Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byDabae Lee
AECT: New Paradigm Schools
The document summarizes the results of a national survey of learner-centered schools in the United States. It identifies 310 schools that met 3 or more criteria for learner-centered practices. Survey responses were received from 40 schools, with 14 schools meeting all 5 criteria. The results provide details on the types of schools surveyed and their use of personalized learning plans, competency-based student progress, criterion-referenced assessment, and other practices. Teacher responses indicate their frequent use of student interests, mastery, and academic standards in developing personalized learning plans. Most students progressed individually or in groups upon mastery of topics rather than by time or tracking. Assessment practices emphasized mastery-based records over norm-referenced grading.
More Related Content
Similar to AECT: New Paradigm Schools
AECT: New Paradigm Schools
- 1. New Paradigm Schools: A Na4onal Survey October, 2012 AECT
- 2. Introduc4on • Background: – Need for an educa4onal system for the Informa4on age – Focus on learning rather than sor4ng • Purpose: – Iden4fy learner-‐centered schools – Describe their instruc4onal prac4ces, system structures, and uses of technology • Progress: – Data collec4on (un4l November, 2012)
- 3. Conceptual Framework • Personalized learning plan • Competency-‐based student progress • Criterion-‐referenced assessment • Problem/Project-‐based learning • Mul4-‐year mentoring/ Mul4-‐grade classroom
- 4. Methods Target popula,on Sources: • K-‐12 learner-‐centered • DoE websites schools in the USA • The Edutopia website • Na4onal school models • The list collected from experts and literature
- 5. Purposive Sample • Sampling procedure 1. Collect informa4on 2. Check if met criteria, rate by the number of criteria 3. Selected schools that met 3+ criteria • Total number of schools in the sample: 310 • Response rate: 40 schools (13%) – 184 responses from administrators & teachers
- 6. Instruments Development • Literature review • 5 features (criteria) • Expert reviews • 2 experts • Pilot tests • 4 former k-‐12 teachers
- 7. Survey Instrument 1. For principals: • About the school (5) 2. For teachers: • Base responses on year of 2011-‐2012 • Demographic info (3) • Personalized learning (2) • Student progress (1) • Assessment (2) • PBL (7) • Mul4-‐year mentoring; mul4-‐grade classroom (4) • Technology (5)
- 8.
- 9. Results 1: Learner-‐Centered Schools From ini,al sample From survey responses Met 3+ criteria Among 40 schools, • 11 Na4onal School Model • 3 Na4onal School Model • 17 School District • 4 School District • 22 Individual Schools • 1 Individual School Breakdown of schools with 3+ criteria # of schools that met all 5 criteria • 5 Criteria: 43 schools (13%) • 14 schools out of 40 (35%) • 4 Criteria: 100 schools (31%) • 3 Criteria: 183 schools (56%) Criteria: 1. Personalized learning plan 2. Competency-‐based student progress 3. Criterion-‐referenced assessment 4. Problem/Project-‐based learning 5. Mul4-‐year mentoring/grouping
- 10. Results 1: Learner-‐Centered Schools Type Title School Na4onal Edvision 1. Avalon School, MN (Gr 6-‐12, N=143) School Model 2. Edvision Off Campus, MN (Gr 9-‐12, N=28) 3. Minnesota New Country School, MN (Gr 9-‐12, N=112) 4. Explore Knowledge Academy, NV (K-‐12, N= 521) 5. Phoenix Rising, WA (Pre K – 6, N=50) Carpe Diem 6. Carpe Diem Collegiate High School, AZ (Gr 6-‐12, N=234) Big Picture Learning School 7. Durango Big Picture High School, CO (Gr 9-‐12, N=72) 8. Tulsa Met High School, OK (Gr 9-‐12, N=475) School Chugach school district 9. Chenega Bay Community School, AK (Pre K-‐12, N=24) District Grand Rapids Public Schools 10. City High Middle School, MI (Gr 7-‐12, N=700) Kuspuk School District 11. Gusty Michael School, AK (Pre K-‐12, N=12) 12. Jack Egnaty Sr.High School, AK (Pre K-‐12, N=12) RSU 57 Massebesic 13. Massabesic High School, ME (Gr 9-‐12, N=1,194) Individual -‐ 14. Forest Lake Elementary School, FL (Pre K-‐5, N=681) School
- 11. Results 2: Personalized Learning • How olen did you consider the following when preparing a personalized learning plan for most students? • 5 point Likert scale, 1: Never, 5: Always 4.5 4 3.89 3.79 3.78 3.78 3.5 3.04 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Characteris4cs Interests Mastery Academic Career goals standards
- 12. Results 2: Student Progress • Students moved on to a new or higher level of a topic when… 60% 53% 50% 40% 30% 19% 20% 16% 9% 10% 3% 0% Individually as soon All together when a By track when a All together when Each project team as each student specified amount of group of students the en4re class of when the team of mastered the 4me had passed. mastered the students mastered students mastered current topic. current topic. the current topic. the current topic.
