Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EdTech Genome Steering Committee deck for practitioners

72 views

Published on

The Jefferson Education Exchange is accepting applications through September 15, 2019 to join The EdTech Genome Steering Committee. View this deck and contact Dan Brown at dan@jexuva.org to learn more.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EdTech Genome Steering Committee deck for practitioners

  1. 1. The EdTech Genome Project A sector-wide effort tounderstand why education technology performs differently in various contexts 1
  2. 2. Our schools have been hit by atechnological explosion they were not readyfor. In many ways, they’re still NOT READY. 2
  3. 3. Every year, nearly14,000 school districts spend more than $13.2 billion (and growing) on 6,000+ edtech tools. Thedecision makers (administrators and teachers)who purchase these tools largely rely on personal networks and internet searchesto decide how tospend their edtechbudgets. Thisis aninefficient, fragmented way for educatorsto spend so muchtime and money,and it leads toenormouswaste. 3
  4. 4. …is spent on tools that are a GOODFIT and IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY. …is spent on tools that could be a GOOD FIT but are NOTIMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY. …is spent on tools that are DOOMED TO FAIL because they are a POORFIT. 15% 30% 55% In multiple surveys of thousands of educators, the view from the groundis that edtechpurchasingandimplementationare a mess: 4
  5. 5. 5 Educators estimate more than 85% of our $13.2B edtech investment is wasted every year.
  6. 6. Dataabout this problem is finallybeing discovered and reported. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. 6
  7. 7. Why are students and educators not using the technologies purchased for them? 7
  8. 8. As a result, well-intentionededucators (administrators andteachers) often: select ill-fitting products; and or are unable to implement products properly. 1 2 The root cause appearsto be that educatorslackaccessto informationabout how edtech tools performin different contexts, and why. 8
  9. 9. 9 Every edtech decision-maker wouldbenefit from accessing the wisdom,experiences, and perspectives of peers in similar contexts.
  10. 10. Yet no educator is in a position to make that level of documentation andsharing a reality. Economists callthis a “collectiveaction”problem. The Jefferson EducationExchangehas been exploringthis since it convened the first EdTech EfficacyResearch Symposium in 2017. 10
  11. 11. 11 First EdTech Efficacy Research Academic Symposium • Convenednearly 300leading investors, academics,educators, researchers, philanthropists,and entrepreneurs. • Tencross-functionalparticipantworking groups,eachsupported by a professional researcher, presented white papers at the Symposium.
  12. 12. 12 First EdTech Efficacy Research Academic Symposium • Thelackof contextuallyrelevant informationaboutedtech implementations is ahuge “collectiveaction”problem. • Everyoneagrees onwhosefaultitis. • “Somebody”needs to lead. Astrong consensusemerged:
  13. 13. The key takeawayfrom the Symposium: “Somebody” needs to tackle these collective action problems or nothing will improve. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. The Jefferson Education Exchange is stepping forwardto be “the somebody” to facilitate the collectivetacklingof this problem. 15
  16. 16. The missionof the Jefferson Education Exchange is to help educators tomake better-informed decisions about educationtechnology. The Jefferson Education Exchange is structured as a public charity that is supported exclusivelyby grants,philanthropy, and support froma growing list of funders including the Universityof VirginiaCurry School of Education, Strada Education Network, Billand Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporationof New York, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. 16
  17. 17. What does it mean to “Map The EdTech Genome”? • Throughresearch andcollaboration,we candecode which implementationcontexts are suited for whichedtechtools,andwhy. • For a first step,theJefferson EducationExchangeresearch partners atthe University ofVirginia haveidentified morethan70 contextualvariables maybe associatedwith edtechimplementationsuccess orfailure. This list of70+variables mustbe winnowed into amanageablepackagefor practitioners andschoolsystems. • Collaboratively,across-sectionof educationpractitioners, experts, and stakeholders must decidewhichcontextualvariables are“most important”whenit comesto defining acontext for edtech implementation.This includes achievingconsensuson measurement instruments anddefinitions foreachvariable. 17
  18. 18. 18 The EdTech GenomeProject Properusage of edtechtools increasessharplyas we collectivelylearnhowtobetter select andimplementeach product. Billions of dollarsaresaved and millionsof instructionalhours arerecovered. IMPACT Educatorsuse dataandanalysis to increase qualityof toolselection and tomoreeffectivelyimplementthat which theychoose. Industryuses dataandanalysis tobetter understandtheconditions thatdrive success and failureof their implementations. CONNECT&ANALYZE Createandtestmethodologies tosupporteducatorsandto incentivize themtoshareinformationabouttheir implementations,atscale. Build “Exchange” platformthatallows decision-makerstoaccess dataand analysis aboutedtechimplementations nationwide. DESIGN&COLLECT Researchers,practitioners,stakeholders,and expertscollaboratetodecide which “edtech implementationvariables”should be studied first. Adozenworkingand technical groupsbuild consensus onhow bestto define andmeasure each variablein thefield. DISCOVER&DEFINE
