Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
Seoul foreign schools all[1]
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

Seoul foreign schools all[1]

343

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
343
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
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. Seoul Foreign SchoolsSeoul, South Korea March 2011600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1180Culver City, CA 90230 All Schools Reportwww.metiri.com
  • 2. Table of Contents Dimensions 21 Introduction 1 Dimension 1: Forward Thinking, Shared Vision 2 Dimension 2: Systems Thinking 4 Dimension 3: 21st Century Skills and Learning Approaches 7 Dimension 4: 21st Century Learning Environments 11 Dimension 5: Teacher Proficiency with 21st Century Learning 16 Dimension 6: Access and Infrastructure 20 Dimension 7: Accountability and Results 25 Student Outcomes/Student Perspectives 28 Student Engagement 29 Classroom Structures to Engage Learners 36
  • 3. All Schools ReportIntroductionThe 1500 students attending Seoul Foreign Fast FactsSchool represent approximately 52 nationalities,making SFS easily the largest and mostwell-established international school on the Project:Korean peninsula. Our students come mainly Location:from the expatriate business and diplomaticcommunity; all must have foreign (non-Korean) Timeframe:passports to enroll at our school. The majority ofour students are from the United States, Accomplishment:followed by the United Kingdom, Canada,Australia, and Japan. Our graduating classconsists of approximately 85 students eachyear, virtually all of whom go on to 4 yearuniversities in North America and elsewherearound the world. D21 Scores: Year 1 (2011)Dimensions21 (D21)Dimensions21 provides schools with insightsinto the elements required to translate 21st 1: Vision 4.4Century learning into action. The 7 dimensions 2: Systems 5.0represent the divergent and innovative thinking it Thinkingtakes to ground schools in emergent cognitive, 3: 21st Century 4.4 Skillssocial, and neuroscience. Metiri Group 4: Learningdeveloped metrics that gauge a school or Environment 3.5district’s progress in establishing 21st Century 5: Teachersystems of learning. Each dimension is 5.0 Proficiencycalibrated on an 8-point scale: 6: Infrastructure 5.3 7: 3.7 Accountability 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Province Total School N = 31 Teachers & 0 Administrators 1
  • 4. Dimension 1: Forward-Thinking, Shared Vision“The best vision is insight.” Dimension 1 Scores -Malcolm S. Forbes Aggregate Chart Figure D1-1: Summary of weighted scores from teacherVision matters. A forward-thinking, shared vision Figure B and administrator surveys.serves as a unifying and energizing force of Dimension 1change within a school system. AdministratorsIt sets the targets to which all curriculum,instruction, assessment, scheduling, progressreporting, resourcing, and community Teachers 4.4communications are aligned.The indicators and key questions within this Aggregate 4.4dimension include: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8· A Forward-Thinking Vision for All Learners. Is there a 21st Century vision for all learners that defines what it means to be educated in a knowledge-based, global society? Dimension 1 Findings· A Sound Base in the Learning Sciences. Does the vision represent current research Figure D1-2: Percentage of teachers reporting levels findings from the cognitive, social, and of support for the Seoul Foreign School vision for 21st neurosciences? Century learning.· Communication and Commitment. Have stakeholder groups had a voice in shaping the vision? Has the jurisdiction communicated with them about the vision? Are they generally supportive of and committed to the vision?The top chart at the right indicates the currentstatus of Dimension 1. In order to providecontext to the numeric scores, frequency reports Extremely supportive Somewhat supportive 58.1% 25.8%from several of the survey questions follow. In Undecided or dont know 16.1% Total: 100.0%some cases the results from the surveyquestions will be in tables, in others charts, andwhere appropriate, the responses will be crosstabulated or provide comparisons betweenrespondent groups such as teachers andadministrators. 2
  • 5. Dimension 1 Findings Figure D1-3: Teachers ratings of the emphasis (on a scale of 1-8) of each 21st Century Skill embodied in the school vision. Social responsibility 4.8 Citizenship in a changing, 5.2 global society Individual integrity and ethics 5.6 Community connections 3.5 Cultural diversity 4.5 Digital literacy 4.2 Knowledge work and 3.4 entrepreneurship Lifelong learning 4.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8The responses to this question reveal the extent to which teachers see each 21st Century Skillembedded in the vision. Since most schools are focusing on a subset of these 21st Century Skills, theremay be value in comparing the teachers’ perceptions to the actual wording of the vision, or perhaps thecurrent emphasis on particular skills by the school or jurisdiction. 3
  • 6. Dimension 2: Systems Thinking "Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing Dimension 2 Scoreswholes, recognizing patterns andinterrelationships, and learning how to structure Figure D2-1: Summary weighted scores from teacher Aggregate chartthose interrelationships in more effective, and administrator surveys (2009)efficient ways." - Peter Senge, Schools That Learn Dimension 2Fundamental to the application of systems Administratorsthinking in education is an openness toinnovation, reinvention, and formative, systemicchange driven by the vision. The indicators and Teachers 5.0key questions within this dimension include:· Leadership. Are the school and/or Aggregate 5.0 jurisdiction leaders leading a high-performance education system that 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 enables each student the fullest opportunity to achieve the vision?· Curricula, Instruction, and Assessment. Do the jurisdiction learning standards integrate academic content with 21st Century Skills? Are curricula, instruction, Dimension 2 Findings and assessments aligned to provincial standards? Figure D2-2: Percentage of teachers reporting their agreement with the statement: Teachers are provided· Professional Development. Do the school the resources and support to redesign classrooms into 21st Century learning environments. and jurisdiction provide comprehensive professional growth opportunities for administrators, teachers, and other staff, which build their capacity to advance the vision?· Culture of Learning and Innovation. Does the school or jurisdiction encourage and support school change that advances 21st Century learning, and innovative, educationally sound uses of technology? Always 16.1% Sometimes 51.6%· Policies Supportive of the Vision. Are Rarely Never 19.4% 9.7% there established policies that formally Dont know/Not sure Total: 3.2% 100.0% establish 21st Century learning and effective technology use as a required design element in all strategic planning, school improvement, budgeting, human resources, and accountability systems?The top chart indicates the current status ofDimension 2. Results from specific questionsfollow. 4
  • 7. The opportunity for high-quality, relevant professional development is critical to any change process. Thefollowing questions provide insights into teachers’ agreements with statements about the professionaldevelopment experiences currently made available to them through their school or jurisdiction.The statements represent characteristics and attributes of high quality professional developmentexperiences. The reader should note where large percentages of teachers indicate that the statement is"Never" or "Rarely" representative of their jurisdiction or school’s professional development, and settargets to improve that situation. Dimension 2 Findings Insert Figure G here Figure D2-3: Percentage of teachers reporting on their level of agreement about these statements regarding the degree to which professional development provided by their schools or jurisdiction: Includes opportunities for teachers to see actual examples of 10% 29% 58% 3% technology applied to learning in classrooms similar to my own. Includes opportunities for teachers to see actual examples of 21st 16% 42% 35% 3% 3% Century Skills applied to learning in classrooms similar to my own. Allows teachers to practice skills acquired during professional 39% 42% 13% 3% development in real or simulated classroom settings. 3% Prepares teachers to discuss specific research or theory upon which 16% 32% 45% 6% the training is based. Prepares teachers to assess student work produced with technology. 10% 55% 29% 3% 3% Prepares teachers to assess student work related to 21st Century 13% 48% 29% 3% 6% Skills. Includes time for teachers to work together, and to discuss and plan 16% 42% 32% 6% 3% for using technology in the classroom. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Never Rarely Sometimes Always Dont Know/Not SureIt is important that, as 21st Century Skills are integrated into lessons, it is accomplished systematicallyand systemically, so all children are afforded such opportunities, not just those students who happen tobe assigned to classrooms of innovative teachers.The data in the chart on the top of the next page represent strong indicators as to whether or not yourschool or jurisdiction is taking the necessary policy actions that will result in systemic change andintegration of 21st Century Skills and effective technology uses to advance learning. 5
