84
Technology to TEACH Kathy Maksimov Curriculum Specialist

Technology to TEACH

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

This presentation was given by Kathy Maksimov, Curriculum Specialist from the Waterford Institute, at the Pacific District Executive Forum on March 11, 2009. The presentation focused on the ability of well-designed instructional technology to replicate teaching best practices across multiple environments and means of measuring program efficacy.

Citation preview

Page 1: Technology to TEACH

Technology to TEACH

Kathy MaksimovCurriculum Specialist

Page 4: Technology to TEACH

Scientists needed perfect recall and delivery

Page 5: Technology to TEACH

Businesses needed the ability to scale

Page 6: Technology to TEACH

Turned to Technology

Consistent, replicable

Perfect recall and delivery

The ability to scale

Page 7: Technology to TEACH

As educators, we need consistency, perfect recall, the ability to scale, and

… the time to focus on just one child.

Page 8: Technology to TEACH

Our StudentsPre-Literacy Training by First Grade

Marilyn Jager Adams, Beginning to Read, 1990

Middle Class

Low Income

3000 Hours

200 Hours

Page 9: Technology to TEACH

Our StudentsEarly Predictor

Page 10: Technology to TEACH

Our Students

- Hart and Risley, Meaningful Differences (1995)

Welfare Parents

13 million words

2:1 negative to positive

Working Class Parents

26 million words

2:1 positive to negative

Professional Parents

45 million words

6:1 encouraging

Vocabulary at age 4

Page 11: Technology to TEACH

A normal classroo

m

Average Students

Exceptional Students

Troubled Students

Page 12: Technology to TEACH

The Average School Day

- Eaton H. Conant (1973)

Time at school

Actual Instructio

n

Individualized

Instruction

7 Hours

2 Hours

1 Minute!

Page 13: Technology to TEACH

“The Work Problem”

w = p*ew is the work produced

by a system

p is the potential of the system to create work

e is efficiency of the system in creating work

Page 14: Technology to TEACH

Efficiency (e)

• How well workers work.• Maximum = 100%• Examples:

– Lesson manuals– Professional development– Mastery learning– Managed schools, charter schools, etc.– Accountability– Grouping students

Page 15: Technology to TEACH

Potential (p)

• Workers and tools• Limited only by the

worker or tool• Examples:

– Teacher– Paraprofessionals– Manipulatives– Chalkboards or digital whiteboards– Books– Software …

Page 16: Technology to TEACH

w = p*eExample: Digging a Foundation

Page 17: Technology to TEACH

The Work Problem

What if your students need this much work?

Page 18: Technology to TEACH

An Ideal Solution?• Do I scale?• Can I

individualize?• Am I interactive?

• Perhaps you just need more of me …

Page 19: Technology to TEACH

• Costs too much …• Can’t find enough experts

…• Too hard to consistently

train existing resources …• Not enough time …

Why can’t we solve the work problem?

Page 20: Technology to TEACH

The Ideal Solution Described

• Scalable• Affordable • Perfect recall• Consistently replicable• Never tired, impatient, or frustrated• Always the very best performance• Constantly improving

Page 21: Technology to TEACH

What if your students need this much work?

The Work Problem …

Page 22: Technology to TEACH

The Work Problem … Solved!

Page 23: Technology to TEACH

Technology fundamentally changes potential …

Communication example:1. Pony Express2. Telegraph (45.4 million

times faster than a horse)

3. Telephone4. Radio5. Television6. Optical fiber / Internet

Page 24: Technology to TEACH

Musical Performance

A pioneer father goes to see a concert …

Page 25: Technology to TEACH

Teaching is a Performance

What if you could capture and always deliver the best teaching?

Page 26: Technology to TEACH

The Formation of Waterford - Dusty’s Epiphany

Page 27: Technology to TEACH

Moore’s Law

And so on…

Page 28: Technology to TEACH

Doubling Checkmate

$184,000,000,000,000,000.00

Page 29: Technology to TEACH

In the beginning, most people only saw

a penny.

Page 30: Technology to TEACH

Decision Science

Page 31: Technology to TEACH

Learner Profiles

• Can we apply decision science in education?

Page 32: Technology to TEACH

Approximation to Precision

Page 33: Technology to TEACH

Linear vs. Exponential Growth

Source: Kurzweil 2005, The Singularity

is Near

Page 34: Technology to TEACH

Leveraging Technology Requires …

•Commitment

•Willingness to change …–How we view the classroom

–How we view the role of the teacher

–What we teach and when

–How we use student data

Page 35: Technology to TEACH

Leveraging Technology Delivers …

the very best education

individualized

for each student on the curve

Page 36: Technology to TEACH

“It’s independently run. I turn it on in the morning and it pretty much through the rest of the day, gives them their time on it and evaluates where they need to be the next day.”

