Psld final report

Grand Forks Public Schools

Personal Student Learning Device Study

2010

Grand Forks Public Schools


2010 – 2011 School Year


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3

Grand Forks Public Schools 2010-2013 Technology Plan .......................................................................................3

Technology Vision ...............................................................................................................................................3

Technology Planning Principles ..........................................................................................................................3

Recommendations from 2010 District Technology Plan ........................................................................................4

Study Recommendation #1 ................................................................................................................................4




Personal Student Device Committee......................................................................................................................5

Committee Members .........................................................................................................................................5

Committee Meetings ..........................................................................................................................................5

Guiding Research ........................................................................................................................................................6

21st Century Learners .............................................................................................................................................6

21st Century Skills....................................................................................................................................................7

1 to 1 Program Research ........................................................................................................................................8

United States Educational Technology Plan 2010 ..................................................................................................9

Final Study Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................9

PSLD Proposed Learning Goals ...............................................................................................................................9

PSLD Proposed Operational Objectives ............................................................................................................... 10

PSLD Proposed Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................. 11

Professional Development .............................................................................................................................. 11

Technical Support ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Learning Management System ........................................................................................................................ 11

Personal Student Learning Device Types ........................................................................................................ 12

Budgetary Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 13

References ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

INTRODUCTION

GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2010-2013 TECHNOLOGY PLAN

The Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee developed and presented the 2010-2013

District Technology Plan to the School Board in March of 2010. The district vision and planning

principles are shown below.

TECHNOLOGY VISION

The Grand Forks Public Schools believe technology is an integral component of learning and is necessary

to learn effectively, live productively and participate globally in an increasingly digital world.

Technology resources transform learning by allowing learners to create, publish, collaborate and

communicate with others in a global environment. Technology helps learners gather and analyze

information, solve problems and develop higher-level thinking skills through authentic real-world

experiences.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PRINCIPLES

The implementation of the technology vision will be accomplished by aligning all technology initiatives

to one or more of the following technology principles.

Principle #1 – Student Centered Technology

Principle #2 – Enhance Communication

Principle #3 – Effective Planning & Funding

Principle #4 – Administrative Systems

Principle #5 – Inclusive Support Services

Principle #6 – Data Driven Decision Making

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2010 DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN

The Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee made a number of study recommendations to

the school board during the 2010 technology planning process.

STUDY RECOMMENDATION #1

The Grand Forks Public Schools should study and evaluate the potential of a

1:1 computer implementation for students during the 2010-2011 school year.


The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of digital

curriculum resources that support 21st century teaching and learning during

the 2010-2011 school year.


The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential use of social media

systems to support administrative and instructional practices.


The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of course

management software that would support instructional practice.

In response to these recommendations, the Personal Student Learning Device (PSLD) Committee was

formed in September of 2010 to address recommendations. This document represents the research,

findings and recommendations for action by the Grand Forks Public Schools School Board.