  • 8. Dimension 2 Findings Figure D2-4: Percentage of teachers reporting on their level of agreement about these Insert Figure H here statements (systemic integration of 21st Century Skills). 21st Century Skills have been purposefully incorporated into 25% 58% 17% learning standards. 21st Century Skills have been purposefully integrated into curricula 14% 69% 17% where appropriate. Our assessments track student 36% 44% 4% 16% progress with 21st Century skills. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rarely Sometimes Always NeverThe final chart in this section reports the percentage of administrators in the province who report thatteachers are required to consider innovative approaches to teaching and learning in their classrooms(see list of innovations in the chart below). These results are strong indicators of the degree to which thejurisdiction is systemically integrating 21st Century learning and technology across the system. Dimension 2 Findings Figure D2-5: Percentage of administrators indicating their level of agreement with the statement, When teachers implement jurisdiction curriculum, or design curricula, this school requires that they consider: Insert Figure I here 6
  • 9. Dimension 3: 21st Century Skills and Learning Approaches“For more than half a century, the United Stateshas led the world in scientific discovery and Dimension 3 Scoresinnovation. It has been a beacon, drawing the Figure D3-1: Summary weighted scores from teacher andbest scientists to its educational institutions, administrator Figure J (2009) surveysindustries, and laboratories from around theglobe. However, in today’s rapidly evolving Aggregate Chart Dimension 3competitive world, the United States can nolonger take its supremacy for granted. Nations Administratorsfrom Europe to Eastern Asia are on a fast trackto pass the United States in scientific excellenceand technological innovation.” --Taskforce on the Future of Teachers 4.4 American InnovationInnovation is fueling the economy of the 21st Aggregate 4.4Century. Globalization has created new marketsand leveled the playing field citizens of all 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8nations around the world. As society changes,the skills that citizens need to negotiate thecomplexities of life also change. Innovative,inventive thinking was once required for only alimited few. Today, and tomorrow, it will be thecurrency for success in virtually every field. Dimension 3 FindingsThe elements within this dimension include: Figure D3-2: One of the most critical 21st Century Skill area is higher order thinking. This chart provides a 2008· Knowledge Age Literacies. Are students reference point for thinking skills curricula. acquiring and excelling at the skills needed to be “literate” in the Knowledge Age? The percentage of teachers and administrators answering “yes” to the question: Does your school have a formal curriculum for:· Inventive Thinking. Are students thinking critically and creatively as they successfully solve problems using high tech tools? Teaching critical thinking skills 7%· Community Interaction. Are students acquiring such skills? Building creative thinking skills 8%· Generating Quality Results. Are students learning to plan, manage, and achieve high Teaching problem solving to 7% students quality, impactful results? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%· Authenticity and Engagement. Are Teachers Administrators students being assigned rich, authentic work that engages them and involves construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry, resulting in products that have value beyond the classroom?The top chart indicates the currentstatus of Dimension 3. Results from specificquestions follow. 7
  • 10. The following charts are purposely matched up. The left-hand column reports current status of initiativesrelated to each skill as reported by administrators. The right-hand column charts both teachers’ reports ofrelevance of each skill to their content, and teachers’ comfort level with each skill. It is important tocompare not only the level indicated by the administrators and the teachers, but any gaps that existbetween the teachers’ comfort level and relevance level for each skill. Dimension 3 Findings Dimension 3 Findings Figure D3-3: Administrators mean score indicating the Figure D3-4: Teachers mean score related to comfort Figure L degree to which a formal initiative on the 21st Century level with each skill and relevance to their content skill is underway in their schools (scale 1-8): area: 5.1 Global Awareness Global Awareness 6.5Digital Literacy 2.5 Scientific Literacy 2.8 Scientific Literacy 5.3 Information Literacy 6.4 Information Literacy 4.1 Multimodal Literacy 5.6 Multimodal Literacy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teacher comfort level Relevance to content Dimension 3 Findings Dimension 3 Findings Figure N D3-5: Administrators mean score indicating the Figure Figure O D3-6: Teachers mean score related to comfort Figure degree to which a formal initiative on the 21st Century level with each skill and relevance to their content skill is underway in their schools (scale 1-8): area: Creativity andInventive Thinking Creativity & 5.7 Innovation Innovation 6.8 Critical Thinking 5.9 Critical Thinking 7.1 Flexibility & Adaptability Flexibility & 5.5 Adaptability 6.4 Self-direction 5.8 Self-direction 6.8 Systems Thinking 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teacher comfort level Relevance to content 8
  • 11. The comparison of administrator and teacher perspectives on 21st Century Skills continues: Dimension 3 Findings Dimension 3 Findings Figure D3-7: Administrators mean score indicating the Figure P Figure Q D3-8: Teachers mean score related to comfort Figure degree to which a formal initiative on the 21st Century level with each skill and relevance to their content skill is underway in their schools (scale 1-8): area:Effective Communications Interactive Interactive 5.5 Communication 6.8 Communication Teaming & Teaming & 5.9 Collaboration 6.6 Collaboration 5.3 Cross-cultural Skills Cross-cultural Skills 6.0 Personal & Social 5.7 Personal & Social 6.4 Responsibility Responsibility 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teacher comfort level Relevance to content Dimension 3 Findings Dimension 3 Findings Figure R D3-9: Administrators mean score indicating the Figure Figure S D3-10: Teachers mean score related to Figure degree to which a formal initiative on the 21st Century comfort level with each skill and relevance to their skill is underway in their schools (scale 1-8): content area:High-Quality Productivity Prioritizing, Planning Prioritizing, Planning and 4.7 and Managing for Managing for Results 6.3 Results Effective Use of Effective Use of Real-world 3.9 Real-world Tools Tools 6.1 4.4 Productivity Category Productivity Category 5.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teacher comfort level Relevance to contentIt is recommended that the reader identify any gaps that exist between the administrator and teacherperspectives related to relevance of the 21st Century Skills or between the teacher comfort level andrelevance to content. Such gaps should be addressed through action plans at the jurisdiction and buildinglevels. Look for opportunities represented by teachers’ indicators for high relevance, but underdevelopedcomfort levels. In these situations the applicable professional development and teacher support canquickly be leveraged into opportunities that positively impact students. 9
  • 12. Teachers assign a variety of types of work to students, depending on many factors some ofwhich are outside of their control. For each of the following categories of student work, teachers andadministrators were asked to estimate the percentage of work that fell into that category. The totals aremore than 100% because of duplication within single assignments. Dimension 3 Findings Figure D3-11: Percentage of work assigned by teachers that falls in the following categories, as reported by administrators and teachers: Insert Figure T here Skill building exercises (worksheets, 41% problem-sets, etc.) Applying skills through essays, short-answer 33% problems or exercises Written products that summarize content related 30% to the curriculum (e.g. reports) Written products that require the creation of 31% original content Applying skills to problems that are complex and 37% emulate work done in the real world 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Teachers AdministratorsTwo key factors in student engagement are opportunities for student choice and student creativity. Thefollowing chart provides insight into such opportunities in your school or jurisdiction. Dimension 3 Findings Figure D3-12: Percentage of work in classrooms in your school that falls in the following categories, as reported by administrators and teachers: Insert Figure U here 11% Student-designed assignments 59% Teacher-designed assignments 38% Technology-based products defined by the teacher 15% Student-designed, technology-based products 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Teachers Administrators 10
