• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Psld final report
 

Psld final report

on

  • 761 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
761
Views on SlideShare
756
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://darinrking.posterous.com 4
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Psld final report Psld final report Document Transcript

    • Grand Forks Public SchoolsPersonal Student Learning Device Study 2010 – 2011 School Year
    • TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction ................................................................................................................................................................3 Grand Forks Public Schools 2010-2013 Technology Plan .......................................................................................3 Technology Vision...............................................................................................................................................3 Technology Planning Principles ..........................................................................................................................3 Recommendations from 2010 District Technology Plan ........................................................................................4 Study Recommendation #1 ................................................................................................................................4 Study Recommendation #2 ................................................................................................................................4 Study Recommendation #3 ................................................................................................................................4 Study Recommendation #4 ................................................................................................................................4 Personal Student Device Committee......................................................................................................................5 Committee Members .........................................................................................................................................5 Committee Meetings ..........................................................................................................................................5Guiding Research ........................................................................................................................................................6 21st Century Learners .............................................................................................................................................6 21st Century Skills....................................................................................................................................................7 1 to 1 Program Research ........................................................................................................................................8 United States Educational Technology Plan 2010 ..................................................................................................9Final Study Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................9 PSLD Proposed Learning Goals ...............................................................................................................................9 PSLD Proposed Operational Objectives............................................................................................................... 10 PSLD Proposed Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................. 11 Professional Development .............................................................................................................................. 11 Technical Support ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Learning Management System ........................................................................................................................ 11 Personal Student Learning Device Types ........................................................................................................ 12 Budgetary Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 13References ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Page 2
    • INTRODUCTIONGRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2010-2013 TECHNOLOGY PLANThe Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee developed and presented the 2010-2013District Technology Plan to the School Board in March of 2010. The district vision and planningprinciples are shown below.TECHNOLOGY VISIONThe Grand Forks Public Schools believe technology is an integral component of learning and is necessaryto learn effectively, live productively and participate globally in an increasingly digital world.Technology resources transform learning by allowing learners to create, publish, collaborate andcommunicate with others in a global environment. Technology helps learners gather and analyzeinformation, solve problems and develop higher-level thinking skills through authentic real-worldexperiences.TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PRINCIPLESThe implementation of the technology vision will be accomplished by aligning all technology initiativesto one or more of the following technology principles. Principle #1 – Student Centered Technology Principle #2 – Enhance Communication Principle #3 – Effective Planning & Funding Principle #4 – Administrative Systems Principle #5 – Inclusive Support Services Principle #6 – Data Driven Decision Making Page 3
    • RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2010 DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLANThe Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee made a number of study recommendations tothe school board during the 2010 technology planning process.STUDY RECOMMENDATION #1 The Grand Forks Public Schools should study and evaluate the potential of a 1:1 computer implementation for students during the 2010-2011 school year.STUDY RECOMMENDATION #2 The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of digital curriculum resources that support 21st century teaching and learning during the 2010-2011 school year.STUDY RECOMMENDATION #3 The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential use of social media systems to support administrative and instructional practices.STUDY RECOMMENDATION #4 The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of course management software that would support instructional practice.In response to these recommendations, the Personal Student Learning Device (PSLD) Committee wasformed in September of 2010 to address recommendations. This document represents the research,findings and recommendations for action by the Grand Forks Public Schools School Board. Page 4
