2007-2008 EETT Grant Proposal
From Shifted Learning
| Image:Environment.png | Before printing this or other documents, please consider the impact on the environment. |
[edit] Midpoint and Final Performance Report
FY2007 EETT Midpoint and Final Performance Report
[edit] Introduction and Background
The Networking Exemplary Teachers & Technology (NExTT) consortium has a rich history of improving teacher and student learning with technology as a result of five consecutive No Child Left Behind Title IID Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) projects. Prior to 2005-2006, efforts were focused on initiatives supporting the integration of technology into Math and Language Arts. As teachers made connections between research-based models such as 6 + 1 Traits Writing and technology, districts began collecting student artifacts and incorporating them into electronic portfolios. Our 2005-2006 efforts built upon the collection of student projects along with aligning these initiatives to the Wisconsin Information and Technology Literacy Standards (ITLS). To target the 8th grade literacy requirement, participating districts focused on understanding, aligning, and benchmarking standards.
Continual review, understanding, and education regarding the ITLS continued in our 2006-2007 project, though increased focus was put upon developing quality student projects and assessments. Participants identified and collected “transformative” examples of teaching and learning with technology. This project utilized national educational technology assessment expert Bernajean Porter and her tools to assess student projects (Porter, 2001 & 2004). Participants worked with Bernajean to practice identifying the differences between literacy, adapting, and transformative student products. A target group was tasked with developing, implementing, and analyzing projects in the classroom. For the first time in our consortium’s history teachers gathered at the conclusion of the grant to present student projects, reflect on their learning, and discuss the impact on student learning.
[edit] Overview of 2007-2008 Proposal
The 2007-2008 EETT proposal will focus on extending, reframing, and refining the direction established in previous initiatives. We plan to recruit teams of classroom teachers, library media specialists, and administrators to develop a cross-curricular, school-wide project that celebrates their local community. Teams will tap into emerging technologies, primarily around podcasting, to engage students in writing, researching, and communicating the story of their community. Modeled after Tony Vincent’s Our City Podcast (http://www.learninginhand.com/ourcity), students will participate in critical thinking/problem solving, communication, creativity, collaboration, information/media literacy, and contextual learning skills from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills model (http://www.21stcenturyskills.com). Teacher learning will focus on developing quality assessments at the start of the project, the intent being to develop solid expectations and move from technology literacy to transformative applications of technology (Porter, 2001).
Moving from instructional planning (i.e. standards alignment, developing lesson plans, learning strategies) to assessment of student work was among our key successes this past year. Teachers, administrators, community, and policy makers need to see what effective technology use “looks like”. We have the opportunity to use available technology to extend student learning and engage their communities.
Our consortium members recognize our state’s recent formal commitment to working with the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. While we realize this model does not replace the ITLS, consortium leaders are excited with this more holistic model that helps us identify and communicate what skills are necessary for our students. Our schools have already begun building initiatives around this model. This proposal stems largely from ideas published by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the organization’s president Ken Kay (Kay, 2007).
Assessment of our past project indicates we need to narrow the scope of possible project ideas. Our previous EETT project allowed teachers to create their own projects to fit their curricula. In an effort to be more consistent, we plan to implement a common project among consortium members with this next proposal.
[edit] Section #1: Description of Need
Student Technology Literacy, Wisconsin Model Academic Standards, and 21st Century Skills: No Child Left Behind asks schools to assess and provide data regarding technology literacy at the 8th grade level. Beginning in 2006-2007, our consortium began using the TechPoints Assessment from Learning Points Associates to collect and report this data (Appendix I). We intend to follow-up this survey with another round of assessments in 2007-2008 for planning and reporting purposes.
A major focus of past initiatives has been understanding, aligning, and benchmarking Wisconsin Model Academic Standards and Information Technology Literacy Standards. As we transition towards evaluating student work with technology, we intend to continue revisiting the WMAS, ITLS, and look forward to introducing the 21st Century Skills initiative to ensure our students meet and exceed these standards.
Our consortium recognizes the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s recent formal commitment to working with the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. We strongly agree that understanding this initiative will be critical to our member districts’ school improvement planning efforts over the next decade.
Implementing this model project where students create a podcast celebrating their community incorporates critical thinking, problem solving, information literacy, and collaboration skills. With project-based learning, students and teachers will practice the skills necessary to be successful 21st century learners.
Aligning our information and technology literacy efforts with a larger, more comprehensive state initiative positions us to partner with the broader efforts of organizations such as Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) and Wisconsin Association of Career and Technical Education (WACTE). Materials provided by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills were invaluable in shaping our future direction as our grant planners assessed our needs for this project.
