1. TTAC GROUP 2 T/TAC 2 Local Improvement Plan Project Presented by T/TAC Group 2 December 11, 2003 Project lead: Dr Michael Behrmann Education for a Lifetime

2. TTAC GROUP 2 T/TAC Online: As Is

3. TTAC GROUP 2

4. T/TAC 2 ’ s Mission : To enhance the ability of educational professionals to effectively communicate with each other, in order to satisfy the requirements of the state educational improvement plans. T/TAC 2 ’ s Goal : Automating the Local Improvement Plan (LIP) process for the Virginia Department of Education.

5. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

6. TTAC GROUP 2 Performance Analysis Research Phase 1: – Clients and stakeholders – Goals – Identified Drivers and Barriers – Information Sources – Type of opportunity – Solution System Research Phase 2: – Data gathering – Information sources and questions – Initial analyses, initial research-inanimate resources – Data gathering methods – Prioritized questions- focus group meeting Research Phase 3: – Findings – Analyze data – Recommendations

7. TTAC GROUP 2 Research Phase – 1  Gathered background data – Previous TTAC websites (Phases 1 through 6) – Presentations –T/TAC Online – VDOE website – Grant Process – Developed Concept Map – LIP Process – Developed Concept Map – Web-based community technologies such as Webinars, chat groups, Discussion forums, Online communities

8. TTAC GROUP 2 Our Clients and Stakeholders  Clients – Dr. Patricia Abrams: Director, Office of Special Education, VDOE – Dr. Michael Behrmann: Professor, Director Helen A. Kellar Center – Mr. Ken Olsen – Federal Technical Specialist - Mid-Atlantic region  Stakeholders – Dr. Patricia Abrams – Dr. Michael Behrmann – Mr. Ken Olsen – Ms. Lucinda Zimmerman - T/TAC Online Administrator – VDOE Technical Assistance Staff (TAs) – Local Education Agencies (LEAs) – Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer

9. TTAC GROUP 2 Information Sources  Information Sources – Dr. Patricia Abrams- Director, Office of Special Education, VDOE – Dr. Michael Behrmann - Professor, Director of the Helen A. Kellar Center – Ms. Lucinda Zimmerman - T/TAC Online Administrator – Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer – Ms. Lisa Carson (College of William & Mary) – Ms. Carol David (McLaughlin & Associates) – Mr. Jeff Schuyler (McLaughlin & Associates) – Educational professionals involved with grants proposal/reporting:  School District Administrators  Special Education Specialists  Virginia Department of Education Technical Assistants

10. TTAC GROUP 2 LIP Grants  LIP (Local Improvement Plan) Grants –Federal flow through money –“Sliver” $3.5 million total for Virginia Division amounts vary from: $285,088 to $3,723  LIP is comprised of:  Proposals –Seven section document –Focused on one or more of the five goals that are related to ‘No Child Left Behind’ program –Relates to 3 strategic directions and goals of the VDOE  Reports

11. TTAC GROUP 2 Research Phase – 2  Interviewed and gathered information from the following sources: – Dr. Michael Behrmann- Professor, Director Helen A. Kellar Center – Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer – LEAs and VDOE TAs – ‘No Child Left Behind’ Background – LIP information – Proposal form – Rubric for reporting

12. TTAC GROUP 2 Our Research Strategy  Research methods – Internal discovery – Task Analysis – Focus groups – Interviews – Surveys

13. TTAC GROUP 2 Questionnaire to participants at Richmond

14. TTAC GROUP 2 Research Phase – 3  VDOE meeting in Richmond – September 24, 2003, interviewed Dr. Michael Behrmann to review questionnaire – Attended VDOE meeting in Richmond on September 29, 2003 – Questionnaire distributed to participants at the Richmond meeting – Met in focus groups – Conducted face-to-face interviews – Reviewed LIP evaluation report from McLaughlin group

15. TTAC GROUP 2 LIP Process Concept Map http://immersion.gmu.edu/ttac/fall2003/group2/work/LIP/lipprocess.htm

16. TTAC GROUP 2 Drivers for online process: – Systematic compilation of data across projects – Geographical constraints – Share best practices – Standardize information input/output process – Easy access old data – Access to quantifiable data – Interim reports

17. TTAC GROUP 2 Barriers for online process:

18. TTAC GROUP 2 Requirements – Keep the LIP process: –simple –sustainable – Need interim reports –TA’s –LEA’s – Ability to standardize unclear terms – Want the ability to: – create and evaluate long-term plans.

