the present invention, peer tutoring may be
utilized as a significant educational resource, providing major
benefits both for the students and for the teachers of educational
institutions in which the present invention is implemented.
[0193] In accordance with a preferred embodiment, once a student
has achieved a high enough competency level in the subject matter
of one or more modules, or groups of modules, he becomes eligible
in principle to tutor another student in the subject matter of
these modules. In accordance with a preferred embodiment, the
scheduling program is then operative to schedule tutoring sessions
for the tutor and a tutee, who typically may be a student who is
weak in a subject category, but may also be any student who has
indicated an interest in being tutored. The tutoring sessions may
be scheduled to take place in one or several time frameworks--after
the tutee has finished taking a formal class in the module (so as
to help him review the material prior to an assessment); in
parallel with the tutee's participation in a formal class in the
module (so as to help the tutee learn the subject matter of the
module on an ongoing basis); before the tutee has taken a formal
class in the subject matter of the module (this may be particularly
helpful for tutees who do not do well in formal class settings), or
in place of the student taking the class in a formal class setting,
should the tutor be sufficiently competent.
[0194] The utilization of students as tutors, in the context of
this embodiment of the present invention, has far-reaching
consequences for the efficiency of the scheduling of classes in the
educational institution. When used properly, the scheduling of
tutor-tutee pairs will enable significant reduction of the average
class size, which, in and of itself, will have a beneficial impact
on the quality of the learning and teaching in the educational
institution.
[0195] When the present invention is first implemented in an
educational institution, it is expected that only a small number of
students will be eligible for tutoring. However, in time, it is
expected that a substantial proportion of the student body will be
involved in student-to-student tutoring, such that at any given
time 20 percent of the student population may be functioning as
tutors and another 20 percent will be engaged as tutees. With 40
percent of the student population engaged in tutor-tutee pairs, the
class size for the remaining 60 percent of the student population
will be substantially reduced. In certain educational situations
(such as apprenticeships), the percentage of tutor-tutee pairs
could be significantly higher. In the high school setting, a
certain degree of teacher supervision is typically appropriate in
connection with the tutoring. However, since each tutor-tutee pair
does not need a separate classroom and many pairs may be
accommodated at the same time in a large room, such as a library or
auditorium, only a few teachers will be used as supervisors
(qualified volunteers and teaching aids may also be used to work
with the teachers to help supervise large numbers of students),
thereby making it possible to better allocate and utilize the
teaching resources of the educational institution. In fact, by
using currently under-utilized rooms of a school (such as the
auditorium, lunchroom, or library of a high school), for both
tutor-tutee sessions and even for regular classes, in accordance
with the present invention, the present invention may have the
additional highly beneficial effect of ameliorating classroom
overcrowding without having to build new physical classrooms,
thereby saving large sums of money while improving classroom
conditions for both students and teachers.
[0196] In a corporate job training setting, the large scale use of
peer to peer tutoring in accordance with an embodiment of the
present invention will make it possible to minimize the number of
trainers required to be hired to teach the employees at the
corporation, thereby minimizing expense. In effect, the
implementation of embodiments of the present invention will permit
expertise to ripple across an organization in a highly effective
fashion. The invention could also be programmed to provide
summaries to management of the total training needs of the
corporation, and note where that training is available internally
and where it will be necessary to bring in outside trainers. Using
this summary information, management may negotiate for much better
rates for outside trainers in package deals. Software configured in
accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention
could also be programmed to compare the cost (in terms of salary
and the like) of using employees as trainers versus hiring outside
professionals.
[0197] The incorporation of tutor-tutee pairs within the framework
of the scheduling program will have the added benefit of enhancing
the flexibility of the scheduling process itself. Since, for
scheduling purposes, every student who is eligible to be a tutor
can be treated as if he were a "teacher," and since every
tutor-tutee pair can be treated as a "class," the number of
"teachers" available for assignment to classes and the number of
potential classes for assignment are vastly increased. As a
consequence, the number of possible groupings into classes of
students and teachers also increases greatly, which makes it
possible for the program to optimize more efficiently the various
parameters that are taken into account in the scheduling process.
Most preferably, many of the students who would otherwise have been
scheduled for study hall can be selected to be either tutors or
tutees.
[0198] Educational institutions in which aspects of the present
invention will be instituted will also be better able to
accommodate and provide for the needs of students with learning
disabilities and for special education. In particular, they will be
able to maximize the integration of students with learning
disabilities in classes with other students, without sacrificing
the special attention that such students may need. In accordance
with one preferred embodiment, students having special educational
needs would be so identified in the database, and the scheduling
program would be operative to schedule such students in classes
based upon one or more rules that the educational institution has
determined with respect to such students. For example, students
identified as suffering from attention deficit disorder (ADD) would
be preferentially assigned to smaller classes, since ADD students
do better in smaller classes in which the distractions of other
students, which is a special problem for ADD children, is
minimized. Preferably, these smaller classes would also include
students who do not suffer from ADD, thereby promoting the
integration of the ADD students within the general school
population and providing the non-ADD students with the benefits of
closer contact with a teacher in a smaller class. In accordance
with another preferred embodiment, teachers who have special
training and skills in teaching students with specific disabilities
(for example, students who are visually impaired), would be
preferentially assigned as teachers of classes which include
students identified in the database as requiring such specialized
skills, for all classes to which they are assigned, or for specific
modules where the need is greatest.
[0199] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, various categories of learning disabilities (e.g.,
dyslexia, ADD, and the like) may be specified in data storage
device 16. In addition, the degree of disability within each
category may also be specified (for example, by a number between 0
and 100, or by any other technique considered useful by specialists
in the field). Teachers, administrators, learning disability, and
curricular specialists may then determine, for any given module,
which students with learning disabilities may be integrated with
students without the disabilities. For example, it may be
determined that students with certain forms of visual impairment
should be educated separately in geometry modules but may be
integrated with students without disabilities in modules which do
not require as much visual work, such as modules in poetry or
history. Or it may be more precisely determined that only students
with visual impairments of a particular degree or higher need be
separated out. The result would be a far greater integration of
learning disabled students into regular schools in the conditions
most effective for their success and for the success of the regular
students. Information regarding which learning disabilities mix
well with others (and in what degrees) could be specified in
storage device 16 and used by the scheduling algorithms as well,
for the best possible integration of learning disabled students
with each other and with the rest of the student body.
[0200] Teacher retraining and preparation may also be given special
emphasis in a preferred embodiment of the invention. Specifically,
the scheduling algorithms may be focused in such a way as to use
data regarding teacher competency to enhance the opportunities for
teacher retraining by the teaching staff of the educational
institution itself. Thus, teachers who have been determined to be
"master teachers" (based upon past teacher performance with
students) may be scheduled to teach a class for other teachers in
how to teach a particular module. Similarly, a teacher who requires
training in a particular module may be assigned to observe a master
teacher teaching a class of students in that module, or the master
teacher may be assigned as an observer of a class in that module
taught by another teacher who has not been successful in the past
in teaching that module (based on student assessment data). These
methods of training, when scheduled at opportune times (such as
before a teacher must teach a particular module), can be used to
improve the training of a particular department or subject in a
particular set of modules, or to cross-train teachers from one
department or subject in modules in another, such as by training
physics teachers to help teach chemistry. In addition, by
scheduling training sessions appropriately, and by combining this
scheduling with the specialized coding of modules according to how
they may require specialized teaching for different categories of
learning disability (mentioned above), the scheduler can
effectively disseminate training that regular teachers need to
teach learning disabled students in various modules. It can do this
on a "just in time" basis--where teachers receive the training
shortly before they must teach the module, or it can do it on a
generalized training model, where the teaching staff of an
educational institution is slowly ramped up in their abilities to
teach particular modules and/or to teach children with particular
learning disabilities, independent of the actual schedule of
classes.
[0201] It is noted that some embodiments of the present invention
do not limit the scheduler to the creation of classes in which
students all have equal levels of mastery of all of the
prerequisites, i.e., completely homogeneous classes. These
embodiments can instead use the various prerequisite techniques
described herein (e.g., the use of weighted averages across a
number of prerequisites to a given module) in order to create more
heterogeneous classes based on mixing students of differing
prerequisite mastery levels. For some applications, administrators
weaken the prerequisite requirements for some students to enter
certain modules, while for other applications, the administrators
may increase the prerequisite requirements for some students to
enter a module. It is to be understood that some subjects are
taught more effectively with a more heterogeneous approach and
others with a more homogenous approach, and that some preferred
embodiments of the present invention are configured to allow
administrators to define a level of heterogeneity for some or all
modules taught in their school. An analysis of the database of
assessments stored in data storage device 16 can provide
administrators with useful feedback in this regard, as can the
direct feedback of students.