- Shannon Skipper, Pre-K Teacher, Gadsen, Alabama

A Teacher’s Perspective …

Page 37: Technology to TEACH

Teacher Experience

Page 38: Technology to TEACH

> 450 Hours of Instruction

Page 39: Technology to TEACH

Ways Programs Deliver Instruction

Menu Linear / Predetermined

Adaptive (Mastery-based)

1

2

3

4

From Chutes and Ladders by Milton Bradley

Page 40: Technology to TEACH

Waterford Delivers Instruction

Automatically individualized for

each student

From Chutes and Ladders by Milton Bradley

Page 41: Technology to TEACH

Waterford’s Sequencing

Lesson

Pre-assessmentSongBook

InstructionPractice

Extended PracticeAssessment

Did the student master the learning objective?

Page 42: Technology to TEACH

Sequencing within a Lesson

“Successful” SaraContinue to the next lesson

Page 43: Technology to TEACH

Sequencing within a Lesson

“Needs Help” Sam

Mark this lesson to automatically try again later

Page 44: Technology to TEACH

Sequencing between Lessons

1 2 3 1 4

1 2 3 2 1

Automatic Review

Automatic Review

Try Again

“Successful” Sara

“Needs Help” Sam

Page 45: Technology to TEACH

Teacher Reports

• Averages• Student

progress, usage, and skill performance

• Highlighted areas of concern

Page 46: Technology to TEACH

Meet “Miss Waterford”

• One-on-one instruction tailored for each student …

… Proven methods, endlessly patient, FUN, responsive, private, equitable

Page 47: Technology to TEACH

The Data

1. Understand types of efficacy studies

2. Review examples with Waterford

Page 48: Technology to TEACH

Understanding Terms

• Random Assignment: – a technique for assigning subjects to

different treatments (or no treatment).

• Control Group– the group that does not receive the new

treatment being studied.

Page 49: Technology to TEACH

Study Designs

Page 50: Technology to TEACH

Quasi Experiments

Pretest Posttest Nonequivalent Group. 

– Control and treatment– Group assignment by convenience – Pretest and posttest

Page 51: Technology to TEACH

Commons Lane Elementary

• Pre and Posttest (Terra Nova)• Participants (K and 1st):

– Commons Lane (treatment) – 20 students per class; approx. 80

– Halls Ferry (control) – 13 students per class; approx. 80

• Non-equivalents– Class size (favors the control)– Pretest scores (Commons Lane kindergarteners had

lower pretest scores)

Page 52: Technology to TEACH

Commons Lane – Kindergarten Results

Commons Lane =

3 times the gains!

Page 53: Technology to TEACH

Commons Lane – 1st Grade Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Gains

ControlExperiment

Commons Lane = 2 times the gains!

Page 54: Technology to TEACH

Hecht and Close (Florida)

• Pre and Posttest• Participants: inner city & rural public

schools with low SES (“at risk” students)– 42 Kindergarteners (treatment)– 34 Kindergarteners (control)

• Treatment:– Six months on Reading Level One

Page 55: Technology to TEACH

Hecht and Close - Definitions

• Effect sizes (ES): tell how different two groups are.– ES = 0.2: small difference – ES = 0.5: medium difference– ES = 0.8: large difference

• Finding: Best Predictors of Future Reading Ability– Segmenting and blending phonemes

Page 56: Technology to TEACH

Hecht and Close - Results

Segmenting ES = 1.14 Blending ES = 1.13 Word Reading ES = 1.11 Invented Spelling ES = 1.19

Print Concepts Letter Name Letter Sound Letter Writing

“… Computer assisted instruction provides a cost effective way to teach at-risk children.”

Page 57: Technology to TEACH

Hecht and Close - Results

• Confident in Results:– Exact amount of time

each student used Waterford

– Computer delivers identical experience

– Individualized– Reports show exactly

how students performedStudying Computer-Based

InstructionStudying Classroom Instruction

Page 58: Technology to TEACH

Hecht and Close

Sited in:Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel

“Found that … Amount of exposure children had to [Waterford] contributed to individual differences in phonemic awareness and spelling.”

Page 59: Technology to TEACH

Quasi Experiments

• Time Series Designs.  – One group of subjects– Pretested and posttested at different intervals.  – The purpose might be to determine long-term effect of

treatment and therefore the number of pre- and posttests can vary from one each to many. 

Page 60: Technology to TEACH

Hillcrest Elementary

• Demographic:– Title 1 School (low SES)

• Before Waterford:– Below district average reading scores– 75% of students were in two lowest

reading categories: below basic (more then 50%) and basic

Page 61: Technology to TEACH

Hillcrest Elementary - Results

• Two years after Waterford: trend reversed.– 75% students in top two categories: Proficient

and Advanced

• Three years after Waterford:– the first class to use all three levels of

Waterford from kindergarten to second-grade reached the third-grade and had the highest reading scores of all 36 schools in the district!

Page 62: Technology to TEACH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1995 1997 1998

BelowBasicProficientAdvanced

Hillcrest Elementary - ResultsKindergarten

Student Rankings on the Utah State Core Assessment Test

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

1996*

Page 63: Technology to TEACH

State of Idaho

• Participants: 8 Idaho School Districts– 3,394 students

(treatment)– 2,413 students

(historical control)

• Test scores (IRI) over 4 years

Page 64: Technology to TEACH

State of Idaho – ResultsMore Use = Higher Gains

3637

3839

44

49

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

Control 0–1000 1001–1500

1501–2000

2001–2500

2500+

Usage (Minutes)

Av

era

ge

Ga

in

Waterford recommends 15 min per day = 2250 min

Page 65: Technology to TEACH

State of Idaho - Results

• Lowest third (at-risk) experienced the most gains (>1.0 effect size).

