T 3 : Improving Teaching & Learning Through Technology Food for Thought Luncheon August 31, 2011

1. T3: Improving Teaching & Learning Through Technology Food for Thought Luncheon August 31, 2011

2. 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 CallicoattePicucci, PhD, Director of Evaluation & Research • E3 Alliance: • Susan Dawson, President

3. Presentation Objectives • Lessons Learned • Collaborative • Technology • Usage • Student • Teacher • Curriculum Redesign • Evaluation • Grant • Resources

4. Texas Target Tech (T3) Grant ..to stimulate the use of educational technology to 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Distribution of Participants Resources for Learning, LLC

9. Student Grade Distribution Resources for Learning, LLC

10. Student Ethnicity Resources for Learning, LLC

11. Student Economic Disadvantaged Status Resources for Learning, LLC

12. Student LEP Status Resources for Learning, LLC

13. Teacher Information Resources for Learning, LLC

14. 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

15. 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”

16. Professional Development Resources for Learning, LLC

17. 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 Nolen Leander ISD

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Teacher Lessons Learned 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)

24. 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

25. Robert Marzano: Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards Curriculum Redesign Lessons Learned Benefits 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.

26. Evaluation Lessons Learned Resources for Learning, LLC • 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

27. Classroom Management

28. Student Engagement

29. 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.

30. Parent Rating of Importance of Technology

31. Parent Reported Impact on Achievement

32. 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.

33. Evaluation Lessons LearnedSummary 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.

34. 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

35. 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!

36. 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

37. www.e3alliance.org jvanoverschelde@e3alliance.org