1. Embracing the Future Personalizing Learning

2. Organization Overview Red Hook High School (RHHS) is a New York State public school serving over 700 students in grades 9-12. Founding District – 1937 High school - 1962 Mission – “The mission of the Red Hook Central School District shall be to develop in its students the knowledge, intellectual integrity, and social consciousness to prepare them to accept the obligations and opportunities found in a complex society. The District seeks to provide a challenging educational environment that fosters and rewards the values of respect, responsibility, honesty, integrity, and community service in all its members” (RHHS, 2013).

3. RHHS Teaching Methods RHHS makes the effort to incorporate both traditional methods and new technology in their curricula Traditional methods include: lecturing, discussions, debates, group work, problem-based learning Technology includes: autoCAD inventor software and Chief Architect 3D software Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) computer- based assessments Greystone Program – online bridge program offering college level courses to juniors and seniors Tablets, laptops, SmartBoards, Elmos

4. 2017 Vision for RHHS The futuring techniques of scenarios and scanning enable schools to develop future visions Vision: By 2017 RHHS will use technology to personalize learning. Analyzing student data will indicate individual needs of each students Tablets in the classroom will allow teachers and students to personalize learning Supported with technology, demographic, economic, and public policy trends

5. Scenarios Scenarios are distinct narratives of future possibilities (Hines, 2006). Futurists usually limit the number of scenarios to 2-5 (Hines, 2006) Advantages (Mietzner & Reger, 2005): Open minds to new possibilities Better prepare organizations for the future More informed decision making in the present Disadvantages (Mietzner & Reger, 2005): Time consuming Require extensive knowledge of the field Tendency to focus on “most likely solution”

6. Scanning Scanning occurs when futurists examine the internal and external environment for relevant trends (Hines, 2006). Goal of scanning is to identify all forces that my influence and suggest what the future may be (Hines, 2006). Usefulness (Hines, 2006): Allows for future analysts to create system maps that outline the relationships of the forces, factors, and stakeholders influencing an organization. Discovery of relationships that would otherwise go unnoticed and prepare for their impact. Challenges (Hines, 2006): Need to see the whole picture – may be difficult to consider trends outside of the field. Distinguishing which trends have the potential to impact the future.

7. Technology Trends Tablets (Johnson et al., 2013) Will be prevalent within 12 months Cost effective Encourage exploration Ideal for building PLEs Learning Analytics Greatest Impact in 2-3 years (Johnson et al., 2013) Analyzing student data allows teachers to Provide early intervention for identified learning issues (Johnson et al., 2013) Personalize instruction to accommodate students strengths and weaknesses (Johnson et al., 2013; Greller & Drachsler, 2012)

8. Economic, Public Policy, and Demographic Trends Increased Poverty Childhood poverty has greatly increased since 2000 African Americans and Latinos most affected (Fusarellit, 2011) Schools need to analyze data and develop strategies to address the needs of students living in poverty (Ladd, 2012) Increased Special Education (Cortiella, 2011) There has been an increase in the number of students qualified for special education The number of special education students receiving instruction in the general education classroom has greatly increased Using tablets in the classroom will help support the needs of students with disabilities Learning analytics will help develop early interventions

9. Economic, Public Policy, and Demographic Trends Cont. Increasing Minority Populations Ethnic minority groups are the majority of population growth since 2000 (Fusarelli, 2011) “By 2050, 62% of the nation’s children will be minority” (Betts, Hartman, & Oxholm, 2009, p.12) Achievement Gap Focus for nearly 20 years (Bromberg & Theokas, 2013) Gaps exist among low and high performing students (Bromberg & Theokas, 2013) Blacks, Hispanics, and low-income students perform lower than their White peers (Bromberg & Theokas, 2013) These population are increasing (Fusarelli, 2011) Personalizing instruction will help close gaps (Bromberg & Theokas, 2013) and respect cultural diversity (Betts, Hartman, & Oxholm, 2009)

