Whitfield School August 2006 Whitfield School 1: 1 Computing Program: An assessment of the implementation of an open-source 1: 1 computing model Table of Contents
Success Factors Inherent with 1:1 Computing Programs
Download 152.27 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- High Levels of Enthusiasm from students, faculty, and parents
- Student Expectations and Experiences
- Table 1: Overall Satisfaction by Phase
- Table 2: Increased hours spent on homework due to unfamiliarity with software
- Faculty Expectations and Experiences
- Parental Expectations and Experiences
- Changing Roles and Individualized Instruction
- Increased Collaboration
- Table 3: Integration of work into one document Student Learning
- Table 4: Phase II research skill improvement
Success Factors Inherent with 1:1 Computing ProgramsA review of 1:1 computing program literature was conducted in order to gain an understanding of the 1:1 Computing field and to help inform the creation of the data collection tools and the direction of the assessment. The review revealed that in many cases of 1:1 program implementations there are several recognizable phenomena that occur in various degrees. For example, Rockman’s “Report of a Laptop Program Pilot” (June 1997), considered the baseline evaluation work for 1:1 computing. The researchers list the following common elements across schools that have implemented 1:1 programs:
While the Whitfield implementation had the unique characteristics of an open-source environment, the assessment results revealed many of the same themes seen in the previous research. The following paragraphs summarize the portion of our evaluation findings at Whitfield that are broadly capable of being grouped according to the Rockman categories. Following these paragraphs, we provide a section that contains a number of unique considerations that may be associated with open source 1:1 computing programs of the type implemented by Whitfield. High Levels of Enthusiasm from students, faculty, and parents According to Rockman (2003), high levels of enthusiasm are standard for 1:1 implementations, and the Whitfield implementation proved no different. Due to the thorough multiple phase assessment of the Whitfield 1:1 program, IBM was able to measure both the initial expectations of the students, faculty, and parents along with the actual experiences of each of these important program participants. A review of the results of the student surveys, the faculty focus groups, and the in-depth parental interviews indicates that while there were some difficulties with the 1:1 implementation, the high initial expectations for the Whitfield 1:1 computing experience were generally met or exceeded. Student Expectations and Experiences According to the Whitfield faculty, students received the laptops very enthusiastically and as one teacher noted “we have no problem getting them to use the laptops.” Fittingly, Whitfield students reported high expectations for the program during Phase I. Overall, students were enthusiastic and believed the 1:1 Computing Program would be a positive experience. The majority of students described the use of a computer in their ability to perform well in school as either “very important” or “important.” With the exception of a concern regarding having to increase the time spent doing homework because of an unfamiliarity with software, students largely felt there would be no change in how they completed homework assignments or studied for classes. However, students thought that in certain subject areas having the 1:1 Computing Program laptop would improve their understanding of course materials, and their writing and research skills. Students did not expect participation in the program to change the way they communicated with either each other or with teachers during the school year. Finally, during Phase I students reported that they were already working with each other to resolve technical problems
Over 50% of students reported that having the 1:1 Computing Program laptop improved their writing (58%), problem solving (52%) and research skills (75%). In addition, 72% of the students reported an increase in email traffic with their teachers, which was in line with their initial expectations as reported in their responses to the Phase I survey. In summary, a comparison of the Phase I and Phase II results of the student survey indicates that the high levels of student expectations were either met or exceeded. Faculty Expectations and Experiences In general, during the Phase I assessment the faculty had high expectations for the program, but also voiced the most concerns regarding the implementation of the 1:1 Computing program. During the Phase I focus groups the faculty indicated that they had introduced novel computer-based activities and assignments into their courses in order to enhance the educational experience. They believed some of the enhancements to the educational experience might include improved student-teacher communication, and improved collaboration among students. Further, faculty believed the program would improve students’ mastery and understanding of a subject. Teachers did express some concerns during Phase 1. For the most part, teachers expected to have students use computers this year in the same ways they did last school year. Teachers also feared the program might diminish interpersonal skills by reducing need for face-to-face communications and were very concerned that access to the internet and online communication tools during class would be a distraction. Some teachers expected more instant messages and e-mails from students. These teachers vocalized