[0202] By using these techniques to vary the prerequisite
requirements across students, the scheduler can be used to create
more heterogeneous classes, as appropriate, in a systematic manner
for certain (or even all) parts of the curriculum. Educational
staff may find that it is helpful for student success to put
students with lower success rates into more heterogeneous classes,
for example. Alternatively, a university level one week module
entitled, "Free will: A neuroscience perspective" might
advantageously have higher prerequisite requirements for students
majoring in biology and philosophy, and somewhat lower prerequisite
requirements for students taking the module simply to fulfill a
distribution requirement.
[0203] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, greater heterogeneity in a class is obtained, while
requiring the students assigned to the class to have generally the
same prerequisite mastery level, by the scheduling program: (a)
analyzing the database to see how quickly students progress through
modules in each subject, and (b) subsequently trying to mix into a
given class students of different abilities who have completed the
prerequisites for the class. Similarly, student feedback could be
used to purposefully have the scheduler mix different types of
students into common classes.
[0204] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, required
threshold grades for less central modules in the curriculum are
automatically lowered for students who are not going through the
curriculum fast enough. To do this, for example, the scheduling
algorithm may look at the weights which are indicative of how
central the modules are to the core curriculum, and lower the
threshold passing grades for modules with lower weights, if
appropriate for certain students. This procedure is preferably done
responsive to administrator input indicating how much latitude the
scheduling algorithm has to automatically adjust required threshold
passing grade levels.
[0205] In a preferred embodiment, an absolute minimum threshold
grade is designated for particular modules, subjects, or the whole
school. Alternatively or additionally, a set of allowable lower
limits is defined which depends upon the centrality of each module
to the curriculum (as represented by the weight attached to it).
Following is an example of such a set, where the weights that
represent how central a module is to the curriculum vary from 1 to
100:
[0206] For weights of 1 to 25, the threshold passing grade is
70%.
[0207] For weights of 26 to 50, the threshold passing grade is
80%.
[0208] For weights of 51 to 75, the threshold passing grade is
85%.
[0209] For weights of 76 to 100, the threshold passing grade is
90%.
[0210] For some applications, the educational institution may
initially require students to achieve a 90% threshold grade in all
modules, but upon finding students who take too many repetitions of
certain modules to pass (or who cannot consistently achieve that
goal), the variable thresholds described above could be used
instead.
[0211] In preferred embodiments of the invention, the program
alerts the administration in circumstances where students
(individuals, students of certain ages or levels, or students
across the entire educational institution) are not making adequate
progress relative to a standard level of progress expected for
their level of study. This allows the administration to evaluate if
they are teaching too much content, need to lower threshold grades,
or use other strategies, such as scheduling additional classes
after school and the like. In a preferred embodiment of the
invention, educational staff will be able to modify threshold grade
requirements for particular modules, subjects, or the entire
curriculum as appropriate. It is to be understood that variable
threshold passing grades may be determined according to whatever
assessment method the educational institution uses for particular
modules, and could be based on exams, quizzes, homework, and the
like, or could be based on the results of projects or
interviews.
[0212] Preferably, the output of the scheduling algorithm
comprises:
[0213] (a) a list of modules which each student is studying, noting
also the name of the responsible teacher and the time of
instruction;
[0214] (b) for all teachers, which modules they are teaching,
noting also the students in the class and the scheduling of the
class;
[0215] (c) for classes, the overall master schedule for the
educational institution;
[0216] (d) for tutoring sessions, information such as the time,
location, participants, and module covered for each tutoring
session; and
[0217] (e) additional information, as appropriate, such as which
classrooms (if any) modules are scheduled in, which formats (e.g.,
online or person-to-person) are used, which teaching styles are
used, etc.
[0218] It is noted that the scheduling algorithms that generate the
various teacher, student, and class schedules can be operative to
generate the schedules in a variety of different orders, and do not
necessarily need to generate schedules in a sequential order, e.g.,
from 9 AM March 1 through 3 PM March 31. Also, the scheduling
algorithms do not necessarily need to fill in one class entirely
before scheduling the next class. For example, the scheduling
algorithms may be configured in such a manner as to schedule the
most difficult-to-schedule students for many modules over a
relatively long time frame, before scheduling other students. An
example of a student who may be generally more difficult to
schedule would be a learning disabled student, such as one who has
a severe case of dyslexia and has very specialized requirements,
for whom only a limited number of teachers have been found to be
effective. Another example would be an ADD (Attention Deficit
Disorder) student, who preferably sits in classes having relatively
few children, in order to be able to properly focus on the lesson
at hand without being overly distracted by other students. The
scheduling algorithms may schedule this ADD student into a large
number of modules before the other students are scheduled, in order
to be sure the student is placed in small enough classes before
these classes are filled.
[0219] For some applications, certain modules are designated by
teaching staff or administrators as critical at a given time for a
significant group of students to meet graduation requirements. In
this case, the critical modules may be scheduled out far in
advance, before other modules are scheduled.
[0220] In one embodiment of the invention, the scheduling
algorithms may generate a skeleton (partially filled in) schedule
over a fairly long period of time, and then schedule the other
classes around that skeleton schedule in the optimal manner. A
variety of different blended approaches like this are preferably
provided, which combine determining a certain part of the schedule
in a more rigid fashion, and permitting other parts of the schedule
to be varied by the scheduler as appropriate.
[0221] It is noted that although the scheduling algorithms
typically determine the educational institution's classes a certain
period of time in advance, there may be temporary "jagged edges" in
the schedule (that is, not all classes will necessarily end at
precisely the same end point), especially towards the end of the
period. Thus, if the scheduling algorithms are scheduling in
advance by about 3 months, some student schedules may have some
classes that end after the 3 month period, because the duration of
some modules extend the schedule beyond the 3 month time frame. If
it is desired, these jagged edges can be removed, for example by
the use of study halls, but typically the scheduling algorithms are
quite flexible in this regard, and only removed jagged edges at the
onset of the end of a term. In a preferred application, an
educational institution determines schedules for about 3 months in
advance, but then performs some rescheduling each month as new
assessment information is obtained (for example, if some students
do not achieve the threshold grade for a module and need to repeat
it).
[0222] It is noted that there are many ways to organize schedules,
and that the scheduling algorithms may be implemented to fit a
variety of different strategies. Some high schools, for example,
use a 5 period day with about 1 hour per period. It could be
decided that most modules and their assessments should take 15
hours at 1 hour per day, i.e., 15 school days. If the high school
were generating schedules 3 months in advance, therefore, they will
typically schedule in a given time slot about 4 modules for the
three month period. In other words, a student may have a 1st module
in Period 1 for the first 3 weeks, then a 2nd module in Period 1
for the next 3 weeks, then a 3rd module in Period 1 for the next 3
weeks, then a 4th module in Period 1 for the last 3 weeks of the 3
month period.
[0223] In another example, if a high school uses a block schedule,
it could decide that some 3 week long modules are to be either 2.5
hours per day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or Monday, Wednesday and
Friday for the same 3 weeks for 100 minutes per day. The scheduling
algorithms would preferably be operative to schedule modules across
the different formats, and should teachers or school administrators
prefer, modules could be associated with particular scheduling
formats (such as six 2.5 hour sessions versus nine 100 minute
sessions).
[0224] Advantageously, scheduling in a variety of different orders
using a combination of modularizing the curriculum and mapping
dependency relationships between the modules, allows administrators
to discover and exploit flexibility inherent in the curriculum that
is generally not revealed using tools of the prior art. If an
entire K-12 curriculum, for example, consists of 600 modules, it
could easily be that a given student is ready to take 50 or 60 of
them at a given time. In a traditional educational institution,
such as a high school, a student typically studies content that
correlates with approximately five of those modules, and is likely
being made to learn at least some content which correlates with
modules from among the other 540 or 550 modules that he is not
ready to take, or has already mastered at the time he is taking
that content.
[0225] It is noted that for many applications described herein,
schedules for the different students will tend to differ
significantly, as the students make their way individually through
mastering the curriculum offered by the educational institution.
For other applications, however, a bias is operative in the
scheduling algorithms to facilitate keeping groups of generally
similar students together, sometimes even at the expense of other
parameters to be optimized, such as class size or preferred
learning styles. Such applications are preferable in educational
institutions which decide that it is particularly important to
promote group cohesion by keeping the same students together over
many modules.
