Pathway Learning Pilot - Google and More

GBN LEARNING PILOT REPORT 2013

“Devices provide easy access to learning tools that we otherwise would not have and it also expands the different array of activities that we can do in class.” GBN Student

2012-2013 Pilot TeamPilot Teacher Team

Erin ArgyrosChristy BauerRobert BergEmily EllerAnnahi HartKristin OlsonBill Race

Professional Development Team

Stephanie Bitter, TrainerKelli Cohen, Tech AdvisorSue Eddington, LibrarianRobert Froehlich, Tech AdvisorJoan Gallagher-Bolos, Tech AdvisorKerry Galson, Tech AdvisorJustin Georgacakis, Tech AdvisorWilliam Horine, Tech AdvisorMindy Ingersoll, Tech AdvisorScott Knapp, Tech AdvisorSherri Koeppen, LibrarianKatie Jones, Tech AdvisorKatrina LeBlanc, Tech AdvisorAmanda Lazzaro, Tech AdvisorRobert Milkowski, Tech AdvisorAna Peso, LibrarianJonathan Sorkin, Tech AdvisorNicholas Timmer, Tech Advisor

Leadership Team

Ryan BretagChad DavidsonJohn FinanKris FrandsonKathy FrenchAnn KollerMary KosirogRobin Levine-WissingBob PieperPaul PrymaMichael RiggleMary RockrohrRobin SheperdEd SolisRosanne Williamson

Student Leadership Team

Steven DoolanJacob EliasArielle GoldmanChristian MerglAaron SchmidtSimone Shuman

The Pathway to Our Learning PilotOver the past four years, the focus of

technology has been woven into the school goals. In 2008, discussions centered on "What does it mean to be well-educated" and this affirmed thought, word, and deed as a continued focus. Because of this, a number of key experiences emerged in technology to support the efforts of critical thinking, literacy, and citizenship as well as the district focus of engagement.

Four Learning ExperiencesFrom these conversations, the notion of mobile

learning for teachers and a number of core experiences emerged that would support our core beliefs and school goals. These four experiences became our focus:

1. Blended Learning Experience 2. The Google Experience3. Connected Learning Experience4. Agency ExperienceTied to the ongoing focus of the school with

critical thinking, literacy, and citizenship, each of these items brought forth changes to our approach to learning.

With Blended Learning Experience, we embraced the idea of a digital space for our classrooms for efficiency, anytime learning, and resource access. For some, this space is Moodle. For others, different tools have served this purpose.

With the Google Experience, we focused on collaboration and communication tools that encouraged students to own their learning. From Google Docs to YouTube, these tools have emerged as foundational for many classrooms

while also serving students throughout their time at GBN.

Most importantly, the Google Experience has served our literacy, engagement, and critical thinking goals while also forming the building blocks of a digital citizen.

With Connected Learning, we focused on the idea of making thinking visible and creating production-centered experiences for students. Through various social media tools, the focus shifted from consumption for creation.

Finally, the idea of agency emerged and has been the most recent experience. It is here our focus has been on critical thinking, inquiry, and engagement through students participation and production of their own learning. From portfolios and blogs to project-based learning, students are leveraging digital tools to produce and enhance their experience.

Greater Need for AccessAs the four experiences became a reality in

more classrooms, one important aspect continued to emerge: a greater need for access to the technologies.

In order to address this, a number of options were explored: mobile carts, pockets of devices in the classroom, and lab increases.

While each of these brought us closer to the idea of just-in-time access to the tools that support learning, there continued to be a growing gap. It also became clear that we needed to address the idea of students that did not have the access to technologies outside of the school day.

In 2010-2011, iPads emerged and these became our first exploration into a device for

students. Through a variety of pilots, the device was determined valuable but not ideal for the four learning experiences we desired primarily in the area of Agency and the Google Experience.

In 2011-2012, we explored what other schools were doing in the area of one device per student (1:1). It is here that the idea of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) emerged: allowing students to bring their personal device and supplementing school devices for students that didn’t have one.

In the summer of 2012, we ran a pilot with two courses to determine the value of BYOD on learning and teaching. While the experience brought greater access, it also brought with it considerable challenges for both teachers and students: equity, efficiency, management, and common learning experiences.

In the fall of 2012, two devices emerged as exciting possibilities for our learning goals and at a palatable price point: Chromebook laptops and Nexus 7 tablets. Based upon the BYOD pilot experience and these emerging devices, we returned to the notion of 1:1.

