• Save
1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect

on

  • 987 views

Presentation for WEMTA 2010

Presentation for WEMTA 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
987
Views on SlideShare
875
Embed Views
112

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

10 Embeds 112

http://tech4teaching.org 75
http://121research.wikispaces.com 9
http://121research.wikispaces.com 9
http://teachingwithtablets.wikispaces.com 6
https://121research.wikispaces.com 4
http://www.tech4teaching.org 3
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 3
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.techgig.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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

    1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect 1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect Presentation Transcript

    • 1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect TAMI BRASS, ST. PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL tbrass@spa.edu @brasst ON TWITTER
    • •The initial buzz of something new and expected to be successful •Perceptual bias where we assume that something has many positive qualities if it has one positive quality
    • A Tale of Two Laptop Schools
    • Background Info School A School B  Public School  Independent (Private)  Approx 1000 students School in grades 7-8-9  Approx 900 students K-12; 240 in grades 6-  Suburban district 7-8  Approx 12%  Urban school Free/Reduced  Approx 16% of families  90% Caucasian receive scholarships  80% Caucasian
    • Program Origins School A School B  Began using laptops on carts in  Pre 1:1 – One lab per division 2000  2001 - Technology fund donation  Leaders (principals and teachers) and enthusiastic board of dedicated to bringing tools into directors initiated laptop classrooms and out of “lab” program settings as much as possible  Some parent/community  2003 - 2 labs, a classroom 1:1, a support; interested teachers but mini-lab, and 5 carts by Fall of little buy-in (top-down  Controversy in community implementation)  Enthusiastic kids  Controversy in community  Parents on fence  Enthusiastic kids  Minimal community support  Parents on fence  95% teacher support  Mixed community support  Low teacher support
    • Initial Prof Development School A School B  Prof dev committee reps  Select teachers and from all contents/grades administrators sent to  Focus on integration & visit another 1:1 school transformation  Skills/application focus –  Combo of skills & “All teachers need to integration trainings in know how to use …” varied groups  Departmental  Little focus on  Grade Level integration or how  Interest-based technology enhanced  Learning communities learning
    • Technical Details School A School B  Began with fresh  Patched together servers (no real servers/network plan)  Wireless APs in every room  Gradual addition of wireless  Shared Internet w/other schools  Business-grade DSL  On-site HelpDesk w/repair  1-person “tech depot” w/most technician repairs done off-site  15 minute turnaround for loaners  24 hour turnaround for loaners  Apple – iBooks  Windows  All grades implemented  Pilot approach – added 1 grade simultaneously for equity per year  No accidental coverage; initial  No-fault warranty for life of Applecare warranty hardware
    • In the Classroom School A School B  Expectation of integration in  Expectation of integration in ALL content areas academic content areas  Emphasis on equity and  Emphasis on equity and expanding school day providing tools  Classes went from average of  Max class size <20 27 to average of 35  Low teacher turn-over  High teacher turn-over  Initial traditional use  Initial project-based learning (Word, Publisher)  Move from middle school to  Move from junior high to junior high middle school  District and state mandated  Minimal testing and testing each semester standardized assessment
    • Administrative Support School A School B  Founding principal retired after  Heavy admin turnover (3 heads 2nd 1st year replaced by year of school and 3 principals since principal program began in 2001)  Tech coordinator left after 3rd  Current administrators year of 1:1 supportive of 1:1 but addressing  District-wide tech plan w/no concerns from stakeholders focus on sustaining 1:1 program  K-12 tech plan w/focus on  No plan for replacing hardware expanding access in all grades  No plan for maintaining/upgrading  One director of technology since infrastructure nec for 1:1 2001; turnover in tech  District-wide cuts impacted coordinators K12 staffing for tech and instructional  No decrease in tech or staff instructional staffing  New network admin position
    • Where are they both now?
    • Spring, 2010 School A School B  Finishing 7th year of  Finishing 9th year of program program  Using hardware from  3rd generation of original 5-year lease hardware (3-year leases)  Multiple significant  No significant network/infrastructure network/infrastructure upgrades upgrades  Expanded program from  Prepping for return to 7th grade to 6-10; next carts next year year will be 6-12 tabletpc
    • Mistakes to learn from School A School B  Split community  Top-down implementation  No schedule for  No consistent focus on replacement & upgrades technology as part of professional development  Idea that schools need to  Little input from teachers be the same, not just or parents have the same standards/expectations  Infrastructure wasn’t sufficient for tools in use  Lack of program  No expansion of tech promotion in community support as program to build support expanded necessary to sustain
    • What worked well… School A School B  Early teacher support (Feeding the  Ongoing focus on sustaining & funding teachers)  No-fault warranty & loaner pool  Input from naysayers encouraged available  Empowering stakeholders on all  Survey of stakeholders to evaluate levels program; responding to what didn’t  Apple apps required minimal work and continuing what did training - more on integration  Curriculum mapping, first for  Solid help desk structure technology, later for all subjects w/tech  Increased district focus on strand technology integration  Parent & student training (orientation &  Parent & student training ongoing) (orientation for all)  Clear expectations of students  Celebrating (failures and successes)  New teacher orientation  Chocolate  Feeding the teachers…
    • Moving forward: Room for Growth  Building professional learning communities  Focus on teaching & learning, collaboration w/peers  Integration as supported expectation; means to end, not an end in itself  Increased use of engaging & collaborative technologies – Web2.0  Better alignment of student skills K-12  Cutting expenses where it makes sense  Netbooks  Open source, free & online tools  Outsourcing repairs (using warranty)  Student support model  Integration beyond academic contents
    • What it looks like in the classroom? TOOLS USED WORK SAMPLES RESOURCES
    • Tools Used Hardware  ClassmatePC Tablets 6-7 (6-8 next year)  TabletPCs 8-9 (9-12 next year)  TabletPCs for academic teachers 6-12  Projectors & speakers mounted in every classroom  Peripherals – still & video cameras, doc cams, headsets & flashdrives  Smartboards piloted in high school math this year Applications  MS Office (OneNote), TabletPC apps, Inspiration, Scratch, Comic Life, Audacity, ArtRage, Paint.net Subscriptions  United Streaming, Quia, Typing Pal, Nettrekker, Databases…
    • Work Samples
    • Resources See http://www.tech4teaching.org Click on 1:1 Resources Tab Tami Brass St. Paul Academy and Summit School tbrass@spa.edu @brasst On Twitter