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

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”