1 / 35

Computer Technology Training (CTT) for Parents of On-Line Learners

Computer Technology Training (CTT) for Parents of On-Line Learners. Hesham Diab. EDUCATIONAL VISION. “ Docendo discimus ” This Latin proverb coined by the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca almost two thousand years ago, literally translates to “by teaching we learn.”. CPSEL: 1,2,6.

zavad
Download Presentation

Computer Technology Training (CTT) for Parents of On-Line Learners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computer Technology Training (CTT)for Parents of On-Line Learners HeshamDiab

  2. EDUCATIONAL VISION “Docendodiscimus” This Latin proverb coined by the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca almost two thousand years ago, literally translates to “by teaching we learn.” CPSEL: 1,2,6

  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv8T3troUMI • Inaugural year • Private high school (Celerity Education Group) • Sixteen 9th graders. • Online learning CPSEL: 6

  4. Demographics SEX Female (11) Male (5) RACE Hispanic (14) African American (1) Asian (1) CPSEL: 6

  5. COMPELLING NEEDS • To maintain scholarship, minimum grade = B. • Parents require technological “know-how.” • Two different online portals. CPSEL: 5

  6. INQUIRY QUESTION How will the implementation of a computer and technology training program for parents impact student achievement? CPSEL: 2

  7. PAR TEAM Teachers: • Mr. Diab—math & science • Mr. Doute—humanities Administration: • Ms. Macias—principal • Ms. Beck—director • Ms. Munoz—office manager CPSEL: 6

  8. RESEARCH CPSEL: 5

  9. RESEARCH CPSEL: 5

  10. PROJECT MISSION Increase students’ success in on-line courses by enabling parents, to monitor and support their students outside the classroom. CPSEL: 1,2

  11. PAR cycle 1 AGENDA Submitted 11/20 Approved 11/26 CPSEL: 1,2

  12. PAR cycle 1 FLIER Initially there was only one night scheduled. CPSEL: 1,2

  13. PAR cycle 1 RSVP Two separate sessions were eventually scheduled. CPSEL: 1,2

  14. PAR cycle 1 • FOOD • Key component in creating a comfortable atmosphere. • Food first! • TRANSLATORS • Ms. Macias & Ms. Munoz • Time was not factored • FLEXIBILITY • Both sessions combined into one large group. • SUCCESS • Will be a permanent fixture in Back-To-School night. 12/5 & 12/7 CPSEL: 1,2

  15. TIMELINE • 2013: October (PAR project approved) • 2013: November (RSVP) • 2013: *December (two sessions) • 2014: *February 21st (Open House) • Note: indicates training. CPSEL: 1,2,3,4,5

  16. PAR cycle 2 • Computer Training scheduled on 2/21/14 as part of Open House  • Agenda identical. • Data Collection • Questionnaire • Survey STUDENT CENTERED Students taught parents during evening. How is this specifically impacting students. CPSEL: 1,2

  17. Methodology (Mixed) QUALITATIVE • Field Notes • Student Questionnaire • Note: indicates data collected after 2nd PAR Cycle. QUANTITATIVE • Student Survey • Parent Survey • Grades CPSEL: 2

  18. Field Notes (Qualitative) CPSEL: 2,5

  19. Student SURVEY CPSEL: 1,2

  20. Parent Survey CPSEL: 2

  21. Analysis: Student Questionnaire • In the qualitative portion of the student survey, the students expressed their issues with taking their courses on-line. • The main reasons the students experienced problems were due: to lack of accessibility to certain websites; the speed of the internet; and the teacher as well as the scheduling of tests and classes. CPSEL: 1,2

  22. Analysis: Student Questionnaire • In the quantitative portion of the student survey, the data was analyzed with MS EXCEL. CPSEL: 1,2 AVERAGE CPSEL: 2

  23. ANALYSIS: Parent Survey CPSEL: 2

  24. Analysis: Parent Survey CPSEL: 2

  25. Analysis: Parent Survey • Parents 1,3,4 INCREASED • Parents 2,5 NO CHANGE • NO PARENTS DECREASED AVERAGE: increase of 0.94 per parent. PERCENT: that is approximately 18.8 %. CPSEL: 1,2

  26. Analysis: Grades Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Average Math Grade: 80.97% (+14.71%) Average Science Grade: 81.95% (+8.83%) • Average Math Grade: • 66.26% • Average Science Grade • 73.12% CPSEL: 2

  27. ROADBLOCKS • Politics & “red tape” • Being open to others’ suggestions • Empowering others • Patience. • “The Way Things Are” (Zander and Zander 2000) CPSEL: 1,2,3,5

  28. KEY LEARNINGS • A mixed methodology yields the maximum amount of data, which can then be utilized to improve student learning. • Technology is constantly changing—evolving. • Communication: scheduling, issues, resources, accessibility, efficiency. • Patience. “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” -Stephen R. Covey CPSEL: 2,3,4

  29. NEXT STEPS • Students must be in PAR team. • Then identify factors students consider as important. • Quantify and analyze these factors. CPSEL: 2,3,4

  30. Leadership vs. Management LEADERSHIP MANAGEMENT Documents Ordering & Serving Pizza Setting up room Assigning tasks Communication • Recruiting PAR team • Organizing food • Finding translators • Being “aware” and “present” to modify and assess the success of the program. CPSEL: 1,2,3,5

  31. PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION • “Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.” -Robert Jarvik CPSEL: 1,2,5,6

  32. REFERENCES Hammonds, S. (2003). Impact of internet-based teaching on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 1, pp. 95-98. Yip, M. (2003). Doing experiments on the WWW? British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 1, pp. 99-101. Conlon, T. and Simpson, M. (2003). Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: the impact of computers upon teaching and learning: a comparative study. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 1, pp. 137-150 Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., and Tripp, H. (2003). ICT—the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 1, pp. 151-167. Underwood, J. and Szabo, A. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: individual propensities in cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 4, pp. 467-477. Terale, P. (2003). ICT implementation: what makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 34 no 5, pp. 567-483.

  33. REFERENCES Henderson, A. T. (1987). The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent Involvement Improves Student Achievement. An Annotated Bibliography. National Committee for Citizens in Education Special Report. Epstein, J. L. (1984). School Policy and Parent Involvement: Research Results. Educational Horizons, 62(2), 70-72. Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The elementary school journal, 277-294. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers' practices of parent involvement. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association., 1984. Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

  34. REFERENCES Epstein, J. (1988). Parent involvement. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2002). Parent Involvement: A Key to Student Achievement. Epstein, J. L. (1985). Home and school connections in schools of the future: Implications of research on parent involvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(2), 18-41. Dik, D. W. (1984). Empowering Parents through Computer Literacy Training.

  35. “To teach is to learn”

More Related