Engaging Communities and Economic Realities: With this project schools will proactively engage their community and demonstrate how technology can be used, hopefully leading to further opportunities for dialog between schools and community partners.
The districts participating in our consortium are among the state’s most impoverished communities. Seven of the thirteen LEAs in our consortium are identified as “high-need local educational agencies”. Faced with declining enrollments and funding, many districts have (or will be) asking their communities to support referendums. The crux of this grant proposal involves teachers and students proactively engaging the community in celebrating their community. Creating relationships between school and community through technology will be a positive step towards building commitment for future referenda. Publishing these projects on the Internet will also put a global face on what southwestern Wisconsin communities have to offer.
Our primary source for needs assessment data stems from our consortium’s ongoing participation in enGauge. Two of the thirty-five indicators measured in the enGauge assessment are directly related to community connections.
Systems: Community
Community Connections
Do formal technology-related structures and processes engage parents, community members, school faculty, and learners in meaningful exchanges, interactions and partnerships that advance the vision?
Vision: Community
Community Linkages
Does the vision recognize the linkages that technology has created to local and global communities as critical partners and stakeholders in the teaching and learning process? Does it capitalize on the potential benefits from and contributions to both the learners and the community?
The following table provides data to show how these community-related indicators scored for consortium districts.
Darlington Black Hawk Seneca CESA #3 River Ridge Systems: Community 35 of 35 29 of 35 35 of 35 30 of 35 33 of 35 Vision: Community 29 of 35 22 of 35 25 of 35 32 of 35 23 of 35
Community-related indicators consistently rank among the lowest across our consortium. Schools are having significant difficulty finding meaningful ways to engage their communities. Among the recommendations from enGauge to advance community connections: Districts should conduct local and global environmental scans to highlight highly successful high-tech partnerships among schools, community, and business and industry. The findings should be analyzed to determine which models have the potential to advance the vision. The district should then grow these models into large-scale programs that reach more participants. Formalizing the processes maintains vibrancy, high levels of participation, and quality results that are valued by all partners.
Improving Instructional Practices: The final portion of our needs assessment comes from two data sources: qualitative data collected during our 2006-2007 EETT project and Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) data collected during the 2006-2007 school year.
Our previous EETT projects trained teachers to use assessment strategies, tools, and materials from Bernajean Porter’s Evaluating Digital Products. These assessment tools drive the instruction and move both the content and design of final student products towards “transformative” uses of technology (Porter, 2001). While we practiced using these scoring guides in our professional development, it was clear during our culminating activity that assessment design was largely an afterthought. Few teachers were clear on the Types of Communication (a major component to the assessment) (Appendix C) their projects intended to address. In retrospect, we allowed teachers to design their projects using traditional methods rather than keeping this critical assessment component up front in their planning. Our plan for the next initiative is focused on collaboratively building assessments, planning instructional strategies, and producing the final product. Teachers will be practicing the same critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and teamwork skills we expect from our students with the 21st Century Skills model.
In 2006-2007, 368 consortium educators participated in the LoTi survey. (Report available at http://www.itasc.org/loti.pdf.) 84% of surveyed educators scored at a LoTi 3 or below, indicating that a majority use technology solely for purposes of personal productivity, student technology projects, or tools for research and data gathering. Only 21 of 368 (6%) educators scored at or above the LoTi 4b “target” level. A LoTi level 5 description reads, “Teachers actively elicit technology from outside entities to expand student experiences directed at problem-solving, issues resolution, and student action”. A specific focus on assessment will help our teachers improve instructional practices.
Summary: Our districts have committed to gathering and analyzing needs assessment data through initiatives including LoTi and enGauge. We mixed this quantitative data with qualitative feedback from previous projects and educational technology research. The result is a project proposal that a) assesses student literacy and builds awareness of the 21st century skills necessary for successful learning in the digital age, b) incorporates and celebrates community connections with technology, and c) provides high quality professional development on improving instructional practices around assessment.
[edit] Section #2: Planning and Partnership
[edit] Partnerships
Consortium members have a long-standing commitment to working together over the past nine years on federal, state, and locally funded educational technology initiatives. While many involve grant funding, the districts of our consortium also purchase additional educational technology services through CESA #3. Our ability to network both schools and programs allows us to build upon our past success and provide continuity from year to year. The consortium includes two private school partnerships directly involved in project design and implementation. Our planning network also includes higher education institutions (Southwest Wisconsin Technical College, University of Wisconsin Platteville, Viterbo University), CESA #3 Instructional Services Standards and Assessment Department, CESA #3 School to Work Department, and cooperation from various state and national educational technology leaders.
