P2V WP6

1. P2V | WP6Valorisation of the FrameworkfortheEvalution of ICT in Education Inspectorate of Education, The Netherlands, Bert Jaap van Oel

2. P2V WP6

3. Partners Scotland: HMIE. Sweden: Skolverket. Lithuania: National Agency for School Evaluation. France: IGEN. Catalonia: Inspectorate of Education The Netherlands: Inspectorate of Education Members of SICI www.sici-inspectorates.org

4. The road to P2V • ERNIST: “Let us look at the things we share” (Belgium, Scotland, Austria, NI, England) >> • P2P: Peer learning leading to a shared framework based on existing materials. (France, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, England) >> • P2V: valorising and extending use

5. P2V WP6 • 2007: Kick off meeting: meet and learn • 2007-2008: School visits in all countries: • 2 primary • 2 secondary • 2008: Evaluation meeting Brussels

6. P2V WP6 deliverables • School reports with at least a public summary • Evalution report per country: methodology • Evaluation report • Website • Public toolbox for SICI members • Framework available for self- and peer evaluation by schools

7. P2V WP6 Methodology

8. P2V WP6 methodology • Two NL inspectors join local team • Four schools per country • One week • Local evaluator coordinates visits • Local evaluator is leading • Local evaluator writes report for school • NL inspector writes report on visit

9. P2V Evaluation methodology • Preparatory conversation with the school • Send out and analyse self-evaluation questionnaire • Study available materials, plans, vision, reports • School visit: • As separate activity: one day • When integrated: half a day extra for one person • Written report

10. Methodology: School visit

11. Methodology: School visit • Meeting with leadership/ICT coordinator: vision, history, what are we going to see? • Lesson observations, school tour • Interviews: Learners; Teachers; Administrators • Feedback session at the end of the day: preliminary conclusions • Draft written report: final conclusions reviewed by school • Final written report (public?)

12. Methodology: School visit • Gathering evidence from observations, interviews, learning materials and outcomes • Documenting evidence: take copies, pictures, notes • Triangulation: different sources, different observers • Paper policy versus work floor reality • School’s own vision as starting point

13. The ICT evaluation toolbox

14. The ICT framework Conditions: • C1. Leadership, • C2. Infrastructure and access, • C3. Curriculum planning, • C4. Quality assurance and improvement Use: • U1. Pupil use, • U2. The teaching process, • U3. Administrative use Outcomes: • O1. Impact on learning and standards

15. The ICT framework • Quality Indicators: what is it? • Evidence: what to look for? • Sources: where to find it • Scoring per QI: 0=not enough evidence 1=weak2=insufficient, should improve3=sufficient, may be improved4=good • The framework

16. Materials • Self-evaluation questionnaire • Interview guidance • Lesson observation form • Evaluator guidance • Possibly: online questionnaires

17. Leadership Score primary schoolA Score secondary school B Score primary school C Score secondary school D C1.1There is a clear vision for the use of ICT 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 C1.2 There is a strategy to realise the vision 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 Presentation of results

18. School visits

19. School visits Primary school A • 450 pupils, 1:34 computers • involved in many projects • small budget, hard to plan ICT development • enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator • Lessons in computer room and in classrooms • ICT is not in the national curriculum, ICT use by children in free time • Parents question ICT use • ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects

20. School visits Primary school B • 250 pupils, 1:4 • Some interactive whiteboards • Good budget • enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator • Lessons in classrooms, individual use in hallways and classrooms • ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects • More critical thinking about ICT use to be developed

21. School visits Secondary school • 953 pupils, 74 teachers, 1:9 computers, many resources • clear ICT vision and strategy on ICT and teachers, less on pedagogy • clear use of benchmarks • good lessons observed, strong pedagogy, active learners • responsibilities are clear, ICT coordinator • not enough possibilities for enhancement of learning • no accessibility for marks for teachers, pupils, parents • no Learning Management System yet

22. Impressions: peer learning

23. Impressions: peer learning • Who is in the lead? • Fitting the methodology to local circumstances or fitting local circumstances to the methodology? • Presence external evaluators supports objectivity (contextualised scoring vs more objective scoring) • Discussion essential: preparation, briefing sessions, evaluation • Managing expectations: evaluator guidance vs learning?

24. Impressions: using the toolbox • Framework is very usable in different contexts • Methodical work supports acceptance of evaluation • Need for good preparation of visits • Using the different materials requires getting used to: how do they fit together? • The materials are much-needed to support decision making in one day

25. Impressions: the visit programme • Short! Quick! Hectic! • Enough time for reflection? • Enough time for evidence gathering? • All elements should be in place • A full day • Some arranged lessons/activities are ok

26. Achterblad Inspectie van het Onderwijs Kantoor Utrecht Park Voorn 4 Postbus 2730 3500 GS Utrecht The Netherlands T (030) 669 06 00 F (030) 662 20 91 www.onderwijsinspectie.nl b.vanoel@owinsp.nl