  • 13. Dimension 4: 21st Century Learning EnvironmentsThe learning environment is where the vision Dimension 4 Scoresbecomes a reality, where 21st Century learningcomes to life. Figure D4-1: Summary weighted scores from teacher Figure V and administrator surveys (2008)· Alignment with 21st Century Vision. Do the jurisdiction content, instruction, and Dimension 4 assessment align to 21st Century learning and academic content standards? Administrators· Informed Practice. Are educators establishing learning environments that are structured as respectful classroom Teachers 3.5 communities where students can work creatively and productively, places that motivate, interest, and scaffold students to think critically? Aggregate 3.5· Culture of Innovation, Engagement, and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Collaboration. Are professional learning teams working together to design and facilitate collaborative 21st Century learning activities with students? Are activities evidence-based? Are students producing high-quality work that is valued by peers, Dimension 4 Findings parents, and community? Figure D4-2: Percentage of teachers indicating Figure W· Resources Aligned to 21st Century agreement with the statement: Teachers in the Learning. Do students have access to a Emerge program know what the school’s expectations are for student attainment of 21st Century Skills. wide variety of multimodal resources? Are these sources accessible inside and outside the school environment? Strongly Agree 4%· Digital Tools: Range of Use. Do students Agree 8% have the opportunity to use a range of technologies (e.g., productivity tools, Disagree 14% visualization tools, research and Strongly Disagree 6% communication tools, etc.) to support 21st Century learning and academic Dont Know/Not Sure 11% achievement? Others 56% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%· Assessment for Learning. Is assessment systematically used to inform practice? Do Overall students set learning goals based on standards? Are they actively engaged in monitoring their own progress toward those goals?· Local and Global Connections. Are there formal, technology-based structures that engage stakeholders and learners in meaningful exchanges, interactions, and partnerships at the local and global levels?The top chart at the right indicates the currentstatus of Dimension 4. Results from specificquestions follow. 11
  • 14. The perceptions of teachers as to the applicability of the use of technology to their specific teachingassignments provides insights into why some classrooms are integrating technology and others are not. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-3: Percentage of teachers indicating the role technology plays in building skills Insert Figure X here or proficiencies in their students in the following content areas: (NOTE: These data reflect responses only from teachers who indicated the subject was applicable to their teaching Reading 25% 50% 25% Language Arts 23% 55% 23% Mathematics 39% 28% 22% 11% Science 53% 33% 7% 7% Social Studies 13% 69% 13% 6% Arts 36% 36% 18% 9% Health/PE 50% 13% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Insignificant Role Moderate Role Significant Role No Role n: Reading (28), Language Arts (22), Mathematics (18), Science (15), Social Studies (16), Arts (11), and Health/PE (8).If all students are to be afforded new opportunities in 21st Century learning and the innovative use oftechnologies, all teachers must adopt such use systemically. Otherwise, student opportunity isdetermined by which teacher’s classroom a student happens to be assigned. The chart below indicatesthe extent to which teachers in your school are systemically implementing evidence-based practices. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-4. Percentage of teachers that reported: In my school teachers in the same grade or subject areas: Insert Figure Y here Share little or no common understanding about evidence-based practices. Teachers decide 8% individually whether and how they will make instructional decisions. Share some common understanding about evidence-based practices; however, some 32% teachers implement these uses and others do not. Share a common understanding about evidence-based practices, and there are clear 3% expectations that such practices will be used. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 12
  • 15. The type of instructional strategy used in classrooms can augment, or inhibit, 21st Century learning andtechnology use. Highly qualified teachers use a variety of strategies. As a rule of thumb, the reader mightlook for a balance of use across the instructional strategies in the chart below, while ensuring that thestrategies that engage learners (i.e., interactivity, inquiry, collaboration) and those that build skills andmeet individual student needs (e.g., differentiation) are all fairly high. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-5: Teachers’ ratings (scale 1-8) related to various instructional strategies. Insert Figure Z here Direct Instruction (e.g., lecture, didactic questioning, 5.2 demonstrations, guided reading, etc.) 3.7 Inquiry (e.g., guided inquiry, problem-based learning, 5.1 learning from cases, etc.) 6.6 Mediating student thinking through questioning 4.5 strategies, thinking skills, and Habits of Mind 5.9 applications Experiential learning (e.g., field trips, simulations, 3.9 games, conducting experiments, etc.) 6.3 Collaborative teaming (e.g., students working 5.7 collaboratively on an assigned project, etc.) 6.6 Independent study by individuals or teams (e.g., writing essays, producing videos, computer-assisted 5.5 instruction, virtual learning, journaling, research 6.0 projects, etc.) Interactive instruction (e.g., active learning strategies, 4.6 debates, brainstorming, think/pair/share, jigsaw, 5.8 problem solving, conferencing, etc.) Differentiation of instruction (i.e, multiple approaches to 4.3 learning a single topic) 6.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Importance for 21st Current Use Century LearningStudents learn in a multiple of venues, many of which are outside the formal school day. Increasingly,educators are recognizing the value in preparing students to be self-directed in these informal learningspaces. This helps them ask deep questions and sustain curiosity, as they seek clarity, depth, accuracy,comprehensiveness, and currency of the topics they are exploring. Informal learning representstremendous opportunity for extending students’ exploration and understanding of academic contentbeyond the school day. 13
  • 16. The following chart indicates the importance teachers place on such informal learning and theirperceptions of students’ current use of such. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-6: Teachers’ ratings (scale 1-8) related to informal learning strategies. Insert Figure AA here Informal learning at school (after 3.1 school activities, 5.0 peer-interactions, etc.) Informal learning beyond the school day 2.6 (chat, text messaging, student web 5.1 browsing/searching, etc.) Mentoring or coaching by an adult (e.g., 3.4 parent, teacher, expert, etc.) 4.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Importance for 21st Current Use Century LearningTechnology use in schools is shifting to more collaborative and innovative uses of Internet resources,Web 2.0 tools, and multimedia production. The chart below provides insights from administrators as tocurrent use and importance of such technology uses by students. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-7: Administrator ratings of current uses of technology by students in their schools, andInsertadministrators rating of the importance of such uses to 21st Century learning: the Figure AB here Solve real-world problems Produce print products Produce multi-media, Web, digital audio, digital video, or presentation products Conduct online research Use drill and practice or tutorial software Use the Internet to collaborate with students in your school, district, or local community Online communication with experts, peers, and others 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Importance for 21st Current Use Century Learning 14
