1. Learning Technologies Across Curriculum Mr. Michael Holmes Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. *Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42*(3), 285-307

2. Who: Effectiveness of Educational Technology Interventions (EETI) Grades 1-4 (reading) & Grade 6 (math) What: Congressionally mandated national experiment Where: 14 schools experimented; 13 schools analyzed When: 2007??????? Why: Examines the effects of reading and math software for students How: Teachers are observed and interviewed after implementing the software on their students

3. Original Conclusion The original experiment found that on average there was no effect on software being implemented in classrooms.

4. Next Step A subset of the EETI school sample was researched and analyzed to provide insight into how the software was implemented.

5. Characteristics of the High Gain School vs Low Gain School

6. Characteristic Questions Experience/Energy of the teacher? Pretest Scores? Language? Behavioral Statistics? Mandated Requirements from the Principal? Teacher Involvement in other Activities?

7. Characteristics of the High Gain School vs Low Gain School

8. Focus The subset analysis focused on 2 main points 1.What classroom/teacher level practices are associated with higher achievement gains in classrooms using reading and math software? 2.What school level practices are associated with higher achievement gains in classrooms using reading and math software?

9. Questions Do you think these are important questions that need to be answered? Why and Why not? What points of analysis in the research do you think will help to answer these question?

10. Points of Analysis (Classroom) Teacher Implemented Practices T.I.P. Level of Software Use Classroom Management Facilitation During Software Use Articulation and Integration Use of Software Data to Inform Instruction Use of Software Data to Inform Instruction School Level Implemented Practices S.L.I.P. Consistent Instructional Vision Principal Support Teacher Collaboration Technology Infrastructure & Technical Support Technology Infrastructure & Technical Support Receipt of Additional Training & Support Receipt of Additional Training & Support Statistics

11. T.I.P. – Level of Software Usage Each school used the product from 75 – 135 minutes High gains used the software 4.5 weeks after school started, while low gains used the software 7.7 weeks after school started 23.1 Hours – Average annual software exposure in high gains 23.3 Hours– Average annual software exposure in low gains Is time usage a factor?

12. T.I.P. – Classroom Management Students need to know how to use the software prior to conducting the research and analysis of the statistics. Contradiction in School Character Behavioral Statistics? Experience/Energy of the teacher?

13. T.I.P. – Facilitation During Software Use Some teachers interacted with only students raising their hand Some teachers interacted with only the students that looked to be having difficulties Some teachers interacted with both. Concerns?

14. T.I.P. – Articulation and Integration Cause Some teachers were not aware that the software topics could be chosen Software and textbooks displayed concepts, procedures, and instructions differently from each other. 5/7 software product were designed as supplements to instruction, not the core focus Some teachers examined the software’s terminology while students were still working on the computer. Some teachers placed the software lessons in the appropriate place to match the core curriculum Effect Some teachers let the software take the students to the next topic Teachers have problems coordinating topics and skills across 2 different instructional materials. No class did ALL their reading or mathematic through the software Some teachers taught the software’s concepts and different terminology once back in the class. The software can be integrated and used as formative assessments. 86% of teachers in high gain schools said they integrated the technology and core curriculum. 77% of teachers in low gain schools did NOT integrate the technology. Can Formative Assessments improve student achievement if used to guide instruction?

15. T.I.P. – Software Data Review in Instruction Running software review reports for individual students and class wholes 78% of teachers in high gain schools reported running software reports and analyzing them once per week or more. 17% of teachers in low gain schools ran and analyzed their reports. Biggest difference in increased student productivity.

16. T.I.P. – Software Data Importance 64% instituted a motivational system in high gain schools 46% instituted a motivational system in low gain schools Use of the reports can be used to group students during FLEX time Use of the reports can be used as integrated concepts in the regular class learning Being able to do this extra stuff depends upon the amount of classroom time taken to handle student behavior, school and principal needs, and teacher/community involvement. Once again, I would like to know the behavioral statistics, mandated requirements from the principal, and teacher activity involvement. Remembering that this program was secondary to the teacher’s regular requirements, how much time out of your day do you have to download, analyze, plan, and prepare instructional programs, considering your work load and family needs?

17. S.L.I.P. – Consistent Instructional Vision School as a whole provides support for software implementation Is it in the school wide Instructional Vision? Ex: Dreambox Do you have Principal Support? Is there Teacher Collaboration?

