Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Chapter Six Taking Educational Technology Innovations to Scale Written By Mary Kolesinski, EdD Evelyn Nelson-Weaver, EdD Daryl Diamond, PhD.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter Six Taking Educational Technology Innovations to Scale Written By Mary Kolesinski, EdD Evelyn Nelson-Weaver, EdD Daryl Diamond, PhD."— Presentation transcript:

1 Chapter Six Taking Educational Technology Innovations to Scale Written By Mary Kolesinski, EdD Evelyn Nelson-Weaver, EdD Daryl Diamond, PhD

2 Introduction The primary goal for digital solidarity within the educational arena is to identify and replicate innovative technology programs and models that have demonstrated the ability to motivate all students towards academic excellence and global competitiveness. A part of the current challenge for the digital solidarity movement is to understand what is involved in taking pilot projects that are effective in one area and to scale them up so that they reach and positively affect more people 2

3 Scaling up is the ability for an innovation to be adopted and replicated in other venues such as schools Defining Scalability Scaling up refers to the expansion or replication of a program, practice or product. Going to scale refers to the ability of an innovation to sustain itself over time and for those participating in the reform effort to ultimately assume its ownership. The result is to achieve reform in such a large number of schools and classrooms that the norms of the profession are altered, and the reformed practice becomes the new standard. 3

4 Diamond (2007) identified a list of 39 attributes within five broad categories, along with seven contextual factors that are pertinent in bringing a technology innovation to scale. Factors pertinent in bringing a technology innovation to scale The five categories include: (a)the design of the innovation, (b)time, (c)communication channels, (d)effectiveness and (e)leadership capabilities. 4

5 Diffusion of Innovations theories explain the process by which an innovation is adopted by members of a certain community. Surry and Elys Surry and Elys (2001) diffusion model assumed that an innovation will pass through adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization before it can be widely accepted, and in effect, go to scale. Scaling Up 5

6 Researchers offer the following contextual factors to explain why educational interventions are unable to take hold. The difficulty in changing the practice of teachers and/or administrators who were embedded in a system of rules and regulations that did not support new practices Both the hierarchical mandates and the market forces that work in the private sector do not operate well on schools Characteristics of the intervention that affect implementation including comprehensiveness, ambitiousness, and elaboration Specific support required for implementation and sustainability also appear in the form of technical assistance, training, and resources. 6

7 Going to Scale Coburns (2003) analysis of scale confirmed the development of a growing body of research work addressing the theoretical challenges involved in creating a meaningful definition of scale that provides evidence for its multidimensional nature According to Coburn, scaling up involved issues of spreading the reform to multiple teachers, schools, and districts while sustaining change in a multilevel system characterized by multiple and shifting priorities (2003, p. 3). 7

8 The dimension of depth pertains to the nature of change in classroom practice, including indicators such as changes in teachers beliefs, norms of interaction, and underlying pedagogical principles. An innovation has been adequately adopted at the classroom level when clear evidence exists of changes in the way instruction unfolds. A second important component of depth involves classroom norms of social interaction. Coburn defined this asteacher and student roles in the classroom, patterns of teacher and student talk, and the manner in which teachers and students treat one another (2003, p. 5). Going to Scale 8

9 Spread involves the reform getting to greater numbers of classrooms and schools. Spread should not be thought solely in terms of expanding the reform innovation outward to more schools and classrooms but should also pertain to the spread of reform related norms and pedagogical principles within a classroom, school, and district (Coburn, 2003, p. 7). Going to Scale 9

10 Sustainability seeks to determine whether or not, as well as how schools sustain reforms after the external partner or funding dissipates. Dede, Honan, and Peter (2005) defined sustainability to mean an effort can continue without special or external resources…that the effort can continue without the involvement of the researcher and developers who were involved in the initial classroom implementation (p. 53). 10

11 A Shift in Reform Ownership occurs when there is a move from external reform controlled by a reformer, to internal control with the knowledge and authority held by schools, teachers, and administrators who are capable of sustaining, spreading, and deepening the reform principles themselves. Coburn (2003) predicted that shift in reform ownership may be a central element in sustaining and spreading reform in the face of shifting priorities, changes in funding, and challenges to policy coherence (p. 8). Going to Scale 11


13 1965 2002-03 Law was first passed during the Johnson administration as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Starting in 2002-03, states were required to furnish annual report cards showing information about student achievement. 2001 Rebranded No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) after its overhaul in 2001 by President George W. Bush Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education 2004 NCLB created a competitive-grant program, Reading First, designed to set up scientific, research-based reading programs for children in grades K -3. 13

14 2005-06 By the 2005-06 school year states were required to begin testing students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and mathematics. Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education 20072010 By 2007-08 states had to test students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. Through the use of executive powers, the Obama administration made sweeping changes to the law in March 2010, offering states some relief from its toughest parts. 2005-06 B y the end of 2005-06, public school teachers had to be deemed highly qualified in each core content subject taught. 14

15 As the proficiency date rapidly approaches, the decade old law has been derided for its obsessive focus on test results, which has led to some notorious cheating scandals (N.Y. Times, 2012, July, para.3).N.Y. Times Also found unjust was the laws system of rating schools which labeled so many of them as failing that it rendered the judgment meaningless (N.Y. Times, 2012, July, para. 3).N.Y. Times Evaluation of teachers and schools are still attached to student achievement and standardized tests, which is a departure from the original law. 15 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education Ladner and Lips Ladner and Lips (2009) suggested that NCLB, like previous federal reform interventions failed to yield meaningful improvements in students learning.