[0226] An educational institution may decide that certain parts of
its schedule should continue to be determined in the traditional
format, in which case the scheduling algorithms could be set to
schedule around those periods of time. So, for example, a religious
school may want to have religious studies in a traditional format
during the first half of every day, and then have the scheduler
schedule the second half of the day. Alternatively, the school may
designate the morning for religious studies for half of the student
body and the afternoon for religious studies for the other half, in
which case the scheduler will for any given time work with
whichever students are available and required to be scheduled by
it.
[0227] It is known in the field of education that on occasion some
students become "phobic" in a subject area, i.e., they become
convinced that they cannot do well in a particular subject, such as
math or history. The scheduling algorithms are preferably operative
to dynamically and automatically provide a greater amount of
tutoring for students who are taking modules in subjects in which
they have either indicated they are phobic, or in which the
invention has determined that they tend to do poorly. (For example,
the algorithms may determine that a student tends to repeat modules
in a particular subject area significantly more often than does his
peers.) If appropriate, the scheduling algorithms may designate for
these students one of the better student tutors, as determined, for
example, by statistical analysis of the database of assessments in
data storage device 16 or by direct student input. If a student is
particularly weak in a subject, the scheduler could even be
operative to schedule one-on-one or small group tutoring sessions
with a teacher, or generally smaller classes in that subject,
etc.
[0228] For some applications, the scheduling algorithms are
operative to produce a student's schedule during a session in which
the student inputs a series of scheduling requests, e.g.,
particular modules, teachers, scheduling constraints, or tutor
requests. After each request, the algorithms generate a schedule in
accordance therewith, to the maximum extent possible given other
constraints under which the algorithms operate. Alternatively or
additionally, in this manner each student in the school is able to
enter one or more requests which are accommodated in the scheduling
process. Further alternatively or additionally, administrators,
teachers, or students enter such requests, and the scheduling
algorithms attempt to accommodate the requests in accordance with
constraints defined by an authorized person.
[0229] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, computer
stations that link into one or more servers 12 are strategically
placed in a variety of locations. Students--for example in an adult
education program in a particular city--could simply walk into the
centers where the stations are housed, and the people running the
center (or the students themselves through direct input into a
browser) would input to a local computer a unique student
identifier, e.g., a unique numeric identifier for every student, or
some combination of other data such as first and last name, city of
birth, birth date, etc. The scheduler would then be operative to
combine the students present at the center in a manner best suited
for their forward progress through a curriculum. It could, for
example, put some group of students together with professional or
volunteer staff (or temporary volunteers) at the center, who are
capable of teaching a module(s) that the assembled students are
ready to learn. Alternatively, the scheduler could determine that
one student is capable of tutoring another (or a group of others),
and therefore assign that student to lead a tutoring session.
Typically, a large group of assembled students can be divided into
a plurality of classes as well as a plurality of tutoring
sessions.
[0230] The scheduler may intermittently determine that an
assessment is appropriate, for example, if a student is present for
whom there is no available teacher or tutor. The central database
(stored on data storage device 16) preferably contains printable
assessment quizzes for this purpose. The database could also
contain suggested lesson plans for each module, and printable
curricular materials for the assembled students to use.
[0231] Because the center is envisioned as typically being the
primary source of learning for many of the students, it generally
does not matter if they come in infrequently (e.g., every few
weeks), because the program could simply begin at the point where
it had ended a previous session, if appropriate. If the students
were enrolled in another educational institution as their primary
institution, then the scheduling algorithm could be operative to
coordinate with that institution so that more recent assessment
information would be available for the algorithm to access. It
should be noted that the various centers to which students could go
are generally interchangeable, in that a student could go to any of
them, and be assigned to work with available staff and any other
students who are there at the same time.
[0232] Preferably, the scheduling algorithm is operative to
coordinate future classes at a center. Further preferably, the
algorithm helps students to schedule their own classes at the
center, based on what resources are expected to be available at any
given time. For example, the program could be operative to let
students know that instructors who are eligible to teach certain
modules the students are ready to take are available later in the
week at a given time, and the students could sign up in advance for
sessions with those instructors.
[0233] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention,
teacher workloads may be constrained to a limited number of modules
from among those they are eligible to teach. The scheduling
algorithms will preferably limit the educational institution's
schedules to those which satisfy these teaching workload
constraints. So, for example, if an English teacher were
constrained to teaching three specific English modules (E23, E32,
and E38) over a 5-month period, the scheduler would only be
operative to schedule the teacher in those modules over that
period. Alternatively, the scheduler could be constrained to limit
the number of modules a teacher would teach in a given period, but
the scheduler could choose which modules those would be, in
accordance with optimization techniques described herein.
[0234] For some applications, modules in the curriculum could be
grouped by teachers into functional sub-groups, and the scheduling
algorithms could be operative to schedule teachers only in modules
(or a limited number of modules) within one or several sub-groups
at a given time. So, for example, all modules related to force and
motion in physics could be in one sub-group, and a physics teacher
could be scheduled only within these force and motion modules over
a certain period of time, and then in modules from another
sub-group over another period of time, so as to make preparation
for classes easier.
[0235] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, in which the students are children, parents of the
children may not only access information about their children's
schedule of classes, but also be notified in advance of scheduling
events that will enable the parents to better assist their children
in learning the curricular modules. In one embodiment, a parent may
indicate that he has competency and/or interest in particular
modules and is capable of assisting his child in learning those
modules. In such an event, the program may be operative to notify
the parent in advance that his child is scheduled for a class in
one of these modules so as to enable the parent to set aside time
to be more involved in the child's learning of these modules. The
notification may be in the form of an automatic email, phone call,
letter, page or other appropriate method. Alternatively or
additionally, the program may be operative to inform the relevant
teacher of the parent's indicated skill or interest, thereby
enabling the teacher to contact the parent to invite him to
participate in the teaching of the class. Similarly, non-parent
volunteers, with appropriate authorization from the school
administration, may indicate their interests and competencies in
particular modules, and the program may be operative to make the
information available to the teachers.
[0236] It will be appreciated that, over time, a large amount of
cumulative data will be amassed on data storage device 16
concerning the teachers and students of the educational
institution. With respect to the students, the data will provide a
detailed record of all modules each student has taken, the teachers
who taught him the modules, and the assessments of his competency
level before and/or after completion of the modules. The data will
also provide a record of the students both as tutors and tutees.
For the teachers, the data will include a detailed record of the
modules they taught, the students who were in their classes, and
the achievements of their classes as reflected in the assessments
of the students. In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the
present invention, the program is operative to analyze this
storehouse of data so as to determine patterns or associations that
may be significant from a pedagogical perspective, both for the
teachers and for the students.
[0237] For example, the stored data of the assessments of the
competency levels of each of the students can be analyzed
statistically, providing an indication of the average improvement
of the student over time, with respect to groups of modules or
individual modules (if the student repeated classes in the same
module) or providing an indication of the teacher with whom the
student achieved the most significant improvement. If a meaningful
correlation is determined between a specific teacher and the
improvement in a student's competency level, the program would then
be operative to selectively assign the student (or to assign him
more often) to classes taught by such a teacher, rather than by
another teacher with whom the student may not have shown such
improvement. In a similar fashion, the data concerning student
tutor--tutee pairs may be analyzed, providing an indication of the
degree of improvement of the tutee and/or the degree of success of
specific students as tutors.
[0238] The accumulated data will also provide the administration of
the educational institution with a valuable tool for evaluating the
strengths and weaknesses of its teaching staff. For example, it
will be able to ascertain that certain teachers are more successful
teaching certain modules and less successful teaching other
modules. In such an event, the program may be operative to
preferentially assign teachers to teach those modules in which they
have a higher average performance, and minimize their assignment as
teachers of other modules. The data would also enable both teachers
and administrators to more easily be made aware of the subjects or
topics in which teachers are weak, and the administrators could
then refer the teachers for continuing education classes in the
subjects in which they are weak or help them to take advantage of
retraining options made possible by the preferred embodiments of
the invention described herein.
[0239] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention,
the scheduling program would also be operative to access data
inputted by the teachers and the students concerning the times they
are or are not available for classes. The program would then
selectively schedule classes for the teachers and the students only
for the times that they are available. This application of the
invention would be particularly useful for concentrating a
teacher's teaching schedule or a student's class schedule into
blocks of time, so as to accommodate other scheduling needs of the
teachers and students. For example, in a job training setting, the
teachers and the students may only be free for classes on a certain
day of the week, or during certain hours of the day, and the
scheduler would be operative to schedule classes to occur only in
available teacher and student times.