Seven teachers and 150 students across five disciplines were selected to participate in a pilot that would determine the value of a standard device on the following:

- engagement- literacy- critical thinking and inquiry- information and resource access- citizenship

The following report represents the student and teacher experiences throughout the pilot.

GBN DIGITAL LEARNING PILOT REPORT

“We had what we needed right in front of us. It helped me stay organized, it was easy to use, and it was quicker to access and find information than without the device.” GBN Student

Pilot Study ApproachThe focus of this study was to examine the learning experience when digital devices are added for each student.

Research Questions

The following research question were the drivers for our pilot experience.

1. Identify the impact of a digital learning environment on instruction2. Explore differences in the classroom

experience with the shift to digital resources and applications - digital textbooks, online resources, Google tools, Internet, and social media 3. Explore the teaching and learning

experience shaped by the infusion of a standard device in the classroom4. Understand the impact of digital learning

on student engagement

Data Gathering

The following are the data gathering methods used to address the aforementioned research questions.

- Experience Sampling Method: Question One- Participant Observations: Questions Two-Four- Successive Sample Surveys of Students and Teachers: Questions Three-Four- Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups: Questions One, Two, and Four

Approach

Experience Sampling MethodApproach: students are notified on their devices that they are to take a quick Google Form snapshot of their current experiences.Baseline Frequency: 4 times a period call upon 5 random students (each course in the pilot)Baseline Duration: one week of gatheringPilot Frequency: 3 times a day call upon 5 random studentsPilot Duration: one week of gathering

Participant Observations:The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Model (SAMR)Frequency: 1-2 a week per classroomApproach: Google form that notes a) what are students doing b) is the technology in use c) if no, could it be and how d) if yes, what is it and at what level of SAMR e) why the SAMR ranking

Participant Observations: Field JournalsFrequency: once a week for 1/2 to full class periodApproach: unstructured field notes from a non-participant perspective.

Semi-Structured Interviews & Focus GroupsFrequency: speak with two students per class visit and the teacher, meet weekly with student leadership team, and meet twice a month with pilot teamApproach: semi-structured interviews with consistent focus group questions

SurveyFrequency: two surveys (middle and end)Approach: Common questions developed in partnership with GBS with individual focus on school goals. At GBN, the focus is on literacy, critical thinking, and the following four experiences: Blended Learning Experience, Google Experience. Networked Public Experience, and Agency Experience.



ENG

AGEM

ENT

EXPE

RIEN

CE

“I loved that fact that leaning could be more interactive and it encouraged us to think and use our brains not only for the skill we were leaning in class but learning experiences as well. This helped to keep us engaged.” GBN Student

Students functioned within a blended environment that utilized the tools that were best suited for the learning NOT tech for tech sake. When asked about their experiences, students spoke about the increase in choice and empowerment with their work.

Our ongoing focus during the pilot was the impact of a 1:1 learning environment on engagement.

The Experience Sampling Method focuses on engagement from the idea of Flow, a research-based, “theoretical perspective of student learning that integrates cognition, motivation, and emotion” (Whitson and Consoli).

Csikszentmihalyi (2000), the founding research behind Flow Theory, focuses on eight characteristics that influence engagement:

1. Challenging activity that requires skills2. Merging of action and awareness3. Clear goals and feedback4. Concentration on the task at hand 5. Paradox of control6. Loss of self-consciousness7. Transformation of time8. Enjoyment in the process

According to Csikszentmihalyi (2000), this

“I liked that it made class more individual. It gave everyone a quick and easy access to the Internet resources just when we needed it instead of waiting to gain access in a lab or waiting for the teacher to tell us.” GBN Student

translates into clarity, centering, choice, commitment, and challenge. These items became the basis of measuring engagement during the pilot.


EN

GAG

EMEN

T EXPERIEN

CE

CATEGORY +/- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE AND PILOT

Were you engaged? 20% increase

Did you enjoy it? 15% increase

Was it interesting? 10% increase

How challenging was it? 3% decrease

How skilled were you at it? 16% increase

Was it important to your future? 4% decrease

Were you learning anything or getting better at something? 9% increase

Did you feel nervous? 2% increase

How well were you concentrating? 5% increase

Did you have a choice in picking this activity? 6% increase

Experience Sampling Results

Most Engaging Activities

Process1. Students “paged” at random

times during class and asked “what is the main activity you are doing right now” and “what are you thinking about”.