[edit] Planning Process
An advisory committee was formed to review the request for proposals and provide key advice in planning this upcoming project. Participant feedback gathered through previous grant initiatives played a critical role in building this proposal. Planning activities accomplished by district technology committees were also taken into account. The advisory committee met as a group, spent time reviewing research, gathered needs assessment data via enGauge and LoTi, and dialogued with consultants and organizations. A major component to our planning involved understanding the Partnership for 21st Century Skills initiative (Kay, 2007). Key influencers included:
Ken Kay, President of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills
Dr. Chris Moersch, National School Business Alliance
Bernajean Porter, Bernajean Porter Consulting
Tony Vincent, Educational Technology Consultant
Cindy Nankee, Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative Consultant
Naomi Harm, CESA #4 Educational Technology Services Director
Darla Burton, CESA #3 School to Work Program
Terri Iverson, CESA #3 Director of Instructional Technology
John Pederson, CESA #3 Curriculum & Technology Coordinator
Looking forward, CESA #3 is partnering with local educators, business, industry, and governmental organizations to bring nationally recognized educational reform expert Willard Daggett to southwestern Wisconsin on October 9, 2007 to speak on topics such as Rigor & Relevance and 21st Century Learning. This ongoing conversation between organizations in southwest Wisconsin shows our commitment towards the initiatives described by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. We will be encouraging grant participants to attend this exciting event for our community.
[edit] Section #3: Project Goals and Objectives
Based on our needs assessment, consortium partners established the following goals and objectives for the 2007-2008 EETT grant proposal. These goals align with Wisconsin’s EETT goals and provide an outline of how we will 1) collect and analyze student technology literacy data in relation to 21st century skills for students, 2) engage our communities with a student generated podcast celebrating their local community, and 3) improve instructional practice by providing high quality professional development around assessment of student work.
[edit] Goal #1 Student Technology Literacy, Wisconsin Model Academic Standards, and 21st Century Skills
Consortium members will collect and analyze data regarding student technology literacy and compare that against what it means to be a 21st century learner according to materials provided by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
| Identified Needs | Objectives |
| Tech Literacy, WMAS, 21st Century: Districts need to document student achievement regarding technology literacy. Ongoing professional development regarding ITLS needs to continue as we build awareness regarding the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. | 1a: All 8th grade students in consortium districts will participate in TechPoints Information Literacy Assessment for a second year to gather data for reporting and planning purposes.
1b: All collaborative teams will receive materials, professional development, and reflect upon what it means to be a 21st century learner according to the information provided by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. |
[edit] Goal #2 Community Engagement
Collaborative teams, including students, will use this project as an opportunity to engage their local communities using technology.
| Identified Needs | Objectives |
| Community Engagement
EnGauge data show that our schools struggle to find ways to blend technology and community connections. Economic realities cause us to look for ways to engage our local communities. | 2a: All collaborative teams, including students, will identify ways to incorporate community members outside of their school into their project design. (e.g. civic leaders, business people, public libraries)
2b: All collaborative teams, including students, will share final project online and with community. (e.g. presentation to community group, posted online for community, sharing with other districts) |
[edit] Goal #3 Improving Instructional Practices
Consortium members will use emerging technologies and research based assessment practices to create and disseminate student-generated digital products that go beyond the literacy/adapting uses and get to transformative examples of technology integration.
| Identified Needs | Objectives |
| Improving Instructional Practice
Teams of classroom teachers, library media specialists, and administrators need professional development around assessing student digital products to improve instruction. | 3a: All collaborative teams (40 people) will participate in a two-day assessment and project design seminar with Bernajean Porter.