• Finishing the level had a larger effect size than SES, motivation, and tutoring.

Page 66: Technology to TEACH

A Midwest School (Indiana)

• Pretest and Posttest• Participants:

– 46 first grade students (year 2001) - Treatment

– 47 first grade students (year 2000) - Control

• Historical control is nice because it reduces the variance from teachers.

Page 67: Technology to TEACH

A Midwest School - Results

• Evaluated students by how they performed on the pretest:– High scores– Moderate scores– Low scores

• All treatment students outperformed their control counterparts … but the low treatment outperformed the moderate control on the posttest!

Page 68: Technology to TEACH

A Midwest School - Results

660

640

620

600

580

560

540

520

500Grade 1 Grade 2

Control – High

Control – Moderate

Control – Low Exp – High

Exp – Moderate

Exp – Low

Page 69: Technology to TEACH

True Experiments

• “The Gold Standard”• Random treatment and

control• Testing to measure change

in both groups• Only research method that

can adequately measure the cause and effect relationship

Page 70: Technology to TEACH

True Experiments

• Post Equivalent Groups.– Treatment and control– Randomized assignment to groups– Posttest administered to measure

differenceR = Randomized participants

N = Not-randomized participants

O = Test

X = Treatment

Page 71: Technology to TEACH

True Experiments

• Pretest Posttest Equivalent Groups– Treatment and control– Randomized assignment to group– Pretest to measure difference before the

study takes place– Posttest to measure effect of treatment

R = Randomized participants

N = Not-randomized participants

O = Test

X = Treatment

Page 72: Technology to TEACH

True Experimentsin Education

One review showed that not even 1 percent of dissertations in education or of the studies archived in ERIC Abstracts involved randomized experiments. http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3384446.html

Page 73: Technology to TEACH

True Experimentsin Education

Page 74: Technology to TEACH

Challenges for True Experiments in Education

• Random sample– Parents– School staff / Well-

meaning teachers

• Fidelity of implementation– Teacher abilities– Classroom set up – Scheduling

Page 75: Technology to TEACH

Tucson – Math and Science

• Participants:– 5 Title 1 schools in Tucson Unified School

District• Free and reduced lunch rate 88.5%-97.5%• 22 classrooms• 338 students total

– Treatment and Control– Random assignment of classrooms– Pretest and Posttest

• SAT10 Math and the environment (science) tests

Page 76: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Results by classroom

School Gain Diff Free & Reduced Lunch

ELL

A WEMS Control

8.84 .99

7.85 88.5% 16.0%

B WEMS Control

13.43 2.99

10.44 90.6% 39.2%

C WEMS Control

14.23 2.86

11.37 98.3% 22.5%

D WEMS Control

13.02 6.92

6.10 97.5% 49.0%

E WEMS Control

6.21 1.26

4.95 92.6% 29.1%

Page 77: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Results define terms

• NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent)– Where a student falls on a normal curve

• Indicates a student’s rank compared to other students on the same test

– Range from 1-99 with mean of 50– In a normally distributed population, if all

students make exactly one year of progress, NCE gain would be zero even though raw score increased.

Page 78: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Resultsby subject

Math

Science

Math - Tucson Results

35

37

39

4143

45

47

49

51

Pretest Posttest

Me

an

NC

E

Waterford

Control

Science - Tucson Results

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

Pretest Posttest

Me

an

NC

E

Waterford

Control

Page 79: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Resultsby genderTucson Results - by Gender

11.71

10.00

5.84

0.45

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Boys Girls

Mea

n N

CE

Gai

nWaterford

Control

Page 80: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Resultsby ELL status

Tucson Results - ELL Status

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Waterford ELL Waterford Non ELL Control ELL Control Non-ELL

Mea

n N

CE

Gai

n

Page 81: Technology to TEACH

Tucson Resultsby ELL status

Tucson Results - ELL status

30

35

40

45

50

55

Pretest Posttest

Mea

n N

CE

Waterford ELL

Waterford Non ELL

Control ELL

Control Non-ELL

Waterford ELL students had the lowest pretest scores and the highest posttest scores!

Page 82: Technology to TEACH

Qualitative Research• Uses “naturalistic” methods

– interviewing– observation– focus groups

• No statistical or quantitative procedures

• Goals – behavior in natural setting– perspective of the research

participant– meanings people give to their

experience

Page 83: Technology to TEACH

Madisonville Consolidated Independent School District

• Teachers report higher interest in reading– They report that children now argue over who is allowed to go

to the reading centers, when previously there was little interest shown in reading activities.

• Teachers report improved home/school connection; parents support program 100% (survey)

• Increased student academic self-esteem• Waterford supports and supplements existing

curriculum• Waterford is user friendly• Anecdotes of improved phonemic awareness and

reading readiness skills

Page 84: Technology to TEACH

Questions?