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

103 Pages·1995·2.6 MB·English

by  ERIC

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