Get documents about "Teachers Attitudes Towards Information Technology
Description
Teachers Attitudes Towards Information Technology document sample
Document Sample
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
NC State University/Friday Institute for
Educational Innovation
SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina-
Greensboro
SETDA
Quasi-Experimental,
Experimental, and Case Studies
North Carolina State University/
Friday Institute for Educational
Innovation
Comprehensive Multi-method Evaluation Design
Case Study
Quasi-Experimental
Design
Experimental Design
Quasi-Experimental Design: Process
Quasi-experimental approach:
A matched-groups, mixed
between/within longitudinal design
In 2003, 11 comparison schools were
selected based on
Grade structure
Geographical proximity
01-02 End of Grade (EOG) Scores
Student Demographics
Size
For all variables, hypotheses were
framed as: 1d - 1a > 2d - 2a
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Variables and Measures (selected)
Variables Measures
Student achievement EOG tests
Student technology Tech skills surveys
skills NETS-T survey
Teacher tech skills
TAC and TAT
Attitudes toward surveys
technology
Instructional AOI survey
strategies SOC questionnaire
Stages of Concern Leadership
Leadership Style Practices Inventory
Implementation of STNA
model
Quasi-Experimental Design:
IMPACT and Comparison Student Demographics,
2005-06
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Amer. Mulit-
Male Female White Black Hisp. Asian LEP Migrant EC FRL
Indian Racial
IMPACT 50.7% 49.3% 45.5% 48.6% 2.8% 0.2% 0.6% 2.2% 1.9% 0.3% 14.6% 66.4%
Comparison 50.5% 49.5% 33.8% 55.8% 7.0% 0.5% 0.5% 2.3% 2.7% 0.2% 21.5% 64.4%
Source: DPI 2005-06 School Report Cards,
http://www.ncreportcards.org/src/.
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Teacher Quality Statistics
Teacher Quality School Year IMPACT Comparison State Avg.
% Fully Licensed 2002-03 82.6 76.0 84.0
2003-04 86.0 85.1 85.0
2004-05 88.6 87.8 88.8
2005-06 90.6 92.6 88.3
% Emergency 2002-03 4.3 5.6 NA
License
2003-04 2.6 3.7 NA
2004-05 3.4 3.4 5.2
2005-06 2.1 2.3 3.3
% Lateral Entry 2002-03 9.5 8.7 NA
2003-04 8.5 8.2 NA
2004-05 6.2 5.9 6.5
2005-06 5.2 3.9 5.8
% Classes Taught 2002-03 80.8 86.8 83.0
by HQT
2003-04 87.6 86.3 85.0
2004-05 89.3 87.2 87.4
2005-06 97.8 96.8 93.6
Quasi-Experimental Design:
IMPACT and Comparison Teacher Retention,
Year 1-3
100
95
90
85
80
IMPACT
75
Comparison
70
65
60
0-3 4-7 8-10 11-15 >15
Years of Experience
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Implementation (STNA)
Impact schools were rated more highly by teachers in all 13 areas:
Vision and leadership Classroom practice-
Technology planning, instructional
budgeting, evaluation strategies
Supportive Classroom practice-
environment for risk- planning
taking Student activities
Resource media, Teaching practices,
software tools Student outcomes
Community linkages (perceived)
Professional
development
All effects significant at p<.001, partial 2 ranged from 0.05 to 0.43
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Implementation (IMPACT rubric)
Impact schools were rated more highly by teachers in 8/16 areas
over 3 years:
Instruction
Collaboration
Needs assessment
Managing
resources
Designing facilities
Policies
Planning
Evaluation
All effects significant at p<.05, partial 2 ranged from 0.33 to 0.68
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Leadership Ratings (LPI)
All IMPACT principals who were present for
all three years of the grant were rated
more highly in Year 3 than in Year 1 on all
5 constructs (Challenging the Process,
Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others
to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging
the Heart).
These principals grew most in ―Challenging
the Process‖ and ―Inspiring a Shared
Vision.‖
Quasi-Experimental Design:
LPI Principal Ratings, Year 1-Year 3
10
Year 1 (N=95)
9.5 Year 3 (N=208)
9
Mean Score
8.5
8
7.5
7
CTP EOA ETH ISV MTW
LPI Constructs
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Leadership Team Ratings on LPI
On all 5 constructs, media coordinators
out-scored principals, in absolute terms.
