T3: Improving Teaching & Learning Through Technology

Food for Thought LuncheonAugust 31, 2011

Introductions• Bastrop ISD:

– Bryan Doyle, Director of Instructional Technology

• KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program): – Kelly Mullin, Science Instructional Coach

• Leander ISD: – Tracy Nolen, Client Services

• Pflugerville ISD: – Kathy Hickok, Director of Accountability– Kathryn Ives, Coordinator Instructional

Technology

• Round Rock ISD: – Robert Autrey, Lead Technology

Integration Specialist

• San Marcos ISD: – Ronda Stonecipher, Director of

Instructional Technology,

• UT Elementary• Resources for Learning:

– Ali Callicoatte Picucci, PhD, Director of Evaluation & Research

• E3 Alliance:– Susan Dawson, President

Presentation Objectives

• Lessons Learned– Collaborative– Technology – Usage– Student – Teacher– Curriculum Redesign– Evaluation– Grant

• Resources

Texas Target Tech (T3) Grant

..to stimulate the use of educational technologyto improve teaching and learning.

• Regional Collaboration• Focus

– Grades 2 – 6– Campuses with high population of English Language Learners – Interactive White Board Technology (Promethean)

• Statement of Purpose– Increase access to technology for Collaborative schools with

high enrollments of students classified as economically disadvantaged and English Language Learners (ELL) through provision of student interactive technologies.

CTX Collaboration• Facilitator: E3 Alliance

– Grant Procurement Effort and Regional Sharing• School Districts: Bastrop, KIPP, Leander,

Pflugerville, Round Rock, San Marcos, UT Elementary

• Project Management & Fiscal Agent: Pflugerville ISD

• External Evaluator: Resources for Learning, LLC.

• Shared Service Agreement

How Did We Get Here?• Texas Target Technology (T3) Grant

– Federal Stimulus Dollars– Passed through TEA– August 2009– Up to $1M, 2 year grants

• No partner eligible and/or had capacity on their own

• Collaborative awarded $965,000• First instance of districts and charters

working closely together

• By the Numbers– 26 Schools– 95 Boards– 3,452 Students over 2 years receiving interactive

white board instruction– 25% required to be spent on Professional

Learning

• Appreciation– Aha!Math & Aha!Science: Learning.com– Gary Siddons, Lumens Document Camera

Support– ProComputing– Other vendors

Distribution of Participants

LEATeachers Students

2010 2011 2010 2011

Bastrop ISD 13% 11% 11% 7%

KIPP 10% 11% 18% 18%

Leander ISD 14% 13% 10% 8%Pflugerville

ISD23% 25% 23% 22%

Round Rock ISD

21% 23% 23% 33%

San Marcos CISD

7% 9% 11% 8%

UTEC 12% 8% 4% 5%

Resources for Learning, LLC

Student Grade DistributionGrade Level 2010 2011

Grade 3 21% 17%

Grade 4 29% 20%

Grade 5 32% 22%

Grades 6-8 18% 41%

Resources for Learning, LLC

Student Ethnicity

2010 Grant 2011 Grant Collaborative Districts' Average

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

72%75%

55%

11% 8% 10%17% 17%

35%

Hispanic African American Other

Resources for Learning, LLC

Student Economic Disadvantaged Status

2010 Grant 2011 Grant Collaborative Districts' Average

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

75% 76%

59%

25% 24%

41%

Economically Disadvantaged Non-Economically Disadvantaged

Resources for Learning, LLC

Student LEP Status

2010 Grant 2011 Grant Collaborative Districts' Average

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

37% 34%

19%

63% 66%

81%

LEP Non-LEP

Resources for Learning, LLC

Teacher InformationGrade Level 2010 2011

Grade 2 11% 13%

Grades 3–5 80% 73%

Grades 6–8 9% 14%

Type of Certification 2010 2011

Alternative Certification 42% 42%

Undergraduate Degree 38% 40%

Graduate Degree 17% 18%

Not Certified 3% 0%

Resources for Learning, LLC

Collaborative Lessons Learned

• Consider writing a vendor-neutral grant– Cheaper to support & easier to evaluate using

standard technology– But districts/partners lose flexibility

• Develop Common Language and Understanding– Fiscal rules, business procedures and classroom

standards

• Open Communication Across Districts – All stakeholders should be involved from finance to

technology personnel– Wiki website

Collaborative Lessons Learned• Build trust among partners and overcome fear of

risks

• Relationships among technology support teams is VITAL to success– Shared knowledge and expertise across region (e.g.,

lessons, wikis)– Shared PD– “Connections”

Professional Development

Participant Average PD Hours

Year 1 ONLY Teachers 19

Year 2 ONLY Teachers 44

Year 1 & 2 Teachers 67

Principals 35

Technology Specialists 80

Resources for Learning, LLC

As a district instructional technology specialist, I usually have to be the “lone expert” on all things new in technology.  Through

the T3 grant that E3 Alliance led for our region, we have not only brought great new instructional assets to my district, but built collaborative relationships across the region that benefit my

work. We’re now sharing a whole variety of things I would have to pay for or do without if I didn’t have this network of peers. 

The relationships borne out of the E3 Alliance collaborative will bring us value for many years to come.