[0240] It will be appreciated that the combination of a modularized
curriculum and a sophisticated resource management program in
accordance with aspects of the present invention makes it possible
to devise teaching schedules and schedules of classes that optimize
the various parameters that have been described hereinabove which
directly or indirectly affect the quality of the teaching and
learning that takes place in the educational institution. Preferred
embodiments of the present invention adapt algorithms that are
known in the art to optimize these parameters, within the
constraints of generally only placing students in classes for which
they have attained substantial competence in the subject matter of
the modules prerequisite thereto. A person skilled in the art will
appreciate that there are many ways for generating a generally
optimized schedule based on a set of constraints and a set of
variables to be optimized. In one embodiment of the present
invention, a score or weight is given to each of these parameters,
and the optimizing software searches through a large number of
possible schedules for the entire school, in order to determine a
set of class schedules that generate a maximum score from which a
final schedule will be determined.
[0241] By way of illustration and not limitation, typical
parameters to be optimized may include: (a) class size; (b)
expressed teacher preferences to teach particular curricular
modules; (c) expressed student preferences for a particular module,
subject, or teacher; (d) data indicating the success of a
particular teacher with respect to a particular student or module;
(e) geographical distance that must be traversed by students and
teachers between successive classes; and (f) preferential
scheduling of modules whose subject matter comprises the "core" of
the curriculum.
[0242] Table 1 shows a sample scoring system (showing only three of
the large number of potential parameters) that may be used in
accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention:
1TABLE 1 Parameter Value Student preference for a module 0 if
student is ineligible for module 1 to 100, according to student's
choice, if student is eligible for module Teacher preference for a
module 0 if teacher is ineligible to teach module 1 to 100,
according to teacher's choice, if teacher is eligible to teach
module Centrality of module to 1 to 100, with 1 meaning the module
is curriculum least essential to the curriculum and 100 meaning it
is most essential, with gradations in between.
[0243] It will be appreciated that the various parameters
themselves may be accorded weights with respect to one another,
providing an indication of the relative importance of the various
parameters within the overall pedagogical framework of the
educational institutions. This relative weighting would then be
taken into account in maximizing the various objective functions in
the process of assigning students and teachers to classes and
producing schedules of classes. It will also be appreciated that an
educational institution may vary the relative weighting of the
various parameters, on an ongoing and dynamic basis, resulting in
different schedules having different emphases and significance from
the perspective of the teachers and the students.
[0244] Reference is now made to Table 2 below, which lists
representative variables and parameters which may be used for a
mathematical articulation of the method of an embodiment of the
present invention. In this table and the equations which follow,
the index s (taking on values from 1 . . . S) represents a student,
the index m (taking on values from 1 . . . M) represents a module,
the index t (taking on values from 1 . . . T) represents a teacher,
and the index c (taking on values from 1 . . . C) represents a
class. A parameter, such as r.sub.sm, which represents the
readiness of a particular student to study a particular module, may
have any decimal value between 0 and 1, although it will be
appreciated that in a particular algorithm definition these values
may be increased in range and/or shifted along an absolute scale by
the use of suitable constants (represented by the letters k and c,
indexed by numbers, e.g. k.sub.1). In the case of the parameter r,
a value of 0 would indicate that the student is not ready for the
module and would not benefit from being exposed to it. A value of 1
would indicate that the student is fully prepared for the module.
Intermediate values could be used at the discretion of the
educational institution to indicate such conditions as a student
possessing most of the prerequisites for a module. In Table 2, each
parameter is described only briefly, and its full intent should be
understood in terms of the preceding description.
[0245] It will be appreciated that many of the various constants
and parameters described herein, such as k.sub.i, may in fact be
single- or multi-dimensional vectors, taking on different values as
a function one or more relevant axes. For example, k.sub.2 is
described hereinbelow with respect to a relative desire for
tutoring versus classroom-based education, and may have a value
such as 0.6. In the vector form, however, k.sub.2 may have the
range of values {0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.9}, each value corresponding
respectively to the desirability of tutoring in the 9th, 10th,
11th, and 12th grade levels. Similarly, k.sub.2 may be a two
dimensional array, defined as k.sub.2 (grade level, X}, where X
equals 1 for math and science modules, 2 for humanities, and 3 for
other all others.
2TABLE 2 Param- eter Description r.sub.sm Readiness of student s to
study module m. u.sub.sm Readiness of student s to teach (tutor)
module m. e.sub.sm Readiness of student s to be tutored in module m
based solely on the number of times he/she has previously been
tutored, and how successful he/she has learned in tutoring
situations, either in general or in the subject of module m. Note,
this parameter is independent of r. i.sub.tm Suitability of teacher
t to teach module m. w.sub.m Importance (or weight) of module m
within the curriculum. Psm Preference of student s to take module m
based on both desired specialization (core classes) and expressed
preference (electives). c.sub.stm Success student s has had in
learning with teacher t in subject area of module m. Optionally,
this parameter may also be adjusted to incorporate a bias towards
keeping a student with the same teacher over multiple terms.
A.sub.c Measure of the preference of the age range in class c. For
example, 1/(oldest - youngest) could be used. Y.sub.sc Suitability
for student s to learn in class c, based on factors such as ADD vs.
class size, language skills vs. class composition, and so on.
S.sub.c Measure of the preference of the size of class c. For
example, 1/(#/students), or 1/(ideal # - actual #).
[0246] Reference is now made to FIG. 5, which is a simplified
flow-chart of an enhanced set of procedures for optimizing the
assignment of students and teachers to classes, in accordance with
an embodiment of the present invention.
[0247] Procedure 510: The program accesses the educational resource
data stored on data storage device 16, including the curriculum
information, the teacher information, and the student
information.
[0248] Procedure 520: The program computes, for each student, the
relative benefit R he/she would derive from studying each module
with a regular teacher, based upon the parameters r, w, p, and e.
For example, we might set
R.sub.sm=k.sub.1r.sub.smw.sub.mp.sub.sm-k.sub.2e.sub.sm. Here, the
constants k.sub.1 and k.sub.2 are set to nonzero values determined
partly by the overall priority to be accorded the factors they are
associated with in the definition of R by the school
administrators, and partly by the need to keep all constants in the
algorithm in balance with one another so that one factor does not
end up dominating the result; the possible need to apply trial and
error as a final step in connection with selecting their precise
values for best algorithm performance (in terms of speed of
computation and quality of solution) will be appreciated by those
versed in the art. The values are set to be the same for all
students and modules for a given run of the algorithm, but may be
varied between different runs.
[0249] It is noted that r.sub.sm or another parameter may be
determined, at least in part, in order to provide a desired amount
of time between student s taking a module m.sub.previous and the
student taking module m whose content is related.
[0250] In a preferred embodiment, some students (e.g., those with
low grades or with learning disabilities) may be favored in
scheduling, such that, for example, any r.sub.sm values greater
than 0.75 are automatically increased to be 1.0, so as to increase
the likelihood that they will in fact be scheduled to sit in a
class teaching a module from which they would maximally benefit.
Alternatively, a new "favoring" parameter, f.sub.s, may be
introduced and used in scheduling optimizations algorithms to
indicate the extent to which the educational needs of student s
should be favored in establishing classes and tutoring
sessions.
[0251] Procedure 530: The program computes, for each module, the
total value it possesses for students at present, based on the
benefits it would provide to each student as computed in Procedure
520: V.sub.m=f(R.sub.1 . . . S, m); the function f could be any
function of the elements R.sub.1m . . . R.sub.Sm, for example, a
simple sum.
[0252] Procedure 540: The program identifies the module-teacher
pair for which k.sub.3V.sub.m+k.sub.4i.sub.tm is a maximum, say
m.sub.0, t.sub.0. Since V will be affected by how many students
will benefit from a module as well as by how much they would
benefit, this procedure will tend to select the modules most needed
by the greatest number of students. A predetermined number of
students (equal to the average class size) with the highest R's for
the module (regardless of whether they have a higher R for another
module) will be designated for a class in the subject matter of the
module m.sub.0, taught by teacher t.sub.0, and eliminated from
further consideration for the time being, along with the chosen
teacher. It is noted that the constants k.sub.3 and k.sub.4 are
preferably set to nonzero values determined by the overall priority
to be accorded to the factors with which they are associated, so as
to determine the best module-teacher pair.