On 4 of 5 constructs, technology
facilitators out-scored principals, in
absolute terms.
These findings indicate that IMPACT
teachers value the leadership qualities of
media coordinators and technology
facilitators, and that these individuals are
seen as better leaders, in some respects,
than school principals.
Quasi-Experimental Design:
LPI Ratings for Media Coordinators,
Principals, and Technology Facilitators
10 MC (N=257)
9.5 Principal (N=277)
Mean Score
9 TF (N=247)
8.5
8
7.5
7
CTP EOA ETH ISV MTW
LPI Constructs
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Teacher Outcomes (ISTE NETS-T)
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
IMPACT
2.5
Comparison
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
Year1- Year1- Year2- Year2- Year3- Year3-
pre post pre post pre post
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Teacher Outcomes (attitudes toward
technology)
IMPACT teachers showed stronger change in attitudes or
more positive attitudes overall on:
Perceived utility of IT
Email
Internet
Multimedia
Productivity-teacher
Productivity – student
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Teacher Outcomes (attitudes toward
technology)
IMPACT teachers showed stronger change in attitudes or
more positive attitudes overall on:
IMPACT IMPACT Comp. Comp. F for interaction
Subscale Time #1 Time #6 Time #1 Time #6 (all df 1, 197) 2
Teacher-centered 4.33 4.22 4.49 4.03 14.57*** .07
activities
Constructivism 3.17 3.52 3.26 3.24 9.85** .05
Technology utilization 2.90 4.06 2.87 2.82 83.24*** .30
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Teacher Stages of Concern Years 1-3
100
90
Year 1 (N=389)
80 Year 2 (N=264)
Year 3 (N=287)
70
Percentile Ranking
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Stage0 Stage1 Stage2 Stage3 Stage4 Stage5 Stage6
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Student Use of Computers in Grades 3-5,
2004-05
90% IMPACT schools
Comparison schools
80%
Percent Responding "Yes"
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Core subject areas Research for Reports Word Processing Presentations
Quasi-Experimental Design:
IMPACT v. Comparison Media Center
Visitation, Year1-Year 3
2.5
Average # Visits Per Week
2.0
1.5
1.0 IMPACT
Comparison
0.5
0.0
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Quasi-Experimental Design:
IMPACT v. Comparison Math Achievement
261
259
257
255
IMPACT
253 Compar.
251
249
247
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Effect significant at p<. 0001, controlling for grade, race, exceptionality, Free/reduced
lunch, sex, absenteeism
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Reading Growth 2003-2005, by Grade
20
EOG growth from baseline to Year 2
18
16
14
12
10 IMPACT
8 Comparison
6
4
2
0
Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Effect significant at p<. 05, controlling for free/reduced lunch, race, exceptionality,
sex, absenteeism, parent education
Case study: process
In the 2004-2005 school year, a preliminary case
study of one intervention school’s community
outreach program was conducted
Data sources included
Phone interviews with patrons
Structured interviewed with staff
Archival documents (e.g. attendance data, course
offerings, budget data)
In 2005, funds for the case study were redirected
to the experimental design component
Case study: outcomes
Findings suggest that low-cost
technology alternatives can be
beneficial to school-based
community outreach programs
At the same time, personal
attributes of key staff played a
pivotal role in the success of
programming.
Experimental Design: Process
In 2004, Schools Attuned was
selected as the intervention in the
experimental design
However, a different intervention
(IRCMS) was approved and
implemented, beginning in the
spring of 2005.
