LO T I /CIP DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES A critical component of the LoTi Implementation Model is data gathering for approximating the LoTi (Appendix A) and CIP (Appendix B) intensity levels of classroom teachers. This data is often used to make pre/ post comparisons of a target teacher’s LoTi and CIP levels along with student achievement indicators (e.g., high stakes tests, benchmark assessments). A robust enough sample size taken biannually during the Fall and Spring semesters can enable key stakeholders to determine statistical changes in the Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi) and CIP (Current Instructional Practices) that directly impact student achievement in the classroom. Unfortunately, this process may not be as simple as it sounds. What if you walk into a classroom where the teacher is delivering a lecture via a PowerPoint presentation to a large group of students seated in conventional desks and chairs organized into rows? Does this classroom configuration and instructional delivery methodology imply that the teacher is at a LoTi 1 and a CIP 1/2 based on what was observed at that moment? What if the day before students were analyzing data from their online survey in an attempt to determine trends between the consumer purchasing practices of boys versus girls? Collecting and documenting LoTi and CIP pre/post data extends beyond the traditional “three-minute” walkthrough because you are trying to dig beneath the pedagogical surface to unearth the teacher’s “true” LoTi and CIP levels. This process requires looking beyond a set of prefabricated “look-fors and locating other instructional artifacts as well as interviewing classroom participants. Data gathering sources/artifacts my include lesson plans, instructional units, performance assessments, student portfolios, classroom observations, teacher interviews, student interviews, and evidence of differentiation. It is critical that we attempt to determine the teacher’s overall LoTi and CIP levels based on a battery of sources/artifacts rather than rely on a single classroom walkthrough; otherwise, the reliability of the entire LoTi/CIP data gathering process can be compromised. It is suggested that a minimum of two sources/artifacts be employed to determine an individual teachers overall LoTi and CIP levels (Appendix F).
Transcript
LoTi/CiP DaTa CoLLeCTion STraTegieS
A critical component of the LoTi Implementation Model is data gathering for approximating the LoTi (Appendix A) and CIP (Appendix B) intensity levels of classroom teachers. This data is often used to make pre/post comparisons of a target teacher’s LoTi and CIP levels along with student achievement indicators (e.g., high stakes tests, benchmark assessments).
A robust enough sample size taken biannually during the Fall and Spring semesters can enable key stakeholders to determine statistical changes in the Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi) and CIP (Current Instructional Practices) that directly impact student achievement in the classroom. Unfortunately, this process may not be as simple as it sounds.
What if you walk into a classroom where the teacher is delivering a lecture via a PowerPoint presentation to a large group of students seated in conventional desks and chairs organized into rows? Does this classroom configuration and instructional delivery methodology imply that the teacher is at a LoTi 1 and a CIP 1/2 based on what was observed at that moment? What if the day before students were analyzing data from their online survey in an attempt to determine trends between the consumer purchasing practices of boys versus girls?
Collecting and documenting LoTi and CIP pre/post data extends beyond the traditional “three-minute” walkthrough because you are trying to dig beneath the pedagogical surface to unearth the teacher’s “true” LoTi and CIP levels. This process requires looking beyond a set of prefabricated “look-fors and locating other instructional artifacts as well as interviewing classroom participants. Data gathering sources/artifacts my include lesson plans, instructional units, performance assessments, student portfolios, classroom observations, teacher interviews, student interviews, and evidence of differentiation.
It is critical that we attempt to determine the teacher’s overall LoTi and CIP levels based on a battery of sources/artifacts rather than rely on a single classroom walkthrough; otherwise, the reliability of the entire LoTi/CIP data gathering process can be compromised. It is suggested that a minimum of two sources/artifacts be employed to determine an individual teachers overall LoTi and CIP levels (Appendix F).
Lesson Plans/Instructional Units:Lesson plans and instructional units can serve as viable artifacts in your quest to determine LoTi and CIP levels. A careful inspection of daily/weekly lesson plans as well as instructional units my reveal trends in the classroom teacher’s approach to instruction, assessment, and technology implementation. Typically, the H.E.A.T... Look-F ors (Appendix C) and the LoTi Sniff Test (Appendix D) can readily break down a lesson into its native components.
