View
225
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
New Paradigm Schools: A Na4onal Survey
October, 2012 AECT
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)
Conceptual Framework
• Personalized learning plan • Competency-‐based student progress • Criterion-‐referenced assessment • Problem/Project-‐based learning • Mul4-‐year mentoring/ Mul4-‐grade classroom
Methods
Target popula,on • K-‐12 learner-‐centered
schools in the USA
Sources: • DoE websites • The Edutopia website • Na4onal school models • The list collected from
experts and literature
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
Instruments Development
• Literature review • 5 features (criteria)
• Expert reviews • 2 experts
• Pilot tests • 4 former k-‐12 teachers
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)
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Results 1: Learner-‐Centered Schools From ini,al sample From survey responses
Met 3+ criteria • 11 Na4onal School Model • 17 School District • 22 Individual Schools
Among 40 schools, • 3 Na4onal School Model • 4 School District • 1 Individual School
Breakdown of schools with 3+ criteria • 5 Criteria: 43 schools (13%) • 4 Criteria: 100 schools (31%) • 3 Criteria: 183 schools (56%)
# of schools that met all 5 criteria • 14 schools out of 40 (35%)
Criteria: 1. Personalized learning plan 2. Competency-‐based student progress 3. Criterion-‐referenced assessment 4. Problem/Project-‐based learning 5. Mul4-‐year mentoring/grouping
Results 1: Learner-‐Centered Schools
Type Title School Na4onal School Model
Edvision 1. Avalon School, MN (Gr 6-‐12, N=143) 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 District
Chugach school district 9. Chenega Bay Community School, AK (Pre K-‐12, N=24)
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 School
-‐ 14. Forest Lake Elementary School, FL (Pre K-‐5, N=681)
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
3.89 3.79 3.78 3.78
3.04
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Characteris4cs Interests Mastery Academic standards
Career goals
Results 2: Student Progress • Students moved on to a new or higher level of a topic when…
53%
19% 16%
9%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Individually as soon as each student mastered the current topic.
All together when a specified amount of 4me had passed.
By track when a group of students mastered the current topic.
All together when the en4re class of students mastered the current topic.
Each project team when the team of students mastered the current topic.
Results 2: Assessment
Mastery of individual skills 43%
Tradi4onal grades 57%
Student academic records
Criterion-‐referenced assessment
53%
Norm-‐referenced assessment
47%
Major prac,ce of assessment
Results 2: PBL
Never 6%
Rarely 4%
Some4mes 29%
Olen 30%
Always 31%
PBL
Individual projects 54%
Small-‐group 24%
Large-‐group 6%
En4re class together 16%
Project type
Results 2: Mul4-‐year mentoring/classrooms
1 year 49%
2 years 19%
3 years 13%
4 years 12%
More than 4 years 7%
Mul,-‐year mentoring
Yes 63%
No 37%
Mul,-‐grade classroom
Results 2: Tech (Record Keeping) • You used computer technology for keeping record of students’…
83
34 32 25
24
51 57
52
2
21 17 29
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mastery Interests Characteris4cs Career goals
Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
Results 2: Tech (Planning) • You used computer technology for planning each student learning by
deciding on...
84 72 69 67 65
50 40
18
26 29 26 29
43
37
5 9 8 13 12 15 28
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Resources Learning goals Uses of CBI Project Timelines Personalized plan
Teammates
Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
Results 2: Tech (Instruc4on) • Your students used computer technology during learning in the
following ways…
99 92
84 81 81
50
7 16
22 19 19
48
2 1 3 8 8 10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Exploring or finding resources
Crea4ng products for their projects
Sharing resources with other students
Using CBI Receiving informa4on
about projects
Receiving feedback
Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
Results 2: Tech (Assessment) • You used computer technology for student assessment in the
following ways...
59 55 50 44 41 31 31
40 42
43 48 48
53 57
8 11 14 14 17 23 17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Providing students with feedback
Tes4ng different content
Cer4fying arainments (mastery)
Receiving sta4s4cs about test results
Integra4ng tests as
prac4ce within the instruc4on
Tes4ng on demand
Adjus4ng levels of difficulty
automa4cally
Yes. No, but I wish I had it. No, and I don't want it.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
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 *
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
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 *
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)
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
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
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
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
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Recommended