Experimental Design: Process
(continued)
IMPACT Non-IMPACT
23 14
IRCMS Classrooms Classrooms
rd
Program (3 =10, 4th=5, 5th=8) rd
(3 =5, 4th=4, 5th=5)
(570 students) (267 students)
22 16
No Classrooms Classrooms
IRCMS (3rd=5, 4th=7, 5th=10) rd
(3 =6, 4th=5, 5th=5)
Program (497 students) (351 students)
Experimental Design: Student Measures
Measures
Gates-MacGinitie Reading
Comprehension Test
Reading EOG
Metacomprehension Strategy Index
Jr. MAI (Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory)
Reading Efficacy
Teachers’ rating of student
metacognition
Experimental Design: Teacher Measures
Measures
Technology use survey
TAC survey
DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading
Profile (TORP) (pretest only)
MAI (Metacognitive Awareness Inventory)
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)
Teaching Reading Efficacy
Formative Evaluation
SERVE Center at the University of
North Carolina-Greensboro
LANCET Implementation and
Outcomes
Capacity for Applying Project
Evaluation (CAPE)
www.serve.org/evaluation/capacity/
Elizabeth Byrom, SERVE
Jenifer Corn, SERVE
CAPE is…
A suite of resources, tools, and
professional development
activities, designed to help
educators collect and use data
to make decisions that will help
them improve the
implementation and impact of
their technology projects.
SERVE’s Role
Collaborate with partners
Identify or develop resources and
tools
Design and facilitate on-going
professional development and
support for school/district team
Document lessons learned about
capacity building for project
evaluation
School/District Teams’ Role
Create a project logic map
Develop an evaluation plan for their
EETT project
Implement evaluation plan
Collect and analyze data
Use data to make informed decisions
Make adjustments to project
implementation
Capacity for Evaluation
Formative Evaluation – used to
―monitor and adjust‖ projects, to the
ultimate benefit of students
Capacity – the ―organizational
wherewithal‖ to undertake project
evaluation, more than just skills and
knowledge for individuals
CAPE Components
A Theoretical Framework for Capacity
Building
An Evaluation Framework
A Professional Development Model
Framework for Capacity Building
1. Engaging Moral Purpose
Engaging teachers’ beliefs, the need or motivation to undertake formative project evaluation (Fullan,
2005)
Foundation
Drivers for 2. Understanding the Change Process
Change in Understanding the change process to engender ownership of evaluation work (Fullan, 2005; Hall &
Schools (Fullan, Hord, 1984; Horsley & Loucks-Horsley, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003)
2005)
The desired
change is the
adoption of the 3. Building Capacity A. Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes of Individuals
formative Collective and ongoing (Guskey, 1986, 2000)
project policies, strategies,
evaluation resources, and other
practices. actions to increase
B. Resources – infrastructure, tools, people, money, and time needed to
organizational power to
adopt the innovation.
implement project
evaluation
Shared Identity C. Professional Community
(Newmann, King, &
Motivation to work (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)
Young, 2000, as cited
together on
in Fullan, 2005, p. 40)
evaluation (Fullan, D. Program Coherence
2005) (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001)
E. Shared Leadership
(Lambert, 2002)
The CAPE Introduction Getting Started
Evaluation How to Use the Planning for
Framework Resources Evaluation
Theory Outcomes The Plan
Explaining How Goals, Basic
Your Project Objectives, and Components
Works Strategies
Data Sources Implementation The Report
Some Putting the Communicating
Examples Evaluation to the Results
Work
Examples Resources Index
Real Evaluation of Materials
Plans and
Reports
Evaluation Planning Tools
Logic mapping activities and
templates
Strategy and objective planning
templates and guides
Data-collection planning guides
Evaluation Planning
Map project logic
Clarify strategies and objectives
Define evaluation questions
Propose benchmarks
Select methods and measures
Conduct the evaluation
Draw inferences from data
IMPACT Model School Logic Map
IMPACT Model School Objective
Planning Guide
Data Sources for EETT Projects
Technology Needs Assessment
Classroom Observation
Technology-Partnership Survey
Professional Development
Questionnaire
Rubrics for lesson plans and student
products
Teacher Reflection Log
CAPE Instruments and Protocols
School Technology Needs
Assessment (STNA)
Professional Development
Questionnaire (PDQ)
Looking for Technology Integration
(LoFTI) drop-in protocol
Technology and School-Family-
Community Partnership survey
School Technology Needs
Assessment (STNA)
Online STNA
Bar graphs
Repeated use
indicates changing
needs over time
Used in about 200 schools to date,
with more than 7914 respondents
Now in Version 3.0
STNA Report
STNA Research Study
Internal Consistency Reliability (N=2094)
Data analyses showed each of STNA
constructs and subconstructs to have high
internal consistency reliability (alpha
ranged from .807 to .967).