their annoyance with this mode as students often expect immediate responses to instant messages. Finally, there was near universal agreement among the faculty that the faculty training should be improved. Phase II focus group results indicated that, while the “initial implementation had several bumps and bruises,” and while there were still several issues with the 1:1 Program, the faculty were generally quite satisfied with the program. Faculty indicated that the first quarter of the 1:1 implementation was “rocky,” and that there were various issues with the operating systems (requiring numerous patches from the IT Department). They also indicated that while Whitfield’s unique approach of using open-source software enabled the Technology Department to better control the computing environment, finding the right open-source software was sometimes a problem. For example, some faculty reported both students and faculty found the open-source Adobe Photoshop counterpart interface difficult to use. Once the Technology Department was made aware of the issue, it was able to find a “skin” that emulated Photoshop’s graphical user-interface configuration. This demonstration of the pliability of open-source software and the ability to adapt it in ways to best suit the needs of the students and faculty helps to illustrate why faculty program satisfaction increased by the end of the school year. One faculty member indicated that he had “set his expectations high and even those high expectations had been exceeded.” Another indicated having the laptops was a “life-changing experience” due to the flexibility it offered him in the classroom and at home. Several teachers indicated that once the program’s kinks were worked out, the program “improved morale” at the school and that they “would never go back.” Teachers also expressed their satisfaction with email as an increasingly viable form of communication with both students and the parents of students, and they were relieved that their initial expectation that they would receive more instant messages from students did not, in fact, occur. During the Phase II focus groups the faculty confirmed that they had continued to introduce novel computer-based activities and assignments into their courses in order to enhance the educational experience. Such activities included entering into a national essay writing contests, evaluating the credibility of information posted on various websites, emailing pen pals in foreign countries, accessing on-line virtual demonstrations in physics classes, and posting electronic cards to the White House regarding social issues. By the end of the school year, teachers even began to establish suggestions for designing an instructional unit with laptops in mind, including steps such as:
Teachers indicated that access to the internet and online communication tools during class was a distraction to a certain extent. They were aware that students spent time interacting with others on Facebook (a social networking tool), instant-messaging, emailing, and surfing the internet during class time. The survey results support this finding, suggesting that in some cases there has been an even greater amount of time devoted to personal research in class than even the students expected. Students reported spending a lot of time on Instant Messenger and, when it became available, on Facebook. Within the Whitfield spirit of trusting the students, the faculty has thus far allowed students to take responsibility for their own actions. But the issue of monitoring is a matter of degree, and is still up for debate among the faculty. Despite some acknowledged misuse, faculty generally indicated the laptops were used appropriately. One faculty member indicated that the use of the laptops was “98% respectful.” Others related the idea that there was a significant amount of student self-monitoring that developed as the year progressed, and that they oftentimes were able to use instances of student distraction as “teachable moments.” The concern that the program might diminish interpersonal skills by reducing the need for face-to-face communications was deemed largely unfounded. Teachers reported that the access to the internet actually increased participation from some students who were more likely to access and share information they had at their fingertips. One teacher reported developing a term called “forty-five it.” This meant the students were to place their laptops at a forty-five degree angle to ensure no one was looking at their computer screen during discussion periods. Finally, there was near universal agreement among the faculty in both Phases that lack of training and lack of time were two major issues. Almost every teacher indicated the faculty training needed improvement, and that they were not given enough time to familiarize themselves with the laptop capabilities. One teacher said, “We didn't have a chance to play with Linux and I just don't like it, but I'm looking forward to a summer of playing with Linux.” Most of the faculty expressed appreciation for the extra time they will have with the laptops over the summer and are optimistic about the future uses for laptops in the following year. In summary, a comparison of the Phase I and Phase II results of the faculty focus groups indicates that despite a difficult program launch, expectations were either met or exceeded. Parental Expectations and Experiences Among the parents interviewed during Phase I, the program unanimously either met or exceeded their expectations of their son/daughter’s experience at Whitfield School. Most parents did not have any concerns about the program, did not