    • PERSONAL STUDENT DEVICE COMMITTEECOMMITTEE MEMBERS Community Members Jenny Arel, GF Foundation for Education Dr. Michael Brown, GF Mayor and Altru Tom Erickson, UND EERCDistrict Committee Members Cindy Grabe, UNDDarin King, Technology Director, Chair Dr. Mark Grabe, UNDDarlene Johnson, Elem Technology Facilitator Nikki Jo Klefstad, Bank ForwardMonte Gaukler, Secondary Technology Facilitator Diane MantheiJeff Compton, Network Services Coordinator Gary Mitchell, Retired PrincipalDr. Terry Brenner, Director of CIAPD Thana ProchkoVirginia Tupa, Director of Inst. Services Janet Spaeth, UNDEric Ripley, Director of CTE Linda St. Onge, Retired TeacherBrad Srur, GFEA President Aaron Stefanich, GF Public LibraryDistrict Technology Partners Barry Wilfahrt, GF ChamberDistrict CIAPD Staff Austin Winger Chris Wolf, Alerus Financial Judy Anderson, Century Jay Mindeman, Schroeder Brenda Rosendahl, Red River Nicole Trottier, WinshipElementary Technology Committee Secondary Technology CommitteeScott Johnson, Elementary Principal and Chair Mary Koopman, Principal, Secondary Co-ChairPaige Strom, Teacher, 1st Grade, Kelly Kris Arason, Principal, Secondary Co-ChairJennifer Benjamin, Teacher, 1st Grade, Winship Kim Slotsve, Principal, Red River HSBesty Kuznia, Teacher, 2nd Grade, Lake Agassiz Terry Bohan, Principal, Community HSBrad Srur, Intermediate Teacher, Phoenix Matt Solberg, Teacher, Grade 6, South MSAmber Carlson, Teacher, 3rd Grade, Lewis & Clark Jon Sailer, Teacher, Grade 7, Schroeder MSLiz Deere, Teacher, 4th Grade, Ben Franklin Nate Olson, Teacher, Grade 8, Valley MSLinda Dalzell, Media Specialist, Century Judy Hagar, Media Specialist, Schroeder MSAdam Eckert, Physical Education, Viking Kathy Hill, Media Specialist, Red River HS Scott Conrad, Teacher, Central HS Tim Tandeski, Teacher, Red River HS Eileen Zygarlicke, Teacher, Community HSCOMMITTEE MEETINGSThe Personal Student Learning Device Committee met on the following dates. • October 7, 2010 • November 9, 2010 • December 6th, 2010 • January 24, 2011 • February 21, 2011 Page 5
    • GUIDING RESEARCHThe following research and literature was used to guide the development of the Personal StudentLearning Device Study.21 S T CENTURY LEARNERSLike many generations before, the current generation of school age children is “different”. Palfrey andUrs (2008) call the generation born after 1980 “Digital Natives” and those born before 1980 “DigitalImmigrants”. Digital Natives have always had new and emerging technology as a part of their worldand they are not afraid to adapt and change. Digital Natives are not inherently better or smarter usersof technology but they are more willing to embrace rapid and constant change. Digital Immigrants mayresist change and generally wait longer to adopt new technologies.Jukes, McCain and Crockett (2010) compare and contrast the learning preferences of current studentswith the traditional instructional methods. The table below highlights the differences based on theirresearch.21st Century Learners Traditional InstructionReceive information quickly from multiple sources Slow and controlled release of information from limited sourcesProcess pictures, video, sounds and color before Provide text before pictures, video, sounds andtext colorRandom access to hyperlinked multimedia Information provided linearly, logically andinformation sequentiallyNetwork simultaneously with many others Work independently before networking and interactionLearning is “just in time” Teaching is “just in case”Instant gratification with immediate and deferred Deferred gratification and delayed rewardsrewardsLearning that is relevant, active, instantly useful Memorization in preparation for standardized testsand funProject Tomorrow (2010), a nationwide survey of 299,677 K-12 students, found that students wantdigitally-rich, social-based learning that is un-tethered from traditional educational paradigms. Page 6
    • Labeling these ideas as “essential conditions”, the report goes on to explain the unique opportunityeducation is faced with today. “While these three essential elements represent some dramatically new approaches to teaching and learning in a classroom setting, for the student, the incorporation of the tools and applications is merely a natural extension of the way they are currently living and learning outside of that classroom. Thus, there exists a very special opportunity today to both increase the relevancy of a student’s education experience and to start to close the persistent digital disconnect between students and educators on learning with technology. The key to unlock this opportunity is a long overdue realization that the students’ ideas on how to effectively leverage technology within learning can provided meaningful insights and even present a clear pathway for implementation.” (Project Tomorrow, 2010)21 S T CENTURY SKILLSThe Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) is a national organization that is helping implement 21stcentury skills initiatives in 15 different states. Working with state governments, they are developing21st century student outcomes and support systems that are focused on ensuring 21st centuryreadiness for all students. They identify communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking asthe primary learning and innovation skills necessary for student readiness in the 21st century. Theyalso indicate the need for information, media and technical literacy as part of a robust 21st centuryskills initiative.The North Central Regional Education Laboratory and the Metiri Group (2003) identify digital ageliteracy, inventive thinking, effective communication and high productivity as the key topics in theirenGauge 21st Century Skills research. Digital age literacy includes the development of technical,scientific, economic, visual, information and multicultural literacy. Inventive thinking includesdeveloping creativity, adaptability, curiosity, higher order thinking and sound reasoning. Effectivecommunications includes developing collaboration and interpersonal skills, personal and civicresponsibility and interactive communication skills. High productivity includes the effective use of realworld tools, project management skills and producing high quality products.Wagner (2008) proposes that there is a “global achievement gap” defined as the gap between what weare teaching and assessing versus the reality of what is needed to be a successful citizen in the 21stcentury. After extensive research, the author identified seven critical survival skills that are necessaryto be successful in the 21st century: • Critical thinking and problem solving • Collaboration across networks and leading by influence Page 7