These results indicates that STNA is a high
quality survey instrument that provides
schools and districts with information that
can be used to make decisions about each
of the constructs and subconstructs.
STNA Research Study
Exploratory Factor Analysis (N=2050)
The initial analyses revealed 13 factors
with an eigenvalue greater than one,
accounting for 62.32% of the total
variance.
Ten of the 13 factors were largely the same
constructs initially identified for STNA.
These results provided strong support for
the validity of the constructs identified
within STNA.
Professional Development
Questionnaire (PDQ)
PDQ
Easily adapted to specific settings or
activities
Assesses participants’ perceptions of
the quality of professional
development implementation
Does not provide data about the
impact of PD activities – whether
they made a difference
LoFTI
Looking For
Technology
Integration
Classroom
technology
observation
protocol
LoFTI
Designed through collaboration with
team of school practitioners
Reports a profile of technology use at
the school level
Paper-pencil version available
Palm version almost ready
School-Family-Community Survey
School-Family-Community Survey
Designed for a range of
stakeholders—staff, parents, others
Use results in making decisions about
technology for supporting family and
community involvement efforts
Version 1.0 is available online or in
paper-pencil form
CAPE Professional Development
Face-to- Computer-Mediated Professional Development Face-to-
Face Face
Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple
Introductory Projects Projects Projects Projects
Culminating
Event for Event for
Teams of Individual Individual Individual Individual Teams of
Project Project Project Project
Educators Educators
Online Community of Practice (CoP)
CAPE Professional Development
Academies and Institutes
Workshops
Virtual Meetings, conference calls
and videoconferences (CMPDs)
Presentations
Online community of practice
Teams sharing successes and lessons
learned
Technical Assistance
CAPE Professional Development
CMPD Topics
Initial Implementation of Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Management Plans
Baseline Data Collection
Maximizing School Buy-in & Community
Support
Data Analysis & Interpretation
Notes to Project Leaders
Identify and address the challenges
and costs of evaluating
projects/programs.
Use team-based planning and
implementation of evaluations.
Recognize that collecting data is
relatively easy—analyzing and
using data is the hard part. Both
require a lot of time.
Notes to Project Leaders
Communicate to generate buy-in.
Define and share the evaluation
purpose—needs assessment,
required reporting, data-driven
planning, or program improvement?
Reach consensus on a definition of
the program or project being
evaluated.
Notes to Project Leaders
Separate project implementation
from impact, and measure both.
Define the evaluation questions that
matter to the evaluation purpose.
Plan for and collect all of the data,
and only the data necessary to
answer the questions.
Manage the evaluation process.
Capacity for Evaluation
Capacity Building – NC DPI
IMPACT I Schools
IMPACT II Schools
1-2-1 Grant Schools
IMPACT Academies based on the SERVE ATA Model
Collaboration Toolkit
IMPACT Video Series
NC LEA and Charter School Educational Technology
Plans
Dissemination Activities
LANCET Dissemination
NC State Dissemination Activities
Ellen Vasu
Jason Osborne
Lisa Grable
NC State Dissemination Activities
Publications
Corbell, K.A., Osborne, J.W., & Grable, L.L. (in
press). Examining the Performance Standards
for Inservice Teachers: A confirmatory factor
analysis of the Assessment of Teachers’ NETS-T
Expertise. Computers in Schools.
Osborne, J.W., Overbay, A., & Vasu, E.S. (in press).
Designing grant proposals and evaluation plans
in the age of No Child Left Behind. Journal of the
American Association of Grant Professionals.
Overbay, A., Grable, L.L., & Vasu, E.S. (2006).
Scientifically-based research: Postcards from
the edge. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education (JTATE), 14(3), 623-632.
