8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
1/16
Innovative Teachingand Learning ResearchExecutive SummaryOctober 2010
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
2/16
Project Sponsor:James Bernard, Director,
Partners in Learning
Program Director:
Maria Langworthy,
Langworthy Research
CONTRIBUTING
RESEARCH PARTNERS:
Agora Center, University
of Jyvskyl, Finland
Centre for Strategic and
International Studies,
Indonesia
Institute of NewTechnologies, Russia
Association of Teachers and
Researchers of ICT in Education
and Training, Senegal
SRI RESEARCH TEAM:
Barbara Means
Kea Anderson
Gucci Estrella
Larry Gallagher
Amy Hafter
Corinne Singleton
Yukie Toyama
ITL Research: Executive Summary of Pilot Year FindingsLinda Shear, Gabriel Novais, and Savitha Moorthy, SRI International
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
3/16
1
In a classroom in Russiastudents are conducting a 2-month investigation intoclimate factors such as temperature and humidity in theirclassroom, and devising plans to use live plants to improvethe air quality in their school.
While specific goals for change vary, common themes
include developing problem-solving and teamwork skills,
and using technology to support more powerful learning.
Although there are inspiring examples of innovative teaching
promoting this kind of learning1, research continues to show
that in most places classroom practice lags behind goals (e.g.,
OECD, 2009; Law, Pelgrum, & Plomp, 2010). The sources of
this gap between the rhetoric of change and the realities ofclassrooms range from lack of access to resources and training
to lack of clear expectations in systems that are still organized
and incented toward traditional measures of achievement.
Most students still experience instruction that is largely
lecture-based, and extensive national education investments
in technology have not yet resulted in widespread
transformation of learning opportunities.
In a growing number of countries, the Innovative Teaching
and Learning (ITL) Research program is fueling inquiry and
discussion among policymakers, educators, and researchers
about the distance between teaching and learning visions and
practiceand what to do about it. ITL Research, sponsored
by Microsofts Partners in Learning, investigates innovative
teaching practices, the conditions that enable teachers
to teach in new ways, and the resulting connection with
students 21st century skills. As the program progresses,
these methods will be adapted into tools and processes that
educators can use to examine, discuss, and ultimately improvethe educational opportunities they provide to students.
This report summarizes results from the pilot year of
ITL Research (2009-10), with data from four participating
countries: Finland, Indonesia, Russia, and Senegal. The goal of
a program pilot is to test and tune instruments and methods,
so thefindings reported here should be considered preliminary
and in need ofconfirmation through further research in
subsequent years of this program. However, these results do
raise issues and suggest important considerations regarding the
conditions that support innovative teaching and learning.
Around the world, thereis growing consensusamong education leaders,researchers and educatorsthat teaching and learning must change to help students developthe skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century (Ananiadou &
Claro, 2009; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004; Scheuermann
and Pedr, 2009).
1 See for example http://www.microsoft.com/education/pil/IT_home.aspx
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
4/16
ITL Research seeks to build an understanding of the conditions that support innovative teaching practice supported by
effective use of ICT.2 The research design looks across the complex ecosystem of influences that shape teaching and learning
within national, school, and classroom contexts. While the conceptual framework below does not claim to be comprehensive,
it does emphasize a range of factors that extensive prior research has shown to be linked to teaching practices and deepstudent learning.3 Methods and measures in ITL Research build on and are guided by these and many other leading studies
and frameworks, and are described in greater detail in Shear, Means, Gallagher, House, & Langworthy (2009).
In this model, innovative teaching practices encompass both pedagogy and technology. While ICT is an important focus
of this research, its use is not seen as an end in itself. Rather, appropriate use of ICT is considered an important enabler of a
student-centered learning environment that helps students build both deep subject matter knowledge and skills such as
collaboration, communication, problem-solving, and self-regulation that they will need to succeed in the 21st century. See
Shear et al., 2009 for more detailed definitions of the constructs central to ITL Research (available at www.itlresearch.com).