Performance Assessments:Performance Assessments encompass three primary components: Content, Process, and Product as well as assessment criteria to gauge student performance against predefined indicators of success (e.g., scoring guides, rubrics). Performance assessments typically fall in the LoTi 3+/CIP 3+ range depending on the level of student engagement and authenticity associated with the task and the role of technology in the learning experience (e.g., add-on, critical component of the learning experience). The presence or absence of one or more complex thinking strategies (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, reasoning, experimental inquiry) or the upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation) can help determine if the performance assessment is at a LoTi 3 and above or a LoTi 2 and below. The scoring guide, itself, can quickly determine the LoTi and CIP levels based on the expectations communicated in the rubric.
Student Portfolios:Student portfolios are collections of selected student work representing an array of performance. Student portfolios can provide evidence of the amount of H.E.A.T... (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authenticity, Technology use) generated by students based on a series of learning experiences created by the teacher. The use of student portfolios can also determine if the original learning experience was teacher-centered or a student-centered based on the processes students used to complete the project as well as the final product. If student portfolios are not available, try gathering samples of student work displayed on the wall to determine any pedagogical implications.
Classroom Observations:Classroom observations provide “real time” data about the teacher’s observed LoTi and CIP levels. The use of the LoTi Sniff Test (Appendix D) and the H.E.A.T... Observation Form (Appendix E) can readily determine the LoTi/CIP levels. The primary drawback of classroom observations is that they include only a “slice” of what teachers and students are doing during the course of the day.
Teacher Interviews:Sometimes when conducting a classroom observation, you may detect signs that what you are observing is a component of a larger project, performance task, or assignment. You may, indeed, be observing the proverbial tip of the iceberg while ignoring the other 90% of what students are completing in the classroom. In the absence of detailed lesson logs detailing the intricacies of a student learning experience, the use of the teacher interview is essential to discovering “where the lesson is going.” Sample teacher interview questions might include:
“Once students have completed this portion of the activity, what’s next?”“How will this activity or unit culminate?” “Is there a final activity the students have to complete?”“How are you differentiating this lesson for your above or below grade level students?”“How is technology used with this lesson?”
Student Interviews:The adage, “when in doubt, ask a student, “ applies equally when attempting to approximate a teacher’s LoTi and CIP levels. Candid feedback from students can help determine not only how the learning occurred but, more importantly, what was learned. Sample student interview questions might include:
“What is the activity/project asking you to do?”“What are you learning about?”“What do you have to do in order to complete this assignment?”“What have you been learning in class?”“How do you use technology in class?”
Differentiated Instruction:In a truly differentiated classroom, an observer should witness LoTi Levels 0-4 and CIP Levels 1-4 occurring simultaneously in the classroom based on the students’ interests, readiness levels, and learner profiles. Oftentimes, the core lesson might be positioned at a LoTi 2 or CIP 2, but opportunities may exist to adjust the learning experience to higher LoTi and CIP levels based on student ability levels. The use of differentiated strategies such as anchor activities, interest-based investigations, adjusting questions, and performance assessments readily point to LoTi 3/CIP 3 and above learning opportunities.
Level O – Non-UseA Levell 0 (Non-Use) implies there is a perceived lack of access to technology-based tools (e.g., computers) or a lack of time to pursue electronic technology implementation. Existing technology is predominately text-based (e.g., ditto sheets, chalkboard, overhead projector).
Level 1 - AwarenessA Level 1 (Awareness) implies that the use of technology-based tools is either (1) one step removed from the classroom teacher (e.g., integrated learning system labs, special computer-based pull-out programs, computer literacy classes, central word processing labs), (2) used almost exclusively by the classroom teacher for classroom and/or curriculum management tasks (e.g., taking attendance, using grade book programs, accessing email, retrieving lesson plans from a curriculum management system or the internet) and/or (3) used to embellish or enhance teacher-directed lessons or lectures (e.g., multimedia presentations).
