site 2015 conference march 04, 2015 jeffrey a. stone, ph.d. penn state university
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Teacher Perceptions in the Life of a Defunct 1:1 ProgramSITE 2015 ConferenceMarch 04, 2015
Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D.Penn State University
![Page 2: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What is a 1:1 Program?
• One personal computing device for every student
• The idea is not just to provide technology, but to TRANSFORM teaching and learning
• Competes with other priorities
![Page 3: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
How Can 1:1 Be Transformative?• Changing Student-Teacher Roles
▫ More collaborative, inquiry-based
▫ Teacher = facilitator
• More individualized instruction
• Flipped classrooms
• Interdisciplinary, complex projects
• Encourages deeper investigation
• Increase in academic achievement
• Improved classroom climate
![Page 4: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Desired 1:1 Outcomes• Equity of access
• Students with 21st century skills
• Teachers with greater skills
• Greater teacher/student communication
• More Assessment (formative and summative)
• Increased data collection
• Greater student collaboration
• Improved communication skills
• Greater computing skills
• Opportunities for “offline” work
![Page 5: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
21st Century Skills
![Page 6: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Requires: Systemic/Individual Change
• Change must occur at the system level ▫ Change in process - curricula, assessment, and teaching
strategies – along with a supportive culture
• Teachers exercise discretion; must see the program as valuable enough to break from established practices
• Recognizing the understandings and perceptions of street-level implementers is essential ▫ Program “meaning” created in context, based on skills,
knowledge, values, biases
![Page 7: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Challenges?
• Cost (long-term)• Demonstrable Results• Community Perceptions• Classroom Management• One plan NOT for all• Stakeholder Buy-in
![Page 8: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Case: Mayberry School District*
• Small PA district (~1400 students, three schools)▫ High school is grades 8-12
• 2009: new administrative team = new initiatives
• “Technology Initiative” - a 1:1 Apple laptop program at the high school in 2010▫ Purpose? Transform education in the district, provide
students with 21st Century Skills.
▫ Ended 2013 due to budget shortfalls, priority concerns
![Page 9: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Study: Mayberry School District
• 2010: Began a multi-year, non-experimental study to evaluate the 1:1 program▫Purpose? To determine if the changes suggested
by the 1:1 program were having a transformative effect
• An iterative program evaluation for the district
• This reduced report focuses on teacher attitudes, perceptions of 1:1 impacts▫Positive attitudes, perceptions critical for success
![Page 10: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Administrator
Interviews
Teacher Surveys
ParentSurveys
StudentSurveys
Classroom “Visits”
Teacher Focus
Groups
Student Focus
Groups
IT Staff Focus
Groups
Data Collectio
nMethods
School Board Focus
Groups
![Page 11: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Reduced Study Procedures• Data collection = two streams:
▫Survey data used to measure teacher attitudes and perceptions of 1:1 (Spring 2011, Spring 2012).
Survey for Spring 2013 was withheld (due to teacher discontent with budget process)
▫Focus groups with teachers (Fall 2011, Fall 2012)
• Analysis : SPSS (quantitative), NVivo (qualitative)
![Page 12: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The Study: Survey Participants• Spring 2011: 34 teachers (73.2% response rate)
▫ Most were female (76.9%, N=34), White/Caucasian (95.8%, N=24)
▫ Most were 18-30 years of age (47.8%, N=23),
▫ Most had 0-5 years of experience (40.0%, N=20), 0-5 years in the district (61.9% N=21)
• Spring 2012: 17 teachers.▫ Most were female (68.8%, N=16), All White/Caucasian (100%,
N=16)
▫ Most were 31-40 years old (33.3%, N=15)
▫ Most had 6-10 or 15 or more years of experience (both 31.3%, N=16) and 0-5 or 6-10 years of experience in the district (38.5%, N=13)
![Page 13: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Survey Structure• Teachers were asked to identify their level of
agreement with a series of statements using a five-level scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral (Undecided), 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
• Teachers were asked to identify the level of impact of 1:1 on a variety of items using a five-level scale: 1=N/A, 2=Neutral (Undecided), 3=No Impact, 4=Minor Impact, 5=Major Impact
![Page 14: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Spring 2011: Survey Results• Majority agreed/strongly agreed that Technology is an
integral part of their day-to-day classroom instruction (61.8%, N=34) and that 1:1 was an important part of their students' education (51.7%).
• Majority of responses disagreed that 1:1 is a better fit for their students’ learning styles than traditional education methods (44.2%, N=34)
• Results suggest teachers perceived themselves as technology users and had initial support for the 1:1 program, though there was some skepticism about the “fit” of the 1:1 program with their students
![Page 15: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Spring 2011: Program Impacts• Perceived Program Impacts
▫ Measurement of teachers’ perceptions of program impacts centered around five concepts: Student Engagement, Student Effort, Academic Achievement, Discipline and Behavior, and Attendance
▫ E.g. “The Technology Initiative has increased the level of student interest (engagement) within my classroom.”