About ITL Research
ITL Research uses a distributed design to carry out research
that is at once global and local in scope. SRI International
is the global research organization responsible for design,
coordination, and results synthesis, ensuring that overall
design parameters and instruments are developed centrally
and implemented consistently across countries. A research
partner in each country manages local design, data collection,
analysis and the sharing offindings with local and regional
stakeholders. ITL Research is grounded in partnerships with
government and key organizations that influence education
policy in each country, including theirfinancial sponsorship of
the research in many countries. Finally, ITL Research is guidedby an advisory board of international experts (see http://www.
itlresearch.com/ for a full list of all partners).
OUTCOMESCONTEXT & INPUTS PRACTICES
National School & Teacher
Program
Supports EducatorAttitudes
School Culture
and Supports
Students 21st
Century Skills
Education
PolicyICT Access and
Supports
Classroom Student
Innovative
Teaching
Practices
ITL RESEARCH MODEL
Student-Centered
Pedagogy
Extending
learning beyond
the classroom
ICT used for
teaching and
learning
2 In this research, ICT
(Information and Com-
munication Technologies) is
defined broadly to include
not only computers and
the Internet but also smart
phones, electronic white-
boards, and other hardware
and software tools.
3 See for example Law,
Pelgrum, & Plomp, 2010;
Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2008.
2
rogram
SupportsProfessional
Development
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
5/16
ITL Research is a mixed-methods study that uses several distinct lenses into classroom practice, all based on a common
framework. The major constructs that define innovative teaching on this projectstudent-centered pedagogies, extension
of learning beyond the classroom, and ICT integration into teaching and learningare translated into measurable indicators
for data collection via survey instruments, classroom observation protocols, and rubrics to characterize teaching and learning.
Although these data sources differ in focus, each allows us to construct a comparable, aggregate measure for innovative
teaching practices.
Teacher and school leader surveysprovide self-reported data across a
wide range of participants. In the pilot
year, we surveyed approximately 600
teachers and their school leaders in each
country, representing a total sample of
2406 teachers and 82 school leaders.
Teachers responded to questions about
their teaching practices, the resources
that were available to them, and their
professional development experiences. By
combining their responses to questions
on the frequency with which they engage
in a variety of teaching practices, we get
a measure of what teachers say that they
and their students do over the course of a
school year. In the results that follow, this
measure is reported as the innovative
teaching practices index.
A more specific and objective lenson classroom practice comes from the analysis oflearning activities and student work,
as illustrated in the following sample [page 4] from a classroom in Russia. Samples of learning activities and student work were
collected from 48 teachers per country. Learning activities are the assignments that teachers ask students to complete, and
can include work done in or out of class, activities that last one class period or two months, basic worksheets or complicated
projects. Researchers also collected samples of the work that students did in response to these learning activities, which
include essays, worksheets, presentations, or other student products. By recruiting and training experienced educators to code
samples of learning activities and student work on common rubrics that describe specific dimensions of 21st century skills,
we get a measure of the extent to which students have the opportunity to acquire these skills and the extent to which they are
demonstrating those skills in the work they do. The definitions and rubrics that operationalize the concepts of 21st century
teaching and learning were developed by SRI, building on prior research (Bryk, Nagaoka, & Newmann, 2000; Matsumura &
Pascal, 2003; Mitchell, Shkolnik, Song, Uekawa, Murphy, Garet, & Means, 2005; Shear, Means, Gorges, Toyama, Gallagher, Estrella,
& Lundh, 2009).
How do we measure innovative teaching?