  • 17. The Internet has literally linked the individual to social and professional networks 24/7. Thosecommunication avenues represent opportunities for schools to increase communication with parents,community, and students. The following chart outlines the current status of your school’s uses oftechnology to facilitate such outreach and interaction. Dimension 4 Findings Figure D4-8: Parental or community involvement facilitated by technology. Insert Figure AC hereThe percentage of teachers that reported: Parents’ involvement in my students’ schoolwork 23% 48% 29% Interactions with students’ parents 13% 23% 65% Students’ work on authentic projects in their local 71% 13% 16% community Students’ work on authentic projects outside their 61% 13% 26% local community 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Technology is not used Occasionally facilitated Strongly facilitated by for this purpose by technology technologyAfter a careful review of these data, the reader will want to consider the critical questions listed on the firstpage of the section, identify any gaps in your schools performance, and set targets for improvement. 15
  • 18. Dimension 5: Teacher Proficiency“On a daily basis, teachers confront complex decisions that rely on many different kinds of knowledgeand judgment and that can involve high-stakes outcomes for students’ futures.” - John Bransford, Linda Darling-Hammond, & Pamela LePageThe transition to 21st Century requires systemicaction that builds the capacity of teachers and Dimension 5 Scoresadministrators. Figure D5-1: Summary of weighted scores from· Knowledge and Facility with 21st Century teacher and administrator surveys (2009) Skills. Are teachers in this school familiar with the concept of 21st Century Skills and Dimension 5 with the research underpinnings and practical applications of these skills? Administrators· Building 21st Century Skills. Do teachers in this school have a variety of strategies for building these skills? Teachers 5.0· Designing Rigorous Authentic Curricula. Are teachers skilled in designing rich curricula that integrates content, 21st Century Skills, and technology, which Aggregate 5.0 provides a digital age learning context? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8· Differentiated Instructional Strategies. Are teachers in this school skilled in engaging all students in learning through a variety of teaching and organizational strategies that are tailored to the needs of Dimension 5 Findings individual students? Figure D5-2: The percentage of teachers indicating Figure AE· Informed Use of Data and Research. Are their preparedness in assessing student products teachers in this school skilled at accessing, Pie chart created using technology. organizing, and acting upon available data to make important decisions about students and learning?· Assessment for Learning. Do teachers in this school have a deep understanding of the central role of assessment in the learning process and leverage technology resources to assess core content and 21st Century Skills? Expert 17.2%· Professional Practice and Productivity. Intermediate 58.6% Novice 24.1% Are teachers skilled in the use of technology Total: 100.0% to support their own professional practices and do they depend on technology toThe top chart at the right indicates the currentstatus of the province in this dimension. In order toprovide context to the numeric scores, frequencyreports from several of the survey questions areprovided on the following pages. 16
  • 19. The charts on this page provide teachers’ perspectives on their preparedness to scaffold conceptuallearning, and similarly, their preparedness to do the same for authentic learning. Teachers typically reporthigher levels of comfort with the conceptual learning, but, for 21st Century learning, the latter is critical. Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-3: Teacher preparedness to scaffold conceptual learning. The percentage of teachers indicating their comfort level in incorporating the following Insert Figure AF here stacked bar chart assignments into their teaching and their students’ learning. types of Work that requires students to read and understand content related to your 6% 32% 61% subject area. Work that requires students to apply skills from your content area to 19% 58% 23% hypothetical problems or situations. Work that requires students to demonstrate understanding of the core 6% 52% 42% ideas within your content area. Work that is multidisciplinary and connects skills and concepts from 48% 26% 19% 6% multiple content areas. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Extremely comfortable Not comfortable Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-4: Teacher preparedness to scaffold conceptual learning. The percentage of teachers indicating their comfort level in incorporating the following Insert Figure AG here types of assignments into their teaching and their students’ learning. stacked bar chart Work that requires students to use the language and methods 13% 26% 48% 13% professionals would use when dealing with the content you teach. Work that involves students in applying concepts to real-world 16% 39% 39% 6% problems. Work that has an audience outside 26% 26% 32% 16% the classroom. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not comfortable Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Extremely comfortableIf a significant percentage of your teachers indicate a lack of preparedness to scaffold conceptual learning,your school or jurisdiction will want to provide professional development, modeling, or perhaps peercoaching. Authentic learning is key to increasing student engagement and deep understanding ofacademic concepts. 17
  • 20. The top chart on this page provides insights into how prepared teachers believe they are in their use ofassessment data and research to inform their decisions. The bottom chart asks about their preparednessto assess technology-based student products and to use technology for assessment purposes. Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-5: Teacher preparedness in assessment. The percentage of teachers indicating their preparedness to inform Insert Figure AH here stacked bar chart the decisions and practices using data and research. Use assessment data to make decisions 7% 17% 59% 17% about students and learning Use research to make decisions about 3% 23% 53% 20% students and learning Create and implement performance-based 7% 7% 48% 38% assessments Providing opportunities for student to 10% 50% 40% self-assess based on a rubric or standard 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not yet prepared Novice Intermediate Expert Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-6:Teacher preparedness in assessment. The percentage of teachers indicating their preparedness to inform Insert Figure AI here the decisions and practices using data, research, and technology. stacked bar chart Use technology for analyzing student data 13% 27% 50% 10% Assess student products created by using 24% 59% 17% technology 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not yet prepared Novice Intermediate ExpertMany teachers are not yet experienced in assessing student products that are multimedia based (e.g.,animation, movies, audio files, simulations, etc.). As technology is integrated into curricula it is paramountthat teachers learn to do so against established standards of content, process, design, and purpose. Onthe flip side, teachers need to become accomplished users of the technology to collect, manage, andinterpret a continuous stream of data to inform their instructional decisions. Use these charts to analyzeyour staff’s current preparedness, and to set targets for improvement. 18
  • 21. Finally, the following two charts are the administrators’ perspectives on teacher preparedness across abroad array of teaching strategies critical to 21st Century learning. Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-7: Teacher preparedness: 21st Century learning. Percentage of administrators reporting on levels Insert Figure AK here of teacher preparedness related to 21st Century learning stacked bar chart Dimension 5 Findings Figure D5-8: Teacher preparedness: 21st Century learning. Percentage of administrators reporting on levels Insert Figure AL here of teacher preparedness related to 21st Century learning stacked bar chartThis dimension on teacher proficiency is one of the most critical. Readers are encouraged to use thesedata to chart a course that leads to increased teacher preparedness to teach and learn in 21st Centuryclassrooms. 19
