IMPACT Powerpoint


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IMPACT Powerpoint

  1. 1. Evaluating a K-12 Technology Integration program: IMPACTing Students and Teachers<br />1:1 Leadership Institute – July 10, 2009<br />Dr. Melinda Mollette,<br />Latricia Townsend, Kim Cohen<br />Jessica Huff, and Megan Townsend<br />
  2. 2. Why Implement the IMPACT Model?<br />effective school library media and instructional technology programs support both effective teaching and learning<br />“Technology is generally not a direct cause of change but rather a facilitator or amplifier of various educational practices” - Lesgold, 2003 <br />School library media and instructional technology programs are key to making education relevant. <br />Lesgold, A. (2003). Detecting technology’s effects in complex school environments. In Evaluating Educational Technology: Effective Research Designs for Improving Learning (Means, B., and Haertel, G., Eds.). New York: Teachers College Press.<br />
  3. 3. IMPACT Information<br />Supported by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction through a U.S. Department of Education grant under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT)<br />Competitive Grant <br />Schools responded to an RFP to receive funding<br />Complete evaluation findings will be given to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in September 2009<br />
  4. 4. IMPACT School Locations in NC<br />
  5. 5. IMPACT Cohorts<br />IMPACT I-2003-2006<br />8 Elementary/2 Middle Schools<br />One School perLEA<br />IMPACT II-2007-2009<br />FiveMiddle Schools<br />One School perLEA<br />IMPACTing Leadership-2006-2008<br />Quarterly Prof’l Development Workshops – 3 days each (2006/07)<br />Follow-up support – 2007/08<br />Funding distributed July 2008<br />IMPACT III-2008-2009<br />IMPACTing Leadership schools that locally fundeda media specialist and a technology facilitator<br />District-wide initiative – gr. K-12 in two of the three LEA’s<br />IMPACT IV-2008-2009<br />Weeklong summer professional development workshop for school-level MTAC members<br />Central office personnel attended IMPACT Academy <br />District-wide initiative at upper grade levels (only gr. 3-12) in four LEA’s<br />
  6. 6. IMPACT IV (2008-2009)<br />Series of professional development workshops for school-level MTAC (Summer 08)<br />Central office personnel attended IMPACT Academy (Summer 08)<br /><ul><li>Based on lessons from IMPACT I/II, how do school/district leaders respond to condensed wkshps & more immediate funding of the model?
  7. 7. Asheboro City (6-12) & Kannapolis City (5-12)
  8. 8. Perquimans/Edenton-Chowan (3-12)
  9. 9. Thomasville City (4-12)</li></li></ul><li>Evaluation Instruments<br />School Readiness for Innovation<br />School Technology Needs Assessment (STNA)<br />Quality of Professional Development<br />Standards Assessment Inventory (National Staff Development Council)<br /><ul><li>Technological Literacy of Students</li></ul>Technology Skills Checklist 3-5 and 6-12<br />Technology skills and behaviors of Teachers and Administrations<br />National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T)<br />National Education Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A)<br />Student achievement<br />End-of-Grade Tests in Reading/Math (EOG)<br />End-of-Course Tests – High school only (EOC)<br />
  10. 10. IMPACT Model Components<br /><ul><li>Collaboration
  11. 11. Supportive Leadership
  12. 12. Technology Integration
  13. 13. Flexible Access to resources
  14. 14. Professional development
  15. 15. Variety of Resources/equipment
  16. 16. Personnel (Tech Facilitator/Media Coordinator)
  17. 17. Formative Evaluation to monitor progress </li></li></ul><li>IMPACT Model<br />IMPACT Model Outcomes<br /><ul><li>Teachers will integrate technology
  18. 18. Co-teaching/collaborative planning
  19. 19. Increased student achievement
  20. 20. Flexible scheduling
  21. 21. Technology in the hands of students
  22. 22. Teacher retention (reduce turnover)
  23. 23. Teacher technology skills will improve</li></li></ul><li>Purpose of the IMPACT III/IV Summative Evaluation<br />IMPACT Model Outcomes<br /><ul><li>Teachers will integrate technology
  24. 24. Co-teaching
  25. 25. Increased student achievement
  26. 26. Technology in the hands of students
  27. 27. Teacher retention
  28. 28. Teacher technology skills</li></ul>IMPACT Components<br /><ul><li>Collaboration
  29. 29. Supportive Leadership
  30. 30. Technology Integration
  31. 31. Flexible Access
  32. 32. PD
  33. 33. Resources
  34. 34. Personnel
  35. 35. Formative Evaluation</li></ul>?<br />
  36. 36. Results from IMPACT III/IV<br />Teacher surveys – <br /> % of teachers using technology to differentiate instruction increased from 58.1% to 73.6% during this past school yr.<br />% of tchrs using technology-enhanced learner centered strategies increased from 50.9% to 65.4% this yr. (STNA)<br /> 85% of teachers in IMPACT schools feel their principal is frequently/always committed to providing teachers with opportunities to improve instruction (SAI – April ‘09)<br />89% of teachers report they frequently/always have opportunities to learn how to use technology to enhance instruction (SAI-April ‘09)<br />53% of teachers report they frequently/always set aside time to collaborate about what they learned from their PD experiences (SAI – April ‘09)<br />