PERSONAL STUDENT DEVICE COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

District Committee Members

Darin King, Technology Director, Chair

Darlene Johnson, Elem Technology Facilitator

Monte Gaukler, Secondary Technology Facilitator

Jeff Compton, Network Services Coordinator

Dr. Terry Brenner, Director of CIAPD

Virginia Tupa, Director of Inst. Services

Eric Ripley, Director of CTE

Brad Srur, GFEA President

District Technology Partners

District CIAPD Staff

Elementary Technology Committee

Scott Johnson, Elementary Principal and Chair

Paige Strom, Teacher, 1st Grade, Kelly

Jennifer Benjamin, Teacher, 1st Grade, Winship

Besty Kuznia, Teacher, 2nd Grade, Lake Agassiz

Brad Srur, Intermediate Teacher, Phoenix

Amber Carlson, Teacher, 3rd Grade, Lewis & Clark

Liz Deere, Teacher, 4th Grade, Ben Franklin

Linda Dalzell, Media Specialist, Century

Adam Eckert, Physical Education, Viking

Community Members

Jenny Arel, GF Foundation for Education

Dr. Michael Brown, GF Mayor and Altru

Tom Erickson, UND EERC

Cindy Grabe, UND

Dr. Mark Grabe, UND

Nikki Jo Klefstad, Bank Forward

Diane Manthei

Gary Mitchell, Retired Principal

Thana Prochko

Janet Spaeth, UND

Linda St. Onge, Retired Teacher

Aaron Stefanich, GF Public Library

Barry Wilfahrt, GF Chamber

Austin Winger

Chris Wolf, Alerus Financial

Judy Anderson, Century

Jay Mindeman, Schroeder

Brenda Rosendahl, Red River

Nicole Trottier, Winship

Secondary Technology Committee

Mary Koopman, Principal, Secondary Co-Chair

Kris Arason, Principal, Secondary Co-Chair

Kim Slotsve, Principal, Red River HS

Terry Bohan, Principal, Community HS

Matt Solberg, Teacher, Grade 6, South MS

Jon Sailer, Teacher, Grade 7, Schroeder MS

Nate Olson, Teacher, Grade 8, Valley MS

Judy Hagar, Media Specialist, Schroeder MS

Kathy Hill, Media Specialist, Red River HS

Scott Conrad, Teacher, Central HS

Tim Tandeski, Teacher, Red River HS

Eileen Zygarlicke, Teacher, Community HS

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

The Personal Student Learning Device Committee met on the following dates.

• October 7, 2010

• November 9, 2010

• December 6th, 2010

• January 24, 2011

• February 21, 2011

GUIDING RESEARCH

The following research and literature was used to guide the development of the Personal Student

Learning Device Study.

21ST CENTURY LEARNERS

Like many generations before, the current generation of school age children is “different”. Palfrey and

Urs (2008) call the generation born after 1980 “Digital Natives” and those born before 1980 “Digital

Immigrants”. Digital Natives have always had new and emerging technology as a part of their world

and they are not afraid to adapt and change. Digital Natives are not inherently better or smarter users

of technology but they are more willing to embrace rapid and constant change. Digital Immigrants may

resist change and generally wait longer to adopt new technologies.

Jukes, McCain and Crockett (2010) compare and contrast the learning preferences of current students

with the traditional instructional methods. The table below highlights the differences based on their

research.

21st

Century Learners Traditional Instruction

Receive information quickly from multiple sources Slow and controlled release of information from

limited sources

Process pictures, video, sounds and color before

text

Provide text before pictures, video, sounds and

color

Random access to hyperlinked multimedia

information

Information provided linearly, logically and

sequentially

Network simultaneously with many others Work independently before networking and

interaction

Learning is “just in time” Teaching is “just in case”

Instant gratification with immediate and deferred

rewards

Deferred gratification and delayed rewards

Learning that is relevant, active, instantly useful

and fun

Memorization in preparation for standardized tests

Project Tomorrow (2010), a nationwide survey of 299,677 K-12 students, found that students want

digitally-rich, social-based learning that is un-tethered from traditional educational paradigms.

Labeling these ideas as “essential conditions”, the report goes on to explain the unique opportunity

education is faced with today.

“While these three essential elements represent some dramatically new approaches to

teaching and learning in a classroom setting, for the student, the incorporation of the

tools and applications is merely a natural extension of the way they are currently living

and learning outside of that classroom. Thus, there exists a very special opportunity

today to both increase the relevancy of a student’s education experience and to start to

close the persistent digital disconnect between students and educators on learning with

technology. The key to unlock this opportunity is a long overdue realization that the

students’ ideas on how to effectively leverage technology within learning can provided

meaningful insights and even present a clear pathway for implementation.” (Project

Tomorrow, 2010)

21ST CENTURY SKILLS

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) is a national organization that is helping implement 21st

century skills initiatives in 15 different states. Working with state governments, they are developing

21st century student outcomes and support systems that are focused on ensuring 21st century

readiness for all students. They identify communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking as

the primary learning and innovation skills necessary for student readiness in the 21st century. They

also indicate the need for information, media and technical literacy as part of a robust 21st century

skills initiative.

The North Central Regional Education Laboratory and the Metiri Group (2003) identify digital age

literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication and high productivity as the key topics in their

enGauge 21st Century Skills research. Digital age literacy includes the development of technical,

scientific, economic, visual, information and multicultural literacy. Inventive thinking includes

developing creativity, adaptability, curiosity, higher order thinking and sound reasoning. Effective

communications includes developing collaboration and interpersonal skills, personal and civic

responsibility and interactive communication skills. High productivity includes the effective use of real

world tools, project management skills and producing high quality products.

Wagner (2008) proposes that there is a “global achievement gap” defined as the gap between what we

are teaching and assessing versus the reality of what is needed to be a successful citizen in the 21st

century. After extensive research, the author identified seven critical survival skills that are necessary

to be successful in the 21st century:

• Critical thinking and problem solving

• Collaboration across networks and leading by influence

• Agility and Adaptability

• Initiative and Entrepreneurialism

• Effective Oral and Written Communication

• Accessing and Analyzing Information

• Curiosity and Imagination

Although each of the perspectives highlighted in this section are slightly different, they all indicate that

communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking are important skills for success in the 21st

century.