NC State Dissemination Activities
Manuscripts in Preparation
Measuring Teacher Attitudes Toward
Computers and Teacher Attitudes
Towards Information Technology
Dimensions of Technology Skills
Learning Styles and Resistance to
Change
NC State Dissemination Activities
Presentations
26 National and International
Conference Presentations and
Workshops
6 State and Regional Conference
Presentations
SERVE Dissemination Activities
CAPE Website
http://www.serve.org/Evaluation/Capacity/
5,434 hits since November 10, 2006
Manuscripts in Preparation
CAPE Framework, STNA, CAPE PD Model, Data
Sources for Evaluating Technology Projects
Presentations
13 Evaluation Academies/Institutes/Workshops
13 National Conference Presentations and
Workshops
9 State Conference Presentations and Workshops
SERVE Dissemination Activities
Instruments
School Technology Needs Assessment
(STNA) (n=7914)
Professional Development Questionnaire
(PDQ)
Looking for Technology Integration
(LoFTI) drop-in protocol
Technology and School-Family-
Community Partnership survey (n=88)
SERVE Dissemination Activities
Building Evaluation Capacity Studies
Microsoft Partners in Learning
Irvine Foundation study participant
Spread
REL-SERVE Evidence-Based Education
National Center for Homeless Education
SETDA-Polyvision Study
Graduate Courses – NCSU, UCF, Johns
Hopkins
Dissertation/Thesis – NCSU, UNC
Dissemination – NC DPI
IMPACT Grants
1-2-1 Grants
IMPACT Guidelines revision
IMPACT for Administrators
IMPACT Website
Dissemination – NC DPI
North Carolina State Board of
Education Future-Ready Students
Future-Ready Classrooms initiative
Roadmap to Replicability
NC State University/Friday Institute
for Educational Innovation
Previously Validated Instruments
State End-of-Grade tests (grades 3-8)
NC Writing Test (grades 4 & 8)
NC Computer Skills Test (grade 8)
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (Grade 2, primary schools
only)
Computer Attitude Questionnaire (4-8)
Young Children’s Computer Inventory (K-3)
Teacher attitude toward technology integration (TAT)
Teacher attitude toward computers (TAC)
Stages of concern questionnaire
Resistance to Change
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
Reviewed Instruments
Examined the factor structures of:
Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Computers (TAC)
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Information
Technology (TAT)
Performance Standards for Inservice Teachers
Technology Skills Checklist 3-5
Technology Skills Checklist 6-8
School Technology Needs Assessment (STNA)
Activities of Instruction Survey was also
reviewed
Other Instruments Used
Classroom Climate (3-8)
Teacher and Administrator Demographic surveys
NETS-A Performance Profile (Administrators)
IMPACT Rubric
IMPACT Implementation Checklist
Classroom Equipment Inventory
Media and Technology Inventory
Treatment and Control Considerations
Competitive grant application
process
Comparison group incentives
Cross contamination
Time intensive matching process
Requires personal contact with all
groups
Attrition
Assessing Students in K-2
State prohibition of primary grade
standardized academic assessment
Expense of appropriate instruments
and cost of extra testing
administrators
Group administration requires one-
on-one attention
Young ELLs
Exposure Issues
Teacher concerns about
observation/evaluation
Only a few schools involved in a
very high profile project
Desire to ―look good‖
Data Collection
Paper and pencil or electronic
Computer access, reduced response rate
Logistics of distribution and collection of paper
surveys
Middle school students- no single
classroom teacher
Student information systems
Formative v. external evaluation
Site visits, no normal school days
Navigating the Regulations
Obtaining disaggregated student
information and interpreting policy
Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act
Department of Agriculture controls Free
and Reduced Lunch Information
Overbay, A., Grable, L.L., & Vasu, E.S. (2006). Scientifically-based research: Postcards from the edge.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE), 14(3), 623-632.
Roadmap to Replicability
SERVE Center at the University of
North Carolina-Greensboro
LANCET Roadmap to Replicability
Inferred Insights into Capacity
Building for Project Evaluation:
Lessons Learned from the
IMPACT Schools
The SERVE Center at UNCG
Elizabeth Byrom
Jenifer Corn
Lessons Learned
Lessons learned are derived from
a content analysis of qualitative
data from focus groups and
individual interviews with
educators in the IMPACT schools.