Level 2 - ExplorationA Level 2 (Exploration) implies that technology-based tools supplement the existing instructional program (e.g., tutorials, educational games, basic skill applications) or complement selected multimedia and/or web-based projects (e.g., internet-based research papers, informational multimedia presentations) at the knowledge/comprehension level. The electronic technology is employed either as extension activities, enrichment exercises, or technology-based tools and generally reinforces lower cognitive skill development relating to the content under investigation.
Level 3 - InfusionA Level 3 (Infusion) implies that technology-based tools including databases, spreadsheet and graphing packages, multimedia and desktop publishing applications, and internet use complement selected instructional events (e.g., field investigation using spreadsheets/graphs to analyze results from local water quality samples) or multimedia/web-based projects at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels. Though the learning activity may or may not be perceived as authentic by the student, emphasis is, nonetheless, placed on higher levels of cognitive processing and in-depth treatment of the content using a variety of thinking skill strategies (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, reflective thinking, experimentation, scientific inquiry).
Level 4a – Integration: MechanicalA Level 4a (Integration: Mechanical) implies that technology-based tools are integrated in a mechanical manner that provides rich context for students’ understanding of the pertinent concepts, themes, and processes. Heavy reliance is placed on prepackaged materials and/or outside resources (e.g., assistance from other colleagues), and/or interventions (e.g., professional development workshops) that aid the teacher in the daily management of their operational curriculum. Technology (e.g., multimedia, telecommunications, databases, spreadsheets, word
Level 4a – Integration: Mechanical (continued)processing) is perceived as a tool to identify and solve authentic problems as perceived by the students relating to an overall theme/concept. Emphasis is placed on student action and on issues resolution that require higher levels of student cognitive processing and in-depth examination of the content.
Level 4b – Integration: RoutineA Level 4b (Integration: Routine) implies that technology-based tools are integrated in a routine manner that provides rich context for students’ understanding of the pertinent concepts, themes, and processes. At this level, teachers can readily design and implement learning experiences (e.g., units of instruction) that empower students to identify and solve authentic problems relating to an overall theme/concept using the available technology (e.g., multimedia applications, internet, databases, spreadsheets, word processing) with little or no outside assistance. Emphasis is again placed on student action and on issues resolution that require higher levels of student cognitive processing and in-depth examination of the content.
Level 5 - ExpansionA Level 5 (Expansion) implies that technology access is extended beyond the classroom. Classroom teachers actively elicit technology applications and networking from other schools, business enterprises, governmental agencies (e.g., contacting NASA to establish a link to an orbiting space shuttle via internet), research institutions, and universities to expand student experiences directed at problem-solving, issues resolution, and student activism surrounding a major theme/concept. The complexity and sophistication of the technology-based tools used in the learning environment are now commensurate with (1) the diversity, inventiveness, and spontaneity of the teacher’s experiential-based approach to teaching and learning and (2) the students’ level of complex thinking (e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and in-depth understanding of the content experienced in the classroom.
Level 6 - RefinementA Level 6 (Refinement) implies that technology is perceived as a process, product (e.g., invention, patent, new software design), and/or tool for students to find solutions related to an indentified “real-world” problem or issue of significance to them. At this level, there is no longer a division between instruction and technology use in the classroom. Technology provides a seamless medium for information queries, problem-solving, and/or product development. Students have ready access to and a complete understanding of a vast array of technology-based tools to accomplish any particular task at school. The instructional curriculum is entirely learner-based. The content emerges based on the needs of the learner according to his/her interests, needs, and/or aspirations and is supported by unlimited access to the most current computer applications and infrastructure available.
Intensity Level 0 (Not True of Me Now)A CIP Intensity Level 0 indicates that one or more questionnaire statements were not applicable to the participant’s current instructional practices.
Intensity Level 1 (Not True of Me Now)At a CIP Intensity Level 1, the participant’s current instructional practices align exclusively with a subject-matter based approach to teaching and learning. Teaching strategies tend to lean toward lectures and/or teacher-led presentations. The use of curriculum materials aligned to specific content standards serves as the focus for student learning. Learning activities tend to be sequential and uniform for all students. Evaluation techniques focus on traditional measures such as essays, quizzes, short-answers, or true-false questions. Student projects tend to be teacher-directed in terms of identifying project outcomes as well as requirements for project completion.