[0253] Procedure 550: The program checks whether the number of
students and/or teachers remaining falls below a predetermined
quantity. For example, the program may continue until all teachers
have been assigned, or it may continue until the number of students
remaining is approximately the desired number to be engaged in
tutoring. Alternatively or additionally, the check may be based on
whether the highest remaining R value among unassigned students
(for any module) falls below a given standard. In either case, if
the program determines that the desired condition has been met, it
proceeds to Procedure 560. If the condition has not been met, the
program returns to Procedure 540 and schedules another class.
[0254] Procedure 560: After the desired number of teachers and
classes have been assigned, the program provisionally assigns any
residual students, if there are any, to a pool of students who may
tutor or be tutored in a module.
[0255] Procedure 570: For each class, the utility U is calculated
as 1 U c = k 5 A c S c + k 6 s classc Y sc - k 7 s classc c stm - k
8 s classc e sm
[0256] (In this case, the readiness of students to be tutored in
the subject matter is considered as a negative influence on class
utility.) Again, the constants k.sub.5-k.sub.8 are typically set to
nonzero values determined by the overall priority to be accorded
the factors they are associated with in the determination of the
utility U.
[0257] Procedure 580: The program performs one of several possible
"shift" operations:
[0258] (1) Assigns student s.sub.1 to tutor student s.sub.2 (both
from the pool of unassigned tutor/tutee students) in module m,
based on the values of R, e, and u for the pairing in question.
[0259] (2) Moves student s.sub.1, already assigned to a class, into
the tutor/tutee pool as either a tutor (guided by e, u, R, and U),
or a tutee (guided by e, u, and U) paired with a student currently
in the unassigned pool.
[0260] (3) Moves student s.sub.1, in the unassigned pool, to a
class, guided by similar considerations to operation (2).
[0261] (4) Breaks up a class c, based on consideration of the
utility U of the class versus the need for supervision of the
currently assigned tutor/tutee pairs. All students formerly in the
class then go into the unassigned pool, to be later assigned either
to a tutoring pair or to another class.
[0262] (5) Shifts students from class c.sub.1 to class c.sub.2, in
order to increase U.sub.c1+U.sub.c2 and/or because r.sub.sm for
m.sub.2 is greater than r.sub.sm for m.sub.1.
[0263] Procedure 590: The program checks whether there remain any
students over and above a predetermined maximum residual number who
have not been assigned to either a class or a tutoring pair, and
whether sufficient teachers are provided to supervise the tutoring.
If there are sufficient teachers and no residual students, the
algorithm terminates. Otherwise, control is returned to Procedure
580. Because operations (1)-(3) in Procedure 580 all result in a
decrease in the number of unassigned students, and operation (4)
will only be carried out a limited number of times (perhaps until a
predetermined fraction of the students are involved in tutoring),
the algorithm will eventually terminate.
[0264] Reference is now made to FIG. 6, which is a simplified
flow-chart of an additional set of enhanced procedures for
assigning students and teachers to classes, in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention.
[0265] Procedure 610: The program accesses the educational resource
data stored on data storage device 16, including the curriculum
information, the teacher information, and the student
information.
[0266] Procedure 620: The program computes, for each student, the
relative benefit R he/she would derive from studying each module,
based upon the parameters r, w, p, and e. For example, we might set
R.sub.sm=k.sub.1r.sub.smw.sub.mp.sub.sm-k.sub.2e.sub.sm. As
discussed in connection with the previous procedure (steps 510-590)
above, the constants k are chosen based on the priorities accorded
the factors they are connected with as well as considerations of
overall balance.
[0267] Procedure 630: The program assigns each student to a class
in the module for which his/her R value as computed in Procedure
620 is greatest. There is no minimum size to form a class, but once
a class in a module has more than the maximum permitted class size,
an additional class in that module is created.
[0268] Procedure 640: For each class, the utility U is calculated
as 2 U c = k 3 A c S c + k 4 s classc Y sc - k 4 s classc e sm
.
[0269] Note that here, the readiness of students to be tutored in
the subject matter is considered as a negative influence on class
utility. Again, the constants are chosen based on priority and the
need to balance them with the other constant values present in the
algorithm.
[0270] Procedure 650: Enough of the classes with the lowest U
values as calculated in Procedure 650 are discarded so that the
number of remaining classes matches the number of teachers
available.
[0271] Procedure 660: For each class, the program computes the
quality of instruction Q that each teacher t could potentially
provide, based on both that teacher's suitability to teach the
designated module and his history with each of the students in the
class: 3 Q ct = i tm s c c stm .
[0272] Procedure 670: Utilizing linear programming or a related
technique known in the art, the program assigns teachers to classes
in such a way as to maximize the sum of the Q's computed in
Procedure 660 for the chosen pairings.
[0273] Procedure 680: Optionally, the program recalculates the
utility values U for all the classes, and performs iterative
adjustments as in Procedures 570-590 above.
[0274] Reference is now made to FIG. 7, which is a simplified
flow-chart of yet another set of enhanced procedures for assigning
students and teachers to classes, in accordance with an embodiment
of the present invention.
[0275] Procedure 710: The program accesses the educational resource
data stored on data storage device 16, including the curriculum
information, the teacher information, and the student
information.
[0276] Procedure 720: An assignment function a(s,m,t) is defined
based on the assignment of student s to module m with teacher t. In
every case, the function takes on either the value 0 or the value
1, with 1 reflecting assignment and 0 reflecting non-assignment. A
second version of the assignment function is defined, also written
using a, but distinguished by its arguments, for example,
a(s.sub.1,m,s.sub.2)=the assignment of student s.sub.1 to module m
tutored by student s.sub.2. These assignments are subject to
various constraints, for example, the fact that a student is
assigned to only one class or tutoring session is represented by
the constraint 4 t , m a ( s 0 , m , t ) + s , m a ( s 0 , m , s )
= 1 ,
[0277] and the fact that a class should have about I members
ideally is represented by the constraint 5 s , m a ( s , m , t 0 )
I .
[0278] Similar constraints may be laid on the tutoring assignment
function. In addition, separate assignment functions are defined
for pairs such that a(s, m, t)=a(s, t).multidot.a(s,
m).multidot.a(m, t). Additional constraints are specified on the
pair functions: 6 m a ( m , t 0 ) = 1
[0279] requires that a teacher teach one module at a time, and 7 s
a ( s , m 0 ) J
[0280] constrains the number of students studying a particular
module to be approximately equal to the number J that may relate to
the number of teachers available (e.g., for specialties like art,
music, or shop).
[0281] Procedure 730: An energy function (also known as an
objective or potential function) is defined containing a term for
each parameter in Table 1 above, for example: 8 H ( a ) = k 1 s , m
, t a ( s , m , t ) ( r sm - c 1 ) + k 2 s 1 , m , s 2 a ( s 1 , m
, s 2 ) ( e s 1 m - c 2 ) ( u s 2 m - c 3 ) + + k 6 s , m , t a ( s
, m , t ) ( c stm - c 7 ) + k 7 i , j ( R ( { s : a ( s , m i , t j
) = 1 } ) - c 8 ) +
[0282] The constants (here labeled by both k.sub.1-k.sub.7 and
c.sub.1-c.sub.8) are again set based on priority and the benefit of
balance, as described in connection with the previous two
procedures (steps 510-590 and steps 610-680) above.
[0283] Procedure 740: The program optimizes H by one of several
standard techniques known in the art. For example, gradient descent
could be applied: at first, most of the constraints could be
loosely enforced (soft constraints), and a could be allowed to vary
continuously rather than just taking values 0 and 1. Progressively,
the constraints (including restriction on the values of a) could be
enforced more strongly as a solution is reached. In another case, a
simulated annealing approach could be applied: starting from an
initial random assignment, single shifts in the assignments a could
be performed, with the effects on H calculated and used to
determine whether to accept the shifts; shifts that degraded rather
than improved H would be accepted relatively frequently at first,
then gradually less frequently as a solution is approached.
[0284] It will be understood by one skilled in the art that the
above-described algorithms may not always achieve a perfect result.