10. Challenges Technology constantly changes (Project Tomorrow, 2012) Many teachers do not have skills to integrate tablets into their instruction (Johnson et al., 2013) Models that works best for teachers differ, so teachers need to figure out how to best implement tablets (Project Tomorrow, 2012) Teacher role needs to evolve from “sage on stage” to “guide on the side” (Project Tomorrow, 2012) Learning analytics could lead to unethical practices (Greller & Drachsler, 2012)

11. Opportunities Better student engagement and motivation (Project Tomorrow, 2012) Students can research information, communicate with others, access online textbooks, receive reminders, and video lessons for later all on one device (Project Tomorrow, 2012) Students could receive personal recommendations for learning paths and resources (Greller & Drachsler, 2012) Teachers become aware of knowledge gaps, focus on struggling students, and develop curriculum (Greller & Drachsler, 2012) Schools can improve drop-out and graduation rates (Greller & Drachsler, 2012) Education can be transformed beyond “one-size-fits-all delivery system” (Greller & Drachsler, 2012, p.13)

12. Failure to Implement Vision As population of students living in poverty increases student performance on achievement tests decreases (Fusarelli, 2011) “Failure to more fully address the educational needs of our rapidly growing minority populations threatens our nation’s future” (Betts, Hartmans, & Oxholm, 2009, p.13) By not meeting the personal needs of students, especially increasing minority, poverty, and special education populations, achievement gaps could widen

13. Preparation Follow learning analytics framework proposed by Greller & Drachsler (2012) Connect stakeholders, objectives, data, instruments, external constraints, and internal limitations Professional Development (Wolf, 2010) Workshops on using tablets Focus on connecting tablets with pedagogy and content Workshops on the changing role of the teacher Establish professional learning communities (Wolf, 2010) Greater variety of assessments that better suit the individual needs of learners (Wolf, 2010) New policies aligned with personalized learning (Wolf, 2010)

14. “Expand research and development aimed at studying redesign for personalization models and practices, and sharing what works and the road map for getting there” (Wolf, 2010, p.31) Create a community of practice Online forum for all stakeholders to collaborate about personalizing learning Enables community members to “identify differences in understandings and weaknesses in their explanations (Gunawardena et al., 2009, p.11)

15. References Betts, K., Hartman, K., & Oxholm, C. (2009). Re-examining & repositioning higher education: Twenty economic and demographic factors driving online and blended program enrollments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (4), 3-23. Bromberg, M. & Theokas, C. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling of achievement for low-income students and students of color. Education Trust, 1-17. Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Fusarelli, L.D. (2011). School reform in a vacuum: Demographic change, social policy, and the future of children. Peabody Journal of Education, 86 (3), 215-235. Greller, W. & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 42-57. Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1080/09523980802588626 Hines, A. (2006). Strategic foresight: The state of the art. The Futurist, 40 (5), 18-21. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Ladd, H.F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31 (2), 203-227. Mietzner, D., & Reger, G. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight. Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1 (2), 220-239. Moorcroft, R. (2007). The art of the clairvoyant. Retrieved from https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1512777-dt-content- rid-17577170_1/courses/EDU505.901092027070/Documents/The%20art%20of%20the%20clairvoyant.pdf Project Tomorrow. (2012). Personalizing the classroom experience: Teachers, librarians and administrators connect the dots with digital learning. Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. Red Hook High School (2013). Red Hook high school. Retrieved from http://www.redhookcentralschools.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2 Wolf, M.A. (2010). Innovate to educate: System [re]design for personalized learning; A report from the 2010 symposium. Washington, D.C.: Software & Information Industry Association. World Future Society. (2009). Net generation and the media: Don Tapscott at WorldFuture 2009. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Wpbc7Wp6cA theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking toolshttps://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1512777-dt-content- rid-17577170_1/courses/EDU505.901092027070/Documents/The%20art%20of%20the%20clairvoyant.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Wpbc7Wp6c