One-to-One Pilots: A Comparison of Two School Districts Rachel Reinhart Jennifer Theis Toni Sondergeld Savilla Banister Bowling Green State University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent Search.
Advertisements

Lifelong learning: Taking Bologna to the labour market Lars Lynge Nielsen President of EURASHE Leuven Ministerial Conference 28 April 2009.
The Status of the Teaching Profession 2009 Copyright All rights reserved. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning Research conducted by.
North Carolina Educator Evaluation System. Future-Ready Students For the 21st Century The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education.
Building Effective Leadership Teams: A Practitioner’s Look
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
Heather Zavadsky, Ph.D. Bringing School Reform to Scale: Moving From Islands of Greatness to Successful Systems.
Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning October 5, 2010.
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Action Research Opportunity Or Research Based Action.
Melissa Daniels Shannon Knapp Laurie LaFever Sally Meyers David Shaw STLE Bucket Report November
Technology Plan EDLD 5362 Casey Smith.
Conditions to Support Successful Teaching Challenging Coursework: School Climate and Organization Elaine Allensworth April 10, 2012.
1 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations – for all students – for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through the.
Estándares claves para líderes educativos publicados por
The Impact of Assessing Technology Competencies of Incoming Teacher Education Students Rachel A. Vannatta Savilla I. Banister Cindy Ross Bowling Green.
2 Learning Environments 2 Learning Environments Learning Context and School Culture Learning Content Technology Access Information and Communication.
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY13-14 Evaluation Systems Office, HR Dr. Michael Shanahan, CHRO.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
C R E S S T / U C L A Evaluating the Impact of the Interactive Multimedia Exercises (IMMEX) Program: Measuring the Impact of Problem-Solving Assessment.
Why Educators need to be educated in technology By Diane Harris CEP 812 July
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Technology Leadership
Illinois MSP Program Goals  To increase the content expertise of mathematics and science teachers; 4 To increase teaching skills through access to the.
Ed.S Instructional Technology Portfolio University of West Georgia
The Impact of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative on Teachers, Students, and Learning Maine’s Middle School 1-to-1 Laptop Program Dr. David L. Silvernail.
Learnings from Classroom Connections Findings and Conclusions from Two Studies on the Statewide Laptop Initiative Dr. Wade Pogany – South Dakota DOE –
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION working together to improve education with technology Using Evidence for Educational Technology Success.
One to One Program Recommendation As presented to the Galion Board Of Education June 28, 2012.
The Impact of the MMP on Student Achievement Cindy M. Walker, PhD Jacqueline Gosz, MS University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.
Research Indicators for Sustaining and Institutionalizing Change CaMSP Network Meeting April 4 & 5, 2011 Sacramento, CA Mikala L. Rahn, PhD Public Works,
March 2007 Conducted for the California Foundation for Commerce and Education Selected Survey Results: Business Executives’ Attitudes on California Education.
The Evaluation of IMPACT V Jeni Corn, Friday Institute for Educational Innovation NC State University College of Education.
Technology Use Plan Presented by: Bob Santi. Rationale A technology plan is a current guideline for the appropriate and effective use of technology a.
Technology Needs Assessment Presentation for Los Fresnos HS
Mississippi e-Learning for Educators: Reaching Teachers Across the State.
Lubbock Independent School District Technology Plan By Stacey Price.
Research and Evaluation Team Lines of Work Andy Porter, Director Building a Partnership – Susan Millar District Case Studies – William Clune Targeted Studies.
Governor’s Teacher Network Action Research Project Dr. Debra Harwell-Braun
SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University.
STEM EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION Barbara McAllister May 2013 INTEL’S MODEL FOR.
Proposal for a Bring Your Own Device Initiative Technology Academies of Greater Harrisburg Image courtesy of John.Karakatsanis on Flickr.
Coaches Survey: Mining the Data May 8, 2006 PA High School Coaching Initiative.
Building a Culture of Leadership at Belmont High School Michael M. Harvey, Ed.D. Principal, Belmont High School.
SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY: TRADEWINDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2 Digital Citizenship
SACS/CASI District Accreditation  January 2007  April 2007  May 2007  January – April 2008  Board Approval for Pursuit of District Accreditation.
+ Staff Development Plan Vision Sage on the Stage Facilitator Technology Integration PLCs Student Performance.
NCCE 2009 Administrator/IT Summit Strategy Session: Leadership.
Florida Charter School Conference Orlando, Florida November, 2009 Clark Dorman Project Leader Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project University.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
Students will need more than just good teachers and smaller class sizes to meet the challenges of tomorrow. For students to get the most out of school,
1 Willa Spicer, Assistant Commissioner Cathy Pine, Director Carol Albritton, Teacher Quality Coordinator Office of Professional Standards, Licensing and.
THE METLIFE SURVEY OF THE AMERICAN TEACHER: CHALLENGES FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Gwendolyn Thomas Kimberly Patterson Shannon Biggs.
IN WHAT WAYS DO PRESERVICE TEACHERS UTILIZED AN WEB-BASED LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEM? Fethi Ahmet Inan The University of Memphis Soner Yildirim.
Development of an Interactive Online Masters of Public Health in Nutrition Degree Program NANCY L. COHEN, PhD, RD, LDN and PATRICIA BEFFA-NEGRINI, PhD,
GIBBS COUNTY SCHOOLS TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MS. CHARLON L. GIBBS LIBERTY UNIVERSITY.
Cross State Analyses of Results TELL Survey. New Teacher Center (NTC) worked collaboratively with 11 state coalitions—including governors,
External Review Report Westminster Public Schools April 24-27, 2016.
TELL Survey 2015 Trigg County Public Schools Board Report December 10, 2015.
Tell Survey May 12, To encourage large response rates, the Kentucky Education Association, Kentucky Association of School Administrators, Kentucky.
Outcomes By the end of our sessions, participants will have…  an understanding of how VAL-ED is used as a data point in developing professional development.
Professional Development: Imagine Difference Shapes and Sizes
Professional Development
Governance and leadership roles for equality and diversity in Colleges
Collaborative Leadership
An Introduction to Evaluating Federal Title Funding
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY12-13
Presentation transcript:

One-to-One Pilots: A Comparison of Two School Districts Rachel Reinhart Jennifer Theis Toni Sondergeld Savilla Banister Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio, USA

Introduction Research on 1:1 programs has shown increases in student: –Engagement; –Motivation; –Interaction & communication; and –Achievement.

