Telepresence Teaching in Uruguayan Primary Schools – is it Delivering

Results?

Paul Woods English Adviser

British Council Uruguay

Using telepresence technologyNow, under the Plan Ceibal, English teaching has taken an extra leap with the provision of ‘distance teachers’ who teach English remotely, their faces appearing on big screens at the front of the classroom as they interact with children in rural schools. The distance teachers may be sitting in Montevideo, Bogota, Buenos Aires or the Philippines, but for the children there they are there, right in their classrooms.There’s another crucial feature of this Plan Ceibal – Inglés; the distance teachers interact with theclassroom teacher who is right there in the room – but really there! And the special thing about her (or him) is that she probably doesn’t speak much – or any – English. So the classroom teacher is learning English along with the children

In the UK

http://www.vcfl.net/

In The Philippines

3. Objective evaluation – results of achievement tests4. External evaluation

2. Subjective evaluation – survey of classroom teachers

1. Brief outline of project

1. Plan Ceibal overview Plan Ceibal is a Uruguayan project, developed by•MEC, Uruguayan Ministry of Education and Culture•ANTEL, National Telecommunications company (Administración Nacional de Telecomunicaciones)• ANEP, Board of Public Education (Administración Nacional de Educación Pública)•LATU (Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay).

Plan Ceibal overview

• Started 2007 with distribution of XO-1 laptops (ceibalitas)• By 2009 Uruguay became first country in world to have

given one laptop to every primary school student• By 2009 350,000 kids & 16,000 teachers had received

ceibalitas• No cost wireless Internet connection in all state schools • Fiber optic connections progressively replacing these• Video conferencing equipment being installed in all

schools

http://www.ceibal.edu.uy

Plan Ceibal Jan 2013 review • 570,000 laptops distributed by 2012. [Now > 1 million].• 4-year TCO (Total cost [of ownership)$100 p.a. per child

- includes laptops, internet costs, administrative costs, fiber optic costs, robotics, planned VC facilities, portal LMS platform, digital resources for many subjects, teacher orientation

• Future focus on quality implementation• Future priorities: increased high school graduation rates;

Mathematics; Literacy (Spanish & English)http://www.ceibal.org.uy/docs/FULLAN-Ceibal-English.pdf

Ceibal English project plan• Proof of concept pilot phase 2012

- 20 primary schools; 1,000 Year 4 learners (aged 10-11)

• March 2013 expansion: +500 classes; 96 schools; Years 4,5 & 6

• July 2013 expansion: +500 classes

• March 2014 expansion: +1000 classes

• By June 2015: Total of up to 4,800 classes (c. 120,000 learners)

Ceibal English classes3 x 45 minutes per wk.

Lesson A – RT via VC

Lessons B & C – CT

Detailed scripted lesson

plans for A, B & C

Team Teaching

Weekly coordination in

Spanish

Remote Teachers (RTs)

Remote Teaching (RT) providers in:• Uruguay • Argentina • Philippines• Mexico and Colombia

RTs conduct Class A remotely• Experienced/Qualified ELTs• Online self-access course for RTs• Quality managers

Classroom Teachers (CTs)

• Conduct Classes B & C• Volunteers• Small payment for participation• 1-2 days Orientation Course• Self-access online training• Technical support • Pedagogic support (Mentors)• Most A0 level English• Improving their own English through

supported self-access course (LearnEnglish Pathways)

2. Survey of Class Teachers

• Carried out from 15/11 to 9/12 2013• Aimed to discover opinion of class teachers about the

delivery of remote and practice lessons, perceptions about technocal support and equipment and relationship between remote and class teachers

• 630 out of 942 teachers responded – a response rate of 67%.

• The survey was carried out using an online survey tool (Machform).