Responses in the scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral (Undecided), 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
• Results suggested that teachers did not perceive positive impacts from the 1:1 program during the first year of implementation ▫ Expected to improve over time, once tech was assimilated
![Page 16: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Spring 2011: Student Impacts• Teachers were asked to rate the general impact of 1:1 on
their students for six outcomes - Grades, Engagement, Participation, Motivation, Discipline & Behavior, and Attendance
• Teachers were asked to identify the level of impact using a five-level scale (1=N/A, 2=Neutral (Undecided), 3=No Impact, 4=Minor Impact, 5=Major Impact)
• Teachers most often reported 1:1 as having No Impact for all outcomes▫ Only Engagement had a median of 4.0 or above (Minor
Impact)
![Page 17: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Spring 2011: 21st Century Skills• Teachers were asked to rate the general impact of 1:1
on their students for the 15 specific “21st Century Skills”
• Teachers were asked to identify the level of impact using a five-level scale (1=N/A, 2=Neutral (Undecided), 3=No Impact, 4=Minor Impact, 5=Major Impact)
• Teachers most often reported the 1:1 had a Minor Impact on 10 of the 15 skills▫ No Impact for Leadership and Coordination Skills,
Lifelong Learning, Interpersonal Skills
![Page 18: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Spring 2012: Survey Results• Majority agreed/strongly agreed that Technology is an
integral part of their day-to-day classroom instruction (70.6%, N=17) and that 1:1 was an important part of their students' education (64.7%)
• Majority of responses disagreed that 1:1 is a better fit for their students’ learning styles than traditional education methods (47.1%, N=17)
• Small decline suggests that teachers continued to view the 1:1 program as perhaps not a good fit for their students, though the results must be tempered by the small sample size
![Page 19: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Spring 2012: Program Impacts• Perceived Program Impacts
▫ Measurement of teachers’ perceptions of program impacts centered around five concepts: Student Engagement, Student Effort, Academic Achievement, Discipline and Behavior, and Attendance
▫ E.g. “The Technology Initiative has increased the level of student interest (engagement) within my classroom.”
Responses in the scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral (Undecided), 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
• Results suggested that teachers still did not perceive positive impacts from the 1:1 program during the second year of implementation
![Page 20: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Spring 2012: Student Impacts• Results suggest a greater perception of impact than in 2011
• Teachers most often reported 1:1 as having a Minor Impact on Motivation to Learn (50.0%, N=16), Class Participation (43.8%, N=16) and Class Engagement (43.8%, N=16)
• Teachers most often reported 1:1 as having either No Impact or Minor Impact on Discipline & Behavior (both 37.5%, N=16); ▫ No Impact on Class Grades (37.5%, N=16)
• Four outcomes have a median of 4.0 (Minor Impact): Motivation to Learn, Class Grades, Class Participation, & Class Engagement
![Page 21: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Spring 2012: 21st Century Skills• Results: teachers perceived more positive impacts
from 1:1 during the second year, continued to see positive results in building student skills
• Teachers most often reported the 1:1 had a Minor Impact on all skills, but…▫ Both Time Management and Leadership and
Coordination Skills tied Minor Impact and No Impact with 40.0% (N=15)
• All 15 skills had a median of 4.0 (Minor Impact)
![Page 22: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
The Study: Focus Group Participants
• 10 teachers in each group (20 total)
• Distinct sets of teachers
• Disciplines: Social Studies, Library Science, Family & Consumer Science, Computer Technology, Business Education, Math, Music, Language Arts, Health Education, and Foreign Language
![Page 23: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Fall 2011• Perception of Goals? Prepping students for
college & workplace, enriching writing skills, a good educational “fit” with tech-savvy students
• Perceptions of Training? Teachers felt they had adequate training and/or opportunities for training on use of 1:1 laptops
![Page 24: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Fall 2011• Perceptions of Limiting Factors?
▫Time to research and plan new uses and projects for the technology was limited
▫Classroom management issues: game-playing, keeping children on task
• Some remarked that these issues limited their use of the 1:1 technology
![Page 25: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Fall 2011• Other Benefits?
▫Kid-be-quiet machines (“babysitters”)
▫Keeping disruptive students at bay
• Other Challenges?▫Technical problems (filters, connectivity)
▫Maturity level of students (roughness)
▫Desire for more student training
![Page 26: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Fall 2012• More hostile than 2011, though some items similar
• Perception of Goals? Similar to 2011, as well as promoting creativity and alleviating the routine activities.
• Perceptions of Training? Teachers felt they had inadequate training and/or opportunities for training on use of 1:1 laptops▫ Exacerbated by other initiatives
▫ Training was said to be not relevant, and no follow-up
![Page 27: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Fall 2012• Perceptions of Limiting Factors?
▫Network congestion, connectivity; inadequate IT help
▫Time to research and plan new uses and projects for the technology was limited
▫Classroom management issues, as in 2011
![Page 28: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Focus Group Results: Activities• Showing & creating videos in class
• Using online textbooks with integrated exercises
• Using interactive online activities
• Performing research, including source assessment
• Senior Research Projects
• Developing promotional flyers
• Analyzing data collected with Science probes
• Broadcast journalism projects with iMovie
• Using text-to-speech tools for Special Education
• Using GarageBand in Music class
![Page 29: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions• Survey: Teacher perceptions about, commitment to
1:1 were not strong by 2013 ▫ Enthusiasm remained stable or declined since 2011;
tempered by lower survey response rate
▫ Slight improvements in the perceived impact of 1:1 on student skills
▫ Lack of 2013 limits the results
• Fall 2012 focus groups were noticeably more hostile towards 1:1 than in the previous year▫ Concerns about the implementation process rather
than the technology itself
![Page 30: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Conclusions• Challenge of classroom management along with
technical challenges, are said to have limited teachers’ use of technology
▫Negative experiences can have the long-term effect of dissuading teachers from integrating 1:1
▫ Limiting student access and teacher training on 1:1 classroom management would have been beneficial
• Perception of available time was a significant challenge
▫Time to share ideas and best practices can be critical to a successful 1:1 implementation
![Page 31: SITE 2015 Conference March 04, 2015 Jeffrey A. Stone, Ph.D. Penn State University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f475503460f94c68d7b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Questions?