- 13. Results 2: Assessment Major prac,ce of assessment Student academic records Norm-‐ Mastery of referenced Criterion-‐ individual assessment referenced Tradi4onal grades skills 47% assessment 43% 57% 53%
- 14. Results 2: PBL PBL Project type Rarely Never En4re class 4% 6% together 16% Always Large-‐ 31% group 6% Some4mes Individual 29% projects 54% Small-‐ group 24% Olen 30%
- 15. Results 2: Mul4-‐year mentoring/ classrooms Mul,-‐year mentoring Mul,-‐grade classroom More than 4 years 7% 4 years No 12% 37% 3 years 1 year 13% 49% Yes 63% 2 years 19%
- 16. Results 2: Tech (Record Keeping) • You used computer technology for keeping record of students’… 100% 2 17 90% 21 24 29 80% 70% 60% 51 57 50% 52 40% 83 30% 20% 34 32 10% 25 0% Mastery Interests Characteris4cs Career goals Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
- 17. Results 2: Tech (Planning) • You used computer technology for planning each student learning by deciding on... 100% 5 9 8 13 12 15 90% 18 28 80% 26 29 26 29 70% 43 60% 37 50% 40% 84 72 69 67 30% 65 50 20% 40 10% 0% Resources Learning goals Uses of CBI Project Timelines Personalized Teammates plan Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
- 18. Results 2: Tech (Instruc4on) • Your students used computer technology during learning in the following ways… 100% 2 1 3 7 8 8 10 90% 16 22 19 19 80% 70% 48 60% 50% 99 40% 92 84 81 81 30% 50 20% 10% 0% Exploring or Crea4ng Sharing Using CBI Receiving Receiving finding resources products for resources with informa4on feedback their projects other students about projects Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
- 19. Results 2: Tech (Assessment) • You used computer technology for student assessment in the following ways... 100% 8 11 14 14 17 17 90% 23 80% 40 70% 42 43 48 60% 48 57 53 50% 40% 30% 59 55 50 20% 44 41 31 31 10% 0% Providing Tes4ng Cer4fying Receiving Integra4ng Tes4ng on Adjus4ng students with different arainments sta4s4cs tests as demand levels of feedback content (mastery) about test prac4ce within difficulty results the instruc4on automa4cally Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
- 20.
- 21. Results 3: One School The Minnesota New Country School • A public charter school in Henderson, MN • Founded in 1994 • 110 students in grades 6-‐12 • 10 teachers (“advisors”) * • No principal – run by a coopera4ve of teachers * • 17,000 sq l room called the Atrium *
- 22. Results 3: One School AVainment-‐Based System Student progress: • Move on individually as soon as mastered Student records: • Record of standards/skills mastered * Student assessment • Criterion-‐referenced
- 23. Results 3: One School Technology Systems Used Project Foundry • Project design and management • Student goals, interests, projects, arainments • Internet, resources, instruc4on * ALEKS Math • No PBL • Tutorials • Tes4ng & record keeping *
- 24. Results 3: One School Project-‐Based Learning PBL used … Always (except for math & reading) All projects were individual (no teams) * Projects typically last 2-‐3 weeks Projects are … • Open-‐ended • Mul4disciplinary • Real-‐world (Example: company)
- 25. Results 3: One School Self-‐Direc,on: How oYen did students … Choose their own project … Olen Set their own goals … Olen Decide their own roles … Olen Decide on their process … Olen Present final product in class … Olen Share product with community … Olen Self-‐monitor their progress … Olen Reflect on their learning … Always
- 26. Results 3: One School Instruc,onal Support During Projects Frequency of instruc4onal support • From advisor lecture … Seldom • From advisor coaching … Always • From computer … Olen • From peers … Some4mes * • From outsiders … Olen
- 27. Results 3: One School Assessment Students were assessed on … • Final product • Individual academic performance • Individual non-‐academic performance • Outside experts • No peer evalua4ons • Most projects are assessed by a panel
- 28. Results 3: One School Rela,onships Years with a mentor … 7 Mul4-‐grade … Yes Student chooses mentor … Yes Advisor has close rela4onship with … All his/her students
- 29.