home

= __﻿ PART ONE OF THE GROUP PROJECT: __ =

**15 points > 3. Collaboration 21st Century Style – Due October 9 ** //Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report. // U.S. Dept. of Education [] An important part of planning for technology is determining allocation of funds. Plans for how monies are spent, and justification for spending, are key to a successful technology program in K12 schools. We will read the U.S. Dept of Education Report on the success and shortfalls of technology programs in schools across the U.S.  Part 1. In your small group, read through the Table of Contents (stop with the Table of Content; do not read the report yet.) As a group, generate 5 to 6 questions that you think are important and could be answered in this report. Here’s how: Each person might submit 1 question to be answered in the contents of this report. After all your questions have been identified, begin searching for answers. Find the answer to your question in the report. Come together as a group to **read answers from each group member**. The 6th or the 7th person in your group will compile all the answers and **submit an initial report based on your questions**. Here is an example of how to title it: //Group1_questions_report// Note: this assignment is based on //generative learning strategies//, a constructivist method for enhancing reading comprehension. Even young readers could benefit from this small group activity.

=(IDEA: We should fill in this table to make it easier for the group member #7)= In terms of objectives, the lack of agreed on definitions and solid assessment strategies makes it difficult to assess the program on a national level. Clearer state definitions and standards as well as a consistent measurement system with in each state is necessary. || the plan states "there is still a need for technology-related teacher professional development that focuses on instructional practices" (p. 28). ||
 * ~ Name of Group Member ||~ Question to be Answered ||~ Answer to Question ||
 * Alysa || How has professional development impacted the use of technology in the classroom? || In a report from the 2006-2007 school year, teachers reported that technology increased their knowledge of computers, their general use of computers, and use of technology for administrative task. The increases in administrative task was higher than those of instructional practices, although there was some increase in those as well. According to a teacher survey, classroom practices that increased due to technology related professional development are: developing curriculum and lesson planning, developing computer-based activities for students, using new teaching methods that involve technology, other. Based on research on the types of professional development being offered, the report states that the data suggest districts should focus less on professional development to help teachers complete routine task, and more on professional development that focuses on instructional uses of technology. ||
 * Robin || Name several objectives of the EETT program and how effectivel they have been as implemented. What has made it difficult to assess the program on a national level? || One objective of the EETT program has been to support high-poverty, high- need schools in their acquisition of technology so that students and teachers in these schools can have access to educational technology equivalent to taht of students and teachers in other schools. Another objective for the EETT program is refining the teacher professional development in technology. For the most part surveys say that professional development that has been provided has had limited effect on instructional practices.
 * Ann || What has been the trend for Internet access in the schools? Do students have direct access to the Internet and are there any barriers created by slow or unreliable Internet? || In 2007, 63% of teachers reported that students had high-speed Internet access in their classrooms, which was a 9% increase since 2005. High and low poverty schools had similar levels of high-speed access in 2005 and 2007. There is a significant difference when broken down by grade level with 72% at elementary level, 55% at middle grades and 49% at high school. With the addition of laptops and 1:1 programs in schools, these percentages are increasing. Typically, EETT funds are not used for Internet access spending. The majority of teachers report that there are no barriers created by slow or unreliable Internet. There is no statistical difference among high and low poverty schools either. It is evident that there is not a gap in Internet Access across the low to high poverty school levels and that the majority of students have access to high speed Internet. ||
 * Amber || What is the current trend of assessing teachers' technology skills using technology standards for teachers? And what are the goals of teacher standards? || Only 27 states, or 52% of our states, had measures in place for assessing teacher technology proficiencies in the 2006-2007 analysis. The goals for 2/3 of these states were comprised of the National ISTE standards for teachers. These goals focus on professional basic use, the enhancement of instruction, planning, assessment, evaluation, and the knowledge of ethics related to technology. Some of these same states also have technology requirements for teacher certification, unlike North Carolina. There was also discrepancy noted regarding the frequency with which these standards are measured. With regard to future goals,
 * Georgette || What trends have become evident in the access to technology in regards to high-poverty schools as opposed to low-poverty schools? || Discrepancies in internet access between high and low poverty schools equalized in 1999. The internet was accessible to 100 percent of public schools by 2005. Additional data was collected from 2004-05 to 2006-07 to determine if there was a difference in high speed student internet access between the high and low poverty schools. The results of the data collected by the NETTS Teacher Survey revealed that there was a 9% gain in high-speed internet access for students by 2007. High-poverty schools increased faster but by 2007 both high and low poverty school had equalized. There was a difference in student access to computers between the high and low poverty schools, with high-poverty school students having less access to laptops. Data showed that EETT funds were not the primary reason for equalization in internet access for high-poverty schools. (Ch.2) ||
 * Meghan || How is student technology proficiency assessed and what is being done to make sure assessments and reporting of data is consistent and viable information? || Many states are requiring that students pass a technology-related course in order to graduate high school. And 43 states are currently regulating technology standards requiring knowledge by students of technology-based communication, as well as research tools and problem solving skills. Only 4 states currently require some type of a state test (either pencil and paper or computer) that is reported. Almost all states have state technology standards. The entire reporting process seems very inconsistent and it is not regulated at the state level but more closely at the district level. ||
 * Robyn || What principal data sources were used to create this EETT final report? || Three main sources of data (surveys) were used to compile this report. Surveys were given to participating technology coordinators and teachers. Surveys were given at the state level (state technology directors), the district level (district technology coordinators), and the classroom level (teachers). Those educators participating in the surveys were asked questions about educational technology activities that occurred during 2006–07 school year. ||

**The person to compile and submit the report will be Robyn (7th member of the group)**
Now on to Part Two!