19. TTAC GROUP 2 Recommendations  Stakeholders see value in an online process for Local Improvement Plans.  Any process needs to be carefully designed to ensure it meets user needs. – Considerations are: limitations on time, connectivity, and user knowledge. Simple and well supported with help functions Effectively use with minimal learning time. Flexible to enable users to adapt easily Enable users to receive and retrieve data using programs that they are familiar with and have readily available. Word and Excel templates to streamline data reception.

20. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

21. TTAC GROUP 2 Characteristic/Background Busy Overworked Understaffed 45 years-old Work Environment Only special education administrator in her work location Responsibilities LIP Proposal LIP report Final and Interim data for reports Gathering baseline data for LIP proposal Evaluate project against their goals Goals / Wants / Needs Need to get administrative buy in Accountability Exchange best practices with other LEA’s Store data as it is collected for LIP reports Simplify the whole process Utilize past report-do not start from scratch Avoid Last minute reporting Avoid the ‘tax return’ syndrome Quote “K.I.S.S.”-driving design (Keep It Sweet & Simple) Persona - Local Education Administrator Katherine Cox

22. TTAC GROUP 2 Persona – Technical Assistant Justine Braxfield Characteristic/Background Married with children Busy 47 years-old Work Environment Centrally located with other TA’s Less than one year on the job Responsibilities Helping LEA’s with LIP proposals Evaluating LIP proposals using checklist/rubric Keep the LEA’s on schedule with LIP Responsible for 1 of 8 T/TAC regions Issue status of LIP proposal-approval or not Review and disseminate reports Goals / Wants / Needs Want ‘how to’ on the site for LEA’s Ability to track progress of LIP project Exchange best practices with other TA’s and their LEA’s Rubric for evaluating proposals online Easily disseminate the LIP reports Quantify the data and produce reports from that data Verifying that proposals/reports are submitted on time-for Avoid Last minute reporting Complexity Quote “ I just started working here, I don’t know what has been done in the past.”

23. TTAC GROUP 2 Persona – Public Michelle Gallager Characteristic/Background Parent of special needs child Married Loundon County Literate 39 years-old Work Environment Accesses internet via dial up from home or work Special needs volunteer Responsibilities Raising their child to the best of her ability - Wants most information possible Goals / Wants / Needs Desire to select best school for child Develop child’s abilities Wants to know how schools are doing - District - States Avoid LEA jargon & technical terms Quote “My child deserves the best.”

24. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

25. TTAC GROUP 2 Use Case Mapping Use system Read Save Write Track Review Edit

26. TTAC GROUP 2 Use Case: TA Review

27. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

28. TTAC GROUP 2 Interface Content Models Some of the simplest modeling technology -paper and Post-it notes-works best. Some of the simplest modeling technology -paper and Post-it notes-works best. Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

29. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

30. TTAC GROUP 2 Site Diagram - Public

31. TTAC GROUP 2 Site Diagram - LEA

32. TTAC GROUP 2 Site Diagram - TA

33. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

34. TTAC GROUP 2 Systems Wire Frames LEA Home Page

35. TTAC GROUP 2 Systems Wire Frames TA Home Page

36. TTAC GROUP 2 Systems Wire Frames Public Homepage

37. TTAC GROUP 2 Systems Wire Frames Public – search page

38. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

39. TTAC GROUP 2 LEA Writes Proposal Writes Report TA Reviews Proposal Reviews Report PUBLIC Reads Report

40. TTAC GROUP 2 Instructional Design Process Analysis: Performance Analysis Analysis: Performance Analysis Development: Wire Frames Prototype Development: Wire Frames Prototype Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams Design: Personas Use cases Interface Content Modeling Site Diagrams

41. TTAC GROUP 2 Current Status

42. TTAC GROUP 2 Annual Plan

43. TTAC GROUP 2 LIP Process Concept Map http://immersion.gmu.edu/ttac/fall2003/group2/work/LIP/lipprocess.htm

44. TTAC GROUP 2

45. LIP LEA Table Field1 Field2 Main Table Field1 Field2 LIP Table Field1 Field2 LIP Database Sample Table Key Database = Stores a set of relational tables Tables = Store a data for related a subject or fields. Field TA Table Field1 Field2 Stores data for subjects in the form of bytes (8 bits). Bit Stores one unit or character.

46. TTAC GROUP 2 WHAT ’ S NEXT ? Elements We Need:  Confirmation/Revisions of Current Design  Confirmation of Scope  VDOE Representative to Confirm Future Design Decisions

47. TTAC GROUP 2 Questions