expect that the laptop would be a distraction during the year, and believed that computers are essential to the educational process. Parents reported the biggest potential benefits of the program were allowing their students to become more comfortable with computers and the ability to take the computer along with them on vacations, sick days, etc. Parents did not expect that their children would be using a computer any differently during the school year compared to last school year. Finally the majority of parents did not believe the program would have any effect on either their children’s motivation to study, or their study habits. Among the parents interviewed during Phase II, there appeared to be a general relationship between the level of comfort with computers and access to home computers and the strength of the satisfaction. While the vast majority of participants indicated high levels of satisfaction with the program, it appeared that the parents who had less initial access to computers, and less comfort in using them, also tended to express the highest level of satisfaction with the program. This relationship is exhibited by contrasting one parent who indicated he/she has superior computer comfort against another parent who was only fairly comfortable with computers. The first parent did not believe the program was necessarily a success. The parent indicated that the student already possessed a laptop computer at home that was superior to the school-issued laptop. Therefore the student did not use the school-issued laptop outside of school. However, the second parent indicated “having it theirs solely to use for their own purposes was great. When [Student] has to turn it in [Student] doesn’t know what [Student] will do. It’s like losing a part of her/himself. It is so much a part of what [Student] uses every day.” All parents reported that the program either met or exceeded their expectations of their son/daughter’s experience at Whitfield School. All but one parent indicated they considered the 1:1 Computing program to have been a success. One parent stated “the program has definitely been a success. [Student Name]’s social skills are up. [Student Name]’s computer skills are up. [Student Name]’s access to information is up. [Student Name]’s time spent with the family is up. [Student Name]’s flexibility is up.” Most parents expressed relatively similar concerns about the program. They were concerned that the laptop may have been a distraction in school due to the easy access to the internet, instant messaging, and facebook with one parent stating “I am concerned about kids using it for social purposes during school because that's a distraction. Like sitting in the Intellectual Commons (a commonly used term for Whitfield School’s Library) doing Facebook rather than homework. But they will have to learn how to balance that.” Several parents pointed out that the laptops are “only a tool” and “could never replace a teacher.” One parent stated there was some concern that the laptops may serve as a “distraction away from teaching,” or be used “as a babysitter” or “to avoid teaching.” Despite some concerns, most parents reported that they believed computers are essential to the educational process. One parent indicated that a computer is “hugely important” to the educational process, stating “if you are not computer literate these days you are sunk. The world does not function without them.” Another parent indicated computers were “100% important,” and that computers “add to the whole efficiency of education.” Parents reported numerous benefits of the program, including:
Several parents reported the program changes their mind about what type of computer their student(s) needed for their college experience, indicating they had switched preferences from a desktop to a laptop. There was a wide variety of response in terms of parents reporting on differences in students’ computer usage during this school year as compared to the prior school year. Some parents indicated there was no change, while some indicated the computer became a permanent part of their student(s)’ life. Finally the majority of parents did not believe the program had any effect on their children’s motivation to study, as they indicated their students were generally self-motivated. In summary, a comparison of the Phase I and Phase II results of the in-depth-interviews with the parents indicates that, in general, the high parental expectations were either met or exceeded. Changing Roles and Individualized Instruction After studying the impacts of laptop initiatives, Rockman (2003) found teachers reported a number of consistent changes in their teaching. According to Rockman, many teachers indicated the laptop tools allowed “students to access the curriculum in ways that reflected their individual needs… Many teachers felt that the laptop allowed them to reach more effectively those students who had difficulty in a traditional classroom environment, and that it allowed students to pursue individualized learning paths.” Teachers also reported changes in teaching patterns such as less lecturing, more individual and group project work, and students working more on their own or in small groups, with the teachers acting more as consultants to the group. These changes can be accelerated as, due to superior technological skills, students oftentimes become the teachers and teachers become the students. Students and faculty at Whitfield reported experiencing the phenomena of increased individualized instruction and changing roles as well. Faculty reported integrating the laptops into their lesson plans in various ways; one of