ebook img

ERIC ED396707: Educational Technology Dissemination Through Pioneering Partners: An Evaluation. PDF

103 Pages·1995·2.6 MB·English
by  ERIC
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview ERIC ED396707: Educational Technology Dissemination Through Pioneering Partners: An Evaluation.

DOCUMENT RESUME IR 017 919 ED 396 707 Hawkes, Mark; And Others AUTHOR Educational Technology Dissemination Through TITLE Pioneering Partners: An Evaluation. North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook, INSTITUTION IL. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), SPONS AGENCY Washington, DC. PU7 DATE 95 RP91002007 NOTE 103p. Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Reports PUB TYPE MF01/12C05 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Annotated Bibliographies; Educational Development; DESCRIPTORS *Educational Technology; *Partnerships in Education; Program Effectiveness; *Program Evaluation North Central Regional Educational Laboratory; IDENTIFIERS *United States (Great Lakes Region) ABSTRACT Pioneering Partners provides K-12 educators in the Great Lakes Region--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin--with educational technology development opportunities, coalition-building opportunities, dissemination skills training, connection to Greatlinks Net/Internet, and financial support to defray dissemination costs. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory evaluated Pioneering Partners to determine the effectiveness of its efforts to expand the use of educational technology. The evaluation consisted of regional case studies, a four-page participant questionnaire (n=233, response rate 67%), document analysis of funded and nonfunded Pioneering Partners applications to identify areas for potential growth, and interviews used to augment inquiry on policy influence. Data shows that educational technology dissemination through Pioneering Partners is broad and far-reaching. On average, Pioneering Partners saw participation b, students almost double, and participation by teachers and schools triple during the implementation of their dissemination plans. Close to 90% of respondents to the questionnaire considered Pioneering P6rtners either very significant or moderately significant to the success of the disseminating process. Major factors inhibiting dissemination are time and financial resources. Urban educators find dissemination more problematic and support from their supervisors and peers less abundant. (Contains 13 references; a tables are survey cover letter and questionnaire and data summary appended.) (Author/SWC) *)......******************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Educational Technology Dissemination Through Pioneering Partners: An Evaluation NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY ' 5 *41*112'14 ft° # et14,0f,, 40' -6.44 11/46. "PA U S DEPAIIIMC NI Of EI,U(.AItOh r , ' '" ' EDUCAIIONAL HE SOUI Wt.!, INF ( )/ %MAI ION CENTER IE HIC I CI This doculnent itS Oct`n .CO,tritU'd i. trrvivr.fl Ittont 1hr po,..onm Mark Hawkes .ittjil o Moult chartoot. hayt. Itor, ot.trio .111 Merrill Chandler ylt,.. 11 0111.1.!1,. lin Deb Winking ,11 OfCt`..`..113 jrt9iri .11.01.111,11 (0114 t,tI 01 III liii, ItO Beau Jones PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY irt M. Kroeger NCREL TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE NC EL Executive Director, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Jeri Nowakowski: Director, Evaluation William Quinn: Desktop Publisher Mary Ann Larson: ©1995 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Educational This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of Number Research and Improvement (OERI), Department of Education, under Contract views of OERI, RP91002007. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the the Department of Education, or any other agency of the U.S. Government. in any form All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted or by any means without permission. Executive Summary You have to have a team of people from different areas teachers, community people, administrators, maybe even board of education membersworking together having the same kind of goal. That's why Pioneering Partners is right on track. Tom Suter Wheelersburg High School, Ohio aimed towards understanding the dissemina- Pioneering Partners for Educational Technol- tion process and outcomes among Pioneering ogy began when the Council of Great Lakes Partners regionwide. The evaluation also Governorsrepresenting Illinois, Indiana, assesses initial and long-term experiences of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, participants at the Summit. Ohio, and Wisconsinpartnered with GTE North, Inc., to accele:ate the use of educa- The primary goal of the evaluation is to tional technologies in K-12 classrooms. distinguish the outcomes of dissemination. Recognizing that educational technologies Also of interest are: make learning more productive for students while at the same time preparing them to enter Understanding how the transfer of educa- a more technology-oriented workforce, tional technology innovations occurs Pioneering Partners has as its overarching goal Determining the effort required to achieve the dissemination of innovative educational technology adoption technologies developed for students by educa- tors. The initiative not only recognizes "best Identifying barriers to dissemination, how practices" in educational technology, but also they affect implementation, and how they seeks to build participants' skills in dissemi- are overcome nating those technologies. To accomplish this, A smaller, although significant, focus for the Pioneering Partners provides educational technology development opportunities, coali- evaluation is the local, regional, and statewide policies facilitating the dissemination of tion-building opportunities, dissemination skills training, connection to Greatlinks Net/ educational technologies. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to determine if Pioneering Internet, and financial support to defray Partners puts educators in a position to influ- dissemination costs. ence, policy and, if so, at what levels. Evaluation Overview Methods The purpose of the evaluation of Pioneering Partners, conducted by the North Central Four primary methodological approaches are Regional Educational Laboratory, is to provide used that are both qualitative and quantitative. The case study approach was applied at four stakeholders with timely information regard- Pioneering Partners sites to provide a holistic ing the effectiveness of efforts to expand the perspective of technology use and dissemina- use of educational technology through Pioneering Partners. Evaluation efforts are tion and to give evaluation efforts a view of educational technologies has answered the call the complex interrelationships that characterize for educational change made by educators, dissemination. A second strategy was a scholars, parents, and community leaders. participant questionnaire. The four-page questionnaire (administered to all 233 partners Pioneering Partners appears to be behind this with a response rate of 67 percent) sampled achievement in dissemination. Close to participants' experiences on scope, depth, 90 percent of the respondents to the question- target(s) of dissemination, and on a number of naire consider Pioneering Partners either very other dimensions identified as critical by significant or moderately significant to the program staff. A third method employs success of the dissemination process. The document analysis on a broader scale than in case studies document a number of anecdotes the case studies. In this instance, document illustrating Pioneering Partners' central role in analysis is used to conduct a systematic review dissemination. This is evidence that Pioneer- of funded and nonfunded Pioneering Partners ing Partners is often the catalyst and continu- applications. The analysis identifies a core of ing motivation for educational technology features and characteristics where the potential dissemination. for growth through Pioneering Partners is greatest. A fourth and final method involves The Summer Summit As A interviews, which, again, are distinct from Dissemination Resource those in the case studies and used to augment inquiry on policy influence. A summary of Perhaps the most productive resource for evaluation results are presented here. dissemination training for Pioneering Partners is the Summit. The Summit, held in the The Growing Landscape of summer of each year, brings together new Technology in the Schools Pioneering Partners teams, state legislators, policy advisors, business leaders, and dissemi- Educational technology dissemination through nation experts. Participants agree that the Pioneering Partners is broad and far-reaching most common benefit they gain from the the data show. On the average, Pioneering Summit is increased communication and Partners saw participation by students almost interpersonal skills/knowledge. This access double, and participation by teachers and and knowledge helps partners disseminate schools triple during the implementation of their programs, work better with business, their dissemination plans. A remarkable industry, and the media, and negotiate political seven-fold increase is encountered in terms of issues within their own districts. hourly technology use per student per week illustrating that not only are more students Time spent planning for dissemination is also using educational technologies to learn, but an important element of the Summit for many they are using them with much more fre- respondents. One person noted, "If we [would quency. Furthermore, the sophistication of have] developed a program and a plan to these technologies is at a higher level than complete that program without the Summit, before. While other efforts have focused on our goals would not be as well-defined . . . the development of educational technologies The Summit focused us." Another said, "My themselves, Pioneering Partners has concen- served to in- experience at the Summit . . . trated its energy on deploying these technolo- crease my awareness relevant to the impor- gies so that they quickly find and serve their tance of exposing our program to others:' intended audiences. This accessibility to ii Many respondents simply indicated Factors inhibiting and Facilitating Dissemination that the Summit was "excellent:' inspiring, or confidence building. Administration Comments such as "The Summit Local & Broad based was outstanding" were usual. collaboration efforts Another participant noted that "the Knowledge of Tech confidence-building by simply Belie:ring could do something of value participating has helped consider- Financial resources ably." Several participants also found they had used the grant Available time writing and coalition-building skills Peer support the Summit helped them develop. Pioneering Partners One participant noted, "We have materials & support and we written three proposals My understanding of . . . dissemination strategies are writing more." 