T 3 : Improving Teaching & Learning Through Technology Food for Thought Luncheon August 31, 2011
Introductions Bastrop ISD: –Bryan Doyle, Director of Instructional Technology KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program): –Kelly Mullin, Science Instructional Coach Leander ISD: –Tracy Nolen, Client Services Pflugerville ISD: –Kathy Hickok, Director of Accountability –Kathryn Ives, Coordinator Instructional Technology Round Rock ISD: –Robert Autrey, Lead Technology Integration Specialist San Marcos ISD: –Ronda Stonecipher, Director of Instructional Technology, UT Elementary Resources for Learning: –Ali Callicoatte Picucci, PhD, Director of Evaluation & Research E3 Alliance: –Susan Dawson, President
Texas Target Tech (T 3 ) Grant..to stimulate the use of educational technology to improve teaching and learning. Regional Collaboration Focus –Grades 2 – 6 –Campuses with high population of English Language Learners –Interactive White Board Technology (Promethean) Statement of Purpose –Increase access to technology for Collaborative schools with high enrollments of students classified as economically disadvantaged and English Language Learners (ELL) through provision of student interactive technologies.
CTX Collaboration Facilitator: E3 Alliance –Grant Procurement Effort and Regional Sharing School Districts : Bastrop, KIPP, Leander, Pflugerville, Round Rock, San Marcos, UT Elementary Project Management & Fiscal Agent: Pflugerville ISD External Evaluator: Resources for Learning, LLC. Shared Service Agreement
How Did We Get Here? Texas Target Technology (T 3 ) Grant –Federal Stimulus Dollars –Passed through TEA –August 2009 –Up to $1M, 2 year grants No partner eligible and/or had capacity on their own Collaborative awarded $965,000 First instance of districts and charters working closely together
By the Numbers –26 Schools –95 Boards –3,452 Students over 2 years receiving interactive white board instruction –25% required to be spent on Professional Learning Appreciation –Aha!Math & Aha!Science: Learning.com –Gary Siddons, Lumens Document Camera Support –ProComputing –Other vendors
Distribution of Participants LEA TeachersStudents 2010201120102011 Bastrop ISD 13% 11% 7% KIPP 10% 11% 18% Leander ISD 14% 13% 10% 8% Pflugerville ISD 23% 25% 23% 22% Round Rock ISD 21% 23% 33% San Marcos CISD 7% 9% 11% 8% UTEC 12% 8% 4% 5% Resources for Learning, LLC
Student Grade Distribution Grade Level20102011 Grade 321%17% Grade 429%20% Grade 532%22% Grades 6-818%41% Resources for Learning, LLC
Teacher Information Grade Level20102011 Grade 211%13% Grades 3–580%73% Grades 6–89%14% Type of Certification20102011 Alternative Certification42% Undergraduate Degree38%40% Graduate Degree17%18% Not Certified3%0% Resources for Learning, LLC
Collaborative Lessons Learned Consider writing a vendor-neutral grant –Cheaper to support & easier to evaluate using standard technology –But districts/partners lose flexibility Develop Common Language and Understanding –Fiscal rules, business procedures and classroom standards Open Communication Across Districts –All stakeholders should be involved from finance to technology personnel –Wiki website
Collaborative Lessons Learned Build trust among partners and overcome fear of risks Relationships among technology support teams is VITAL to success –Shared knowledge and expertise across region (e.g., lessons, wikis) –Shared PD –“Connections”
Professional Development Participant Average PD Hours Year 1 ONLY Teachers19 Year 2 ONLY Teachers44 Year 1 & 2 Teachers67 Principals35 Technology Specialists80 Resources for Learning, LLC
As a district instructional technology specialist, I usually have to be the “lone expert” on all things new in technology. Through the T3 grant that E3 Alliance led for our region, we have not only brought great new instructional assets to my district, but built collaborative relationships across the region that benefit my work. We’re now sharing a whole variety of things I would have to pay for or do without if I didn’t have this network of peers. The relationships borne out of the E3 Alliance collaborative will bring us value for many years to come. Tracy Nolen Leander ISD
Usage Lessons Learned Plan for Movement of Teachers –Trained teachers should keep board when moving to new classroom to avoid loss of PD investment –Teacher Attrition. Who will train new teachers? PD for Principals –Helped with buy-in –Grant required 24 hours of PD PD for Technology Support Staff –Originally not in grant –Crucial in creating regional centers of expertise Took longer than expected for teachers to feel comfortable with Promethean technology
Technology Lessons Learned Involve all stakeholders as early as possible Ensure single-point of contact from vendor 3 - 5 year warranties on Boards Fixed boards expensive to move –Partners shared resource/expertise to move them Teachers and support specialists were able to share lessons through Wiki http://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.com http://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.com
