Archive for July, 2009

24
Jul

Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (2009). A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. Key findings include:

  • Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. Learning outcomes for students who engaged in online learning exceeded those of students receiving face-to-face instruction, with an average effect size of +0.24 favoring online conditions. The mean difference between online and face-to-face conditions across the 51 contrasts is statistically significant at the p < .01 level.
  • Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction. The mean effect size in studies comparing blended with face-to-face instruction was +0.35, p < .001. This effect size is larger than that for studies comparing purely online and purely face-to-face conditions, which had an average effect size of +0.14, p < .05.
  • Few rigorous research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for K–12 students have been published. The systematic search of the research literature found just five experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies comparing the learning effects of online versus face-to-face instruction for K-12 students. As such, caution is required in generalizing to the K-12 population because the results are for the most part based on studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education).

Technorati Tags:

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
24
Jul

By Arne Duncan

Friday, July 24, 2009

From the Wall Street Journal

To every governor who aspires to be his state’s “education governor,” this is your moment. Today, President Obama is to announce the draft guidelines for applying for the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund — by far the largest pot of discretionary funding for K-12 education reform in the history of the United States.

Since its inception in 1980, the U.S. Department of Education has traditionally been a compliance-driven agency with only modest discretionary funds available for reform and innovation. By contrast, the Race to the Top fund marks a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the federal government to create incentives for far-reaching improvement in our nation’s schools. Indeed, the $4.35 billion available in Race to the Top easily outstrips the combined sum of discretionary funds for reform that all of my predecessors as education secretary had.

For states, school districts, nonprofits, unions and businesses, Race to the Top is the equivalent of education reform’s moon shot — and the Obama administration is determined not to miss this opportunity. We will scrutinize state applications for a coordinated commitment to reform — and award grants on a competitive basis in two rounds, allowing first-round losers to make necessary changes and reapply.

What are we looking for? The president starts from the understanding that maintaining the status quo in our schools is unacceptable. America urgently needs to elevate the quality of K-12 schooling and boost college graduation rates, not simply to propel the economic recovery but also because students need stronger skills to compete in a global economy. As he has put it, “education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success — it’s a prerequisite for success.” Yet tragically, too many schools fail to prepare their students for college or the workforce.

ad_icon

Under Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds will be pressed to implement four core interconnected reforms.

– To reverse the pervasive dumbing-down of academic standards and assessments by states, Race to the Top winners need to work toward adopting common, internationally benchmarked K-12 standards that prepare students for success in college and careers.

– To close the data gap — which now handcuffs districts from tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction — states will need to monitor advances in student achievement and identify effective instructional practices.

– To boost the quality of teachers and principals, especially in high-poverty schools and hard-to-staff subjects, states and districts should be able to identify effective teachers and principals — and have strategies for rewarding and retaining more top-notch teachers and improving or replacing ones who aren’t up to the job.

– Finally, to turn around the lowest-performing schools, states and districts must be ready to institute far-reaching reforms, from replacing staff and leadership to changing the school culture.

The Race to the Top program marks a new federal partnership in education reform with states, districts and unions to accelerate change and boost achievement. Yet the program is also a competition through which states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support. For example, states that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage. And states that explicitly prohibit linking data on achievement or student growth to principal and teacher evaluations will be ineligible for reform dollars until they change their laws.

Neither I nor the president is naive about reform. I served as superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools for seven years — and saw firsthand that the system often served the interests of adults better than it did its students. Still, I reject much of the pessimism and age-old apathy about school reform. I have visited 23 states in the past six months and have met countless students, teachers, parents and administrators who hunger for change. I have seen high-performing schools and districts that are closing achievement gaps, raising graduation rates and shipping off to college kids who never thought it possible.

Since President Obama took office, numerous states have adopted reforms that would have been almost unthinkable a year ago. This spring, 46 states signed on to a state-led process to develop a common core of K-12 standards in language arts and math. At the same time, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Indiana, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado and Illinois have lifted restrictions on charter school growth.

Despite the obstacles, I remain optimistic about America’s capacity for transformational change. The edifice of education reform may take years to build. But the Race to the Top starts today.