  • 22. Dimension 6: Access and InfrastructureThe level of access to technology tools and the Dimension 6 Scoresrobustness and reliability of the technologyinfrastructure serve as critical foundations for Figure D6-1: Summary of weighted scores from21st Century learning. The elements of this Figure ?? teacher and administrator surveys (2009)dimension include: aggregate Dimension 6· Range of Technology Tools. Are a wide range of technology tools, software, and environments available to support all Administrators aspects of teaching and learning?· Robust Infrastructure. Are the network and Teachers 5.3 technical infrastructure of the school sufficient to provide seamless access to all in the school community? Aggregate 5.3· Longitudinal Data System. Are systems in place to provide all educators in the system 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 with seamless access to the data that they need to support their professional decision making?· Technical Support. Is there adequate Dimension 6 Findings technical support to provide timely assistance to all users within the system? Figure D6-2: The percentage of teachers indicating the Figure ??· Technology-Ready Facilities. Is the school degree to which technical support is provided with Pie chart little or no wait-time. building well suited to 21st Century teaching and learning?· Digital Learning Environments. Where appropriate, are digital and virtual access to learning opportunities available to all in the school community?· Administrative Processes and Operations. Is technology leveraged to ensure well-informed and efficient administration at all levels of the school and Excellent Good 6.5% 22.6% jurisdiction? Adequate Very poor 38.7% 22.6% Non-existent 9.7% Total: 100.0%· Service Orientation. Are all staff with responsibilities for infrastructure, technology deployment, and technical support oriented toward providing high-quality service? Do they acknowledge the primacy of theThe top chart indicates the current status of theprovince in this dimension. In order to providecontext to the numeric scores, frequency reportsfrom several of the survey questions are providedon the following pages. 20
  • 23. Schools want to be sure that purchased technologies are valued and used by teachers in the classroom.The two charts on this page provide insights into how administrators, across the province, perceive theusefulness of various technologies to the teaching responsibilities of their teachers, in comparison tocurrent availability. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-3: Instructional technologies. Comparision of percentage of administrators ratings of availability of technology tools Insert Figure AO here to their perception of the usefulness of tools. stacked bar chart Available = Adequate to Meet Needs or Ubiquitous; Useful = Useful or Very Useful. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-4: Technology peripherals. Comparision of percentage of administrators ratings of availability of technology tools Insert Figure AP here to their perception of the usefulness of tools. stacked bar chart Available = Adequate to Meet Needs or Ubiquitous; Useful = Useful or Very Useful. 21
  • 24. Schools also want to balance their investments in high-speed networks with investments in computerslinked to that network. Imbalances in the direction of the network results in inefficiencies and untappedpotential, while imbalances in the direction of computers result in frustrations due to slow and inadequatenetwork capacity. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-5: Infrastructure. Percentage of teachers who reported on how each statement applied to their school. Insert Figure AU here stacked bar chart The Internet connection is fast and reliable 100% Technologies are physically placed for True 61% 39% maximum convenience and effectiveness Not True Access to networked files and resources is 84% 16% convenient and easy to understand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-6: Adequacy of level of technology access. Percentage of administrators who reported in each accessibility category for each item. Insert Figure AQ here stacked bar chart 22
  • 25. As those balances are achieved, the school will want to ensure accessibility to online learning structuresincluding blogs, wikis, communication systems, online courses, etc. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-7: Accessibility to online learning structures. Percentage of administrators who reported in each accessibility category for each item. Insert Figure AR here stacked bar chartJust as critical as the high-speed network and adequacy of computer access, is the responsiveness oftechnical support available to teachers and administrators. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-8: Technical support for technology. Percentage ofAS here Insert Figure administrators who reported in each accessibility category for each item. stacked bar chart 23
  • 26. Support also includes scaffolding and building capacity of teachers to use technology in their professionalpractice. The chart below provides a snapshot of current perceptions of administrators on the extent towhich their teachers professional use of technology is supported. Dimension 6 Findings Figure D6-9: Support for teachers professional use of technology. Percentage of administrators who reported in each accessibility category for each item. Insert Figure AT here stacked bar chart 24
  • 27. Dimension 7: AccountabilityThe accountability dimension provides a look at Dimension 7 Scoresthe alignment between goals, assessments, andresults. Figure D7-1: Summary of weighted scores from Figure AV teacher and administrator surveys (2009)The indicators include: aggregate Dimension 7· Accountability System Aligned to Vision. Has the accountability system been redesigned to ensure that the vision is Administrators achieved within a prescribed timeframe? Have policies been rewritten to ensure that planning, resource allocation, time Teachers 3.7 investment, curriculum redesign, professional development, and other elements of the system are orchestrated to advance the vision? Aggregate 3.7· Clarity, Transparency, and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Consequences. Do educators, students, parents, and community members understand what the vision is, why it is important, and what it means to their respective roles in schools? Do they understand what the vision will look like if Dimension 7 Findings achieved, the assessments used to monitor progress toward the vision, and the Figure D7-2: Percentage of teachers reporting the Figure AW level of their agreement with the statement: Students consequences associated with failure to Pie chart in my classroom are clear about how they need to achieve incremental milestones toward the demonstrate their skill level with the targeted 21st vision? Century Skills.· Comprehensive, Prioritized Funding. Have the school and jurisdiction analyzed the full cost of implementing the vision over time and have they committed sufficient funds in the short and long term in order to achieve the vision within established timeframes?· Decision Making Informed by Data and Research/Results. Is the data analysis, in Agree 25.8% combination with research, appropriately Disagree Strongly disagree 67.7% 6.5% informed, and does it contribute to the Total: 100.0% continuous improvement of the system?· Results. Are jurisdiction and school making progress toward their goals?The top chart at the right indicates the currentstatus of your school or jurisdiction in thisdimension. In order to provide context to thenumeric scores, frequency reports from severalof the survey questions are provided on thefollowing pages. 25
  • 28. The frequent use of data to inform instructional practices is critical in meeting all students’ needs. Thischart provides perspectives on the importance of various assessments in informing classroom practices. Dimension 7 Findings Figure D7-3: Assessments informing classroom practices. Insert percentage of teachers reporting that the following types of assessments The Figure AX here barwere “important” or “key” factors in informing their instructional decisions. chart District wide assessment 13% School wide assessment 25% Provincial assessment End of course tests 23% Periodic quizzes and tests 28% Performance assessments (rubric based) 37% Technology literacy assessment 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%The chart below provides data on the use of such assessments to track students’ attainment of 21stCentury Skills. Dimension 7 Findings Figure D7-4: Assessments of 21st Century learning. Percentage of administrators who indicated the following methods Insert Figure A3 here were routinely used to assess student attainment of 21st Century Skills. bar chart Jurisdiction-wide assessment School-wide assessment End of course tests Periodic quizzes and tests Performance assessments (rubric based) Technology literacy assessment Classroom observations Student self-assessment Analysis of student products Student peer reviews We don’t assess 21st Century Skills 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 26
  • 29. Student outcomes are ultimately the focus on 21st Century learning and effective technology uses. Thisfinal chart provides the teachers’ perspective on the current level of student expertise with 21st CenturySkills. Dimension 7 Findings Figure D7-5: Percentage of teachers rating of student level of expertise in 21st Century Skills. Insert Figure A2 here stacked bar chart Global Awareness 3% 41% 55% Information Literacy 37% 60% 3% Critical Thinking 60% 30% 10% Self-direction 6% 42% 48% 3% No skill Novice Interactive Communication 3% 23% 68% 6% Intermediate Expert Teaming & Collaboration 32% 55% 13% Personal & Social Responsibility 40% 57% 3% Effective Use of Real-world Tools 3% 59% 38% Productivity 43% 47% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%School and jurisdiction leaders are encouraged to identify those skills targeted in their short andlong-term goals and set targets to increase the percentage of students in the Intermediate and Expert 27