Intensity Level 2 (Not True of Me Now)Similar to a CIP Intensity Level 1, the participant at a CIP Intensity Level 2 supports instructional practices consistent with a subject-matter based approach to teaching and learning, but not at the same level of intensity or commitment. Teaching strategies tend to lean toward lectures and/or teacher-led presentations. The use of curriculum materials aligned to specific content standards serves as the focus for student learning. Learning activities tend to be sequential and uniform for all students. Evaluation techniques focus on traditional measures such as essays, quizzes, short-answers, or true-false questions. Student projects tend to be teacher-directed in terms of identifying project outcomes as well as requirements for project completion.
Intensity Level 3 (Somewhat True of Me Now)At a CIP Intensity Level 3, the participant supports instructional practices aligned somewhat with a subject-matter based approach to teaching and learning—an approach characterized by sequential and uniform learning activities for all students, teacher-directed presentations, and/or the use of traditional evaluation techniques. However, the participant may also support the use of student-directed projects that provide opportunities for students to determine the “look and feel” of a final product based on specific content standards.
Intensity Level 4 (Somewhat True of Me Now)At a CIP Intensity Level 4, the participant may feel comfortable supporting or implementing either a subject-matter or learning-based approach to instruction based on the content being addressed. In a subject-matter based approach, learning activities tend to be sequential, student projects tend to be uniform for all students, the use of lectures and/or teacher-directed presentations are the norm as well as traditional evaluation strategies. In a learner-based approach, learning activities are diversified and based mostly on student questions, the teacher serves more as a co-learner or facilitator in the classroom, student projects are primarily student-directed,
Intensity Level 4 (Somewhat True of Me Now) (continued)and the use of alternative assessment strategies including performance-based assessments, peer reviews, and student reflections are the norm.
Intensity Level 5 (Somewhat True of Me Now)At a CIP Intensity Level 5, the participant’s instructional practices tend to lean more toward a learner-based approach. The essential content embedded in the standards emerges based on students “need to know” as they attempt to research and solve issues of importance to them using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The types of learning activities and teaching strategies used in the learning environment are diversified and driven by student questions. Both students and teachers are involved in devising appropriate assessment instruments (e.g., performance-based, journals, peer reviews, self-reflections) by which student performance will be assessed. However, the use of teacher-directed activities (e.g., lectures, presentations, teacher-directed projects) may surface based on the nature of the content being addressed and at the desired level of student cognition.
Intensity Level 6 (Very True of Me Now)Similar to a CIP Intensity Level 7, the participant at a CIP Intensity Level 6 supports instructional practices consistent with a learner-based approach, but not at the same level of intensity or commitment. The essential content embedded in the standards emerges based on students “need to know” as they attempt to research and solve issues of importance to them using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The types of learning activities and teaching strategies used in the learning environment are diversified and driven by student questions. Students, teacher/facilitators, and occasionally parents are all involved in devising appropriate assessment instruments (e.g., performance-based, journals, peer reviews, self-reflections) by which student performance will be assessed.
Intensity Level 7 (Very True of Me Now)At a CIP Intensity Level 7, the participant’s current instructional practices align exclusively with a learner-based approach to teaching and learning. The essential content embedded in the standards emerges based on students “need to know” as they attempt to research and solve issues of importance to them using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The types of learning activities and teaching strategies used in the learning environment are diversified and driven by student questions. Students, teacher/facilitators, and occasionally parents are all involved in devising appropriate assessment instruments (e.g., performance-based, journals, peer reviews, self-reflections) by which student performance will be assessed.
Are you turning up the H.E.A.T. in your classroom? Use this form to reflect the amount of H.E.A.T. generated from your lesson(s).