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% MB Facilitated Dissemination 1=3 Inhibited Dissemination I Challenges of Figure 1 Dissemination As proficient as Pioneering Partner teams are becoming at disseminating telecommunica- tions technologies, some hurdles remain. As Figure 1 illustrates, major factors inhibiting dissemination are time and financial resources. Sources of Time Spent on Dissemination 40 Pioneering Partners members indicated that to implement their 35 32.5 32.4 dissemination plans, a considerable 30 amount of personal time had to be 25 dedicated to the task. There was little release time provided by their 0. ---- schools or planning time allowed 15 x as a part of the school day (see 10 Figure 2). 6.9 4.7 Urban educator teams face the greatest challenges. The evaluation Total Personal Time Planning time Released time allowed as part by school clearly shows that urban schools or district of school day face dissemination dilemmas not During summer I0 During school year common to their suburban and rural Figure 2 counterparts. Briefly, urban educators find dissemination more problematic and support from their supervisors and peers less abundant. iii () BEST COPY ANAliABLE Summary: Pioneering Partners, Influences on Policy a Model for Business/School A secondary role for the evaluation is deter- Relationships mining to what extent educational technology policy is influenced by Pioneering Partner Besides meeting the goal of disseminating members. About half of the respondents to the educational technologies throughout the Great survey indicate that through Pioneering Part- Lakes area, Pioneering Partners appears to ners, they have improved their contact with have cultivated a relationship with its educator state officials. This contact, survey respon- teams that serves them both quite well. With- dents report, has resulted in local and regional out exception, participating educator teams policy changes. Some Partners indicate they indicate that Pioneering Partners is instrumen- have been involved in creating district policies tal in helping them disseminate their projects. or practices to improve teacher and student Also, after three years, Pioneering Partners access to technology. For example, one appears to have achieved a balance in techni- cal training that matches the instructional respondent wrote, "Internet sites have now needs of educator teams. This balance gives been made accessible in my county. . . . participants the confidence they need to Finally the city office has started to allow realize dissemination results. teachers access." Still, some critical issues require attention. Interviews with regional legislators and policy Understanding how better to serve the needs advisors revealed that they are all strongly of urban educators is imperative. Encouraging supportive of the work Pioneering Partners quality applications that are more specific does to create greater awareness of technology about learning objectives, goals, and outcomes issues within the region. Policymakers agree and how the technology proposes to deliver that this project is useful because it allows those outcomes will provide educator teams them to talk directly to teachers, and find out with an essential self-evaluation framework to what is going on at the grassroots level. measure progress in dissemination. Using Information from the teachers, they continue, current research and literature on learning in helps them address barriers and gaps in educa- development activities will provide a common tional technology needs. language by which to communicate; assist educators in conducting their own research; One state official reports that involvement and build connections between teacher, with Pioneering Partners has created an researcher, and policymaker who consider awareness for the need to link state distance both empirical and anecdotal information learning programs. The official further reports critical to decisionmaking. that policymakers and planners have been able to parlay this awareness into increased funds Working with schools to achieve more sys- out of the state budget for the delivery of temic and enduring dissemination results is distance instruction by educational telecom- also a challenge that lies ahead not only for munications technology by over 80 percent Pioneering Partners, but for business, industry, during a time when budgets in their state were legislatures, schools, and communities. Inas- being cut. Another state official indicates that much as Pioneering Partners continues it's the governor has set in motion a plan to proactive support and intervention, it will connect the Internet to each school in the state. continue to be a model for business/school The official explained that Pioneering Partners relationships and for quality school reform not has helped contribute to his understanding of only in the Great Lakes region, but nationwide the importance of technology in schools. for some time to come. iv Acknowledgements A reporter once asked baseball legend Joe uniformly fit a variety of stakeholders infor- DiMaggio why he played so hard every night mation needs. They accommodated numerous in every game. Joe replied in his low-key way, requests to fill in information gaps and worked that it was because he never knew when there with the evaluation team towards a respectable return rate on partner surveys. Finally, they would be someone in the stands who had waited patiently for interim and final evalua- never seen him play before. Contrast this with tion reports. evaluators, who toil as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders only hoping The evaluation team wishes to express it's someone is watching. thanks to Brian Crosley and Mary Kinney for their assistance in this evaluation. To the While evaluators can control the validity and relevance of