  • 30. Student Outcomes/Student Perspectivesby Emerge Research Team: Metiri Group and University of CalgaryUltimately, the mission of schools is to ensure that students acquire the skills, knowledge, processes, anddispositions that enable them to meet or exceed state and local learning standards. For increasingnumbers of schools those standards include academic and 21st Century learning goals, goals that willprepare them to thrive in today’s global, high tech society and workplace.Metiris Student Outcomes/Student Perspectives report provides findings related to students, including:Student EngagementStudent engagement represents actual current levels of engagement as reported by individual students.Students in your school or jurisdiction completed Metiri Group’s Student Engagement Inventory online.The data from those surveys were then analyzed and aggregated to report the percentage of students atfive different levels of engagement: Intrinsically Engaged, Tactically Engaged, Compliant, Withdrawn, orDefiant.Classroom Structures to Engage StudentsThis section looks at student perceptions of conditions in the school that have been linked by research toincreases in student engagement. The Metiri Group survey, Classroom Structures that Engage Students(CSES), asked students in your school or jurisdiction to share their perceptions on characteristics oflearning environments that research indicates are directly related to the level of student engagement inlearning. These characteristics include choice, structure, diversity, intellectual safety, clarity, affiliation,and authenticity. The student perceptions on these classroom structures were then clustered into threedomains (i.e., content, process, and product) for reporting purposes. 28
  • 31. Student EngagementAre your students genuinely interested in thetopics they are studying? Are they highly Definition of Student Engagementmotivated and committed to learn? Do theypersevere when challenged with complex Degree to which students are activelytopics? Are they achieving deep, authentic pursuing deep learning related tolearning? Are they self-directed? Answering established standards.“yes” to these questions would suggest that yourstudents are engaged learners. The measure of student engagement comprises:Unfortunately, many teachers are answering“no” to these questions. Increasingly, schools · Cognitive Engagement. A student’sare finding that students feel alientated from Investment in the effort required totheir schools, perceiving them as boring or comprehend complex ideas and masterirrelevant to their lives. As a result, many difficult skills.students do just enough to get by, while themost disenfranchised simply drop out. Across · Behavioral Engagement. A student’sthe U.S. the drop out rate is 30%, and in someU.S. urban centers the drop out rate is reaching participation in academic, social, and50% or more. These students are not being extracurricular activities.prepared to compete and excel in the 21stCentury. · Social/Emotional Engagement. A student’s interdependence with classmates,Teachers’ interest in engagement is often driven academics, teachers, and school.by the need to ameliorate low levels of academicperformance, inappropriate classroom Based on: Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P.behaviors, and/or high numbers of drop outs. In C., & Paris, A. H. (2004).fact, engagement is influential in all students’learning trajectories. Emergent research Each scale is important in its own right, but theidentifies student engagement in learning as one three are also interdependent. While it isof the most powerful factors affecting obvious that the cognitive advances academicachievement of students at every ability level. achievement, emergent research also indicates strong correlations between how emotionallyWhat exactly is student engagement? In his and socially engaged students are with teachersbook, Student Achievement in American and classmates, and how well they doSecondary Schools, Fred Newmann states that academically and whether they graduate.engaged learners make a “…psychologicalinvestment in learning. They try hard to learn Levels of Student Engagementwhat school offers. They take pride not simply in The Student Engagement Survey- Part B,earning the formal indicators of success created by Metiri, includes a series of questions(grades), but in understanding the material and aligned to the cognitive, behavioral, andincorporating or internalizing it in their lives” (p. social/emotional elements of the definition. This2). report, which is generated from your survey data, provides your school/jurisdictionwith anFor the purposes of this evaluation report, overall student engagement score as well as astudent engagement in learning is the active score on each of the scales (i.e., cognitive,pursuit of deep learning to accomplish behavioral, and social/emotional).established standards. Student engagementcomprises three scales: cognitive, behavioral, Building off the research of recent engagementand social/emotional engagement, as described theorists, a taxonomy of student engagementin the sidebar to the right. 29
  • 32. levels was developed to distinguish different agreement with the statement “I do not go totypes of engagement as listed below. school activities after school. I like to leave school as soon as I can.” Nine items were · Engaged written to reflect each of the five levels of · Tactically Engaged engagement for a total of 45 items. · Compliant Table SE-1 presents a few sample items by · Withdrawn engagement scale. The engagement level of students was established by locating the level · Defiant with the highest mean across the 9 questions · Indeterminate within that category. Students whose responses were mixed or were <2.5 in all categories wereUsing this taxonomy, one would expect an classified as indeterminate. Table SE-2 showsengaged student to respond positively to “I like how the engagement levels differ in terms ofanything I learn about in school.” Similarly, a commitment and attention.withdrawn student would rate a high level ofTable SE-1: Examples of statements written for the levels of student engagement Engaged Tactical Compliant Withdrawn Defiant  After school, I  I keep a list of  I do just  If I do my  I would never go to school what I need enough work schoolwork, I participate in activities so I to do to get a in school to do not care an can be a good good grade. get by. about the extracurricular student. grades I get. activity in  Learning in  After I finish school.  I think that kids school is schoolwork, I  I do not go to who do after important to usually do not school  Most of my school activities me because check over activities after schoolwork is get better my parents my work. Im school. I like junk. No one grades. want me to just glad to be to leave can make me get good done! school as do it.  I always know if grades. soon as I can. I did a good job on my schoolwork. When I dont do as well as I like, I think about what I can change for next time.Table SE-2: Attention and Commitment by engagement levels High Low No Hig h L ow No Diverted Attention Attentio n Atten tion Commitment Co mmitment Commitmen t Attention Engaged   Tactical   Compliant   Withdrawn   Defiant  30
  • 33. The types of engagement are defined in more · The student rejects both the officialdetail below, followed by graphs of the goals and the official means ofpercentage of students in each level. achieving the goals. · The student feels unable to do what isCharacteristics: Engaged Learners being asked, or is uncertain about what · Student sees the activity as personally is being asked. meaningful. · The students level of interest is Characteristics: Defiant sufficiently high that he persists in the · The student is disengaged from current face of difficulty. classroom activities and goals. · The student finds the task sufficiently · The student is actively engaged in challenging that he believes he will another agenda. accomplish something of worth by doing · The student creates her own means it. and her own goals. · The students emphasis is on optimum · The student’s rebellion is usually seen performance and on "getting it right." in acting out-and often in encouraging others to rebel.Characteristics: Tactically Engaged Learners · The official reason for the work is not the reason the student does the work- Baseline Data -she substitutes her own goals for the The chart below provides data on engagement in goals of the work. your schools. · The substituted goals are instrumental- -grades, class rank, college acceptance, parental approval. Figure SE-1: Overall Engagement · The focus is on what it takes to get the desired personal outcome rather than 100% on the nature of the task itself- -satisfactions are extrinsic. 80% · If the task doesn’t promise to meet the 60% extrinsic goal, the student will abandon it. 42% 46% 44% 40% 38%Characteristics: Compliant Students 20% · The work has no meaning to the student 12% 8% and is not connected to what does have 2%4% 2% 3% 0% meaning. Engaged Tactically Compliant Withdrawn Defiant Indeterminate Engaged · There are no substitute goals for the Elementary Secondary student. · The student seeks to avoid either Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 confrontation or approbation. · The emphasis is on minimums and exit requirements: “What do I have to do to get this over and get out?”Characteristics: Withdrawn Students · The student is disengaged from current classroom activities and goals. The student is thinking about other things or is emotionally withdrawn from the action. 31