3b: All collaborative teams will implement and assess projects to determine whether they reached a “transformative” level defined by scoring guides. Progress checks, reflections, and dissemination occur twice during implementation. 3c: All collaborative teams will participate in final dissemination/celebration and will use scoring guides to collect data regarding our progress towards “transformative”. All 13 projects will be at transformative level. 3d: All educators provide professional reflections on classroom assignments and student work samples online and at designated events. |
[edit] Section #4: Implementation, Funding, and Budget
[edit] Goal #1: Student Technology Literacy, Wisconsin Model Academic Standards, and 21st Century Skills
Consortium members will collect and analyze data regarding student technology literacy and compare that against what it means to be a 21st century learner according to materials provided by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Objective #1a: All 8th grade students in consortium districts will participate in TechPoints Information Literacy Assessment for a second year to gather data for reporting and planning purposes
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Consortium 8th grade students will take the TechPoints Literacy Assessment | Project manager, district team leader | September 2007 – November 2007 | Completed assessment, compiled data, information disseminated to district leaders for planning and compliance reporting | A.1 | (P) 8, 9 (N) B.1,3 |
Objective #1b: All collaborative teams will receive materials, professional development, and reflect upon what it means to be a 21st century learner according to the information provided by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Distribute materials regarding Partnership for 21st Century Skills | Project manager | August 2007 | Resource checklist | A.1 | (P) 2,3 (N) B.2,3,5,6, C.1 |
| Presentation at regional cluster days about “21st century learners” | Project manager | January 2008 – March 2008 | Teachers will reflect online and in face-to-face discussions about what it means to teach 21st century learners | A.1 | (P) 2,3 (N) B.2,3,5,6, C.1 |
[edit] Goal #2: Community Engagement
Collaborative teams, including students, will use this project as an opportunity to engage their local communities using technology.
Objective #2a: All collaborative teams, including students, will identify ways to incorporate community members outside of their school into their project design.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Teachers and students will identify community voices to include in the final podcast celebrating “Our City” | Students will engage community members through audio/video interviews | August 2007 | Inclusion in project plan, checklists during the midpoint evaluation seminars | A.2 | (P) 1,2,7,10, (N) A.1,3, C.3 |
| Community members are involved in final product. | Teachers and students | April 2008 | District teams will use checklists to identify community members involved | A.2 | (P) 1,10 (N) C.3 |
Objective #2b: All collaborative teams, including students, will share final project online and with community (e.g. presentation to community group, posted online for community, sharing with other districts)
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Final projects are posted online for dissemination | Project manager and district team | March 2008 – April 2008 | Checklist Intended targets – teachers, parents, community | A.1, A.1.2 | (P) 6,10 (N) C.3 |
| Project information is publicized regionally | Project manager, teachers, and students | April 2008 | Inclusion in CESA #3 newsletter and website. Publicized statewide | A.1, A.2, A.5, C.1 | (P) 10 C.3 |
| Teacher teams will share their “community impact” stories during final dissemination activity | Teachers and students | April 2008 | Teacher and/or student audio/video reflections, debriefing reflections at culminating activity | A.1, A.2, A.5 | (P) 6,9,10 (N) C.3 |
[edit] Goal #3: Improving Instructional Practices
Consortium members will use emerging technologies and research based assessment practices to create and disseminate student-generated digital products that go beyond the literacy/adapting uses and get to transformative examples of technology integration.
Objective #3a: All collaborative teams (40 people) will participate in a two-day assessment and project design seminar with Bernajean Porter.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Select team members from districts | Project manager and district team leader | June-July 2007 | Team roster submitted to project manager | A.1 | (P) 10 (N) A.3 |
| Implement two-day project design seminar. Teachers receive tools and training | Project manager and Bernajean Porter | August 15 & 16 2007 | Attendance, project assessment designed and submitted, seminar evaluation | A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 | (P) 1,4,9,10 (N) A.1,3, B.2,4,5,6, C.2 |
| Districts bring exemplary examples of student projects for baseline data | Project manager, district team leader, teams | August 2007 | Projects scored by evaluation team using Bernajean Porter’s Scoring Guides to gather baseline data | A.1, A.1.2, A.1.3, A.2 | (P) 9,10, (N) B.1,2m C.2 |
Objective #3b: All collaborative teams will implement and assess projects to determine whether they reached a “transformative” level defined by scoring guides. Progress checks, reflections, and dissemination occur twice during implementation.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Implement midpoint seminar. Further assessment and tools training | Project manager, all district teams | November 2007 | Attendance, midpoint reflections, seminar evaluation | A.1, A.1.2, A.2, A.3, A.4 | (P) 1,4,9,10, (N) A.1,3, B.2,4,5,6, C.2 |
| Implement regional cluster seminar for teams to work together locally. Continued tools training | Project manager, district team leader, district teams | January 2008 | Attendance, progress reflections, final project readiness check | A.1, A.1.2, A.2, A.3, A.4 | (P) 1,4,9,10, (N) A.1,3, B.2,4,5,6, C.2 |
Objective #3c: All collaborative teams will participate in final dissemination/celebration and will use scoring guides to collect data regarding our progress towards “transformative”. All 13 projects will be at transformative level.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Implement final dissemination and celebration seminar | Project manager, district teams | April 2008 | Attendance, summative reflections from teachers | A.1, A.1.2, A.1.1, A.2, A.3, A.3.1, A.4., A.4.1 | (P) 1,4,9,10, (N) A.1,3, B.2,4,5,6, C.2 |
| Pairs of teachers will score the final projects during the final dissemination seminar | District teams | April 2008 | Team Summary Conclusion Rubric | A.1, A.1.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 | (P) 4,9,10, (N) B.1,2,3,6, C.2 |
| Pairs will group with two other pairs to provide a group meta summary evaluation | District teams | April 2008 | Group Meta Summary Conclusion Rubric | A.1, A.1.1, A.1.2, A.2, A.3, A.4 | 4,9,10, (N) B.1,2,3,6, C.2 |
| Grant evaluation team will correlate baseline and final data | Project manager, evaluation team | May 2008 | Group Meta Summary Conclusion Rubric | A.1, A.1.1, A.1.2,, A.2.1 | (P) 9,10, (N) B.1,2,3,6, C.2 |
Objective #3d: All educators provide professional reflections on classroom assignments and student work samples online and at designated events.