Student Lessons Learned Students enjoyed interacting with the flipcharts –Standing at the board –Using a wireless mouse –Active, not passive, learning Students more attentive and interested –Engaged in active dialog with self and classmates –Incorporated pictures, video, music, dual-language –Learning made visual for ELLs –Students appear to do more self-directed learning –Benefited from the instant feedback
Student Lessons Learned Video’s (San Marcos ISD) Promethean Parent (MOV -34.25 MB) Parent Volunteer Describing Active BoardsPromethean Parent Student Talking (MOV -17.80 MB) Student Talking About Using The Active BoardStudent Talking
Teacher Lessons Learned The number of times that technology must work flawlessly before it will be trusted enough for another attempt varies from teacher-to- teacher. –Assess comfort and skill level before training –Adapt an existing lesson to integrate technology to establish a skill and comfort level from which they can grow. When the technology is trusted, the teachers become creative in expanding its use. –Wireless mouse on back of clip-board –Explored advanced features independently –Used response devices not only for formative assessments to modify instruction, but for daily activities (lunch count, “I’m finished”, etc.) –Modify existing/already created Flipcharts –Sharing of lessons and teacher created Flipcharts
Curriculum Redesign Lessons Learned ( i.e. Instructional Environment / Delivery ) Process of writing and sharing a Curriculum Redesign statement was beneficial –Examples: RRISD, PISD, LISD, UT, KIPP, Bastrop, San MarcosRRISDPISDLISDUTKIPP BastropSan Marcos –Formal tool to measure effectiveness and quality of technology integration and use –Guide professional development efforts –Identify potential benefits and pitfalls of using interactive technology tools
Robert Marzano: Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards Benefits Curriculum Redesign Lessons Learned Pitfalls: Nothing that Professional Development and Support can’t prevent. Focus on technology instead of curriculum. Too many bells, whistles, and visuals. Improper pacing. Little or no feedback.
Evaluation Lessons Learned Different grade levels participated across 7 LEAs (ranging from Grade 2 to Grade 6) Longitudinal study not possible LEA flexibility in implementation TEA-required evaluation components not aligned with project –For example, surveys did not align with project goals and did not identify participants across administrations Compromise: Define common activities: –Professional development –Grade-level mathematics flipcharts Descriptive evaluation approach using student and program data, surveys, observations Resources for Learning, LLC
Community Technology Awareness Teachers and principals perceived an increase in parent and community support for school-use of technology. More parents in 2011 indicated that technology was essential to education compared to 2010. More parents indicated that technology had positive academic impacts on student achievement in 2010 compared to 2011.
Evaluation Lessons Learned Summary Including project implementers is a challenge but necessary for buy-in and success. Understanding impacts of teacher staffing and migration patterns on participation is important for project resources. Project included students classified as economically disadvantaged and LEP.
LEAs accomplished identified project activities. Specific teacher and student technology use increased as did teacher-reported technology proficiency. Student engagement increased. Community awareness of technology increased. Evaluation Lessons Learned Summary
Grant Lessons Learned Regional Collaborations Work! –Allow regional sharing of human resources for help, Professional Learning, etc. –Looking at other collaborative grants now Interactive technology worth the investment! Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts
Grant Lessons Learned Need someone partially dedicated to grant fiscal management/reporting Include clause about quality of PD, flexibility about provider if quality not met TEA survey unrelated and unannounced Documentation is key!
Important Resources T3 Wiki/Flipchart Resources –http://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.comhttp://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.com TEA Grants –http://burleson.tea.state.tx.us/GrantOpportunities /forms/GrantProgramSearch.aspxhttp://burleson.tea.state.tx.us/GrantOpportunities /forms/GrantProgramSearch.aspx TCEA –http://www.tcea.org/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.tcea.org/Pages/default.aspx
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.