Moving at the Speed of Creativity

The Center for Distance
Learning Research, Texas A&M
Dr Ann
Gundy
Associate
Director
agundy@cdlr.tamu.edu

TxDLA
2005 Presentation
8 March
2005

Was contracted to provide
evaluation component for the TARGET
grant

TARGET is embedded in
NCLB
- very data intensive, gathering lots
of information

TARGET = Technology
Applications Readness Grants for Empowering
Texas
- this was the money grant for Texas
schools after TIF

background for TIF:
state asked for the data/evidence that TIF was having a positive impact on
student learning
- in past, they just asked
TIF recipients what did you buy, how much did it cost, did it
work?

requirements for TARGET
grants
- begain Jan
2003
- serve high need studetns by
accelarating at local level
- long range
plans for technology 96-2010
- state block
grant monies administered by TEA

this
was TARGET 2, there will not be a TARGET
3

background of focus (this came
right from NCLB)
- accountability for
student performance
- focus on what
works
- reduce bureacracy and increase
flexibility
- empower
parents

25% of all funds had to go to
staff development

Planning and
Design: San Pat Target
- Odem-Edroy ISD,
Sinton ISD and Arlington ISD
- mentoring
was a big part of this
- teachers developed
collaborative teams across districts
-
teams develped interactive learning experiences for studetns using video
conferencing and web technologies

in
2nd year the groups doubled from 20 to 40
-
big focus was on mentoring new
teachers

Region 2 ESC
Raget
- 4 districts: Aransas County,
Driscoll, Orange Grove, La Gloria
-
delivered science learning experiences from the Texas State Aquarium to 3rd, 4th
and 5th grade students via
videoconferencing

tried to pick up
data on daily basis so it was gathered as it
happened
- specific and measurable
objectives to orient the project
- imbed
evaluation technology into ongoing
activities
- incorporate teachers and
students as primary players
- make
technology as simple and commonplace as a pencil: this was the
goal

Steps to integrating
technology:
1- database design to support
collection and analysis plan
2- controlled
access
3- straightforward
interface
4- realtime / online status
reports
5- usable / actionable
feedback

Used an educational portal
software called “site forum”
- can give
access to different pieces of the content depending on role and
needs

Framework for data to be
collected, based on grant guidelines
-
Improving practice
– needs assessments:
technology competencies
– online journals:
personal
— 4 areas of
practice
— repeated entries (qualitative
and quantitative)
— reflections on
practice
– class
observations
— four areas of
practice
— multiple
observations
— not an
evaluaton

Goal of each grants, have
all teachers at 3rd level of SBEC
standards
- both SBEC and ISTE standards
reside on profiler website, this also identifies who is already skilled in
certain areas
- this then became a
networking tool and resource for mentoring
matchups

teacher STAR chart also
became a resource through Region 12, segmented out TARGET participants to use
that as pre and post data for
evaluation

teachers had about a week
to complete journal, had one open ended question and several lickert-style
questions
- are going to try
and
- looking for growth and change of
teachers’ feelings in four areas studied
-
looking for correlation between what teachers are telling us and what we see in
the classroom

Biggest obstacle:
helping teachers realize this was NOT the evaluation of their
teaching
- this was just a study to see how
the technology was being used and its
impact

showed sample of teacher
evaluation instrument, submitted via online
webform

also looking for Bloom’s
taxonomy, use of higher level thinking
skills

Anecdote from class visits:
student said to evaluator “I am so glad you are here, because when you are here
we get to use the computers”

At
student level, looking for:
- improving
learning
- started with baseline data from
year before the TARGET grants started
-
district tailored objectives
- aligned with
TEKS/TAKS
- multidisciplinary / integrated
technology applications
- linked to graded
periods

yes, data we have collected
so far does show improvement on
TEKS/TAKS

Outcomes

-reports:
- found data showed teachers
needed a lot of help understanding how they can integrate technology into their
classrooms, use it effectively


What they have
learned
- technology facilitates high
quality research
— database design is
very time consuming, very complicated
-
“success hinges on evaluation technology becoming transparent in daily
activities”
- flexible participation at
convenience of teachers
- Real Time Status
Reports help everyone


Challenges for
project
- new PI, got sick and was
out
- doubled number of teacher
participants, doubled amount of needed support, management
issues
- TEA added STaR chart
requirement
- maintaining the focus of the
project on technology integration
- year 3
funding has been significantly reduced


time factors have reduced numbers of
observations that could be made
- goal for
year 3 was to get all teachers participating at the target level, that “may need
to be renegoitated”


We know the students are showing improved
performance, we have that data
- show
teachers are improving their skills with
technology


Carrots for teachers was technoology
equipment
- most wanted document cameras
and projectors, also laptops
- graphing
calculator used with document camera is example of innovative
teaching
- also use a connector for
graphing calculator that goes right to


Now teachers not involved are fighting to
get involved in this project


didn’t integrate control groups as part
of design study


response to my question “how do you know
improved student performance is attributable to the technology and not to
changes in instructional practice?”
- ‘we
just know the lessons that teachers used had
technology’
- “just off the top, we can
see that students benefited”


we will mostly be using descriptive
statistics in our evaluaton


other factor: student population that was
tested moved up
- what they are being
tested on now at new grade level goes up


some money was used for book rather than
on technology integration or technology
hardware
- that money should have gone to
technology and it didn’t


Final report due 30 April to
TEA
- TEA should make those available



“this is important work because it validates the role of technology in teaching
and learning, now we have the data to show
that”

My
questions:


- please elaborate on statement
“maintaining the focus of the project on technology integration” was a
challenge
- how did you document change in
instructional practice?
- how do you know
improved student performance is attributable to the technology and not to
changes in instructional practice?
- did
you find that the change and improvement in student performance was signficant
compared to baseline data? Comparing to control groups anywhere? What
statistical tests and experimental design was used to show
this?
- are the instruments you used for
gathering this data available online?
-
where will this final report be published / made available
online?

Question I wonder but
will not ask: how much did they get paid to do all this grant evaluation for
this Target grant
- I may be able to find
out looking at awarded TARGET grant budget info