In particular, the nature of the constraints in a particular
situation may be that the satisfaction of one implies the violation
of one or more others, and that the algorithm computes a trade-off
based on the relative weight given to the different factors
according to the constants. Furthermore, it will be appreciated
that variation in the manner in which the initial parameter values
are calculated may allow for the implementation of different
priorities for the scheduling process. For example, if part of a
module definition included the specification of one of several
possible teaching styles (so that a single chunk of educational
material is represented for the purposes of the algorithm as
several distinct modules differing in how they are to be taught),
the r.sub.sm parameter could incorporate a measure of the student's
affinity for the various teaching styles (determined, perhaps, from
past performance), and the resulting schedules could be partly
determined based on matching teaching style to preferred learning
style.
[0285] It will be understood by one skilled in the art that aspects
of the present invention described hereinabove can be embodied in a
computer running software, and that the software can be supplied
and stored in tangible media, e.g., hard disks, floppy disks or
compact disks, or in intangible media, e.g., in an electronic
memory, or on a network such as the Internet. It will also be
appreciated that the input of data as well as the output of
schedules and other computational products may be effected by means
of peripheral devices, such as keyboards, telephones, automated
telephone or telephone menu systems, personal digital assistants
(PDAs), beepers, pagers, or other electronic messaging devices,
video screens, printers and the like, as well as by the utilization
of "Web" browsers (including associated plug-ins and similar
software) or any other Internet interface, as are known in the art.
In particular, schedules for students and teachers, and student and
teacher inputs, may be delivered through a variety of mechanisms
(such as through Web browsers, hard copies, phone systems, pagers,
and personal digital assistants), for the convenience of the
students and teachers.
[0286] It will be appreciated that the various embodiments of the
present invention are not limited to a teaching format that places
a single teacher in front of a group of students in a physical
classroom. Many other formats are included within the scope of the
present invention. For example, a class could be scheduled to occur
in a distance learning format, such as an on-line classroom,
including video conferencing, chat rooms, email lists, on-line
slide shows, and the like. Similarly, assessments, including
homework and exams, may be conducted in the on-line environment. In
accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention,
each teaching format may be accorded an identifier in database 16
and associated with various modules, and data could be obtained
reflecting the relative effectiveness of the different formats,
based on student and teacher feedback and assessment information.
Part of the optimization of a course of study could involve
spreading out modules in the most efficient manner possible over
the variety of different environments available. The expense of
each format may also be taken into account, so that, for example, a
country (or a particular educational institution) with fewer
financial resources and computing infrastructure may restrict its
students to human-to-human instruction, whereas a country or
institution with greater infrastructure and resources may make it
possible for many of its modules to be presented in online or other
formats. In blended approaches, for example, student may end up
spending part of the week in traditional classes, part in online
classes, and part in job apprenticeship experiences.
[0287] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the various types of constraints and optimizations
performed by the algorithm, such as meeting teacher or student
preferences, will be displayed on administrator screens to allow
control thereof by the administration (or teaching staff, or
others) of the educational institution. Moreover, the
administration will preferably be able to modify the different
parameters to be optimized, or choose some and negate others. In
this manner, the administration will have direct influence and
control over how the scheduling algorithms optimize the various
parameters, and therefore over what types of schedules are
produced.
[0288] Alternatively or additionally, the administration's inputs
to the scheduling algorithms may be entered as hard constraints or
preferred specific goals. For example, the administration may
specify appropriate inputs to the scheduling algorithms, such as
what percentage of an average student's day should be scheduled in
a tutoring session, or what percentage of a given teacher's week
should include training or being trained. Similarly, an input
parameter may specify that most students should spend approximately
an equal amount of time as tutors and as tutees.
[0289] Preferably, the administration will be able to readily
generate many different scheduling "templates," with different
priorities, constraints, goals, or other input parameters, save
these templates in special file formats for recall later, and
compare the different schedules that are produced based on the
contents of each template. Thus, for example, the administrators
may specify a range of template parameters including a maximum
physical age difference to be permitted in classes or tutoring
sessions, and specific constraints for tutoring sessions (such as
whether younger students should be permitted to tutor older
students, and if yes, by how much younger; or whether cross-gender
tutoring sessions are permitted). The scheduling algorithms, in
turn, will create classes and tutoring sessions which meet the
constraints of each template, sacrificing (if necessary) whatever
degree of optimization of other parameters is necessary or
expedient in order to do so. In this manner, the administrators are
able to review the effects of the designated input parameters on
other factors, such as teacher workload, or the overall percentage
of students' time assigned to study halls. In turn, the
administrators can evaluate, essentially in real time, the effects
of the various scheduling compromises inherent in each template.
For example, it may be determined that decreasing the maximum
allowable class size for students with learning disabilities from
twelve to nine can be most easily achieved by increasing by 50% the
maximum allowed time that students need for travel between
classrooms.
[0290] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, queries
can be entered into the scheduling program, such as: What single
input parameters or combinations of parameters can be changed so as
to produce a particular change in a generated schedule. Answers to
the query may reveal, for example, that allowing competent younger
students to tutor older students will allow average class size to
be reduced by 10%, without increasing the number of students in
study halls.
[0291] Typically, administrative decisions and queries will be
entered in a graphical user interface. However, they may be
similarly entered in any other manner known in the art, such as
through a command-line based system, through a transmitted file,
through a scanned-in paper interface, or through a phone system
interface.
[0292] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the students and teachers at a large educational
institution (or even a smaller one) may be sub-divided into two or
more separate "academies" or "learning communities." In such an
event, each of the academies may have its own set of modules, which
may be `weighted," as explained above, in accordance with the
specific needs or goals of each of the academies. For example, in a
high school, one academy could focus more of its modules, (or
provide more emphasis within the same set of modules, on the
humanities, while another could focus more heavily on math and
science. In general, the program would schedule the students from
one academy with the teachers from that academy, although students
may be assigned, as appropriate, to classes with teachers from
another academy. This small "learning community" embodiment of the
invention could be combined with the tutoring elements of the
invention to broker learning exchanges between the academies. For
example, students from a math and science academy would tutor
students from a humanities academy in math and science, and
students from a humanities academy would tutor students from a math
and science academy in English, history, and foreign languages. The
actual module definitions (including super-modules), weights
assigned to the modules, special education codings for modules, and
the like could be formally defined for each academy in a template
as indicated below.
[0293] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a template may
be defined based on the particular pedagogical approach of an
educational institution (or for several approaches within the
institution, if a small learning community model is used). However,
although the template may represent a particular pedagogical
approach overall, the template would be highly and specifically
technically defined within the parameters of the invention, so as
to be readily re-usable. The template preferably includes specific
numbers representative of such information as:
[0294] A.sub.c, S.sub.c, k.sub.i, and other constants and
parameters described herein which typically are not specific to
particular students or teachers, and therefore generally guide the
overall functioning of the scheduling program,
[0295] the definitions of the curricular modules,
[0296] threshold passing grades,
[0297] prerequisite requirements for taking any module,
[0298] the dependency relationships between the modules,
[0299] the importance assigned to various modules through weights
(e.g., to reflect the centrality of the modules to the core
curriculum of the institution),
[0300] connection strengths between the modules (which indicate how
important it is that they follow one another in sequence without
significant time gaps therebetween),
[0301] the various formats for the modules (such as human-to-human
or online),
[0302] preferred locations for teaching the modules and preferred
equipment associated therewith,
[0303] learning disabilities coding of the modules (including, for
example, (a) in which modules students with different learning
disabilities of varying degrees may be mixed with mainstream
students and with each other, and (b) for each module, the maximum
number of students who can participate in a class if a student with
a particular disability is present),
[0304] super-module definitions,
[0305] lesson plans associated with particular modules or
super-modules,
[0306] particular language(s) of instruction (including, for
example, which modules may be used to mix native and non-native
speakers),
[0307] learning, teaching, and assessment styles associated with
particular modules,
[0308] how much of students' schedules should include tutoring,
[0309] how heavily the scheduler should consider teacher
preferences,
[0310] how heavily the scheduler should consider student
preferences,
[0311] the maximum age differences permitted in classes or tutoring
(either in general or defined for each module), and
[0312] all of the various different types of information as
described in this patent application, as appropriate.
[0313] Such a template could then be made available for use by
other educational institutions, which could also modify it and
adapt it to their specific needs. The template would provide a
concise way for an educational institution to specify and transmit
to others its pedagogical approach, and could serve as an efficient
means for facilitating the widespread implementation of some
embodiments of the present invention. The templates may be
published, for example, on the World Wide Web, or transmitted in a
variety of other electronic or printed formats.