    • • Agility and Adaptability • Initiative and Entrepreneurialism • Effective Oral and Written Communication • Accessing and Analyzing Information • Curiosity and ImaginationAlthough each of the perspectives highlighted in this section are slightly different, they all indicate thatcommunication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking are important skills for success in the 21stcentury.1 TO 1 PROGRAM RESEARCHApple’s Classrooms of Tomorrow research during the 1990’s was some of the earliest research todocument and support the increased learning created when students have ubiquitous access totechnology as a learning tool (Rockman et al., 1997). The research indicated the improved learning wascreated as a result of the new instructional teaching strategies that encouraged communication,collaboration and creativity which lead to increased student motivation.Many researchers recognize that current standardized tests are not capable of capturing increases instudent learning generated from one to one laptop programs (Holcomb, 2009; Lei & Zhao, 2006;Silvernail, 2005; Suhr et al., 2010). This apparent “disconnect” can be partially explained by theemphasis on 21st century skills and project based learning in many of the one to one programs.Beginning in 2002, the Maine Learning with Technology Initiative provided laptop computers to allmiddle school students and teachers and is being expanded to include high school students andteachers. Research from the Maine project indicates significant improvement on standardizedassessments in literacy and mathematics (Clariana, 2009; Holcomb, 2009; Silvernail & Gritter, 2007).Project RED (2010) studied over 900 schools with diverse structures, demographics and technologyuse. They found that schools with student to computer ratios of one to one out perform schools withhigher ratios on both academic and financial measures.Nine key implementation factors most closely linked to education success were identified and orderedby predictive strength. 1. Intervention classes: Technology integrated into every intervention class. 2. Change management leadership: Leaders provide time for professional learning and collaboration at least monthly. 3. Online collaboration: Students use technology daily for online collaboration. 4. Core subjects: Technology is integrated into core curriculum once per week or more. 5. Online formative assessments: Assessments are done at least weekly. Page 8
    • 6. Student/computer ratio: Lower ratios improve outcomes 7. Virtual field trips: Virtual trips are more powerful when used at least monthly. 8. Online research using search engines: Daily student use. 9. Principal training: Principals are trained on best practices and technology transformed learning.When the nine key implementation factors are properly applied in a one to one computer school, dataindicate an improvement in high stakes test scores, a reduction in disciplinary issues, better attendancerates, reduced dropout rates and improved graduation rates. In addition, one to one schools savemoney by reducing printing costs and reducing the number of students that need to retake classesafter failing.UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN 2010The U.S. Department of Education (2010) is supporting 1:1 student implementation in the draft of theNational Educational Technology Plan in the goals listed below. “Ensure that every student and educator has at least one Internet access device and software and resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and collaboration for use in and out of school.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). “Develop and adopt learning resources that exploit the flexibility and power of technology to reach all learners anytime and anywhere.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).FINAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONSThe Grand Forks Public Schools Personal Student Learning Device Study Committee recommends thedistrict implement personal student learning devices as a means to support academic achievement andaddress the following learning goals.PSLD PROPOSED LEARNING GOALSALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL LEARN TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE ANDCOLLABORATE USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.The widespread use of cellular telephones, SMS text messaging, electronic mail, instant messaging,Google Apps, Skype, Twitter, Facebook and millions of blogs have dramatically changed the way peoplecommunicate and collaborate. Teaching and modeling the safe, appropriate and effective use of thesenew and emerging communication tools for both personal and professional use is critical for ourstudents’ future success. Page 9
    • ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL CREATE ARTIFACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THEIRLEARNING USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.There are many new and different ways to demonstrate student learning in the 21st Century. Allowingstudents to create projects using online tools like Blogger, Google Apps, Glogster, VoiceThread,Animoto and YouTube provide new ways for students to demonstrate what they have learned. Usingthese online tools also allows a wider and more authentic audience to view, comment and providefeedback to the student.ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEMSOLVING SKILLS USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES. The need for critical thinking and problem solving skills has never been more important than they arein the 21st Century. The amount of information available on the Internet continues to growexponentially and students must be able to effectively analyze information, make judgments and solveproblems in innovative ways.PSLD PROPOSED OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVESThe following operational objectives are necessary for the successful implementation of personalstudent learning devices. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will issue a personal student learning device to three grade levels of students by the 2013-2014 school year. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will provide extensive instructional and technical support to the teachers and students with personal student learning devices. • Personal student learning devices will be used to support real time, embedded formative assessment practices by teachers. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will make a commitment to selecting digital curriculum during the curriculum review process for the implementation grade levels. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a comprehensive learning management system to support traditional and blended instructional practices. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a mobile filtering system to support the appropriate use of the personal student learning devices. • The Grand Forks Public Schools will reduce printing costs at the implementation schools by assisting students and teachers to use the available digital tools and resources. Page 10