2. Students are then asked to score the 10 questions on the right using a likert-scale.

3. This was done as a baseline prior to the infusion of the technology and during the infusion. Results were then compared as noted here.

4. The results were also color coded to determine connections between higher engagement scores and specific instructional strategies as noted here.

Least Engaging Activities• Collaboration• Discussions• Project-Based Work

* These results are consistent with the HSSSE data points.

* * despite the above ranking higher for engagement based upon this methodology, there were still a number of students that rated these low.

• Lectures• Question and Answer• Worksheets

* These results are consistent with the HSSSE data points.

* * despite the above ranking lower for engagement based upon this methodology, there were still a number of students that rated these high especially when combined with higher engagement activities such as lecture combined with discussion time.

“I liked that I had access to an abundance of information and it made life easier and better because I had access to online experiences/practices all that time.” GBN Student


TEAC

HER E

XPERIENC

E

“A 1:1 environment gives students the ability to research, create, solve problems and collaborate in ways that they couldn’t before. We were experimenting and learning with the kids. That created a whole new level of education for the kids, too.” GBN Teacher

Almost all pilot teachers spoke about an increase in positive collaboration. For some classes, this made collaboration possible that was not prior to the technology. For others, it enhanced collaboration. Students spoke about their ability to collaborate together but still work independently because of the devices and Google Apps suite of tools

As part of the pilot experience, we wanted to focus on meaningful uses of technology that made a difference in learning. In order to measure this, we used the SAMR observation instrument.

Using the SAMR model developed by Dr. Rueben Puentedura, we framed our discussions around the following questions when determining the value of technology infusion:1. Does it make learning more efficient/easier?

[Enhancement]2. Does it alter a past learning experience for the

better? [Enhancement or Transformative]3. Does it create a meaningful learning experience not

otherwise possible? [Transformative]

Throughout the pilot, we met frequently to document the learning and teaching perspective of the teachers. At the end, we surveyed our teachers.

These items became the basis for measuring the impact of 1:1 on teaching as well as triangulating ourengagement results.

SAMR Model of Technology Integration

Another aspect that both teachers and students discussed was the increased sense of community. Students spoke about the sharing of creations, ideas, and resources. The built-in discussion features on all Google tools made peer-to-peer feedback a natural part of the classroom experience.


TEAC

HER

EXP

ERIE

NC

E

15%

44%

34%

7%

Redefinition ModificationAugmentation Substitution

27%

73%

Technology in UseNo Technology in Use

SAMR Model of Technology Integration Process1. Each classroom observed an

average of twice a week using the SAMR observation instrument.

2. Observer would document whether the classroom was using the devices or not. More than 1/2 of the students using the device constituted “technology in use”

3. If technology was in use, observer would document which level of integration was afforded by the technology.

4. The observer would document a rationale for said placement

5. If technology was not in use, the observer would document whether or not it could be and on which level. These were shared with the teachers as part of continued professional development.

Of the 27% of the time when no technology was in use,

nearly 70% of the time there was no reason to be using technology. In

other words, use would have been tech for tech sake.

Of the 44% of the time technology was used at the

Augmentation level, the majority of the time this efficiency reduced the need for teacher-

centered activities thereby increasing student-centered experiences.

Of the 7% of the time technology was used at the

Redefinition level, the majority of these items occurred at the latter stages of the

pilot. This could indicate that as comfort grew with the technology so did

transformative uses.


TEAC

HER

EXP

ERIE

NC

E

60%

40%

Benefit to Engagement

Great Deal Quite a Bit

40%

60%

Benefit to Literacy

Quite a Bit Somewhat

Teacher Survey and Discussion Data Process1. Pilot teachers met every other

week during the pilot to review what is working, what opportunities exist, and what lessons learned others could utilize

2. These observations were recorded

3. Extended classroom visits occurred to document in field journal non-participant observations and informal discussions

4. A survey was provided at the end of the pilot to capture data aligned with the pilot goals.

80%

20%

Benefit to Learning


20%

40%

40%

Distraction as an Issue

Very Little SomewhatQuite a Bit

20%

80%

1:1 Teacher Expecations

Exceeds Far Exceeds

100%

Position on Going 1:1

Strongly Favor

100% of the Pilot teachers preferred the Chromebooks over Nexus tablets or reviewing other devices

(Before & After Pilot)

“Learning tends to be more fluid. It made the learning experience more enjoyable and we had access to better resources including more time with the teacher and others.” GBN Student


STU

DEN

T EX

PERI

ENC

E The student experience was critical through this pilot experience. From the experience sampling method to ongoing discussions during classroom visits, the insights of students shaped both the direction of the pilot as well as the direction post-pilot.