  • 34. The following charts provide response Tactical Engagementfrequencies for individual questions. Thesecharts provide detailed information as to how Figure SE-4: Some of the topics I learn about in school arent that interesting but I still pay attention so I can get astudents responded to individual questions. good grade.Note: If your jurisdiction used both the 100%elementary and secondary surveys, then the 80%original question asked of secondary students isdisplayed. A similar question was asked of 60%elementary students, but was simplified todecrease the reading level to Grade 3. 40% 40% 34% 27%Intrinsic Engagement 19% 20% 20% 15% 14% 11% 9% 10% 0%Figure SE-2: I really enjoy learning so I don’t consider it Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me“work,” even when it’s challenging. like me like me or not like me me 100% Elementary Secondary 80% Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 60% 40% Figure SE-5: Learning at school is really important to me 34% 29% 31% because it will help me to get into a good college and find a 26% 23% good job when I finish school. 20% 19% 15% 100% 7% 9% 8% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me 80% like me like me or not like me me 68% Elementary Secondary 60% 57%Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 40% 29% 22%Figure SE-3: I focus on my schoolwork when studying and I 20%am constantly checking to make sure I understand the 9%10%material. 4% 1% 0% 100% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me me 80% Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 60% 44%45% 40% 32% 25% 20% 19%18% 10% 2% 2% 3% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me me Elementary SecondaryElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 32
  • 35. Compliant Engagement Withdrawn EngagementFigure SE-6: When I complete my assignments I tend not to Figure SE-8: I am not interested in the topics I learn about ingo back and check over my work. Im just glad to be done! school. Usually I think about other things, or daydream. 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 44% 40% 40% 31% 34% 32% 27% 25% 24% 25% 22% 20% 17%18% 20% 19% 18% 13% 13% 10% 10% 10% 3% 5% 0% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me like me like me or not like me me me Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 Figure SE-9: I dont pay any attention to the school rules,Figure SE-7: I just do enough on each assignment to get the and I hope no one pays any attention to me.grades that keep my teachers and parents off my back. 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 37% 40% 40% 34% 32%32% 30% 26% 24%25% 22% 19% 19% 20% 20% 15% 20% 14% 12% 10% 8%10% 5% 6% 0% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me like me like me or not like me me me Elementary Secondary Elementary SecondaryElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 33
  • 36. Defiant Engagement Figure SE-12: Engagement types 5Figure SE-10: I do not complete my assignments and haveno intention of doing so. 4.3 4.2 4 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 100% 3 80% 76% 65% 2 60% 40% 1 20% 15% 0 10% 10%12% Behavioral Emotional Cognitive 7% 2% 2% 1% 0% Elementary Secondary Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me Elementary N = 59; Secondary N = 192 me Elementary Secondary Again, frequency responses from individual questions are provided as additional insight intoElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 each of these three areas.Figure SE-11: I dont pay much attention to anything westudy. Its not worth my time. Cognitive Engagement Figure SE-13: I keep a list of exactly what is needed to get a 100% high grade and mentally check things off as I complete them. 80% 75% 100% 61% 60% 80% 40% 60% 20% 20% 17% 13% 40% 5% 3% 3% 2% 27% 26% 0% 20% 20%22% 22% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me 20% 17% 19% 19% like me like me or not like me 8% me 0% Elementary Secondary Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like meElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 me Elementary Secondary Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192Types of Engagement Figure SE-14: I do not plan time for studying or completing assignments.The set of data on student engagement was 100%also analyzed to determine the degree tocognitive, behavioral, and social/emotional 80%engagement reported by students. 60% 49% 40% 31% 31%29% 20% 18% 10% 13% 10% 8% 2% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me me Elementary Secondary Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 34
  • 37. Behavioral Engagement Figure SE-18: School isnt all important to me. I am not interested in what we learn.Figure SE-15: I spend enough time in this school just doingthe basics. I do not participate in extra- 100%curricular activities that are not required, unless my parents 81%really push me. 80% 70% 100% 60% 80% 40% 60% 20% 14% 10% 40% 36% 36% 7% 5% 5% 5% 2% 1% 30% 30% 0% 21% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me 20% 19% like me like me or not like me 12% me 7% 7% 3% 0% Elementary Secondary Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me Elementary N=59; Secondary N=192 me Elementary Secondary The Emerge Research Team recommends thatElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 the schools review this data set and set targets for improvement related to the percentage ofFigure SE-16: I dont really think about following rules and students in the engaged categories. The detail inacting positively. Its just the way I am. the charts above should provide insights as the 100% type of strategies that will be required to meet those targets. 80% 60% Sources 46% 40% 40% Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (2001). A taxonomy of student 32% 28% engagement with educational software: An 20% exploration of literate thinking with electronic 15%14% 11% text. Journal of Educational Computing 7% 3% 3% 0% Research, 24(3), 213-234. Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me me Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the Elementary Secondary concept, state of the evidence. Review ofElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.Social/Emotional Engagement Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Figure SE-17: Its important to me that the work I dorepresents my best effort and helps me grow. 100% 80% 60% 56% 40% 38% 39% 32% 20% 18% 10% 2% 3% 2% 0% Not at all Not really Neither like A little like A lot like me like me like me or not like me me Secondary ElementaryElementary N=59; Secondary N=192 35
  • 38. Classroom Structures That Engage Students (CSES)BackgroundSome learning environments are more effective Content refers to student opportunities tothan others in scaffolding deep learning in engage with academic subjects in ways thatstudents. Based on emergent research (see result in deep understanding of concepts,reference list at end of section), The Emerge principles, and context. Process refers to theResearch Team identified those classroom learning activities through which the student isstructures and surveyed students to determine able to make sense of, or master, the content.which of those structures were evident in the The element of Product engagement refers toclassrooms they attended. the structures that enable students to rehearse, apply, extend, and demonstrate what he/sheStudents were asked to share their perspectives learned through an assignment.on whether the classrooms they attend offerchoice, structure, diversity, collaborative The Engagement Survey- Part A, created byenvironment, and clarity. In addition, students Metiri, was administered to gauge studentwere asked whether the classroom structures perspectives on the existence of and quality ofinterface with content draws on their prior classroom structures that could lead to theirknowledge, offers them opportunities to engagement in learning. The survey was guidedcollaborate with colleagues, and provides them by the work of the researchers in the referencewith avenues for fully demonstrating their list. The survey asked students to rate 50acquired knowledge and skills. statements on classroom structures, i.e., 15 items on Product, 15 items on Process, and 20Emergent research on highly qualified teachers, items on Content, using a 5-point scalehighly effective teaching, differentiation of anchored with 1=Completely False toinstruction, engagement, and response to 5=Completely True, with 3 as a neutralintervention all emphasize how the right mid-point.classroom structures can engage students in Figure CE-1: Overall classroom structures the engagedeep learning (Marzano, 2007). The classroom students (CSES) score (scale 1-5)that introduces content in ways that trigger 5student interest, challenge students to think, cueprior knowledge, provide relevancy, afford 4choice, offer clear standards, formalize 3.4 3.4collaboration, and ensure intellectual safety, 3lead to deep learning by children andadolescents. 2Scales 1Three major elements have emerged from theresearch on the effectiveness of classroom 0structures in advancing deep learning through Elementary Secondarystudent engagement related to Content, Elementary N = 64; Secondary N = 199Process, and Product. NOTE: The Overall Score on the Classroom Structures That Engage Students (CSES) reflects the average of the Product, Process, and Content scales. 36