    • PSLD PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLANThe Grand Forks Public School district is uniquely positioned to provide personal student learningdevices to a focused part of our student population. The ongoing support for the CurriculumTechnology Partner Program, notebook computers for professional staff, robust infrastructure andappropriate levels of technical support are all requirements for a successful implementation that arecurrently addressed by the existing Technology Plan for the Grand Forks Public Schools.The Technology Department would implement a single grade level each year for three years, whichwould be approximately 500 student devices each year. This will allow for efficient use of existingsupport structures, including instructional coaching from the Curriculum Technology Partner staff anddeployment services from the technical support staff.PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTThe Curriculum Technology Partners would provide instructional coaching and professionaldevelopment opportunities to the teachers implementing in each of the first three years. Theopportunities would include individual, small group and large group professional development focusedon 21st Century skills, instructional strategies and digital citizenship.The Technology Department would facilitate professional development opportunities for district andbuilding administrators on instructional leadership and change management in a one to one learningenvironment.TECHNICAL SUPPORTStudent support help desks will be created in the secondary schools to provide just in time, peersupport for students having issues with a device. At the elementary level, students with an interest willbe recruited and trained to provide classroom based, peer support for the student learning devices.This structure will serve as the first stop for students experiencing problems and unresolved issues willbe escalated to school and district technical support staff.District technical staff will make extensive use of deployment and management systems already inplace to handle the increased density of computers in the district.LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMA learning management system will be implemented to allow teachers to quickly develop and manageonline portals to their classroom for both student and parents. The system will be available only tostaff, students and parents and will support social networking and blended instruction. Page 11
    • Blended instruction classes refer to the ability of students to learn in both online and traditionalenvironments. The goal of blended instruction is to provide “anytime, anywhere” access to learningthrough an online learning management system that provides necessary course curriculum and createspowerful social connections that foster collaborative learning.PERSONAL STUDENT LEARNING DEVICE TYPESThe committee reviewed the strengths and weakness of devices at three different price points. Thetable below summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of devices when grouped by device cost.Device Cost Strengths Weakness Example Devices Communication, Collaboration, Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Netbooks Day long battery, Size and Weight, Multimedia Power,$300 Mobile Phones Connectivity, Management Options Small tablets $100-$150 annual cost per student Communication, Collaboration, Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Day long Less than Day Battery Life, Low end Notebooks battery,$600 Multimedia power, High end Netbooks Size and Weight, Connectivity Management Options Emerging Tablets $150-$200 annual cost per student Communication, Collaboration, Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Full power Notebooks Size and Weight,$900 Multimedia, Connectivity, Emerging Tablets Battery Life $200-$250 annual cost per student Convertible TabletsAfter considerable discussion, the majority of the committee agreed that the most viable option was adevice in the $300 category due primarily to the day long battery, communication and collaborationfeatures and low annual cost per student. Page 12
    • BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONSBy implementing the proposal over three years, the budget would increase gradually to a level of fullsustainability of personal student learning devices at nine grade levels. The devices could be leased atan approximate cost of $150.00 per student, per year. Personal Student Learning Devices Implement 1 Grade per Year 3 Year Lease Cost at $150.00 per student 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014Student Devices Year 1 $ 82,500 $82,500 $82,500Student Devices Year 2 $82,500 $82,500Student Devices Year 3 $82,500Totals $82,500 $ 165,000 $ 247,500 Personal Student Learning Devices 3 Year Technology Budget Projection 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 $ 672,000.00 $682,500 $729,000 $811,500 Page 13
    • REFERENCESClariana, R. (2009). Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. Journal ofComputers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 5-21.Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & Lessons Learned from1:1 Laptop Initiatives: A Collective Review.TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55.Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-18.Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). The power of one to one. Early findings from the Mainelearning technology initiative. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6-8.Palfrey, J., Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. BasicBooks, New York.Project RED (2010). Project RED key findings. http://www.projectred.org/Project Tomorrow. (2010). Creating our future: Students speak up about their vision for 21st CenturyLearning. http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SUNationalFindings2010.pdf.Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A frameworkfor future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.Silvermail, D.L., Gritter, A.K. (2007). Maine’s Middle School Laptop Program: Creating BetterWriters. Maine Education Policy Research, University of Southern Maine. http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/Impact_on_Student_Writing_Brief.pdf.U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered byTechnology - National Educational Technology Plan 2010 Draft. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010. Page 14