ITL RESEARCH SAMPLE
Survey Schools 91 schools
Teacher survey 2,406 teacher surveys
School leader survey 82 respondents
Site Visit/Artifact
Collection Schools24 schools
Teacher interviews
Teacher observations
96 interviewees
96 classroom observedSchool leader
interviews24 interviewees
Learning activities 650 samples
Student work 3,647 samples
METHOD ACTUAL 4-COUNTRY SAMPLE
3
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
6/16
4
A third measure of teaching practice comes from
classroom observations, which were conducted by
researchers during an on-site visit with a subset of the
teachers who submitted examples of learning activities and
student work. This data source, along with accompanying
interviews, provides a more thorough understanding of
teaching and learning in selected settings within each country.
In 2010-11, case studies of selected schools will deepen this
local perspective.
All ITL Research tools are available to the public at http://
www.itlresearch.com. These tools are updated annually for
the three-year duration of this project. The project team is
in the process of adapting these methods to support use by
educators as well as researchers, with the goal of offering
tools and processes that educators can use to analyze and
discuss classroom practice as well as to plan learning activities
that offer improved opportunities for students to build 21st
century skills.
LEARNING ACTIVITY & STUDENT WORK SAMPLES
CODING A LEARNING ACTIVITY FOR
EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION:
LEARNING ACTIVITYAND STUDENTWORK
CODING DIMENSIONS:
EXAMPLE LEARNING ACTIVITYAND STUDENTWORKRESPONSE FROM RUSSIA:
Student B, Age 14
Learning Activity Dimensions Student Work Dimensions
Knowledge building Knowledge building
ICT integration into teaching and learning ICT integration into teaching and learning
Self regulation and assessment
RK
Problem-solving and innovation
Collaboration
Problem-solving and innovation
Skilled communication
Remember what we have learned about writing an essay.
Ask your relatives to tell you about the beginning of the war. Where were they during
the War? How did they learn about its end? Transcribe the interview
on a computer.
Use the internet to gather materials about the places your relatives lived during the
War, inclusing photos of that period.
Write an essay for the school newspaper devoted to World War II.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Essay: Why should we remember World War II?
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
7/16
5
In a classroom in Senegal students are able tosee dynamic visualizations of cell division becausetheir teacher, whose classroom is not equipped withtechnology, has brought in his own laptop computerso that he can enrich his teaching.
Preliminaryfindings: Innovative teachingand student learning of 21C skills4
The quality of a teachers assignment strongly
predicts the quality of the work that a student does
in response.
Over 90% of the variance in student work scores on
21st century skills was due not to differences in the
students but differences in the tasks they were asked
to do.
The data suggest a ceiling effect imposed by
teacher assignments: while it is possible for students
to build and exhibit a greater level of 21st century
skills than their learning activities call for, they rarely
do so.
While innovative teaching practice was typically
a goal at these schools, learning activity analysis
suggests that most actual classroom instruction
does not yet reflect these goals.
This section reports preliminary findings from analysis of surveys,learning activities and student work, interviews and classroomobservations. It is important to recognize that these findings onlyshow associations between measures; they do not demonstrate thata given variable causes an outcome, and may not capture importantexplanatory factors.
Preliminary findingsfrom the pilot year
4Findings in this section are based on analysis of learning activities and student work.
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
8/16
6
The quality of a teachers assignment strongly predictsthe quality of the work that a student does in response.
On dimensions captured by both learning activities and student work, over two-thirds of student work products received the
same score as their corresponding learning activity.5 Across all dimensions, mean scores for a given learning activity strongly
predicted aggregate scores for associated student work. The results corroborate otherfindings (see for example, Bryk, Nagaoka,
& Newmann, 2000; Mitchell et al., 2005) that highlight the importance of giving students challenging learning activities if we
want them to do high-level work.
Over 90% of the variance in student work scores on 21st century skillswas due not to differences in the students but differencesin the tasks they were asked to do.More often than not (55%), the six different student work products rated for a given learning activity all received identical
scores on every dimension of 21st century skills. For any given dimension, over 70% of student work sets had no variation in
scores among students.
