Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
SERA 09
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

SERA 09

527

Published on

Presentation to the SERA 09 conference on GLOW and raising attainment

Presentation to the SERA 09 conference on GLOW and raising attainment

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
527
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. GLOW – Did the lights stay on ? A quantitative and qualitative 2 year study into raising attainment using ICT SERA 09
  • 2. BACKGROUND…
    • Pilot school – August 2007
    • In use in class – December 2007-April 2009 (S3 into S4 Biology class)
    • Regular planned use – one period out of three each week
    • Measurement of attainment against other classes
    • Initial analysis after one unit assessment…final data after six unit assessments
  • 3. GLOW lessons…
    • Planned activities linked to course learning outcomes
    • Multi-media content (video, PodCast, blogs, wiki’s)
    • Weblinks to external materials
    • Collaboration using whiteboards, instant messaging and video-conferencing
    • Discussion boards and Animoto videos
  • 4. Attainment rise…
    • On one module 14 % ahead of cohort
    • Across course following intervention, initial analysis shows intervention group as 20.4% ahead of cohort (p Value 0.000)
  • 5. (The significant p values are indicated * in the table) Teacher differences on topic 3 (April 2008) .805766 .003558* .001750* 4 .805766 .056739 .034660* 3 .003558* .056739 .998774 2 .001750* .034660* .998774 1 81.20000 76.34722 62.01471 61.6667 (Mean) 4 3 2 1 Class
  • 6. Continuation to May 2009 ( p-Values in red are statistically significant) 0.223 0.000 0.000 4 0.223 0.007 0.000 3 0.000 0.007 0.004 2 0.000 0.000 0.004 1 71.22 66.50 59.24 51.78 Mean 4 3 2 1 Class
  • 7. Qualitative measures…
    • Behaviour centred around interactions between peers and between the pupil and teacher, as well as activities which could be distinguished as either ‘on’ or ‘off task’.
    • ‘ Systematic observation schedule’
    • Aim to record much of the activity and behaviour that goes on over the whole lesson, in terms of both pupils and the teacher.
  • 8. Amount of Time Spent On Task (TOT) and Time Spent Off Task (TOffT) Table 9 Time On Task (TOT) and Time Off Task (TOffT) * With a p-value of 0.006 (p<0.05), we can state that there is a significant difference in the amount of TOT between Non Glow and Glow lessons. 4.0 (2.4-4.8) 38.4 (17.0-45.7) 29 (20.4-55.0) Median (Range) 0.004* 0.006* 0.867 3.8 (1.0) 33.5 (11.2) 33.8 (11.8) Mean (SD) TOffT 86.9 (85.5-94.0) 55.5 (41.4-65.0) 58 (30.0-63.3) Median (Range) 0.004* 0.006* 0.397 88.3 (3.9) 55.2 (8.3) 52.8 (12.1) Mean (SD) TOT 2 vs. 3 p 1 vs. 3 p 1 vs. 2 p TI Glow NTI Non Glow TI Non Glow 3 2 1
  • 9. With a p-value of 0.012 (p<0.05), we can state that there is a significant difference in the amount of P-P TR between TI Non Glow and TI Glow lessons 0.0 (0.0-0.0) 0.0 (0.0-30.0) 0.0 (0.0-5.3) Median (Range) 0.570 0.527 1.000 0.0 (0.0) 4.4 (10.5) 1.3 (2.3) Mean (SD) T-P NTR 66.2 (44.4-84.2) 41.7 (5.0-58.8) 36.8 (20.8-63.6) Median (Range) 0.368 0.164 0.955 65.3 (19.8) 38.1 (18.1) 37.1 (14.4) Mean (SD) T-P TR 0.0 (0.0-0.0) 0.0 (0.0-4.4) 0.0 (0.0-1.3) Median (Range) 0.570 0.788 0.694 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (1.7) 0.2 (0.5) Mean (SD) P-T NTR 3.5 (2.9-7.4) 12.8 (0.0-31.7) 13.5 (3.2-20.0) Median (Range) 0.283 0.109 1.000 4.3 (2.1) 13.2 (10.8) 12.5 (6.3) Mean (SD) P-T TR 3.4 (1.3-4.9) 15.7 (0.0-43.0) 14.0 (4.0-29.1) Median (Range) 0.154 0.024* 0.955 3.2 (1.6) 19 (15.6) 16.7 (8.7) Mean (SD) P-P NTR 19.3 (12.4-22.7) 1.5 (0.0-8.0) 0.0 (0.0-20.0) Median (Range) 0.004* 0.012* 0.955 18.4 (4.5) 3.1 (3.6) 5.0 (7.7) Mean (SD) P-P TR p p p TI Glow NTI Non-Glow TI Non Glow 2 vs. 3 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 2 3 2 1
  • 10. Initial conclusions..
    • More time on task and less time off task activities occur during Glow lessons in comparison with Non Glow lessons.
    • More pupil-to-pupil task related interaction occurs during Glow lessons in comparison to non-Glow lessons
  • 11. Contd…
    • Very little pupil to teacher interaction occurs during Glow lessons.
    • The facilities available to pupils with the Glow network seem to allow pupils to access information on their own accord, through the various resources the Glow tools provide.
    • This more ‘student centred’ focus during lessons perhaps results in the decrease we can see in interaction between pupils and the teacher
    • Past research has highlighted the potential of ICT to alter the classroom dynamic and limit ‘teacher led activities’ with a more ‘student centred’ approach (Condie and Livingston, 2007).
  • 12.
    • As no significant difference was found between the Teacher Innovator’s and Non Teacher Innovators’ non Glow lessons, we are able to attribute any changes to the use of the Glow intervention.
    • Although this pilot study provides significant results, it is important for this research to be further investigated with more schools involved in order for results to be regarded as representative of the wider population
  • 13. REAL LEARNING
    • Contextualises learning by situating learned theory in the ‘real world’
    • Deep rather than shallow learning
    • Improved long-term memory recall
    • Increases teaching and learning time
    • Individual rather than differentiated teaching
    • Peer-assisted learning.
  • 14. (adapted from Prof. Stephen Heppell 2006 conference presentation http://rubble.heppell.net/creativeJISC/default.html)
  • 15. Looking to the future..
    • this pilot study, which is both useful and informative in terms of how pupils and teachers activity and behaviour during lessons change as a result of Glow. Despite a small sample and a number of issues we were able to find results that were highly significant, which provides a valuable basis for future research in this area. This study and further validating research could be useful in informing future educational policy in terms of embedding ICT and VLE’s such as Glow in the national curriculum and for funding resources.
  • 16. From http://olliebray.typepad.com/olliebraycom/2009/08/21st-century-teaching-tools-south-lanarkshire.html
  • 17. The future…
    • GLOW unsustainable in it’s present format
    • Huge issues with QA preventing sharing of resources
    • GLOW Learn and the time factor
    • Out of date and unintuitive – ‘BEBO generation’
    • Poor project management and lack of GLOW classroom experience affects credibility of national team approach.
  • 18. “ Stop talking, cut the spin and hype and start some serious evaluation”
  • 19. A culture of secrecy has existed around GLOW development
  • 20. GLOW Learn has been ill thought out and is too impersonal. “ Teaching by machines” went out with behaviourism
  • 21. Moratorium on all further development until…
    • Funding
    • Impact assessment
    • National usage survey
    • Local Authority sign up – GLOW is not a national intranet
    • SWOT
    • Management/ national team review-more basics- focussed activity

×