Texas 1-1 preliminary results
A number of edtech listservs are currently abuzz with discussions of the report recently released on the Texas Learning Initiative and its findings. (See http://www.txtip.info/images/06.05.06_eTxTIP_Year_1_Report.pdf for the full text of the report.) As usual, people who are anti-ubiquitous environments for various reasons cite that test scores haven’t increased and that teachers report their integration isn’t at 100% immersion just yet. As I read the discussions, I felt my blood pressure starting to rise. Please read the following excerpt from the report:
First-year results reveal positive effects of technology immersion on schools (leadership and system support, innovative culture, classroom integration, parent and community support), teachers (proficiency and productivity, technology use and integration, collaboration), and students (technology proficiency and use, small-group work, school satisfaction, and behavior). In most cases, the sizes of effects suggest that the impacts of technology immersion are of both statistical and practical importance.
In contrast to positive effects on school, teacher, and student mediating variables, there were no statistically significant effects of immersion in the first year on either reading or mathematics achievement for sixth graders, who are members of a student cohort that will be followed through eighth grade.
Overall, positive findings are compelling in light of evidence indicating that the level of implementation in the first year for 20 of the 22 middle schools was only partial immersion rather than substantial (2 schools) or full immersion (no schools).
My personal reflections…
1. One year isn’t enough time to show the true impact of a 1-1 implementation. At the end of the first year, you have enough data to revise some of your policies and plan for further integration training for teachers. As a tech coordinator who helped lead a 1-1 for over three years (in addition to the years preceding the implementation), I would NEVER expect every teacher to be at 100% immersion after one short school year. As a teacher at said 1-1, I reflected intently throughout the first year and made significant revisions based on said reflection for the following year. It’s what good teachers do. 100% immersion is neither realistic nor sound educational practice. Major initiatives such as this require most practitioners to take baby-steps, at least for the first year.
2. Test scores on state-wide reading and math assessments aren’t likely to increase dramatically within the first year for ANY new practice. If the initiative is to have impact on said scores, it will take time. I’m not going to continue with my thoughts on standardized testing in these areas, how little they reflect important learning, or the reputation much of Texas has earned for teaching to said tests. I will say that few assessments are designed to reflect higher-level thinking skills developed as a result of the TLI.
3. Perhaps people monitoring the TLI should be more attentive to the responses of those directly involved. Innovation. Parent/community support. Collaboration. Teacher productivity. Student engagement. School satisfaction. These are benefits which are difficult to measure but priceless just the same. They’re not easy to come by, but they’re easy to lose. Rather than criticizing Texas for no increase in test scores, we should applaud them for taking a risk in the best interest of learners and for committing to its success.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
The following research resources were posted by Matt Kuhn on WWWEDU listserv to support the merits 1-1 learning initiatives:
Apple. (2004). Gillispie School—Ahead of the Wave. Profiles in
Success. Retrieved August 24, 2004, from
http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/gillispie
Bartels, F. (2002, November 1). Reflections on the RCDS Laptop
Program After Three Years. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from
http://www.rcds.rye.ny.us
Bonifaz, A., & Zucker, A. (2004). Lessons Learned About Laptops for
All Students. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.
Bradshaw, A., & Massey, J. (1996). Designing a Virtual Classroom
Through the Use of Laptop Computers. Phoenix, AZ.: Annual
International Conference of National Community College Chair Academy.
Edwards, M. A. (2004, February 1). Fulfilling the Promise of Ed Tech.
Retrieved March 9, 2006, from
http://eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=4848
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. (2004). Two Teachers Implement One-to-One Computing: A Case Study. University of Maine: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Kozma, R. B. (2003, Fall). Technology and Classroom Practices: An
International Study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(1), 1-14.
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When Each One Has One: The Influences on Teaching Strategies and Student
Achievement on Using Laptops in the Classroom. ETR&D, 51(3), 23-44.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communications Technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Eduation, 9(3), 319-342.
Raaflaub, C. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2002). Investigating the Learning
Environment in Canadian Mathematics and Science Classrooms in Which Laptop Computers Are Used. New Orleans, LA: Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002).
Performance of Students in Project-Based Science Classrooms on a
National Measure of Science Achievement. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(5), 410-422.
Siegle, D., & Foster, T. (2000). Effects of Laptop Computers with
Multimedia and Presentation Software on Student Achievement (81st). New Orleans, LA: Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA).
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 Research Report on the
Effectiveness of Technology in Schools (7). Washington, DC: Software
and Information Industry Association.
Stolarchuk, E., & Fisher, D. (1998). The Effect of Using Laptop
Computers on Achievement, Attitude to Science and Teacher-Student
Interpersonal Behaviour in Science. Southport, Queensland, Australia:
Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtain University of
Technology.
Yang, C. (2002). Integration of Laptops into a K-12 Learning
Environment: A Case Study of a Science Teacher in the Middle School.
Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A Study of One-to-One Computer Use in Mathematics and Science Instruction at the Secondary Level in
Henrico County Public Schools. Newton, MA: SRI International.