Tracy NolenLeander ISD

Usage Lessons Learned• Plan for Movement of Teachers

– Trained teachers should keep board when moving to new classroom to avoid loss of PD investment

– Teacher Attrition. Who will train new teachers?• PD for Principals

– Helped with buy-in– Grant required 24 hours of PD

• PD for Technology Support Staff – Originally not in grant– Crucial in creating regional centers of expertise

• Took longer than expected for teachers to feel comfortable with Promethean technology

Technology Lessons Learned• Involve all stakeholders as early as possible• Ensure single-point of contact from vendor• 3 - 5 year warranties on Boards• Fixed boards expensive to move

– Partners shared resource/expertise to move them• Teachers and support specialists were able to share

lessons through Wikihttp://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.com

Student Lessons Learned• Students enjoyed interacting with the flipcharts

– Standing at the board– Using a wireless mouse– Active, not passive, learning

• Students more attentive and interested– Engaged in active dialog with self and classmates– Incorporated pictures, video, music, dual-language– Learning made visual for ELLs– Students appear to do more self-directed learning– Benefited from the instant feedback

Student Lessons Learned

Video’s (San Marcos ISD)• Promethean Parent (MOV -34.25 MB)

Parent Volunteer Describing Active Boards

• Student Talking (MOV -17.80 MB) Student Talking About Using The Active Board

Teacher Lessons Learned• The number of times that technology must work flawlessly before it

will be trusted enough for another attempt varies from teacher-to-teacher. – Assess comfort and skill level before training– Adapt an existing lesson to integrate technology to establish a skill and

comfort level from which they can grow.

• When the technology is trusted, the teachers become creative in expanding its use.– Wireless mouse on back of clip-board– Explored advanced features independently– Used response devices not only for formative assessments to modify

instruction, but for daily activities (lunch count, “I’m finished”, etc.)– Modify existing/already created Flipcharts– Sharing of lessons and teacher created Flipcharts

Video’s (San Marcos ISD)• T-3 Bost (MOV -64.24 MB)

• T-3 Gomez (MOV -47.11 MB)

• T-3 Medrano (MOV -35.42 MB)

• T-3 Smith (MOV -23.82 MB)

• T-3 Stover (MOV -38.58 MB)

Teacher Lessons Learned

Curriculum Redesign Lessons Learned(i.e. Instructional Environment / Delivery)

• Process of writing and sharing a Curriculum Redesign statement was beneficial – Examples: RRISD, PISD, LISD, UT, KIPP,

Bastrop, San Marcos– Formal tool to measure effectiveness and quality

of technology integration and use– Guide professional development efforts– Identify potential benefits and pitfalls of using

interactive technology tools

Robert Marzano: Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards

Be

nef

its

Curriculum Redesign Lessons Learned

Pitfalls: Nothing that Professional Development and Support can’t prevent.

Focus on technology instead of curriculum. Too many bells, whistles, and visuals. Improper pacing. Little or no feedback.

Evaluation Lessons Learned• Different grade levels participated across 7 LEAs (ranging

from Grade 2 to Grade 6)• Longitudinal study not possible• LEA flexibility in implementation• TEA-required evaluation components not aligned with project

– For example, surveys did not align with project goals and did not identify participants across administrations

Compromise:• Define common activities:

– Professional development – Grade-level mathematics flipcharts

• Descriptive evaluation approach using student and program data, surveys, observations

Resources for Learning, LLC

Classroom Management

No problems Minor problems Significant problems0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

58%

40%

2%

78%

22%

2010 (N=50) 2011 (N=41)

Student Engagement

Low Low-moderate Moderate High-moderate High0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10%

28%

44%

18%

7%

37%

56%

2010 (N=50) 2011 (N=41)

Community Technology Awareness

• Teachers and principals perceived an increase in parent and community support for school-use of technology.

• More parents in 2011 indicated that technology was essential to education compared to 2010.

• More parents indicated that technology had positive academic impacts on student achievement in 2010 compared to 2011.

Parent Rating of Importance of Technology

2011

2010

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4%

3%

10%

24%

14%

18%

73%

55%

Not necessary

Necessary but not essential

Essential but should not commit significant resources

Essential and should be state-of-the-art technology

Parent Reported Impact on Achievement

His/her use of available technology at home for school projects

Amount of initiative taken outside class time doing extra research, etc. for projects involving technology

Depth of understanding of his/her subjects

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63%

63%

67%

71%

75%

80%

70%

58%

68%

62%

66%

69%

2010 2011

Evaluation Lessons LearnedSummary

• Including project implementers is a challenge but necessary for buy-in and success.

• Understanding impacts of teacher staffing and migration patterns on participation is important for project resources.

• Project included students classified as economically disadvantaged and LEP.

• LEAs accomplished identified project activities.

• Specific teacher and student technology use increased as did teacher-reported technology proficiency.

• Student engagement increased.• Community awareness of technology

increased.

Evaluation Lessons LearnedSummary

Grant Lessons Learned

• Regional Collaborations Work!– Allow regional sharing of human resources for

help, Professional Learning, etc.– Looking at other collaborative grants now

• Interactive technology worth the investment!

• Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts

Grant Lessons Learned

• Need someone partially dedicated to grant fiscal management/reporting

• Include clause about quality of PD, flexibility about provider if quality not met

• TEA survey unrelated and unannounced

• Documentation is key!

Important Resources

• T3 Wiki/Flipchart Resources– http://t3-prometheanplanning.wikispaces.com

• TEA Grants– http://burleson.tea.state.tx.us/GrantOpportunities

/forms/GrantProgramSearch.aspx• TCEA

– http://www.tcea.org/Pages/default.aspx

www.e3alliance.org

jvanoverschelde@e3alliance.org