1. Technology Tools to Support Writing: Preliminary WWWOW Grant Results Presented by Jane Cook & Chris La Casse CWP Summer Institute, July 2007

2. Reflection Questions: How can technology tools help? How many students are engaged and on task 100% of the time? How many students do multiple revisions? How many teachers have time to give feedback to every student on multiple drafts of the same piece? How long does it take for a teacher to compile the data from the writing of their class to plan mini-lessons? How often are teachers able to do that?

3. Data Collection CMT baseline data Survey of teacher attitudes and perceptions on technology & writing Survey of student attitudes and perceptions on technology & writing Anecdotal teacher and student data from observations and conversations Student work samples Student grades

4. Surveys Focused on teacher and student perceptions How teachers feel about technology & writing How students feel about technology & writing How teachers think students feel about technology & writing

5. Results of Teacher & Student Surveys 90% of students report having a computer at home Most teachers predicted around 50% of their students had computers at home Students have more access to technology than teachers are aware of

6. Survey Results (cont’d) Students enjoy using technology more than teachers think TeachersStudents

7. Survey Results (cont’d) Students feel more comfortable using technology than teachers expect Teachers Students

8. Survey Results (cont’d) Students have more positive perceptions of their own writing ability TeachersStudents

9. Survey Results (cont’d) Students enjoy writing more than teachers expect TeachersStudents

10. Survey Results (cont’d) 25% of students get written feedback from teacher 2-3 times each week 57% get that feedback within 2-3 days Only 33% find feedback helpful Students get feedback from teachers fairly often - usually within 2-3 days - but only find it somewhat helpful

11. Implications of Survey Data Teacher perceptions may interfere with effective use of technology in the classroom Teachers do not believe technology is a significant part of students’ lives Teachers do not know how much access their students have to technology Teachers perception of students’ writing may interfere with the choices they make about assignments Teachers believe that students do not like to write Students do not get daily feedback Only 1/3 find teacher feedback somewhat helpful

12. Preliminary Student Data from One Grade 6 Language Arts Class Students were placed in the LA class because they scored at the Basic or Below Basic level in Reading and Writing on the CMT. Since the introduction of the WWWOW grant technology tools: 9 out of 11 students’ grades improved From the 1 st quarter to the 3 rd quarter, the average grade went from C to B 2 students raised their grades from D to B-

13. Preliminary Student Data from One Grade 6 Language Arts Class (continued) Since the introduction of the WWWOW grant: 10 out of 11 students received a score of 4 or higher (Proficient) on their last MY Access! revision The average score on their last MY Access! assignment was 4.7 out of 6 All students revised their pieces: 10 out of 11 students made at least 6 revisions to their last MY Access! piece 1 student made only one revision 3 students made between 11 and 16 revisions The average number of revisions was 9

14. Anecdotal Data from Teachers 4/5/07“I don’t know what it is about this computer but the kids just want to get in and write, write, write. Even my reluctant students.” -6th Grade Teacher 4/5/07“You could hear a pin drop. Not one kid was off task. Everyone was typing. They really enjoyed every minute of it!” - Grade 5-8 Art Teacher while walking by a 6th classroom that was using the wireless lab 4/24/07 “I loved what we did in the bilingual class. If you want to make a difference in priority schools, put a laptop in front of every kid. They are spectacular. The kids were so engaged. These are kids who don’t have English as their first language and they were writing and thinking. It was terrific! What drives me crazy is that we have only 20 laptops and there are 1,000 kids in our school.” -Reading Specialist

15. Anecdotal Data from Teachers Comment overheard in May of 2007 when a 7 th Grade teacher walked by a classroom where students were using the wireless laptops : “What are you doing in your classroom? Why are the students so engaged? How can I get a piece of this?”

16. Anecdotal Data from Students 4/07 “Last year all my teacher ever said is ‘Details, details, details’. Once I used the picture tool [pre- writing wizard/graphic organizer in MY Access!], now I get it.” -6th Grade Student 4/07 “I just can’t stop writing. I just need to keep adding more details to my story.” -6th Grade Student (observed working on his 5th draft after receiving a score of 5 out of 6 on his 4th draft)

17. Anecdotal Data from Students Observation in May, 2007 - Grade 6 students working on wireless laptops, independently of teacher: Student 1: “How do we spell check?” Student 2: (from all the way across the classroom) “F7” (Student 1 taps F7 key and continues working without any teacher) Student 3: “How do you change the print?” Student 4: “You go to Font. (points on laptop screen) I’m going to need your help in a minute.” Student 3: “OK.” (continues work on writing) Student 4: “Did you get it? It’s called Algerian.” Student 3: “Yes. Do you like it better like that or like this?”

19. Implications of Preliminary Data The teaching paradigm has shifted – everyone in the classroom is a both a teacher and a learner The level of enthusiasm for using the technology is very high Students are self-motivated, self-directed and self- correcting Students are engaged in their learning Students are motivated to write more Students are motivated to revise their work Student performance has improved Teachers are using data to inform instruction

20. Sample Frequency Distribution Report ScoreHolistic F- Focus and Meaning D - Content and Development O - Organization L - Language Use and Style M - Mechanics and Conventions Non- scorable 0% 1 2 3 425% 75% 25%50% 575% 25% 75%50% 60% Holistic FDOLM Average Score: 4.75 4.25 4.754.50 Average Male Score: 5.00 4.504.005.00 Average Female Score: 4.50 4.004.50 4.00 The Strongest Domain: [F - Focus and Meaning, L - Language Use and Style] The Weakest Domain: [D - Content and Development, O - Organization

21. Error CategoryError DetailError Count GRAMMARA vs. an1 GRAMMARSummary1 MECHANICSSubject-verb agreement errors7 MECHANICSWord order after who (etc.)1 MECHANICSSpelling errors36 MECHANICSPunctuation errors18 MECHANICSCapitalization errors2 MECHANICSDoubled words1 MECHANICSSummary65 USAGEMissing articles4 USAGEDouble negatives1 USAGEErrors with it and there1 USAGEClause errors7 USAGESimilar words6 USAGEUnnecessary prepositions (ESL) 1 USAGEPronoun errors (ESL)8 USAGEMisused words9 USAGESummary37 Sample Error Analysis Report

22. Next Steps Design additional training for teachers Continue on-site coaching and support Work collaboratively with Information Technology Department to ensure that technology is supported daily Work with WWWOW Project Team teachers to design a schedule for equitable access to the lab Continue collecting and analyzing data to determine “course corrections” Post additional student work on school Web site

23. Burning Questions???