Higher-order ThinkingStudents taking notes only; no questions askedStudent learning/questioning at knowledge levelStudent learning/questioning at comprehension levelStudent learning/questioning at application levelStudent learning/questioning at analysis levelStudent learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation levels
Engaged LearningStudents report what they have learned onlyStudents report what they have learned only; collaborate with othersStudents given options to solve a problemStudents given options to solve a problem; collaborate with othersStudents help define the task, the process, and the solutionStudents help define the task, the process, and the solution; collaboration extends beyond the classroom
AuthenticityThe learning experience is missing or too vague to determine relevanceThe learning experience represents a group of connected activities, but provides no real world applicationThe learning experience provides limited real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situationThe learning experience provides extensive real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situationThe learning experience provides real world relevance and opportunity for students to apply their learning to a real world situationThe learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students
Technology UseNo technology use is evidentTechnology use is unrelated to the taskTechnology use appears to be an add-on and is not needed for task completionTechnology use is somewhat connected to task completion involving one or more applications Technology use is directly connected to task completion involving one or more applicationsTechnology use is directly connected and needed for task completion and students determine which application(s) would best address their needs
aPPenDix e: h.e.a.T. formUse this form for performing classroom walkthroughs according to the H.E.A.T. (Higher-order thinking, Engaged learning, Authenticity, and Technology use) observation model.
oBServer name: DaTe:SChooL name:TeaCher oBServeD:SeTTing:The setting for this observation...
harDware uSe During oBServaTion:Hardware use observed...
Unlimited technology use1 to 1 student/computer ratio2 to 1 student/computer ratio 4 to 1 student/computer ratio
❏
❏
❏
❏
10 to 1 student/computer ratio1 student computer in classroom1 teacher workstation onlyNo hardware useOther: ___________________________
❏
❏
❏
❏
❏
SofTware aPPLiCaTion uSe During oBServaTion:Application use observed...
Single Application UseMultiple Application Use
❏
❏
No Application UseOther: ___________________________
❏
❏
TeChnoLogy uSerS During oBServaTion:Technology users observed...
Teacher OnlyStudent(s) Only
❏
❏Student(s) and TeacherNo Users
❏
❏
higher-orDer Thinking:Students taking notes only; no questions askedStudent learning/questioning at knowledge levelStudent learning/questioning at comprehension level
❏
❏
❏
Student learning/questioning at application levelStudent learning/questioning at analysis levelStudent learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation levels
❏
❏
❏
engageD Learning:Students report what they have learned onlyStudents report what they have learned only; collaborate with othersStudents given options to solve a problemStudents given options to solve a problem; collaborate with others
❏
❏
❏
❏
Students help define the task, the process, and the solutionStudents help define the task, the process, and the solution; collaboration extends beyond the classroom
auThenTiCiTy:The learning experience is missing or too vague to determine relevanceThe learning experience provides no real world application, or represents a group of connected activitiesThe learning experience provides limited real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situationThe learning experience provides extensive real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situation
❏
❏
❏
❏
The learning experience provides real world relevance and opportunity for students to apply their learning to a real world situationThe learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students
❏
❏
TeChnoLogy uSe:No technology use is evidentTechnology use is unrelated to the taskTechnology use appears to be an add-on and is not needed for task completionTechnology use is somewhat connected to task completion involving one or more applications
❏
❏
❏
❏
Technology use is directly connected to task completion involving one or more applicationsTechnology use is directly connected and needed for task completion and students determine which application(s) would best address their needs
❏
❏
Learner-CenTereD inSTruCTion:Students established individual goals for their learningStudent inquiry guides the instructionStudent questions dictate context/content of instruction
❏
❏
❏
Students given multiple options for completing a task/projectStudent products perceived as authentic and purposeful
❏
❏
reSearCh-BeST PraCTiCeS:Teacher providing homework and practiceTeacher setting objectives and providing feedbackTeacher reinforcing effort and providing recognitionStudents summarizing and note takingStudents identifying similarities and differencesTeacher providing opportunities for nonlinguistic representations
❏
❏
❏
❏
❏
❏
Students generating and testing hypothesesTeacher implementing cooperative learningTeacher providing cues and promoting questionsTeacher offering advanced organizersTeacher adjusting instruction based on learner readiness, interests, or modality strengthsTeacher providing adequate wait time for student responses