  37. 37. IMPACT III/IV focus groups<br />Having a full-time instructional technology facilitator on staff at each school was a crucial factor enabling teachers to access (and use) a broad array of instructional strategies and resources.<br /> Training needs to accommodate a variety of skill levels, from beginners, to more advanced users. Essentially, provide “differentiated instruction” for the teachers, as well as the students<br />Implementing the IMPACT Model district-wide provided reinforcement, enthusiasm and support from central office as well as parents and the community.<br />
  38. 38. IMPACT III/IV High Schools<br />Interactive whiteboards most prevalent piece of equipment. Elementary teachers were more likely to allow students to use the boards, for example by playing “games”,highlight or drag/drop items on the screen, whereas high school teachers were more likely to use it to present information, either by streaming video or projecting text. <br /> Of the students surveyed in grades 6-12, 80% felt the use of technology made learning easier and more interesting. <br /> 90% of students in grades 6-12 reported having a computer at home, though it is unknown what percentage of them also had internet access at home.<br />students were asked to rate the amount of change (on a scale of 1-No change to 10-Substantial change) from last year to this year in terms of the variety of lessons and assignments used by their teachers; student ratings (in gr 6-12) averaged 6.45 (N=6806).<br />
  39. 39. Results from IMPACT I<br />Passing or not passing N. Carolina End of grade tests in Math<br />Odds that IMPACT students would change from non-passing to passing status years 00-02 were 42% higher than comparison grp<br />Odds that IMPACT students would pass in 2006 was 24% higher than students in comparison schools<br />Passing or not passing North Carolina end of grade tests in reading<br />Odds IMPACT students improving from non-passing to passing status Year 00-03 55% higher<br />Odds IMPACT students improving from non-passing to passing Year 01-03 43% higher<br />
  40. 40. A Few Lessons Learned<br />Change can be hard and slow<br />Collaborative planning seems to be one of the biggest challenges at the high school level<br />Flexible access to media/technology resources is a challenge primarily at the elementary level<br />Evaluation should follow schools for more than 3 years<br />Supportive leadership is critical, as is teacher buy-in<br />Needs assessment, and continuous data driven decision-making critical from planning stage onward<br />Anticipate roadblocks by communicating with previous IMPACT schools<br />
  41. 41. Lessons Learned<br />A Core Classroom is Essential.<br />Teacher computer<br />Data projector<br />Interactive whiteboard<br />Printer<br />Document camera<br />IT cannot fix broken teachers or schools.<br />
  42. 42. For Additional Information<br />NC Department of Public Instruction<br />Neill Kimrey, Section Chief for Instruct’l Technology<br /><br /><br /><br />Melinda Mollette, NC State University<br /><br />How does the model function at other school levels such as middle schools?<br />IMPACT I (2003-2006)<br /><ul><li>First test of the IMPACT Model
  43. 43. 8 Elementary and 2 Middle Schools
  44. 44. Single Model School in each LEA</li></ul>How are original IMPACT schools maintaining the model after the end of grant funding?<br />IMPACT I Update<br /><ul><li>Some original schools
  45. 45. Schools that continued implementation of key IMPACT model elements</li></ul>IMPACT II (2007-2009)<br /><ul><li>All Middle Schools
  46. 46. Single Model School in each LEA</li></ul>What happens when more support and training are given to both school and district leaders?<br />After having to find funding to support implementation of the model, how does the model function when increased funding is received?<br />Based on lessons from the first series of professional development workshops, how do school and district leadership respond to condensed workshops and more immediate funding of the model?<br />IMPACTing Leadership <br />(2006-2008)<br /><ul><li>Year Long Series of Professional Development Workshops
  47. 47. Widespread District Participation</li></ul>IMPACT III (2008-2009)<br /><ul><li>IMPACTing Leadership schools that fundeda media
  48. 48. coordinator and tech facilitator during 2007-2008
  49. 49. Widespread district participation (Asheville City, Pamlico County, & Scotland County)</li></ul>IMPACT IV (2008-2009)<br /><ul><li>Series of summer professional development workshops for school-level MTAC
  50. 50. Central office personnel attended IMPACT Academy
  51. 51. Year long model implementation
  52. 52. Widespread district participation (Asheboro City; Kannapolis City, Thomasville City; Perquimans/Edenton-Chowan) </li>