[0314] The power of such templates would be particularly
noteworthy, because they provide a highly precise and explicit
definition of the pedagogical priorities and approach of an
educational institution, in a format that is quickly and readily
re-used and modified by other educational institutions across the
world. For example, if a school that focused largely on learning
disabled children worked out a highly successful template based on
an educational model including the following elements:
[0315] (a) defining which modules are amenable for mixing in one
class learning disabled students of certain categories and degrees
of disability with mainstream students and with each other,
[0316] (b) defining what and how much teacher training is needed
for each module, with respect to each learning disability category,
and
[0317] (c) defining how the schedule should prioritize fulfilling
the various constraints (and when to make compromises),
[0318] then the school could share that knowledge with others by
exporting their template. Other educational institutions could then
make use of all or part of the template for the benefit of their
students. They could, for example, simply download the template off
the World Wide Web for themselves, and modify or choose from it
accordingly.
[0319] In another example, templates developed within the culture
of a country that emphasizes individual choice may have their
student choice parameters set at a much higher priority than
templates developed within the culture of another country that
emphasizes top-down control. Similarly, a school that emphasizes
proficiency in the sciences may set the requirement for a student
to be considered to have fulfilled a math prerequisite to be higher
than in a school for the arts.
[0320] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a textbook
template is provided, representing a core set of modules taught
with most standard (or even non-standard) textbooks. So, for
example, a core curriculum for an American K-12 school system could
be developed which describes each module, indicates the dependency
relationships between the modules, and specifies, for each module,
the page numbers in various textbooks where the content of the
module is taught. Preferably, a school administrator would be
enabled to enter the names of textbooks owned by the school into a
software program provided by this embodiment, and the program would
be operative to display the page numbers from these textbooks which
pertain to each of the modules, and to input that information into
the database for use by the scheduler.
[0321] For some applications, the program is additionally enabled
to track in data storage device 16 the specific textbook resources
of the educational institution, and, for example, provide a listing
of how many of each textbook the educational institution owns.
Preferably, the scheduling algorithms would be operative to
schedule modules based on the number of available textbooks, so
that students can check out the textbooks in advance in an orderly
fashion.
[0322] Similarly, the scheduler would preferably also be operative
to schedule modules that require special equipment or facilities in
accordance with the availability thereof. So, for example, if
certain chemistry modules must be taught in particular classrooms
having appropriate laboratory equipment, the scheduler would be
operative to only schedule those modules in such classrooms. In
another example, a module may be taught in a computer lab and use a
computer-assisted instruction multimedia CD-ROM program. In these
cases, the scheduler would be operative to place in the lab at any
given time only as many students as there are available CD-ROM
programs and computers needed to run them.
[0323] In accordance with a preferred embodiment, the modules of an
educational institution may be coded according to a range of
learning styles and/or teaching styles. For example, the material
in a particular chapter in a chemistry textbook could be
represented in its entirety in three different modules, directed
respectively to lecture, laboratory, or library research formats.
Typically, students and teachers will be maximally effective in the
format most closely reflecting their own individual styles.
Similarly, some high school teachers and students may prefer an
informal classroom, in which the students do group projects and
call the teachers by first name, while other teachers and students
may flourish in a more traditional atmosphere.
[0324] Although the science of assessing student learning styles is
to some extent imprecise, there are powerful proponents of this
concept in the educational community, and, it is believed that
considerable advantage can be obtained through establishing certain
modules in accordance therewith. In general, one teaching style may
be defined for a given learning style; however, one teaching style
may also be appropriate to several learning styles, or one learning
style may be appropriate to several different teaching styles.
Preferably, teachers would indicate which teaching styles they
prefer or for which they have appropriate training (either in
general or for particular modules), and students would indicate--or
be assessed by suitable diagnostic methods to determine--which
learning styles are most appropriate or enjoyable for them.
[0325] In an advanced embodiment of the invention, students could
indicate or be assigned different learning styles for different
subject areas or even for specific modules within a subject area.
The program would then optimize placing students with a certain
learning style (either in general, or in particular subjects or
modules) with teachers whose teaching style (either in general, or
in particular subjects or modules) matches the students' learning
style. It will be appreciated that there are many ways to associate
learning styles and teaching styles (one-to-one, many-to-one,
many-to-many, etc.) and all are within the scope of the present
invention. In a preferred embodiment, learning styles and teaching
styles are matched one-to-one, i.e., one teaching style is matched
to each learning style.
[0326] It is noted that because teacher-student rapport is often an
important factor in educational success, the scheduling algorithm
is preferably programmable so as to emphasize placing students with
the same teachers, particularly if they have had success in the
past with those teachers. Applications of the present invention for
use with small learning communities, for example, typically
naturally associate a group of teachers with the sub-groups of
students that make up a mini-academy, so that the students can
develop and profit from an ongoing relationship with their
teachers. Alternatively, the scheduling algorithm may produce a
similar effect by applying a bias towards keeping particular
teachers together with particular students over time. Determining
which teachers get priority for certain students could be based on
student feedback mechanisms, such as written, electronic, or oral
input indicating which teachers they feel are best for them and
which they prefer. For K-12 students, parental feedback may be
accepted, as well. Typically, teachers indicate in a similar
fashion which students they feel they can impact the most.
[0327] Alternatively or additionally, the feedback data may be
obtained directly from assessment information collected during or
following completion of a module, to allow comparative analyses to
be performed over time in order to determine which students improve
the most with which teachers. In turn, students are preferably
assigned to classes taught by those teachers with whom they have
improved the most in the past. Alternatively, the assignment of
students to particular teachers may be essentially random, in
situations in which it is believed that it is better to have
students spend more time with a teacher or with a small group of
teachers than to be assigned to a large number of teachers in the
educational institution.
[0328] Regardless of the specific mechanism for choosing which
students should be placed more often with which teachers, the
scheduler preferably implements that choice by putting a
"stickiness" factor Z.sub.st into its calculations, which provides
a bias towards scheduling student s with teacher t. In this manner,
students will find themselves more often placed with a given
teacher over their time at an educational institution, and
therefore will have a better chance of developing closer rapport
with their teachers. If appropriate, the stickiness factor can be
defined as Z.sub.t, representing the extent to which it is
desirable that teacher t teaches the same students, or the
stickiness factor can be defined as Z.sub.s, representing the
extent to which student s would tend to benefit from being in
classes generally with the same teachers.
[0329] It will also be appreciated that the various embodiments of
the present invention can be combined in various ways, as
illustrated in the following (non-limiting) examples, so as to
maximize the inherent power and flexibility provided by aspects of
the invention:
[0330] (a) The assigning of tutor-tutee pairs may be effectively
combined with the weighting of the curricular modules so as to
place students in tutoring pairs more often in the core modules
than others.
[0331] (b) The data concerning assessments of students in modules
having multiple teaching formats (such as on-line and traditional)
can be analyzed so as to determine which format produces superior
results. Based on this analysis, the program may be operative to
preferentially schedule classes for these modules in the format
producing the superior results.
[0332] (c) The scheduling of tutor-pairs may be used together with
the data concerning teacher competency to enhance the opportunities
for teacher retraining by the teaching staff of the educational
institution itself. Thus, teachers who have been determined to be
"master teachers" (based upon past teacher performance with
students) may be scheduled to teach a class for other teachers in
how to teach a particular module. Similarly, a teacher who requires
training in a particular module may be assigned to observe a master
teacher teaching a class of students in that module, or the master
teacher may be assigned as an observer of a class in that module
taught by another teacher who has not been successful in the past
in teaching that module (based on student assessment data).
[0333] This "in-house" retraining of teachers may be implemented on
a larger scale when the percentage of students tutoring one another
is increased, thereby freeing up the teaching staff to be scheduled
for training sessions. So, for example, an educational institution
that requires a greater than average amount of teacher retraining
could adopt a strategy (and build a template to promote that
strategy among other educational institutions) such as the
following:
[0334] focus the students initially on mastering a relatively
limited set of "core of the core" modules (the most-heavily
weighted modules);
[0335] as students gain expertise in those modules, assign them as
tutors of each other as much as possible;
[0336] use the relatively high level of student tutoring to free up
the best trained educational staff to teach the rest of the staff
new teaching techniques in more modules; and
[0337] once the staff are better trained, shift the focus of the
educational institution towards the wider set of modules the
teachers now feel capable of teaching well.