The data suggest a ceiling effect imposed by teacher assignments:while it is possible for students to build and exhibit a greater levelof 21st century skills than their learning activities call for,they rarely do so.Very few pieces of student work scored higher than their associated learning activity on any given dimension. These data
further suggest the importance of setting the bar high when designing learning activities to elicit 21st skill development from
students.
While innovative teaching practice was typically a goal at these schools,learning activity analysis suggests that most actual classroom instructiondoes not yet reflect these goals.Overall, on every dimension, over half of all assignments received the lowest possible score. On average, scores were slightly
higher on learning activities for younger students, which may reflect the fact that teachers of older students may be more
focused on preparing students with factual knowledge for exams.
LEARNING ACTIVITY SCORES
AND STUDENT WORK SCORES
5In reality, the rubrics for learning activities and student work are not exactly parallel, but a 2 on knowledge building for learning activities
generally represents the same degree of complexity as a 2 on knowledge building for student work.
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
9/16
7
Preliminary findings: Drivers of innovative teaching6
In this research, variables that associated
significantly with teacher-reported innovative
teaching practices include:
> Teacher participation in high-touch, ongoing
types of professional development, such as
research and networks of educators
> Teacher collaboration and peer support
> Incentives and recognition for new teaching
practices, as reported by school leaders
> Subject matter taught
Professional development courses which
emphasize ICT integration into instruction
associate more strongly with teacher-reported
ICT use than those which emphasize technical
skills.
By contrast, teachers report that the majority of
the professional development they are offered
focuses on ICT skills rather than ICT integration.
While research suggests that teacher beliefs
are an important driver of teaching practices,
surveyed teachers often reported both
constructivist beliefs and beliefs about the
value of direct transmission.
In this study, teachers who participated in professional development had higher scores
on the innovative teaching practices index than those who did not.
More specifically, professional development activities with the strongest relationships to innovative teaching
practices included individual or collaborative research and participation in a teacher network for professional
development. Classes/workshops and informal dialogue showed weaker relationships to innovative teaching
practices overall.
0.59
0.50
0.43
0.42 0.39 0.39
0.30
0.26
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Research Teachernetwork for
PD
Formalmentoring
Qualificationprogram
Conference,seminar
Classroomobservations
Informaldialogue
Class orworkshop
Meandifference,
innovativeteaching
practices*
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES & INNOVATIVE TEACHING PRACTICES
6Findings in this section are based on analysis of teacher and school leader surveys.
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
10/16
8
When I meet with
other colleagues,
we exchangeexperiences. For
exampleif my
teaching method for
a certain teaching
material is not
appropriate, I might
use my colleagues
ways. Teacher in
Indonesia
I have autonomy
but try to seek
advice from more
experienced
teachers. Teacher in Russia
My school
welcomes our
creative thinking
and helps me teach
as I feel best for my
students. Teacher in Russia
Peers can be an important source of support for teachers. Teachers
who reported collaborating frequently with other teachers also
reported more innovative teaching practices, on average.For example,
55% of teachers who scored in the upper third on the innovative teaching
practices index discussed student work with other teachers at least once
a week. By contrast, only 24% of teachers in the lower third on innovative
teaching practices did so. In interviews, teachers commonly credited their
colleagues with offering new ideas, teaching advice, and technological
support, inspiring newfound energy from collaboration among peers.
In schools where school leaders report making efforts to incentivize
innovative teaching, teachers scored higher on the innovative teaching
practices index than those in schools with less supportive leadership.
Among the school-level practices reported on by school leaders, theincentives and recognition scale associated most significantly and most
consistently across countries with teacher-reported innovative teaching
practices.
INCENTIVES AND RECOGNITION FOR
INNOVATIVE TEACHING
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
11/16
ICT-FOCUSED PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT AND ICT USE
Teachers of reading, writing, and social studies classes typically scored higher than teachers of other subjects on
measures of innovative teaching. Math teachers had the lowest scores, echoing previous research (e.g., OECD, 2009; AIR/
SRI, 2006). Subject matter differences are likely due, at least in part, to varying levels of curriculum rigidity across subjects.