18. S.L.I.P. – Instructional Vision 4/7 high gain schools had a consistent instructional vision to use the software. 2/6 low gain schools had a consistent instructional vision to use the software. “Software is useful to teach basic fundamental skills that the teacher does not have time to go back and review.” “Software was good to advanced students but not lower students because it was too advanced.” “Honor students got bored with it, but the teacher thought it would be good for remediation.”

19. S.L.I.P. – Principal Support “Principals can provide support not just by permission and positive statements, but by allowing classes the time and opportunities for more access on the computers and joint planning periods and paid times for teachers to learn more about the product/software.” 5/7 high gain schools had principals that supported it 2/6 low gain schools had principal support Judge Method: Teacher Interview Question: If the principal did not support it, how did they receive the opportunity to implement the software?

20. S.L.I.P. – Teacher Collaboration 7/7 high gain schools reported having teacher collaboration and support of the software 2/6 low gain schools reported collaborating with teachers in planning use of the software. What are some benefits of collaborating?

21. S.L.I.P. – Technology Infrastructure and Technical Support 6/7 high gains ALWAYS had technical support 3/6 low gains did not

22. Technology Infrastructure & Support Results “The quality of onsite technology support, rather than its mere presence, is important and that good local support is not sufficient but may be necessary to ensure positive outcomes with technology.” Is this true? Why or Why not?

23. S.L.I.P. – Receipt of Additional Training & Support Training and support from commercial vendors with a product in the study

25. Theoretical Strength Formative Assessment The 5 key strategies of formative assessment are: (https://research.pearson.com/articles/teaching-in-the-moment.html)https://research.pearson.com/articles/teaching-in-the-moment.html 1.Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success; 2.Engineering effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks that elicit evidence of student understanding; 3.Providing feedback that moves learners forward; 4.Activating students as instructional resources for one another; 5.Activating students as the owners of their own learning.

26. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success Stating what the software hopes to improve The software is to be used for its purpose which is to integrate teaching methods and styles to different learners and different levels (differentiated instruction) Know your software’s purpose

27. Engineering effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks that elicit evidence of student understanding; The observations of the teachers and questions from the students help to engineer effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks and elicit evidence of student understanding Plan, Prepare and Implement a strategy that involves utilizing the software to meet a target

28. Providing feedback that moves learners forward Utilizing the student and class report so that teachers are able to identify and analyze areas of concern. Review and Analyze the results, then adjust the plans to meet the target

29. Activating students as instructional resources This did not happen in this article however, it could happen by way of student grouping (according to software review analysis) and the working out of problems in a group and individually. Allow the students to use the software in more ways than just ‘playing’.

30. Activating students as the owners of their own learning Sharing the results via teacher to student and utilizing the school level implementation process of awarding students that progress to high levels of achievement Students set their own goals and develop ways to succeed

31. Methodological Strengths What methodological strength can you think of?

32. Significance Articulation and Integration of Technology – How you use it Data Review in Instruction – Know the Results Identify Strengths and Weaknesses Implement a Plan Consistent Instructional Vision – Principal Support Teacher Collaboration Technology Infrastructure & Technical Support Create & Use “Best Practices” in Technology Implementation

33. Next Article Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. *Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26*(2), 49-54

34. School Reform ‘Old’ School Schools were designed to control the learning experience Teachers are technicians who dole out knowledge Students are judged according to how they achieve Looks the same as it did 100 years ago Technology Open the learning experience Teachers support and students seek out knowledge and solutions Students are judged according to comprehension of perception according to researched evidence Forever changing

35. How did the computer transform the classroom and academic world for students and teachers? How did the computer transform the classroom and academic world for students and teachers? How have technologies shaped teaching and learning?

36. Technologies for Learning Change Seymour Papert (1980) Teacher Become interdisciplinary facilitators of student creativity Guide learning while making space for experimentation Student Create and test knowledge claims Extend communication networks Provide immediate access to information Facilitate new forms of creative expression

37. Shaped Teaching and Learning Money Teacher Professional Development Increase Assessment Content Standards blended with Accountability Information System Technologies Data Driven Instructional Programs Learning vs Winning (Easy) – Manipulating and researching interactive opportunities

38. Main Focus Technologies for Learning Support the interest of technology designers Designers select learning goals and build technologies to reach those goals Instructor directed Expanded significantly in schools Virtual Charter Schools Technologies for learners Users select learning goals Users choose the means that will help them reach the selected learning goals Client directed Struggle to gain position in traditional schools Games

39. Should out of school learning (technologies for learners) compliment in school education (technology for learning)?