1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect

846 views

Published on

Presentation for WEMTA 2010

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
846
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
106
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect

  1. 1. 1:1 Computing: Beyond the Halo Effect TAMI BRASS, ST. PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL tbrass@spa.edu @brasst ON TWITTER
  2. 2. •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
  3. 3. A Tale of Two Laptop Schools
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Where are they both now?
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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…
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. What it looks like in the classroom? TOOLS USED WORK SAMPLES RESOURCES
  16. 16. 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…
  17. 17. Work Samples
  18. 18. 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

×