Framework for Capacity Building
1. Engaging Moral Purpose
Engaging teachers’ beliefs, the need or motivation to undertake formative project evaluation (Fullan,
2005)
Foundation
Drivers for 2. Understanding the Change Process
Change in Understanding the change process to engender ownership of evaluation work (Fullan, 2005; Hall &
Schools (Fullan, Hord, 1984; Horsley & Loucks-Horsley, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003)
2005)
The desired
change is the
adoption of the 3. Building Capacity A. Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes of Individuals
formative Collective and ongoing (Guskey, 1986, 2000)
project policies, strategies,
evaluation resources, and other
practices. actions to increase
B. Resources – infrastructure, tools, people, money, and time needed to
organizational power to
adopt the innovation.
implement project
evaluation
Shared Identity C. Professional Community
(Newmann, King, &
Motivation to work (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)
Young, 2000, as cited
together on
in Fullan, 2005, p. 40)
evaluation (Fullan, D. Program Coherence
2005) (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001)
E. Shared Leadership
(Lambert, 2002)
Lesson:
Project evaluation is a
complicated process requiring
cooperation among multiple
people; it is important that
everyone involved speak the
same language.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help project management and/or
project evaluation teams establish a
glossary of evaluation terms that will
be used for their project.
It’s more important for evaluation
teams to use the same definitions
than it is for them to use the ―right‖
definitions.
Lesson:
In order to build capacity for evaluation,
the purpose or purposes of any
evaluation effort must be meaningful,
explicit, and understood by everyone
involved.
It helps tremendously if everyone
involved believes in the purpose of the
evaluation.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Because purposes for an evaluation
may differ at various levels (SEA, LEA,
school, IHE), it’s important to clarify
the different purposes. Make sure that
everyone participating in the evaluation
understands each organization’s
purposes, roles, and responsibilities.
Lesson:
Learning how to evaluate a project
requires change, and change takes
time and energy.
Change, cont’d …
Evaluations can change not only
projects, but also the people
implementing the projects.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help educators understand that
they are going through a change
process. From time to time, help
them reflect on where they are in
the process.
Show project leaders how they can
use already-dedicated time when
asking teachers to participate in
evaluation efforts.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Understand and prioritize the
changes being asked of education
project participants by recognizing
that some changes are harder than
others.
Lesson:
Some specific knowledge and
skills will help make project
participants’ evaluation efforts
more valuable, effective, and
efficient.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Actively teach educators how to
collect, analyze, and interpret data.
Help educators formalize informal
data and evaluation practices.
Show teachers how to use
technology to access evaluation
data previously not readily
available.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Educators who are inexperienced
with project evaluation tend to
collect the wrong data or too much
data. Show them how to select and
use data sources that will be the
most meaningful for their projects.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Find out what data educators are
already collecting, and if appropriate
and feasible, show them how they
might use the data for their project
evaluation.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Don’t be surprised if some project
stakeholders are reluctant to
provide necessary data. This can
happen especially when
stakeholders do not see value in the
evaluation.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help educators learn to provide
feedback to stakeholders, showing
the results and findings of the data
collected.
Hints for evaluation capacity
builders…
Don’t be surprised if administrators
and teachers ―streamline‖ data
collection procedures or instruments.
Don’t be surprised if teachers use
their new evaluation knowledge and
skills in their own teaching.
Lesson:
Success of a project evaluation –
and likely of the project itself –
depends on participants sharing
a sense of identity around the
effort.
Identity cont’d…
Leadership of project evaluation
might come from unexpected
individuals, but regardless of
where it comes from, leadership is
most effective when shared.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help educators develop a plan for
actively sharing their project and
evaluation plans, activities, and
results with stakeholders.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help project participants and those
who are evaluating the project
reach a consensus understanding of
―how the project is supposed to
work.‖
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
If logic mapping is considered
worthwhile, show educators how to
use them early in the project
planning process. Allow enough
flexibility for teams to illustrate
their actual understanding of how
their project works, i.e., don’t be
rigid about their using a particular
logic map design.
Lesson:
The leadership, shared
understandings, and sense of
community required for effective
project evaluation are heavily
dependent on good
communication.
Hint for evaluation capacity
builders…
Help educators develop a plan for
communication among everyone
involved, such that communication
is early, often, and in ways that
support their efforts.
NCDPI Roadmap to Replicibility
IMPACT Products
SBE Future-Ready Agenda
Future-Ready Classrooms
In compliance with federal laws, N C Public
Schools administers all state-operated educational
programs, employment activities and admissions
without discrimination because of race, religion,
national or ethnic origin, color, age, military
service, disability, or gender, except where
exemption is appropriate and allowed by law.
Related docs
Other docs by omf14014
