P2V | WP6 Valorisation of the Framework for the Evalution of ICT in Education Inspectorate of Education, The Netherlands, Bert Jaap van Oel

P2V WP6

Scotland: HMIE. Sweden: Skolverket. Lithuania: National Agency for School Evaluation. France: IGEN. Catalonia: Inspectorate of Education The Netherlands: Inspectorate of Education Members of SICI Partners

The road to P2V ERNIST: “Let us look at the things we share” (Belgium, Scotland, Austria, NI, England) >> P2P: Peer learning leading to a shared framework based on existing materials. (France, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, England) >> P2V: valorising and extending use

P2V WP6 2007: Kick off meeting: meet and learn : School visits in all countries: 2 primary 2 secondary 2008: Evaluation meeting Brussels

P2V WP6 deliverables School reports with at least a public summary Evalution report per country: methodology Evaluation report Website Public toolbox for SICI members Framework available for self- and peer evaluation by schools

P2V WP6 Methodology

P2V WP6 methodology Two NL inspectors join local team Four schools per country One week Local evaluator coordinates visits Local evaluator is leading Local evaluator writes report for school NL inspector writes report on visit

P2V Evaluation methodology Preparatory conversation with the school Send out and analyse self-evaluation questionnaire Study available materials, plans, vision, reports School visit: As separate activity: one day When integrated: half a day extra for one person Written report

Methodology: School visit

Meeting with leadership/ICT coordinator: vision, history, what are we going to see? Lesson observations, school tour Interviews: Learners; Teachers; Administrators Feedback session at the end of the day: preliminary conclusions Draft written report: final conclusions reviewed by school Final written report (public?)

Methodology: School visit Gathering evidence from observations, interviews, learning materials and outcomes Documenting evidence: take copies, pictures, notes Triangulation: different sources, different observers Paper policy versus work floor reality School’s own vision as starting point

The ICT evaluation toolbox

The ICT framework Conditions: C1. Leadership, C2. Infrastructure and access, C3. Curriculum planning, C4. Quality assurance and improvement Use: U1. Pupil use, U2. The teaching process, U3. Administrative use Outcomes: O1. Impact on learning and standards

The ICT framework Quality Indicators: what is it? Evidence: what to look for? Sources: where to find it Scoring per QI: 0=not enough evidence 1=weak 2=insufficient, should improve 3=sufficient, may be improved 4=good The framework

Materials Self-evaluation questionnaire Interview guidance Lesson observation form Evaluator guidance Possibly: online questionnaires

Presentation of results Leadership Score primary school A Score secondary school B Score primary school C Score secondary school D C1.1There is a clear vision for the use of ICT 0|1|2| 3 |4 C1.2 There is a strategy to realise the vision 0| 1 |2|3|4

School visits

Primary school A 450 pupils, 1:34 computers involved in many projects small budget, hard to plan ICT development enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator Lessons in computer room and in classrooms ICT is not in the national curriculum, ICT use by children in free time Parents question ICT use ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects

School visits Primary school B 250 pupils, 1:4 Some interactive whiteboards Good budget enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator Lessons in classrooms, individual use in hallways and classrooms ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects More critical thinking about ICT use to be developed

Secondary school 953 pupils, 74 teachers, 1:9 computers, many resources clear ICT vision and strategy on ICT and teachers, less on pedagogy clear use of benchmarks good lessons observed, strong pedagogy, active learners responsibilities are clear, ICT coordinator not enough possibilities for enhancement of learning no accessibility for marks for teachers, pupils, parents no Learning Management System yet School visits

Impressions: peer learning

Who is in the lead? Fitting the methodology to local circumstances or fitting local circumstances to the methodology? Presence external evaluators supports objectivity (contextualised scoring vs more objective scoring) Discussion essential: preparation, briefing sessions, evaluation Managing expectations: evaluator guidance vs learning?

Impressions: using the toolbox Framework is very usable in different contexts Methodical work supports acceptance of evaluation Need for good preparation of visits Using the different materials requires getting used to: how do they fit together? The materials are much-needed to support decision making in one day

Impressions: the visit programme Short! Quick! Hectic! Enough time for reflection? Enough time for evidence gathering? All elements should be in place A full day Some arranged lessons/activities are ok

Inspectie van het Onderwijs Kantoor Utrecht Park Voorn 4 Postbus GS Utrecht The Netherlands T (030) F (030) Achterblad