which was through the students, who were often more adept with the software. Some teachers found innovative students helped “advance the lesson plan” when they would act as teachers by finding ways to complete assignments with computers that the teachers did not consider. Faculty reported this type of situation gave students more of an impetus to participate in class, as they began to take ownership of the lesson(s). Faculty indicated another example of student-driven individualized instruction was in the students’ preference for the Linux operating environment. According to several faculty members, only three of the faculty exclusively used Linux throughout the year. However, the students “loved it” because of the ability to personalize various aspects of their operating environments in order to “customize it and make it their own.” One teacher stated “Unless you gave them a reason to go through Citrix, they just did not have to use it.” Faculty indicated this student preference forced teachers to learn more about and become more proficient in Linux. Faculty provided several additional examples of individualized instruction. For example, one teacher spoke of a situation in which the entire class of 15 students was responsible for one group project. In the past the teacher indicated the size of the projects groups was 3-5 at a maximum, but with the laptops she was able to have the entire class collaborate as a group. It was the entire group’s responsibility to research, develop, record, display, and implement the solution to the problem. The teacher was then able to function more in the role of consultant to the group. Another faculty member indicated that the students made their own decisions regarding their level of laptop usage in the classroom. Naturally the difficulty of integrating laptops into a lesson plan varies from class to class and teacher to teacher. Some teachers have specific reservations about using laptops (i.e. “it’s not easy taking notes in math”). In general, math, science, language and art classes were listed by both faculty and students as areas in which it was more difficult to implement the new technology. However, several faculty members in those areas expressed the belief that with some extra effort the laptops would be a viable means of individualized instruction in their area. For example, the foreign language department has had many issues with the audio software that was installed on the laptops. As one foreign language department teacher described the situation, “occasionally [these audio problems] will interfere with [the student’s] understanding and mastery…which can be quite frustrating.” Yet despite these issues, the same teacher indicated hope that in making classes more interactive and “playful” through the laptops there is strong hope to draw the students in by making language fun. This teacher indicated that the “proficiency that can be achieved with movies is unbelievable.” Further, an art teacher who was an admitted “late adopter” indicated she was “encouraged by the possibilities that the laptop offered” and was looking forward to exploring more possible uses of the laptop in the next school year. Increased Collaboration Another common experience in 1:1 implementation is that of increased collaboration. Teachers often find themselves collaborating with other teachers and students, and students find themselves collaborating with their teacher and other students when faced with difficult problems. In Phase I both teachers and students indicated they believed some of the enhancements to the educational experience might include improved collaboration among students. The Phase II assessment indicated the Whitfield School saw that expected increase in collaboration. Many teachers described improved collaboration among themselves and among students. Faculty admitted that while they would often go to each other with technological questions, there were often one or two student computer experts to which they would turn to for technical problems. They also indicated that the laptop program resulted in increased speed and frequency of collaboration among students. For example, one teacher stated: “We could be talking about something in class and one student would go out on the web and find a cool, relevant link. I would ask that student to forward the link to everyone. It was instant collaboration.” A foreign language department member provided another example, stating there was “a lot of time spent doing translations in group where there is one note-taker on a laptop that emails notes to everyone, whereas before everyone took their own notes.” Parents also noted the increase in student collaboration, with one parent indicating on several visits to the “Intellectual Commons” that he/she saw students gathered around tables in the intellectual commons, all with their laptops out working on group assignments. Another parent indicated there seemed to be an increase in the ease for his/her student to pass information back and forth on group projects and group papers due to the students all being on the same page [network]. The student survey supports the assertions of increased collaboration by the faculty and parents. For example, there was a significant (p<.05) increase in the percentage of on-line group meeting participation for completing assignments from Phase I to Phase II (23% expected a fair amount or a great deal in Phase I while 42% reported a fair amount or a great deal in Phase II). Further, students reported a significant (p<.05) increase in integrating the work of others into one document. See Table 3 for the results. Table 3: Integration of work into one document 