16 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education The report found that State's scores varied wildly. Reasons for this could be that some states give harder tests, while other states have high numbers of immigrant and low- income children. These numbers provided evidence that the NCLB law istoo crude a measure to accurately depict what is happening in schools (Associated Press, 2011).Associated Press 16 A report from The Center on Education Policy shows more than 43,000 schools or 48% did not make "adequate yearly progress" in 2011 (Associated Press, 2011).Associated Press Johnsons (2012) research posited that the one undisputed success of No Child Left Behind was its focus on student achievement.

17 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education NeillNeill (2010) concluded that Congress inability to admit to the ineffectiveness of NCLB stems from a de facto alliance among corporate groups… a growing list of high- tech and hedge-fund billionaires, a few large foundations (Gates, Broad and Walton among them), Duncan's Education Department, and major national media who have invested millions of dollars to promote their educational ideas. 17 The result is that the very groups of students for whom the law was designed to protect and support (poor, of color, speak English as a second language, the disabled) are not getting a good enough education and are victims of these policies.

18 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004) outlined the various types of technology access issues inherent in the implementation of NCLB as federal educational policy. 18 Issues dealing with students abilities to get to use a wired computer somewhere, at some time Quality of access issues referring to the gap between high speed access and dial-up access with its much slower connectivity Issues of technological literacy and the degree to which students know what they are doing while being online, the types of software applications they know how to use while online, and their ability to learn and utilize new software applications

19 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education 19 The NCLB Act of 2001, while not explicitly designed to address the digital divide, included substantial resources that could be used to improve childrens access to technology (p. 7). The NCLB Act created and absorbed a range of programs with potential relevance to the digital divide (p. 8). The Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT) block grant program addressed the digital divide most directly. Its primary goal was to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in school (p. 8). Many believed that too big an involvement could stifle innovation in the telecommunications sector (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004, p. 6).

20 Leave No Child Behind The Federal Governments Role in Education 20 Additionally, the country saw (a)An economy that moved from surplus to deficit, (b)Philanthropic and other types of equipment donations dried up, (c)foundation endowments disappeared and with it the reduction of support from the non-profit sector regarding advocacy and programs, and (d)the laying off of workers while sending technology jobs overseas. The first decade of the new millennium saw the end of the technology boom and an economic downturn which had disastrous effects on many digital divide programs being implemented in collaboration between the government, and the telecommunication and private sectors.

21 The Common Core State Standards Initiative began in 2009 as a collaborative effort between most of the U.S. states and territories, the National Governors Association, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. For the first time state governments have developed common standards to improve the content of instruction in mathematics and language arts. Currently 46 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) What this means is every public school student in the United States will be exposed to roughly the same content, especially in grades 1-8 (Schmidt & Burroughs, 2012, p. 54). 21 Common Core State Standards and Digital Solidarity

22 The CCSS include basic technology skills such as keyboarding, but also require students to use technology in the learning process to help them understand the content. Anchoring the K-12 CCSS are the College and Career Readiness standards which call for students to learn skills through technology and multimedia. The writers of the CCSS have approached technology as a tool, and not as a set of skills in and of itself. Students can be using technology tools to help solve math problems, to access relevant information, or to promote literacy and communication skills. 22 Common Core State Standards and Digital Solidarity

23 The two standards documents for Mathematics and English Language Arts address technology skills very differently (Skills for 21 st Century, 2010). The English Language Arts (ELA) Standards document has more to say regarding technology and in several different sections. Research and media skills are blended into the Standards as a whole rather than treated in a separate section. The math Standards suggest when a student is proficient in mathematics they should be able to identify relevant external mathematical resources such as digital content on a website, and use that information to solve problems. 23 Common Core State Standards and Digital Solidarity

24 Questions? More Information? 24

25 References Associated Press (2011). Report: Half of U. S. schools fail federal standards. Retrieved from federal-standards/5149126/1 federal-standards/5149126/1 Bodilly, S., Glennan, T. K., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (2004). Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32 (6), 3-12. Dede, C., Honan, J., & Peters, C. (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons from technology based educational improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 25

26 References Diamond, D. (2007). Attributes that enable a virtual high school to go to scale. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 68(05), (UMI No. 3264771). Ladner,M. & Lips, D. (2009). How No Child Left Behind threatens Floridas successful education reforms. Retrieved from Neill, M. (2010). Why wont Congress admit NCLB failed [The Answer Sheet]? Retrieved from bloggers/why-wont-congress-admit-nclb-f.html bloggers/why-wont-congress-admit-nclb-f.html N. Y. Times, (2012, July). No Child Left Behind Act [Times Topics]. Retrieved from Schmidt, W. H. & Burroughs, N. A. (2012). How the Common Core boosts quality and equality. Educational Leadership, 70 (4), 54 – 58. 26

27 References Surry, D. W. & Ely, D. P. (2001). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization of educational innovations. In R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends & Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 183-193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved from 27

Download ppt "Chapter Six Taking Educational Technology Innovations to Scale Written By Mary Kolesinski, EdD Evelyn Nelson-Weaver, EdD Daryl Diamond, PhD."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google