their work, they have less control league of Pioneering Partners in the Great over it's utility. And, although evaluators hope Lakes region, most of whom were anxious to to find their efforts useful to the implementa- share their experience with evaluators, we tion of a program, or the guiding of a project, thank-you for your time and energy. To the the ultimate power for that lies in the hands of extent that this evaluation report is able to the true clients and stakeholders. assist the Pioneering Partners initiative in achieving its goals of school reform, we will In the case of the managing directors of feel that it is useful. Pioneering Partners, we are convinced that someone is in the stands, watching. At the Finally, a debt of gratitude to our laboratory outset of the evaluation, managers Brian colleagues Sandi DiCola, Roger Chesswas, Crosley and Mary Kinney were generous Mary Ann Larson, and Lenaya Raack for their with their time. They responded to numerous indispensable assistance in reviewing, editing, questions about Pioneering Partners goals and formatting portions of this evaluation and accomplishments. They reacted to various report. drafts of the evaluation design so that it Contents Executive Summary i Origins and Mission 5 Evaluation Overview 7 Methods 9 Evaluation Findings 11 Constructing and Analyzing the Questionnaire 11 Demographic Attributes 12 Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors 14 Ascertaining Levels of Use 18 Determining the Utility of Support Provided by Pioneering Partners 21 Results of Open-Ended Survey Items 25 Reasons for modifying or abandoning dissemination plans 25 Pioneering Partners role in team success 26 Pioneering Partne.'s support 28 The Partnership in Education Leadership Summit 30 Pioneering Partners and Policy Change 33 Relationships with policymakers 35 Results of dissemination on student learning 37 Pioneering Partners effects on technology leadership 39 42 Types of financial support reported for augmenting dissemination Case Study Methods 43 Case Study: Eden Park Pioneering Partners 45 Case Study: Delmar Elementary School 51 57 Case Study: The Secada Park Project: A Study in Transformations Case Study: Willow Township 63 A Cross-Case Analysis 69 Effects on Educators 69 Effects on Students 70 Differences 70 Pioneering Partners 72 71 Finally . . . Applications 73 Winning Teams Analysis of Funded Pioneering Partners Thoughts on Influence to Policy 77 Synthesis, Discussion, and Recommendations 88 Pioneering Partners Origins and Mission While GTE supports and facilitates the Pio- When the Council of Great Lakes Governors neering Partners initiative, the Council of began talks in the fall of 1991 about develop- Great Lakes Governors is the oversight body ing a partnership with GTE North, Inc., that for the project. The Council of Great Lakes would accelerate the use of technology in Governors is a private, non-profit mganization K-12 classrooms, the Pioneering Partners Era devoted to working cooperatively on public began. The initiative resulting from those policy issues common to its eight member talks, formally titled Pioneering Partners for sates: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Educational Technology, has as its goal the New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wiscon- dissemination of innovative educational sin. The Great Lakes governors share a dual technologies developed for learners by educa- stewardshipresponsibility for both the tors. The initiative not only recognizes "best world's largest source of fresh water and the practices" in educational technology, industiral heartland of North America. The but also seeks to build participants' skills in Council was formed in 1983 to coordinate this disseminating those technologies. To accom- stewardship of the region's economy and plish this, Pioneering Partners provides devel- environment. In particular, the governors opment opportunities at a Partnership in wanted a forum to discuss the problems each Educational Leadership Summit, coalition faced during the severe recession that hit the building opportunities, dissemination skills Great Lakes states during the early 1980s, training, connection to Great links Net/Inter- turning the region into what many called the net, and financial support to defray dissemina- "rustbeli." The governors also wanted to tion costs. continue zo build upon the successful clean up Operation and support for Pioneering Partners of the Great Lakes begun a decade and a half is provided by GTE. GTE is the largest U.S. earlier. With this new union between GTE and based local telephone company and the second the Council, both had theisights set on efforts United largest cellular service provider in L to improve instruction within the Great Lakes States, with the potential to serve almost 30% states. of the country's population. With a net In March 1992 the first Pioneering Partners income of $2.5 billion and revenues of $20 applications were distributed with a cover billion in 1994, the corporation is the fourth letter from each state's governor to schools largest publicly owned telecommunications throughout the Great Lakes region. To evalu- company in the world. GTE is also a leader ate the applications, the governors appointed in government and defense communications a 16-member Advisory Council. Close to 200 systems and equipment, aircraft passenger applications were received, and from these the communications, directories and telecommu- Council selected 24 teams to participate in the nications-based information services and first year of the program. The 24 teams systems. Page 5

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.