Respondents per Delivery Institution per institution

Source of remote teachers

Conduct of class by country of origin of remote teacher (% of teachers)

Rapport with pupils by country of origin of remote teacher (% of teachers)

Level of Spanish of remote teacher (% of teachers)

Very good

Level of Spanish of remote teacher (% of teachers)

Very poor

Is the Level of Spanish of the remote teacher a problem for coordination% of teachers who were poor or very poor in Spanish – 23 instances/ 3 %)

Is the poor or very poor Level of Spanish of the remote teacher a problem for the dynamics of the class?% of teachers who were poor or very poor in Spanish – 23 instances/ 3 %)

For the 3% who said the level of Spanish of the RT was poor or very poor, over 70% felt this was a

problem for coordination and dynamics of the class

Who corrects the pupils? (% of teachers)

Written workPronunciation

52% of corrections to pronunciation are made by the remote teacher and 55% of corrections to written work by the class teacher

Frequency of coordination with the remote teacher(% of teachers)

Reasons for lack of coordination with the remote teacher(The 11% of teachers who answered that this took place never or almost never)

Do you teach practice lessons B and C each week (% of teachers)

Do you use the lesson plans for the B and C lessons? (% of teachers)

How do you obtain the lesson plans for the B and C lessons? (% of teachers)

Evaluation of digital materials of the programme (songs, videos, games, images (% of teachers)

3. Achievement Testing

• Carried out In August and November 2013• Results are being analysed by Plan Ceibal’s evaluation

team

• Groups controlled for social class/ urban rural etc

• Children who claimed to have lessons outside school excluded from analysis of results

• Some groups started lessons in March 2013, others in July 2013

Number of pupils tested by grade in November 2013

Number of pupils by social background

Average scores by social background and time of test

Average scores by grade and time of test

Number of students tested in August by month of entry into project

Number of students by grade at time of entry into project

Number of students by grade and social background at time of entry into project

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

A B C D E

July

March

A = highest score (10/10)E = lowest score (0-6/10

Distribution of students according to score (in quintiles) by time of entry to the programme

Distribution of students by score (in quintiles) social background and level of difficulty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A B C D E

Very favourableFavourableAverageUnfavourableVery unfavourable

0-6/1010/10

Average score by grade and time of entry to programme

Percentage of correct responses by question , time of entry to the programme and level of difficulty - easy questions

Percentage of correct responses by question , time of entry to the programme and level of difficulty - medium difficulty questions

Percentage of correct responses by question , time of entry to the programme and level of difficulty - hard questions

Conclusions from evaluation

“The data is consistent and very robust. There are differences between children who started the programme in March 2013 and July 2013 on both versions of the tests in all grades and in all social contexts. There are also marked differences in the test results in July and December, for the groups which began in July. All analyses were carried out excluding children who claim to study English outside of school. All differences are statistically significant”.

Claudia Brovetto, Plan Ceibal

External Evaluation November 2013

Looked atQuantitative Criteria

Qualitative Criteria

Quantitative:–No of students learning, increase in nos since pilot–No of CTs joining the project–Level of English reached by students–Level of English reached by class teachers

Qualitative•Feedback from RTs to Plan Ceibal – formal/informal•Reports from RT coordinators to BC•Reports from mentors on classroom visits•Informal feedback from CTs to Ceibal mentors•Informal feedback from CTs to LEP tutors•End of year feedback questionnaires (RTs and CTs)

Issues identified

1. CREA (LMS) – “the biggest single problem”

grouping

teachers don’t use forums

not designed with specific project needs in mind

2. CT Training and Support – “the importance of initial

training and ongoing support cannot be

underestimated”

more online training modules

increase number of mentors

3 Materials – “the lesson plans are carefully constructed and very detailed and there is a great wealth and variety of activities”•Too long

4Schools links •Originally envisaged for year three of project

Conclusion• We have come a long way

• You can teach English if even if you don’t know much more than the students

But

• The programme has to be tightly structured

• Materials need to be specially written

• Teacher motivation is essential

Thank you for listening!

paul.woods@britishcouncil.org

www.facebook.com/rphwoods

Twitter - @rphwoods

Uruguay.britishcouncil.org