Professional development courses that emphasize ICT integration into instruction associate more strongly with
teacher-reported ICT use than those that emphasize technical skills.On average, teachers who received training
focused on ICT integration scored significantly above the mean on ICT use, while teachers who received ICT skills trainingscored only slightly above the mean. 7
By contrast, teachers report that the majority of the professional development they are offered focuses on ICT
skills rather than ICT integration. In all four countries, more surveyed teachers reported receiving mainly technically-
focused ICT training as opposed to training on ICT integration. Interviewed teachers also reported that ICT-related
professional development is overly focused on technical skills.
While research suggests that
teacher beliefs are an importantdriver of teaching practices,
surveyed teachers often reported
both constructivist beliefs and
beliefs about the value of direct
transmission. In 3 of 4 countries,
teachers constructivist beliefs coexist
with direct transmission beliefs. In these
countries, over 85% of teachers agreed
that instruction should be built around
problems with clear, correct answers.
But over 80% also agreed with the
seemingly contradictory statement that
thinking and reasoning processes are
more important than specific curriculum
content. Differences in national culture,
pedagogical traditions, and student
examination systems might lie behind
differences in patterns across countries.
These findings are consistent with
OECDs TALIS study (OECD, 2009).
The best way for me to serve my students is to coverthe curriculum by the end of the school year so thatno student or parent could accuse me of not tackling achapter or topic that has been chosen to be tested in oneof the national exams. Teacher in Senegal
7 Analysis methods adjusted for the fact that many teachers participated in both forms of professional development.
9
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
12/16
With the use of the
Internet, I can see
that the students arenow even smarter
than their teacher.
The information they
got was very rich.
Teacher in Indonesia
[When they began
using ICT] teachers
became aware that
memorizing and
recalling information
are losing their
previous value
because information
is easily accessible
through ICT.
Therefore, it is nowmore useful not
just to memorize
facts, but to work
on development of
such skills as analysis,
systematization,
storing, and
applying of this veryinformation.
Education leader in
Russia
Both teacher and student ICT use are significantly associated with other
innovative teaching practices (student centered pedagogy and extending
learning beyond the classroom).
In classroom observations, higher-level uses of ICT (i.e., uses that represent
stronger integration with deep teaching and learning) associate more
strongly with innovative teaching than do more basic uses of ICT.
In observed classes and among surveyed teachers, basic uses of ICT remain
the most frequent.
ICT access in the classroom is a stronger predictor of teachers ICT use than is
ICT access elsewhere in the school.
Access to ICT is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for ICT use.
The most common teacher-reported barriers to ICT use are lack of computers
for student and teacher use, and lack of technical and pedagogical support.
Both teacher and student ICT use are significantly associated with other
innovative teaching practices. ICT integration into teaching and learning
correlates significantly with student-centered pedagogies and extension of learning
beyond the classroomthe studys other elements of innovative teaching. Over the
course of a year, high-level and low-level ICT use tended to co-occur.
In classroom observations, higher-level uses of ICT (i.e., uses that
represent stronger integration with deep teaching and learning)
associate more strongly with innovative teaching than do more basic
uses of ICT. Classrooms featuring at least some higher-level student ICT
use scored higher on innovative teaching practices, on average, than either
classrooms featuring no student ICT use or classrooms featuring basic use only.
This result echoes findings from other research (e.g., Shear et al., 2009).
BASIC AND HIGH-LEVEL ICT USE
Preliminary findings: ICT Use8
8 Findings in this section are based on teacher surveys and classroom observations.
10
EXAMPLES OF BASIC STUDENT ICT USE EXAMPLES OF HIGH-LEVEL STUDENT ICT
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
13/16
ICT ACCESS AND USE
In observed classes and among surveyed teachers, basic uses of ICT remain the most frequent. Students used ICT
in primarily basic ways in nearly three-fourths (72%) of classes observed across countries. Likewise, over the course of a year,
teachers most commonly use ICT primarily for planning and administrative functions, rather than for pedagogical purposes.