1 TO 1 PROGRAM RESEARCH

Apple’s Classrooms of Tomorrow research during the 1990’s was some of the earliest research to

document and support the increased learning created when students have ubiquitous access to

technology as a learning tool (Rockman et al., 1997). The research indicated the improved learning was

created as a result of the new instructional teaching strategies that encouraged communication,

collaboration and creativity which lead to increased student motivation.

Many researchers recognize that current standardized tests are not capable of capturing increases in

student learning generated from one to one laptop programs (Holcomb, 2009; Lei & Zhao, 2006;

Silvernail, 2005; Suhr et al., 2010). This apparent “disconnect” can be partially explained by the

emphasis on 21st century skills and project based learning in many of the one to one programs.

Beginning in 2002, the Maine Learning with Technology Initiative provided laptop computers to all

middle school students and teachers and is being expanded to include high school students and

teachers. Research from the Maine project indicates significant improvement on standardized

assessments in literacy and mathematics (Clariana, 2009; Holcomb, 2009; Silvernail & Gritter, 2007).

Project RED (2010) studied over 900 schools with diverse structures, demographics and technology

use. They found that schools with student to computer ratios of one to one out perform schools with

higher ratios on both academic and financial measures.

Nine key implementation factors most closely linked to education success were identified and ordered

by predictive strength.

1. Intervention classes: Technology integrated into every intervention class.

2. Change management leadership: Leaders provide time for professional learning and

collaboration at least monthly.

3. Online collaboration: Students use technology daily for online collaboration.

4. Core subjects: Technology is integrated into core curriculum once per week or more.

5. Online formative assessments: Assessments are done at least weekly.

6. Student/computer ratio: Lower ratios improve outcomes

7. Virtual field trips: Virtual trips are more powerful when used at least monthly.

8. Online research using search engines: Daily student use.

9. Principal training: Principals are trained on best practices and technology transformed learning.

When the nine key implementation factors are properly applied in a one to one computer school, data

indicate an improvement in high stakes test scores, a reduction in disciplinary issues, better attendance

rates, reduced dropout rates and improved graduation rates. In addition, one to one schools save

money by reducing printing costs and reducing the number of students that need to retake classes

after failing.

UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN 2010

The U.S. Department of Education (2010) is supporting 1:1 student implementation in the draft of the

National Educational Technology Plan in the goals listed below.

“Ensure that every student and educator has at least one Internet access device and

software and resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and

collaboration for use in and out of school.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

“Develop and adopt learning resources that exploit the flexibility and power of

technology to reach all learners anytime and anywhere.” (U.S. Department of Education,

2010).

FINAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

The Grand Forks Public Schools Personal Student Learning Device Study Committee recommends the

district implement personal student learning devices as a means to support academic achievement and

address the following learning goals.

PSLD PROPOSED LEARNING GOALS

ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL LEARN TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE AND

COLLABORATE USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.

The widespread use of cellular telephones, SMS text messaging, electronic mail, instant messaging,

Google Apps, Skype, Twitter, Facebook and millions of blogs have dramatically changed the way people

communicate and collaborate. Teaching and modeling the safe, appropriate and effective use of these

new and emerging communication tools for both personal and professional use is critical for our

students’ future success.

ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL CREATE ARTIFACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THEIR

LEARNING USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.

There are many new and different ways to demonstrate student learning in the 21st Century. Allowing

students to create projects using online tools like Blogger, Google Apps, Glogster, VoiceThread,

Animoto and YouTube provide new ways for students to demonstrate what they have learned. Using

these online tools also allows a wider and more authentic audience to view, comment and provide

feedback to the student.

ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM

SOLVING SKILLS USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.

The need for critical thinking and problem solving skills has never been more important than they are

in the 21st Century. The amount of information available on the Internet continues to grow

exponentially and students must be able to effectively analyze information, make judgments and solve

problems in innovative ways.

PSLD PROPOSED OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The following operational objectives are necessary for the successful implementation of personal

student learning devices.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will issue a personal student learning device to three grade

levels of students by the 2013-2014 school year.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will provide extensive instructional and technical support to the

teachers and students with personal student learning devices.

• Personal student learning devices will be used to support real time, embedded formative

assessment practices by teachers.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will make a commitment to selecting digital curriculum during

the curriculum review process for the implementation grade levels.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a comprehensive learning management system

to support traditional and blended instructional practices.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a mobile filtering system to support the

appropriate use of the personal student learning devices.