The Problem Districts jumping into 1:1 without adequate planning Urban districts especially face numerous obstacles when implementing innovation.

Challenges for Urban Districts Sociodemographics –Higher poverty –Greater diversity –Higher rates of mobility Structural Challenges –Lack of instructional coherence –Inexperienced teaching staff –Poor data systems –Low expectations –Low achievement

The Study Center of Assessment & Evaluation Services conducted evaluation of 1:1 pilot programs in two districts (urban/suburban)

Framework: ISTE’s Essential Conditions Shared Vision Empowered Leaders Implementation Planning Consistent, Adequate Funding Equitable Access Skilled Personnel Ongoing PD Technical Support Curriculum Framework Student-centered Learning Assessment & Evaluation Engaged Communities Support Policies Supportive External Context

Research Questions 1.How do the participating districts differ in fulfilling ISTE’s Essential Conditions? 2.Do districts significantly differ in teacher technology skills, comfort and barriers about technology use as measured in the pre survey? 3.Do districts significantly differ in amount of change (post-pre) in student technology use? 4.Do districts significantly differ in student perceived impact of the 1:1 pilot?

District Comparison District A--SuburbanDistrict B--Urban Population23,54325,956 % Caucasian9274 Housing Units9,89913,377 % of adults with college degree4813 Median income (US $)72,23034,044 4-year graduation rate9786 Enrollment4,4503,080 State Performance Index RatingBC District Typology Suburban=Very low student poverty; large student pop. Urban=High student poverty; average student population 1:1 Target Grades Grade 5—Chromebooks Grade 8—Chromebooks Grade 9--MacAirs Grade 5—iPads Grade 6—Dell Laptops 1:1 Use24 hr. student possessionKept in classroom on carts

Data Collection 1:1 Pilot Surveys  Teachers, students –Pre—September 2013 –Post—February/March 2014 –Online via SurveyMonkey Interviews –Technology Coordinators –Rate Essential Conditions

1:1 Teacher Survey Survey/Subscale # of Items Response Scale Overall laptop skill 1(0-4) 0=novice, 1= beginner, 2=average, 3=advanced, 4=expert Frequency of teacher technology use 12 (0-4) 0=never, 1=Less than once a week, 2= once a week, 3= a few times a week, 4=daily Frequency of facilitation of student use 17 Comfort with technology 9(1-4) 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree Concerns/Barriers13 (0-3) 0=not a concern, 1=minor concern, 2=moderate concern, 3=major concern! Effectiveness of PD6 (0-4) 0=not effective, 1=somewhat effective, 2=effective, 3=very effective Impact of 1:1 (POST only) 20(1-4) 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

1:1 Student Survey Survey/Subscale # of Items Response Scale Frequency technology use17 (0-4) 0=never, 1=Less than once a week, 2= once a week, 3= a few times a week, 4=daily Overall laptop skill1 (0-4) 0=novice, 1= beginner, 2=average, 3=advanced, 4=expert Technology skill level14 Barriers/concerns10 (0-3) 0=not a concern, 1=minor concern, 2=moderate concern, 3=major concern! Impact of 1:1 (POST only)12 (1-4) 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

Comparison of Essential Conditions Essential Conditions District A Suburban District B Urban Shared VisionMeetsInitiates Empowering LeadersMeetsInitiates Implementation PlanningExceedsInitiates Consistent and Adequate FundingMeetsInitiates Equitable AccessMeetsApproaches Skilled PersonnelMeetsInitiates Professional DevelopmentMeetsInitiates Technical SupportMeets/ExceedsInitiates Curriculum FrameworkMeets/ExceedsApproaches Student-centered TeachingMeetsApproaches Assessment & EvaluationMeetsApproaches Engaged CommunitiesApproachesInitiates Support PoliciesExceedsApproaches Supportive External ContextApproaches

Survey Results Teacher Survey participation rates –Suburban: pre—95%, post—75% –Urban: pre—64%, post—32% –Could not conduct pre/post comparisons

Teacher Pre Survey Results –Suburban teachers reported significantly higher levels of technology skills and comfort –No difference in barriers Subscale Suburban DistrictUrban District tp nMSD nM Pre Skills <.0001 Pre Comfort Pre Barriers

Student Survey Results Subscale Suburban DistrictUrban District tp nMSD nM Change in Student Use :1 Impact –Suburban students had significantly greater change in tech use than urban students –Reported greater impact as a result of 1:1

Conclusions Having fulfilled nearly all Essential Conditions, the Suburban District was fertile ground for 1:1. Urban District struggled to address/fulfill Essential Conditions, which created an unstable, ineffective environment for 1:1.

Conclusions Urban District challenges: –Inconsistent resources and infrastructure (Consortium of School Networking, 2014) –School use only –Lack of instructional coherence (Kincheloe, 2010) –Lack of PD –Limited direction and vision

Conclusions ISTE’s Essential Conditions continue to be “essential” in integrating technology. Urban districts need additional support and resources to address these conditions.