Student Learning Providing laptop computers to students every day in class gives students more options on how they choose to learn. Rockman (2003) found students tend to excel in situations where they possess the knowledge and skills to share and to trade, and that laptop students more often write together with other students, re-read papers before submitting them, and use a great range of sources for their informational needs. Laptops provide additional opportunities for students to instantaneously access the wealth of information available on the World Wide Web for research purposes, organize their class notes in any way they see fit, more easily edit writing projects, develop more detailed class presentations, and build stronger technical skills. A noticeable improvement in writing skills was reported by the parents, faculty and students. Several parents indicated their child’s writing skills had increased because they were more easily able to edit papers and return to work from where they left off. One parent stated that the laptop “tremendously helped [Student]’s writing process. Because it’s always with [Student], [Student] can quickly throw an idea in and then go back to it. That made it very easy for [Student] to keep polishing papers.” Another parent indicated having the word processing aspect of the laptops was “essential.” Several teachers echoed that sentiment with one teacher noting that students “seemed to take constructive criticism on their writing better when it came in track changes and notes instead of with a red pen.” When asked on the student survey if their writing skills had increased, 58% of Phase II responders answered yes. Writing was not the only area where the impact of the availability of the laptops was noted. An increase in organizational skills was also a commonly cited factor in the program’s contribution to student learning. Several parents reported an improvement in their student’s organizational skills, with one parent stating, “Having the teachers using it as part of their planning is a big plus. [Student]’s organization and time management have been positively influenced. [Student] always wanted to use her personal computer that way but could not, but this is so seamless she has used it ten-fold.” Faculty also reported that the use of shared drives and increased capability to “organize their notes any way they wanted to” helped the students to become more organized. They also noted that the increased use of email as a method of communication helped students report their absences and keep in touch with what was missed during those absences. Finally faculty indicated that having the students submit assignments on-line or over email, and the date and time stamps associated with such forms of submission, required the students to be responsible for timely assignment submission and helped to eliminate many excuses for late submissions. Having the ability to access the internet from their desk allowed for both increased research skills and for spontaneous learning opportunities. During the Phase I survey, 87% of students expected to improve their research skills, while in Phase II three-quarters of them reported that these skills indeed had improved. Some students also reported an apparent gain in research efficiency, Even as their reported skills were improving, 20% of the Phase II student survey respondents reported spending fewer hours conducting research, while only 9% of the Phase I respondents had expected to spend less time on their research activities (p<.05). See Table 4 for the results. Table 4: Phase II research skill improvement 
Parents and faculty reported similar results, with several parents listing research as the activity for which their student spent the most time on the computer. In terms of participation, the faculty indicated that Whitfield students have always been expected to contribute and student participation probably has little to do with the laptops. The student survey supports this by suggesting there is no significant change in the amount of involvement in the classroom. However, while laptops may not lead to increased participation, the faculty has stated that it has led to a different kind of participation. Faculty reported that the laptops, and the access to the internet that they provided for each student, allowed for increased opportunities for spontaneous learning and participation. They stated that the computers served as “windows to the world” and provided several anecdotes of students spontaneously researching and providing additional beneficial information regarding a class topic during the class discussion of that topic. One teacher found that sometimes he/she could plan lessons to have students be “Google Jockeys” and other times the information and participation came spontaneously, which he found very useful. Another teacher noted that laptops are a great way to induce students who normally are anxious about class participation to become more active contributors, a sentiment that at least one parent echoed. Laptops allow these students to offer information they find online if they don’t feel confident in participating in other ways. On the other hand, one teacher noted that some students may use the laptops as shields and withdraw from the rest of the class. Finally, one foreign language teacher stated that the ability to access the internet “makes the world of foreign language so much more real” for the students by allowing for access to images and information from other countries, cultures, traditions, and music. Download 152.27 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