• The Grand Forks Public Schools will reduce printing costs at the implementation schools by

assisting students and teachers to use the available digital tools and resources.

PSLD PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Grand Forks Public School district is uniquely positioned to provide personal student learning

devices to a focused part of our student population. The ongoing support for the Curriculum

Technology Partner Program, notebook computers for professional staff, robust infrastructure and

appropriate levels of technical support are all requirements for a successful implementation that are

currently addressed by the existing Technology Plan for the Grand Forks Public Schools.

The Technology Department would implement a single grade level each year for three years, which

would be approximately 500 student devices each year. This will allow for efficient use of existing

support structures, including instructional coaching from the Curriculum Technology Partner staff and

deployment services from the technical support staff.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Curriculum Technology Partners would provide instructional coaching and professional

development opportunities to the teachers implementing in each of the first three years. The

opportunities would include individual, small group and large group professional development focused

on 21st Century skills, instructional strategies and digital citizenship.

The Technology Department would facilitate professional development opportunities for district and

building administrators on instructional leadership and change management in a one to one learning

environment.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Student support help desks will be created in the secondary schools to provide just in time, peer

support for students having issues with a device. At the elementary level, students with an interest will

be recruited and trained to provide classroom based, peer support for the student learning devices.

This structure will serve as the first stop for students experiencing problems and unresolved issues will

be escalated to school and district technical support staff.

District technical staff will make extensive use of deployment and management systems already in

place to handle the increased density of computers in the district.

LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A learning management system will be implemented to allow teachers to quickly develop and manage

online portals to their classroom for both student and parents. The system will be available only to

staff, students and parents and will support social networking and blended instruction.

Blended instruction classes refer to the ability of students to learn in both online and traditional

environments. The goal of blended instruction is to provide “anytime, anywhere” access to learning

through an online learning management system that provides necessary course curriculum and creates

powerful social connections that foster collaborative learning.

PERSONAL STUDENT LEARNING DEVICE TYPES

The committee reviewed the strengths and weakness of devices at three different price points. The

table below summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of devices when grouped by device cost.

Device Cost Strengths Weakness Example Devices

$300

Communication, Collaboration,

Creation Station, Critical Thinking,

Day long battery, Size and Weight,

Connectivity,

$100-$150 annual cost per student

Multimedia Power,

Management Options

Netbooks

Mobile Phones

Small tablets

$600


Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Day long

battery,

Size and Weight, Connectivity


Less than Day Battery Life,

Multimedia power,

Management Options

Low end Notebooks

High end Netbooks

Emerging Tablets

$900


Creation Station, Critical Thinking,

Multimedia, Connectivity,


Size and Weight,

Battery Life

Full power Notebooks

Emerging Tablets

Convertible Tablets

After considerable discussion, the majority of the committee agreed that the most viable option was a

device in the $300 category due primarily to the day long battery, communication and collaboration

features and low annual cost per student.

BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

By implementing the proposal over three years, the budget would increase gradually to a level of full

sustainability of personal student learning devices at nine grade levels. The devices could be leased at

an approximate cost of $150.00 per student, per year.

Personal Student Learning Devices

Implement 1 Grade per Year

3 Year Lease Cost at $150.00 per student

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Student Devices Year 1 $ 82,500 $82,500 $82,500

Student Devices Year 2 $82,500 $82,500

Student Devices Year 3 $82,500

Totals $82,500 $ 165,000 $ 247,500

Personal Student Learning Devices

3 Year Technology Budget Projection

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

$ 672,000.00 $682,500 $729,000 $811,500

REFERENCES

Clariana, R. (2009). Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. Journal of

Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 5-21.

Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & Lessons Learned from1:1 Laptop Initiatives: A Collective Review.

TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-18.

Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). The power of one to one. Early findings from the Maine

learning technology initiative. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6-8.

Palfrey, J., Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic

Books, New York.

Project RED (2010). Project RED key findings. http://www.projectred.org/

Project Tomorrow. (2010). Creating our future: Students speak up about their vision for 21st

Century

Learning. http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SUNationalFindings2010.pdf.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework

for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.

Silvermail, D.L., Gritter, A.K. (2007). Maine’s Middle School Laptop Program: Creating Better

Writers. Maine Education Policy Research, University of Southern Maine. http://www.usm.

maine.edu/cepare/Impact_on_Student_Writing_Brief.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by

Technology - National Educational Technology Plan 2010 Draft. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-

2010.

Psld final report

Education

Transcript of Psld final report