  19. 19. Imaginetwoschoolsthat are demographically identical. Why does one implementan edtech tool successfully, while the other fails? School A School B Implementsedtechtool SUCCESSFULLY! FAILSto implement the sameedtech tool successfully. Which variablesare different in the school that succeeds? 19
  20. 20. School A School B Maybe the teachers in School A were more involved in the purchasing decision, and felt more ownership over the implementation. Maybe School B overloaded its teachers with too many new tools or practices in the same quarter. Maybe School A uses a learning management system (LMS) and student information system (SIS) that integrates with the edtech tool. Maybe School B had no way to measure the outcome this new tool was working to improve. Maybe the students in School A have more access to broadband-enabled devices after school. Maybe School B was trying to replace a tool that its teachers really liked. 20
  21. 21. 1. Effectiveness 2. Functional 3. Age of Tech 4. Measurable Outcomes 5. Incentives 6. Multilingual 7. Differentiation 8. Collaborative Functionality 9. Ease of Use 1. Leaders’ Involvement in Tech Selection 2. AdoptionPlan 3. Teacher Agency 4. Student/Family Agency 5. Contextual Awareness 1. Implementation Plan 2. Implementation Time 3. Fidelity of Implementation 4. Monitoring Tech Use 5. Digital Safety Processes/Protocol 6. Professional Acknowledgement 7. Tech Alignment with Curriculum, Content, & Priorities 8. Added Value 1. Teacher Demographics 2. School Demographics 3. Financial Resources 4. Classroom Structure 5. General Student Abilities 6. Staff Retention/Tenure 1. Home Access to Devices, Products, & Reliable Internet 2. Family Buy-in/Beliefs about Technology 1. TPACK 2. Student Tech Abilities 3. TLACK 4. Experience Level of Ed Tech Director 5. Previous Tech Use/Success 6. ProductFamiliarity 1. AdminSupport 2. Professional Learning/Support 3. Professional Learning Time 4. Instructional Tech Support 5. Operational Tech Support 6. Educator Effort & Planning/Prep Time 7. Planning & Instructional Prep Support 1. School Vision for Tech 2. Competing Priorities 3. Tech Turnover 1. Teacher Self-Efficacy/Beliefs About Tech 2. Teacher Tech Readiness 3. Teacher Openness to Change 4. Leader Self-Efficacy/Beliefs About Tech 5. Leader Pedagogical Beliefs 6. Leader Openness to Change 7. Educator Motivation 1. Student Behavior 2. Student Engagement & Response/Buy-in 1. Trust 2. Social Capital 3. Research Champions 4. Tech Champions 5. Communication Processes 6. School-Home Connection/Communication 7. Collaborative Environment 1. Tech Resources 2. Interoperability 3. Scheduling & Time JeffersonEducation Exchangeresearchhas identified more than 70 contextual variables that may be associated with edtech implementation success. 21
  22. 22. Stakeholders, practitioners, andexperts who participateasmembers ofthe Genome Steering Committee,AdvisoryBoard,VariableWorking Groups,or IndustryCouncil: • Selecting anddefining ten contextual variables associated with edtech implementation success • Identifying, modifying, orcreating measurement instruments for each variable • Achieving cross-sector consensus for variable definitions andmeasures Jefferson EducationExchange/ University ofVirginia CurrySchoolofEducationResearch Team: • Performing academic literaturereview (in progress) • Conducting originalfield research with schools nationwide (in progress) • Organizingandsupporting EdTech Genome Project participants andnational stakeholders Who will be involved in The EdTech Genome Project? AfulldraftEdTechImplementationFrameworkwillbereadyforpublicationinDecember2020. 22
  23. 23. We are inviting a diverse group of somebodies to participate: 23 Stakeholders AdvisoryBoard IndustryCouncil Dedicated ProjectManager Universityof Virginia ResearchTeam SteeringCommittee WorkingGroups for10SelectedVariables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [JEX coordinatesandsupports allparticipants]
  24. 24. Steering Committee 24 Mission Commitment Deliverables Composition and Size Makekeydecisions to form national consensus on topcontextual variables for edtech implementation Two meetings in Washington, DC (Oct. 28-30, 2019, beginning at 1 p.m.ET on Oct. 28 and concluding by1 p.m.ET on Oct. 30; dates TBD summer 2020) Occasional virtual engagement through Framework publication December 2020 Achieve consensus on selecting top contextual variables for edtechimplementation Approve definitions andmeasurement instruments for each variable Approximately 24 members; a diverse cross-section of perspectives andbackgrounds from practitioners, researchers, stakeholders, andexperts.
  25. 25. Support and Interplay with other Participants 25 STEERING COMMITTEE supportfrom Jefferson Education Exchange Dedicated ProjectManager/ University of Virginia ResearchTeam $4,000StipendPerParticipant DELIVERABLES: Consensuson… 1. Selecting 10 variables AdvisoryBoard IndustryCouncil Stakeholder Input 10Working Groups 2. Approving definitions and measurement instruments from working groups
  26. 26. Contact Dan Brown Director of National Engagement, Jefferson Education Exchange dan@jexuva.org Questions or ideas? Let’s talk! 26

×