As part of the pilot, the following mechanisms were used to capture student experience data:

1. Focus group discussions2. Whole class discussions3. Survey data at the mid-point and end of the

pilot4. Field notes based upon classroom

observations

“I liked that it made class more

individual.” GBN Student

“The Chromebooks helped us to work together to become more independent learners. I enjoyed the ability to have connections as well as access to resources.” GBN Student

“I liked that we could work on our own and at our own pace. When we needed help, we could ask the teacher or a peer.” GBN Student


2%

30%

2%

40%

26%

Different Learning Experience

Great Deal Quite a BitVery Little SomewhatNot at All

45%

12%5%

36%

2%

Connect to More Resources & Content

Not at All Quite a BitVery Little SomewhatA Great Deal

Student Survey and Observation Data

5%11%

22%

39%

23%

Benefit to Learning

Great Deal Quite a BitSomewhat Very LittleNot at All

13%

21%

19%

32%

15%

Distraction as an Issue

Very Little SomewhatQuite a Bit Not at AllA Great Deal

11%

15%

48%

26%

1:1 Student Expecations

MeetsExceedsFar ExceedsMeets Some

5%5%

20%

29%

41%

Position on Going 1:1

Strongly FavorSomewhat FavorNeutralSomewhat OpposeStrongly Oppose

65% of the Pilot students preferred the Chromebooks over the Nexus tablets (24%) or Reviewing Other Devices (11%).

STU

DEN

T EX

PERI

ENC

E

91% felt the Chromebooks were “Easy” to “Very Easy” to use.

(Before & After Pilot)

“It allowed for us to learn wherever and whenever we wanted. I liked that this allowed us to be more efficient than going to labs.” GBN Student

These items were put in place to understand how best to provide professional development for a 1:1 experience. The results will influence our professional development during the expanded pilot.Personalized P.D. PlanIn order to maximize each person's time and to develop the best possible plan, our core PD focus was on the development of personalized PD experiences.

These personalized PD experiences were supported directly by the following people:• Coordinator• Cross-Discipline Tech Advisor• Discipline Specific Tech Advisor• Librarian• Student Leader• Tech Trainer

These plans were built after visits from Google and site visits to 1:1 schools.

Just-in-Time ExperiencesDuring the pilot, just-in-time learning opportunities emerged based upon SAMR observations and interest from teachers. This included a book of ideas based upon their Personalized PD Plans.

Whole-Group ExperiencesThese experiences were done in cohort fashion to grow our knowledge and skills.

Google Apps Team On-SIte PD: Google helped us to collectively explore a wealth of Google tools that can be used regardless of discipline. The target was to focus on 1-2 ideas for the pilot while also growing in familiarity with the devices.

School Site Visits: Each member visited a school already implementing 1:1. They spent time in classrooms within his or her discipline garnering 1-2 ideas for the pilot implementation and understanding the devices to a greater degree.

1:1 Management Strategies: We met as a collective group to explore classroom management strategies, distraction strategies, and logistics review

IDEA-Thons: We met every other week as a cohort to share ideas and experiences. These informal gatherings served to continue growing ideas rooted in solid pedagogy.

Professional Development Approach


20%

80%

Benefit of Personalied PD Plan


60% 20%

20%

Benefit of Cohort Meetings

Quite a BitSomewhatA Great Deal

Tips from the Pilot Teachers

Don’t be afraid to try something new.

Ask students for help

& what they’ve discovered

Find a department

member to develop activities

Be Open-Minded


PRO

FESS

ION

AL D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

“It is time for the students in D225 to have a device. It will enable them to better connect to the outside world, to research, find problems, and solve problems. It will give them more opportunities to create and collaborate.” GBN Teacher

The Personalized PD Plans were the foundational steps for our steps into 1:1 learning. At our late arrival day, we began this process by completing our interest inventories.

