AECT: New Paradigm Schools

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


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


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



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


Education

AECT: New Paradigm Schools