While basic uses of ICT occur with different frequencies across country samples, higher-level uses are almost equally
infrequent in all samples.
ICT access in the classroom is a stronger predictor of teachers ICT use than is ICT access elsewhere in the school.
The data suggest that having ICT in the school building is not sufficient to promote its use to support teaching and learning.
39% of teachers with above-average ICT integration scores had desktop computers in their classrooms, compared to only
20% of teachers with below-average integration scores. Both groups of teachers, however, had high levels of school ICT
access74% of above average teachers and 73% of below average teachers reported access to computers elsewhere in
the school. Easy access to computers within the classroom, rather than the disruption of scheduling and moving to a shared
computer lab, reduces barriers to ICT integration in teaching and learning.
Access to ICT is a
necessary, but not
sufficient, condition
for ICT use.While on
average, teachers with
more access to ICT also
had higher levels of
ICT integration, there
were many examples
of teachers who had
classroom ICT access to
computers but did not
use it actively in theirteaching. In other words,
teachers with the same
or similar levels of ICT
access used ICT in their
teaching to varying
degrees.
The most common teacher-reported barriers to ICT use are lack of computers for student and teacher use, and
lack of technical and pedagogical support. Although teachers report similar barriers in all countries, the magnitude
varies depending on the availability of resources and histories of ICT use in individual countries. In some countries, barriers
related to security and hardware reliability are critical factors.
The amount of devices is not a problem. The problemof using them. School leader in Finland
Although we have a well-equipped computer room, wecan hardly use it because of too frequent power outages.
Teacher in Senegal
11
is the quality
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
14/16
While most countries have clear goals to prepare students
for the 21st century, specific definitions and guidance to
educators are often lacking.9 The definitions, examples
and tools offered by ITL Research can help educators on a
productive path to change.
The characteristics of students learning environments
and the activities they are asked to do in the classroomstrongly predict the work they will do in response. Reform
efforts should consider carefully how they are encouraging
and supporting teachers to teach in new ways, and in
particular to choose student learning activities that
provide opportunities to develop and exercise 21st
century skills.
Use of ICT by teachers and students is significantly
associated with innovative teaching practices more
generally. This association is stronger when ICT is used
in higher-level ways that promote deeper student
engagement with content. More commonly among
teachers in the ITL Research sample, ICT is used in more
basic ways, to access content (for students) and as a
presentation tool (for teachers and students). In some
countries, these uses may represent important steps
toward innovation. Nevertheless, models and tools for
using ICT in ways that powerfully promote deep student
learning can help prepare teachers for taking the next step.
This report has summarized the main results from the 2009-10 pilotyear of ITL Research. Because this was a pilot year, it is important
to consider these results suggestive rather than final. However, anumber of reflections are appropriate:
Reflections and Implications
9This finding echoes survey results reported in Ananiadou and Claro, 2009.
12
Access to ICT is necessary but not sufficient to enable its
use. School administrators and policymakers should be
aware that ICT access within classrooms associates more
strongly with integration into instruction than does accessin computer labs or other shared spaces. However, drivers of
ICT use are more strongly associated with individual teachers
than with the environment: some teachers in low-access
environments find creative ways to gain access to tools,
while ICT in some high-access classrooms goes unused.