The following represents a snapshot of the preferred approaches that have emerged from this inventory and where we will begin to place our focus on how to provide the best PD for each teacher.

Top Three Preferred Formats1. Small Group2. Department-Based,3. One on One

Top Three Preferred Times1. Late arrivals2. Lunch periods3. Summer

0

37.5

75

112.5

150

Small Group Online Large Group One on One Department-Based Cross-Department

Preferred Maybe Not Preferred


PRO

FESS

ION

AL D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

0

37.5

75

112.5

150

Summer Before School After School Lunch Periods Late Arrivals

I would definitely attend I might attend I would never attend

AREA OF HIGH INTEREST % QUITE A BIT TO A GREAT DEAL

Formative Assessment 50%

Collaboration 74%

Communication 64%

Literacy 51%

Critical Thinking 76%

Project-Based Learning 64%

Inquiry-Based Learning 64%

Engagement 75%

Portfolios 50%

Learning Spaces 55%

Content Delivery 52%

Discussions 58%

AREA OF INTEREST % SOMEWHAT INTERESTED % VERY INTERESTED

Google Calendar 43% 21%

Google Docs & Spreadsheets 23% 65%

Google Presentations 20% 65%

Blogger 37% 21%

Google Chat 33% 55%

Google Forms 24% 65%

Google Drive 21% 65%

Gmail 30% 40%

Google Groups 28% 55%

Google+ 18% 56%

Google Hangouts 23% 38%

Google Sites 27% 48%

YouTube 35% 45%

Google Maps 35% 33%

LMS (Moodle, Open Class) 27% 40%

Social Media 35% 30%

Chrome, Apps, & Extensions 31% 45%

The table below represents areas of high interest instructionally (over 50%). The table to the left represents areas of interest identified as somewhat or very interest. Please note that these are areas of interest NOT necessarily areas of needs. The bottom graph depicts the best times for PD as indicated by faculty.


DEVI

CE

EXPE

RIEN

CE

“The Chromebook provides an easier transition into a 1:1 learning environment, but we need to realize that the best device for our students may change as the devices change.” GBN Teacher

Device selection is a fluid process. At this point, the Chromebooks emerged as the best device to meet our goals with learning and teaching: critical thinking, engagement, and literacy. These devices also best serve our school-wide focus on the technology experiences that assist us with our learning and teaching goals: 1. Blended Learning Experience2. Google Experience3. Connected/Network Learning

Experience4. Agency Experience

One of the most important aspects to understand is that the device is a fluid choice in our environment. As new devices emerge that better serve to meet our learning and teaching goals, we will evaluate. This ongoing review of the devices reinforces that we are not embarking upon a Chromebook journey but a 1:1 learning environment journey.

Non-Learning Advantages of Chromebooks

• Battery Life of nearly 7 hours• Power-on to full usability in 10

seconds• Cloud-based so nothing is lost if

something goes wrong with the machine

• Students can access Chromebook experience across all devices if needed

• Cloud-based updating so the machine is constantly evolving - no reimaging needed

• School filter goes with the device regardless of location

• Ever evolving suite of apps both from Google as well as other vendors

• Sign-in is tied to Google login so no need for multiple logins

• Hold Power down for 30 second to refresh the system - the solution to almost all technical problems

• Growing list of 3rd Party applications beneficial to management, instruction, and user experience

• Apps and tools can be sent directly to students

• Built-in security and management


1:1 is quickly emerging around Glenbrook North as the norm both with our feeder districts and neighboring districts. This trend is also consistent nationally where districts are exploring various means for 1:1 including bring your own device.

While tablets are the most common device selection currently, Chromebooks are an emerging choice that many districts are exploring as the tool that best supports their learning goals.

Snapshot of Chromebook 1:1 Schools

Maine High School DistrictLeyden High School DistrictFond du Lac School DistrictRichland School DistrictCouncil Bluff School District

Presently, a number of other districts are exploring 1:1 with Chromebooks leading the way as the device of choice.

DEVIC

E EXPERIEN

CE

FEEDER DISTRICTS DEVICE SELECTION FOR 1:1

District 27 Laptops

District 31 iPad Mini

District 28 No Device Selection at this Time

District 34 iPads

District 30 iPads

GLENBROOK NORTH HIGH SCHOOLis a learning community dedicated to students

and committed to quality of thought, word, and deed“We Educate for Living”

Documents

Pathway Learning Pilot - Google and More