[0338] (d) The definition of an "educational institution" may be
extended to include a community of families who help one another to
educate their children at home. The parents involved could indicate
through a Web interface or some other means which modules they are
capable of supervising, which modules they are capable of teaching
(and their formats), when they are available for phone calls, for
having other children over at their homes, for visiting other
homes, etc. The program would be operative to coordinate the
teaching activities of the members of the community in order to
better educate the children of the community within the constraints
and boundaries set by parents, e.g., who should be permitted to
help educate their children. It is noted that examples of class
formats and preferred teaching styles include having a parent who
has a good grasp of the content of a module available by telephone
during hours specified by the parent. Similarly, a community-based
home-schooling class style scheduled in accordance with a preferred
embodiment of the present invention could include a conference call
that facilitates a group tutoring session including a parent with
several children.
[0339] (e) Features of the invention may be employed to enhance
special education, by permitting students with disabilities to be
partially home-schooled by parents while attending more traditional
classes with other students (both non-disabled students and
students with the same or different disabilities).
[0340] (f) Aspects of the present invention will enable enhanced
coordination between different levels of educational institutions.
For example, high schools will be able to generate specialized
transcripts that define student strengths and weaknesses at the
module level, as well as at the traditional semester or quarterly
length course level, thereby providing a better indication for the
placement of the students when they enroll in college. In addition,
by associating a set of modules with a traditional course, and
averaging grades in an appropriate manner (such as in a weighted
average manner, where the modules within the course that constitute
a greater percentage of its content account for a greater
percentage of the course's grade), high schools will be able to
generate traditional transcripts for their students.
[0341] Modules may also be associated on a transcript in groupings
that differ from traditional course make-ups. For example, a
college physics department could analyze the module assessments of
a high school student across the specific math and physics modules
deemed most relevant for success in the college physics program. In
another example, a student transferring between two junior high
schools would have a transcript which would provide the new school
with detail about his module-by-module mastery of the curriculum.
It is noted that this ability is not easily obtainable using the
tools of the prior art. The new school (employing software provided
in accordance with an embodiment of the invention) could take
advantage of the information in the transcript by using the
scheduling program's dynamic scheduling capability to, for example,
focus studies in the student's weak areas, or continue to challenge
him in strong areas.
[0342] (g) Scheduling algorithms operating in two or more
educational institutions can cooperate with each other at a level
not currently feasible using scheduling tools known in the art. For
example, one educational institution with a math-science focus may
offer its students as tutors in math and science in an exchange
with another educational institution, which has a humanities focus,
which would offer its students as tutors in English, history, and
foreign language modules. The educational institutions would
specify in which formats their students are available to tutor
(e.g., as in-person, telephone, or video tutors), and the scheduler
would be operative to meet the constraints imposed on it by the
educational institutions.
[0343] In this manner, two educational institutions in the same
geographic area may broker live human-to-human tutoring sessions at
one or both of their institutions, whereas two educational
institutions 2500 miles away from each other may broker phone
tutoring sessions. In another example, a particular school district
may arrange for a famous speaker to addresses the majority of the
students enrolled in the various educational institutions within
the district on a particular topic. While this event is taking
place, many of the teachers could be scheduled to tutor other
students individually in modules in which they require special
attention. Similarly, an entire consortium of schools (such as a
state university system, which may include tens of colleges) could
cooperate in a like manner. Each institution could indicate what
resources it can offer to the others, and the scheduler would be
operative to enable schools to combine their resources while
respecting their constraints. So, for example, one college may have
a celebrated chemistry lecturer, whose lectures are conducted
online (for all but the host college) across the state university
system. Another college may contribute a number of phone tutors in
the same course, who are available for tutoring sessions with
either individual students or groups of students (via phone
conferences) in any participating institution. In a preferred
embodiment of the invention, a feedback mechanism is provided to
indicate how much resources each educational institution is
providing, so that the colleges could ensure general fairness
across the system.
[0344] (h) The scheduling algorithms may be operative to schedule
modules in accordance with a particular general scheduling
technique, such as Block Scheduling. Block Scheduling is a recently
popular movement that replaces traditional single-period scheduling
with alternative block schedules, which often spread a class out in
longer periods on one day, over fewer days in the week. (See, for
example, the book entitled Block Scheduling, A Catalyst for Change
in High Schools, by Robert Lynn Canady and Michael D. Rettig, 1995,
Eye on Education, Inc.). There are effectively an unlimited number
of ways to block schedule a large school, and in accordance with a
preferred embodiment of the invention, the scheduling algorithm is
operative to schedule at least some of the modules in conformity
with a given set of block scheduling constraints indicated by the
school.
[0345] It will be appreciated that most preferred embodiments of
the invention will not generally optimize across every possible
variable and feature at once, but rather that each educational
institution will choose the feature(s) that are most important to
it. For example, most educational institutions will use preferred
embodiments of the invention that limit the number of module
durations to a relatively small number, for easier scheduling.
Since it is generally important that the schedules be generated in
a timely fashion, the scheduling algorithm will preferably limit
the computational time spent on finding a solution, accepting the
level of optimization that is computable within a reasonable time
frame. The typical amount of optimization performed will tend to
increase as computing power becomes more inexpensive and fast (and
indeed, massively parallel machines may be employed for server(s)
12 to make the computation as fast as possible). Some preferred
embodiments of the invention will generally be implemented in a
manner that restricts the educational institution to a feature set,
or a level of optimization, that permits the generation of
schedules to be done in a reasonably fast manner, or that permits
the educational institution to choose the feature set and level of
optimization that best meet its needs.
[0346] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a
scheduling algorithm is operated by a teacher within a classroom to
divide the students within the classroom into sub-groups which are
able to engage in various educational activities. Preferably, this
in-class scheduling algorithm has access to records indicative of
each student's mastery of a range of modules, and divides the class
into groups responsive thereto. Once the students have been
divided, the teacher can teach each group individually, leaving the
groups not currently being taught to work on group projects or
self-study. As appropriate, techniques described hereinabove for
scheduling a large number of classes within a school may be adapted
for use with this embodiment of the invention.
[0347] It will be appreciated that the various features described
herein will enable educational institutions to optimize their use
of their resources, thereby raising their level of performance for
the benefit of both teachers and students. The flexibility inherent
in these embodiments of the invention preferably allows a
customized fit for the needs of a wide variety of educational
institutions, including elementary, junior and senior high schools,
home schooling, colleges and universities, graduate schools,
vocational and job training environments, and the like. Each
educational institution or environment may be fitted with a
solution that caters to its primary needs--whether they be enhanced
student preference, enhanced teacher preference, increased teacher
re-training, smaller class size, integrating non-native speaking
students, integrating learning disabled students, fitting learning
styles to teaching styles optimally, etc.
[0348] Advantageously, and unlike many computer education packages
which are commercially available, many embodiments of the present
invention are fully functional substantially without requiring any
purchases of new hardware by the educational institution. Thus,
these embodiments generally do not require students to have access
to a computer or even a school computer room.
[0349] It is noted that the optimizations performed in accordance
with some preferred embodiments of the present invention are
typically performed with respect to numerical optimization
parameters which reflect a particular educational focus of a given
school, e.g., the importance (0-100) of integrating disabled
students into classes with the rest of the student body, or the
importance (0-100) of placing emphasis in scheduling on
facilitating peer tutoring. Prior art scheduling algorithms, by
contrast, typically operate under constraints governed only
indirectly (if at all) by the particular educational focus of the
school. Thus, for example, they may guarantee that a teacher will
not have to move between campuses twice in a day, or they may limit
class sizes to a manageable number.
[0350] Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that the present
invention is not limited to what has been particularly shown and
described hereinabove. Rather, the scope of the present invention
includes both combinations and subsets of combinations of the
various features described hereinabove, as well as variations and
modifications thereof, which would occur to persons skilled in the
art upon reading the foregoing description.
[0351] Sample Results
[0352] Three different sets of sample results, all from Computer
Code Example 2, are included in the attached printout "Sample
Results". They are also included in MS-Word format in the two CDs
that were submitted with this patent application in the file
"Sample Results 1, 2, and 3". Those sample results are summarized
below.
[0353] Sample Results 1
[0354] Algorithm Aggregate
[0355] Output from Procedures 610-680 as described in FIG. 6 and
implemented in Computer Code Example 2. Includes separate computer
code runs for small, medium, and large schools.
[0356] Sample Results 2
[0357] Aggregate Incremental
[0358] Output from Procedures 510-590 as described in FIG. 5 and
implemented in Computer Code Example 2.
[0359] Includes separate computer code runs for small, medium, and
large schools.
[0360] Sample Results 3
[0361] Schedules over a period of several weeks generated using
Computer Code Example 2. These schedules were generated using the
multi-period scheduling functionality in Computer Code Example
2.
* * * * *
References