In ITL Research, types of professional development that
associate most strongly with teacher-reported innovative
teaching practices include professional development related
to pedagogy and ICT integration rather than ICT skills, and
professional development that is deeper and more ongoingthan a single workshop or training (for example, teacher
engagement in research on teaching and learning or teacher
engagement in collaborative networks with other teachers
in their school). Policymakers should be cautious about
drawing causal implications from these results; it could be
that teachers who already think more innovatively about
their practices are more likely to engage in these forms of
professional development. However, it should be noted that
more common forms of professional development, such as
single workshops, have a weaker association with innovative
teaching practices, and teachers regard ongoing interactions
and follow-up as essential (and often lacking) supports for
helping them integrate ideas into practice.
Among schools visited in the pilot year of ITL Research in
all participating countries, researchers found examples of
teachers that are experimenting with at least some elements
of innovative teaching practice, including more student-
centered approaches to instruction, the use of ICT to support
student learning, or a combination. Much less common were
teachers who benefited from a coherent set of supports
at the school and national levels, including clearly-defined
goals for innovative teaching and learning, effective and
ongoing professional development experiences that gobeyond ICT skills to integration and pedagogy, and a policy
context in which teacher incentives and accountability
systems are aligned with goals for innovative instruction. For
investments in ICT and other tools for 21st century learning
to bear fruit, education leaders and policymakers must be
attentive to the integrity of the ecosystem within which
educators operate, and offer programs and incentives at
multiple levels to provide a fertile environment for change.
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
15/16
AIR/SRI. (2006). Evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations High School Grants Initiative: 2001-2005final
report. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and competences for New Millennium learners in OECD
countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. EDUWorking paper no. 41. Retrieved from
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/linkto/edu-wkp(2009)20
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bryk, A. S., Nagaoka, J.K., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Chicago classroom demands for authentic intellectual work:
Trends from 19971999. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A., Stage, E, Zimmerman, T, Cervetti, G, & Tilson, J.
(2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Law, N., Pellgrum, W., & Plomp, T. (2010). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the
IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Matsumura, L. C., & Pascal, J. (2003). Teachers assignments and student work: Opening a window on classroom
practice. Los Angeles: CRESST/University of California.
Mitchell, K., Shkolnik, J., Song, M., Uekawa, K., Murphy, R., Garet, M., & Means, B. (2005). Rigor, relevance, and
results: The quality of teacher assignments and student work in new and conventional high schools. Washington,
DC: American Institutes for Research and SRI International. OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/.
Scheuermann, F. and Pedr, F., Editors. (2009). Assessing the effects of ICT in Education: Indicators, criteria and
benchmarks for international comparisons. JRC/European Commission and OECD.
Shear, L., Means, B., Gorges, T., Toyama, Y., Gallagher, L., Estrella, G., & Lundh, P. (2009). The Microsoft Innovative
Schools Program Year 1 evaluation report. Seattle: Microsoft.
Shear, L., Means. B., Gallagher, L., House, A., & Langworthy, M. (2009). ITL Research Design. Menlo Park, CA: SRI.
References
13
ITL Research is a multi-year program that is continuing to grow beyondthe pilot year. Four additional countries have joined the research for
the following two years, with participation sponsored by local policypartners.10 As the program proceeds, it will focus progressively on usingthe research tools and results from analysis to create hands-on supportsand tools for schools. It is the programs aim that these tools will enableeducators in partner schools to better envision, investigate, and improveinnovative learning opportunities for students. ITL Research is alsooffering research instruments, methods and data to the public domain,and convening researchers around the world who seek to improve thestudy of 21st century teaching and learning.
Next Steps
10New countries joining ITL Research in the 2010-11 school year are: Mexico, sponsored by the National Ministry of Education; England, sponsored by the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust; United States, sponsored by the Stupski Foundation and the Council of Chief State School Offi cers (Next Generation Learning Project); and Australia, sponsored by
New South Wales Department of Education & Training.
We invite you tojoin this expandingcircle of researchand practice ininnovative teach-ing and learning.To learn more,please visitwww.itlresearch.com
8/2/2019 ITL Research Executive Summary
16/16
Visit
www.microsoft.com/education/partnersinlearning
for more research and information
Top Related