Administrator 2.0

By Tammy StephensLast week the Stephens Group finished baseline reports for five EETT evaluations involving 25 schooldistricts, 315 teachers, 52 library media specialists, 77 teachers and 12,708 students.One of the things I have been busy doing the last couple of months is traveling around and working withadministrators to help us gather data by conducting walk-throughs in their buildings.The Stephens Group approaches evaluation and both a formative and summative process. “The role of local engagement, collaboration, and feedback is paramount. Teachers and administrators at the localsite should be participants in, rather than recipients of the evaluation” (Means et.al., 2003, p. 6).Evaluation research that is responsive to local concerns, constraints, and priorities can be structured andsynthesized to produce knowledge about effective uses of educational technology that has high facevalidity within local communities and still informs wider research as well as practitioner and policyaudiences” (Means et.al.,p. 6).Walk-through data of a consortium of school districts we worked with last year were able to track stronggains in 21

century skills and ISTE NETS Standards (see graphs on next page). In order to gain inter-rater reliability we view online videos of classrooms utilizing technology and rate them using the walk-through checklist. We also work with administrators to develop coaching strategies to talk withteachers about their observations to help them move to higher levels of technology integration. Thecoaching model that we use is situational. Different coaching techniques are used depending on thelevel of technology integration a teacher is at. Birman et al. (2001) also found that coaching isresponsive to the way teachers learn, “… and may have more influence on changing teaching practice”(p. 921).Continued on next page

BasicLiteracyScientificLiteracyEconomicLiteracyTechnologicalLiteracyVisualLiteracyInformationLiteracyMulticulturalLiteracyGlobalAwarenessAdaptability/ManagingComplexityCreativityRisk-takingPersonalResponsibilitySocial andCivicResponsibilityPrioritizing,Planning,andManagingfor…ProducingRelevant,HighQualityProductsPre68%15%8%67%36%30%16%17%20%29%22%29%20%64%20%Post98%65%5%100%65%85%33%25%35%75%20%75%38%40%43%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

% o f c l a s s r o o m s o b s e r v e d

21st Century Skills

Creativity:applyingexistingknowledgeto…Createoriginalworksas ameansof personal…Usemodels andsimulationstoexplorecom…Identif ytrendsandforecastpossibilitiesInteract,collaborate,andpublish withpeers,expe…Communicateinformationandideaseffectively …Contributetoprojectteamstoproduce…Locate,organize,analyze,evaluate,synt…Collect,process, andanalyze dataSolveauthenticrealworldproblemsExhibitleadershipTroubleshootsystemsandapplicationsPre20%22%10%13%9%12%14%23%10%9%23%4%Post50%45%40%23%58%55%35%55%53%38%48%8%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

% o f c l a s s r o o m s o b s e r v e d

ISTE NETS Standards

This year we are using a second walk-through checklist that measures ACOT Levels of technologyintegration and can track changes in teacher practice over time with two consortiums.

Administrator Name:District:School:Date of walk-through observation:Number of classrooms observed:

Learning Environment Observed

Students have no interaction with other studentsStudents collaborate with peersStudents are provided opportunities to use higher order thinking skillsTechnology access is adequate to meet lesson objectivesStudents with special needs have access to appropriate hardware andsoftware

Technology Use:

Who used the technology in the lesson or activity observed?

Observed

All studentsSome studentsOne studentThe teacher

Teacher Role:

What was the role of the teacher during the lesson or activity observed?

Observed

LeaderFacilitatorObserver