  • 39. Figure CE-2: Product, Process, Content and Overall Engagement scores by level 5 4 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 3 2 1 0 Product Process Content Total Classroom Engagement Score Elementary Secondary Elementary N = 64; Secondary N = 199Table CE-1. The CSES Survey Cut Points and Definitions Student Rating Cut Points Score Level Definition 1. Completely False 1.0 <= x <= 1.9 No classroom structures that engage students Moderately low number/quality of classroom structures that 2. A Little False 2.0<= x <= 2.4 engage students 3. Neither True nor False 2.5.<= x <= 3.4 Neutral Moderately high number/quality of classroom structures that 4. A Little True 3.5<= x <= 3.9 engage students 5. Completely True 4.0 <= x <= 5.0 High number/quality of structures that engage studentsHigher scores reflect higher evidence/quality of Prior to calculation of factor scale scores, theclassroom structures that engage students in student responses to reversed or negativelylearning, whereas low scores reflect less worded items were adjusted appropriately.evidence/quality of such classroom structures. Cronbach’s alpha internal consistencyScores greater than or equal to 3.5 imply that reliabilities for the Product, Process, andstudents perceive high to moderate evidence of Content scales were 0.82, 0.58, and 0.83,classroom structures to engage them in respectively. The alpha for combined scales waslearning. Scores lower than 3.5 indicate that 0.903, indicating high internal consistency forstudents reported either low or moderately low the Classroom Engagement Survey.evidence/quality of classroom structures thatengage them (See Table above.) The meanscores by school level are presented above,followed by a more detailed analysis of eachscale. 37
  • 40. In order to provide more detailed insight intothese scores, frequencies are reported below for Figure CE-4. The work that I do in my classes seems like the same kind of work that I might do for a job one day.sample questions from each of the scales. 100%Product Scale 80%Product refers to the projects that require thestudent to rehearse, apply, and extend what he 60%or she has learned in a unit. Some examples ofhow teachers promote product engagement 40% 36%include giving students’ a choice of how to 28% 28% 25%express required learning (e.g., create a movie 20% 19% 22% 16%or interview an expert) or encouraging students 11% 11% 5%to create their own product assignments as long 0%as the assignments contain specific elements. Completely A little false Neither true A little true Completely false or false trueAnother method to increase product Elementary Secondaryengagement includes using rubrics that alignwith and extend students’ varied skills levels. Elementary N=64; Secondary N=180Therefore, a high score on the Product scalewould indicate that students value class Process Scaleassignments and perceive them to bemeaningful, they understand the standards by Process refers to the activities in which thewhich the product will be assessed, and there is student engages in order to make sense of orvalue to the product beyond the classroom. master the content. A high score on this scale would indicate that students perceive theA Product scale was computed as the mean of classroom as an environment in which they can15 items measured using the five-point learn through intellectual risk taking without fearCompletely false-Completely true Likert-type of ridicule, they can work interactively andresponse scale. Two of the items included in the interdependently with others, and they perceiveProduct scale are presented below by school those activities and tasks to be meaningful, aslevel. do persons of importance to them.Sample Product Items The following graphs present two of the individual items in the Process scale byFigure CE-3. My teachers tell us in advance exactly how a academic level.product, project, or other assignment will be graded. 100% Sample Process Items Figure CE-5. In my classes, my teacher likes us to have 80% other students read or view our work. 61% 100% 60% 51% 80% 40% 31% 22% 60% 20% 52% 9% 10% 3% 3% 5% 6% 42% 40% 0% Completely A little false Neither true A little true Completely false or false true 25% 20% 17% 19%18% Elementary Secondary 10% 9% 6% 3%Elementary N=64; Secondary N=199 0% Completely A little false Neither true A little true Completely false or false true Elementary Secondary Elementary N=64; Secondary N=180 38
  • 41. Figure CE-6. Often my teachers give assignments Using the Results Formativelythat allow us to work together in groups. 100% Schools interested in improving their CSES scores should review their data, identify gaps 80% between their current scores and their goals, 60% identify areas for improvement, and then develop and implement a strategic improvement 40% plan based on research. 31%33% 30% 28% 23% 20% 14% 15% Sources 11% 6% 9% 0% Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Completely A little false Neither true or A little true Completely false false true Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive Elementary Secondary and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. JournalElementary N=64; Secondary N=199 of School Psychology, 44, 427-445.Content Scale Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (2001). A taxonomy of studentContent refers to the material being presented, engagement with educational software: Anor what the student needs to learn such as exploration of literate thinking with electronicconcepts, principles, and skills. To score high on text. Journal of Educational Computingthe Content scale indicates that students find Research, 24(3), 213-234.the subject matter interesting and perceive it to Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Randombe relevant, important, and attainable. To House.measure content engagement, studentsresponded to several statements. The following Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). Acharts present the results of two of the individual social-cognitive approach to motivation anditems in the Content scale. personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.Sample Content ItemsFigure CE-7. I get to be creative in my classes. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2003, March). School engagement. Paper 100% presented at the Indicators of Positive Development Conference, Washington, DC. 80% 60% Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the 40% 37% 39% concept, state of the evidence. Review of 28% 30% Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. 20% 17% 19% 11% 6% 4% 8% Hoek, D., Terwel, J., & Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of 0% Completely A little false Neither true or A little true Completely training in the use of social and cognitive false false true strategies: An intervention study in Elementary Secondary secondary mathematics in co-operativeElementary N=64; Secondary N=180 groups. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 364-389.Figure CE-8. My teachers make uninterestingsubjects exciting to learn about. Jimerson, S., Campos, E., & Greif, J. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and 100% measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 80% 7-27. 60% Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: 40% A comprehensive framework for effective 33%31% 24% instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 22% 23%21% 20% 14% 14% 9% 8% Newmann, F. (1992). Student engagement and 0% Completely A little false Neither true or A little true Completely achievement in American secondary false false true schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Elementary SecondaryElementary N=64; Secondary N=181 Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San 39

×