computer technology training (ctt) for parents of on-line learners hesham diab
Post on 20-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Inaugural yearPrivate high school (Celerity Education Group)
Sixteen 9th graders. Online learning
CPSEL: 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv8T3troUMI
DEMOGRAPHICS
SEXFemale (11)Male (5)
RACEHispanic (14) African American (1) Asian (1)
CPSEL: 6
Race
HispanicAsianAfrican American
Sex
MALEFEMALE
COMPELLING NEEDS
1. To maintain scholarship, minimum grade = B.2. Parents require technological “know-how.”3. Two different online portals.
CPSEL: 5
INQUIRY QUESTION
How will the implementation of a computer and technology training program for parents impact student achievement?
CPSEL: 2
PAR TEAM
Teachers:1. Mr. Diab—math & science2. Mr. Doute—humanities
Administration:3. Ms. Macias—principal4. Ms. Beck—director 5. Ms. Munoz—office manager
CPSEL: 6
RESEARCHAUTHOR (year) 1
Involving parents improves student success
2Parent attitudes towards being “involved”
3Computer training improves parents’ capacity
4On-line learning vs traditional
Notes
Yip, M. (2003). X experiments on www
Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., and Tripp, H. (2003). X x X Reality vs
hopes
Underwood, J. and Szabo, A. (2003). x
Cheating, academic offenses
Conlon, T. and Simpson, M. (2003). X X X x
Comparative (www vs
traditional)
Terale, P. (2003). x x x x Implementation of ICT
Epstein, J. L. (1991). x xEffects on student
achievement
CPSEL: 5
RESEARCHAUTHOR (year) 1
Involving parents improves student success
2Parent attitudes towards being “involved”
3Computer training improves parents’ capacity
4On-line learning vs traditional
Notes
Henderson, A. T. (1987). x x x evidence for
parent involvement
Epstein, J. L. (1984). x x School policy
& parent involvement
Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2002). x x Parent
involvement
Dik, D. W. (1984). x x xEmpowering
parents through CTT
Hammonds, S. (2003). x x x x Impact of on-line learning
TOTAL 9 8 6 6
CPSEL: 5
PROJECT MISSION
Increase students’ success in on-line courses by enabling parents, to monitor and support their
students outside the classroom.
CPSEL: 1,2
PAR cycle 1
AGENDASubmitted 11/20Approved 11/26
CPSEL: 1,2
PAR cycle 1
FLIERInitially there was
only one night scheduled.
CPSEL: 1,2
PAR cycle 1
RSVPTwo separate sessions were
eventually scheduled.
CPSEL: 1,2
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
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
PAR cycle 2• Computer Training
scheduled on 2/21/14 as part of Open House
• Agenda identical.• Data Collection– Questionnaire– Survey
STUDENTCENTERED• Students taught
parents during evening.
• How is this specifically impacting students.
CPSEL: 1,2
Methodology (Mixed)
QUALITATIVE• Field Notes• Student Questionnaire
Note: indicates data collected after 2nd PAR Cycle.
QUANTITATIVE• Student Survey• Parent Survey• Grades
CPSEL: 2
Field Notes (Qualitative)
CPSEL: 2,5
STUDENT SURVEY
CPSEL: 1,2
PARENT SURVEY
CPSEL: 2
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
ANALYSIS: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
• In the quantitative portion of the student survey, the data was analyzed with MS EXCEL.
CPSEL: 1,2
CPSEL: 2 AVERAGE
ANALYSIS: PARENT SURVEY
CPSEL: 2
ANALYSIS: PARENT SURVEYID # PRE (overall average) POST (overall average)
1P
1.40 3.20 +1.82P
4.00 4.00 03P
3.80 5.00 +1.24P
3.30 5.00 +1.75P
4.50 4.50 06P
4.20
* (missing data) * (missing data)
CPSEL: 2
ANALYSIS: Parent Survey• Parents 1,3,4
INCREASED• Parents 2,5 NO
CHANGE• NO PARENTS
DECREASED
CPSEL: 1,2
AVERAGE: increase of 0.94 per parent.PERCENT: that is approximately 18.8 %.
ANALYSIS: Grades
Fall 2013 Spring 2014
• Average Math Grade:– 66.26%
• Average Science Grade– 73.12%
• Average Math Grade:– 80.97% (+14.71%)
• Average Science Grade:– 81.95% (+8.83%)
CPSEL: 2
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
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. CoveyCPSEL: 2,3,4
NEXT STEPS
• Students must be in PAR team.• Then identify factors students consider as important.• Quantify and analyze these factors.
CPSEL: 2,3,4
LEADERSHIP • Recruiting PAR team• Organizing food• Finding translators• Being “aware” and
“present” to modify and assess the success of the program.
MANAGEMENT• Documents• Ordering & Serving Pizza• Setting up room• Assigning tasks• Communication
Leadership vs. Management
CPSEL: 1,2,3,5
PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION
• “Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.”
-Robert JarvikCPSEL: 1,2,5,6
REFERENCESHammonds, 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.
REFERENCESHenderson, 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.
REFERENCESEpstein, 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.
“TO TEACH IS TO LEARN”
top related