| Implementation Strategy | Responsibility | Timeline | Evaluation Tool | Budget | Standards |
| Teachers provide an audio and/or video reflection for final project | Teachers | Ongoing | Teacher reflections will be posted along with final project | A.1, B.1, B.2 | (P) 6,9,10, (N) A.3, C.2 |
| All project participants will use online tools to share, reflect, and disseminate information | All project participants | Ongoing | Participation online | A.1, A.1.2, A.5, B.1, B.2 | (P) 6,9,10, (N) A.3, C.2,3 |
[edit] Budget and Funding Strategies
There's a chart in the original grant. It needs to be rebuilt here.
[edit] Program Evaluation, Design, and Dissemination
This proposal is designed to increase student success by tapping into emerging technologies, implementing project-based learning opportunities, and focusing instructional design on quality assessment practices. Our consortium has a three-year history of working with Bernajean Porter around her work on assessment of student digital projects. In 2004, our consortium licensed these scoring guides and related materials (Porter, 2001). Our subsequent grant projects have provided teachers instruction and practice using these tools and assessments.
[edit] Project Evaluation Plan
Our project evaluation plan relies heavily upon the research-based process detailed in Bernajean Porter’s Evaluating Student Products (Porter, 2001). Projects are designed with assessment driving the learning. Teams will determine the type and mode of communication, essential questions, and strategies to implement these projects. Student work samples will be assessed according to the evaluation management plan (see below). Teacher reflection throughout the project will help guide our understanding of the success of this project.
Image:Project Design Logic Map.png
[edit] Evaluation Management Plan
Our consortium will utilize an evaluation team tasked with implementing the various assessment, evaluation, and accountability measures. This team, under the direction of Bernajean Porter and the grant project manager, consists of CESA instructional technology staff and district curriculum/technology leaders. Using the research-based process outlined in Evaluating Digital Products (Porter, 2001) the team will collect student products from each participating district. These products will be scored by the evaluation team using the Team Meta-Summary Conclusion Rubric (Appendix E) and Group Meta Summary Conclusion Rubric (Appendix F). This will serve as baseline data for final evaluation purposes.
Because implementing these types of cross curricular, collaborative projects is extremely time intensive, midpoint data collection will focus primarily on qualitative teacher reflection and two midpoint check-ins November 2007 and in January 2008.
During our final dissemination activity in April 2008, pairs of teachers will use the Team Meta-Summary Conclusion Rubric (Appendix E) to score three of the thirteen final projects. They will then group with two additional pairs of teachers, discuss their findings, and use the Group Meta-Summary Conclusion Rubric (Appendix F) to provide a final project assessment. The project manger will correlate baseline data with final project data and make conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the overall project. Summary reports will be disseminated to all participants, district leaders, and others interested in replicating our model.
[edit] Dissemination Plan
Selected consortium teams will work with the grant project manager to present sessions at regional/state sponsored dissemination programs. We are excited to share our work aligning EETT projects with the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the research-based assessment protocols from Bernajean Porter.
Each project involves a presentation component where students are encouraged to present their project to local community members. Each of the final projects celebrating local communities will be available on the iTASC website at http://www.itasc.org for students, teachers, and community.
[edit] Appendix
[edit] Supportive Research Bibliography
[edit] Wisconsin Teacher Standards
[edit] Wisconsin Administrator Standards
[edit] National Staff Development Council Standards
(link to original grant appendix here)