The writer is secretary of education.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
20
Jul

Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report (2009). This study collected information about educational technology practices related to the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program. The report is structured around the EETT program objectives and specific performance measures developed by the Department to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The program objectives and performance measures focus on teachers’ and students’ access to technology, technology-related professional development, technology integration, and student technology literacy. The study collected data from nationally representative samples of states, districts and teachers between school years 2002-03 and 2006-07.

Key findings:

  • High-speed Internet access in K-12 classrooms. Overall, 63 percent of teachers reported in 2006-07 that students had high-speed Internet access in their classrooms. There were no statistically significant differences in reported classroom access to high-speed Internet for students between teachers in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty schools in either 2004-05 or 2006-07. However, seventy-two percent of teachers in elementary grades, compared with 55 percent in middle school grades and 49 percent in high school grades, reported having high-speed Internet access within their classrooms. Differences in subject taught and in school location (rural, suburban, urban) were not significant predictors of classroom Internet access.
  • Quality of technology-related professional development. Seven practices often cited as elements of best practice for technology-related teacher professional development were identified through review of the literature. When asked to describe their most useful technology-related professional development experience in 2006-07, 20 percent of teachers indicated that this professional development did not include any of the seven research-suggested characteristics.
  • Technology integration. The GPRA measure for technology integration is “the percentage of districts receiving Educational Technology State Grants funds [EETT funds] that have effectively and fully integrated technology.” As reported on the 2007 state survey, most states either had not adopted a definition of effective integration of technology or did not measure the percentage of districts meeting the statewide definition.
  • Assessing student technology literacy. One of the GPRA measures for the EETT program is “the percentage of students who meet state technology standards by the end of the eighth grade.” Forty-four states had either stand-alone technology standards for students or technology standards that were integrated into other student academic standards. Six states reported conducting statewide assessments of student technology literacy in 2005-06, up from just two states in 2002-03. Twenty-five states reported relying on districts to assess student technology literacy.

REPORT FINDINGS

High-speed Internet access in K-12 classrooms. Overall, 63 percent of teachers reported in 2006-07 that students had high-speed Internet access in their classrooms. For all groups, classroom access to the Internet rose by a statistically significant amount. There were no statistically significant differences in reported classroom access to high-speed Internet for students between teachers in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty schools in either 2004-05 or 2006-07. This was also true of Internet access more generally; classroom access reported by teachers in high-poverty schools and teachers in low-poverty schools was statistically equivalent.

Professional development needs of teachers in high-poverty schools. Teachers in high-poverty schools were consistently more likely than those in low-poverty schools to express a need for additional technology-related professional development. The biggest gap in needs between teachers in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty schools was in the use of technology to meet the needs of English language learners, with 42 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools expressing a need for professional development in this area, compared with 28 percent of teachers in low-poverty schools. A similar gap by school poverty level (11 percentage points) existed in teachers’ perceived need for additional professional development in improving students’ technology literacy.

Quality of technology-related professional development. Seven practices often cited as elements of best practice were identified through review of the literature. When asked to describe their most useful technology-related professional development experience in 2006-07, 20 percent of teachers indicated that this professional development did not include any of the seven research-suggested characteristics. The most commonly reported feature of teachers’ self-described “most useful” professional development activity was “directly related to the content taught,” with 50 percent of teachers reporting this feature. Teachers were least likely to report that their most useful professional development activity included follow-up activities, with 24 percent of teachers reporting this feature.

Percentage of teachers meeting state technology standards. One of the GPRA measures for the EETT program is “the percentage of teachers who meet their state technology standards.” Only 27 states (52 percent) had minimum technology competency standards for teachers in 2006-07, and states were generally not collecting data regarding the GPRA measure of the percentage of teachers meeting state technology standards. Among the 11 states that reported data, the definitions and measurement of teachers’ technology competency varied greatly. Percentages of teachers meeting standards in a given state ranged from 8 to 100.

District wide integration of technology. The GPRA measure for technology integration is “the percentage of districts receiving Educational Technology State Grants funds [EETT funds] that have effectively and fully integrated technology.” As reported on the 2007 state survey, most states either had not adopted a definition of effective integration of technology or did not measure the percentage of districts meeting the statewide definition. Among the 17 states that did report the percentage of districts meeting state criteria, the percentages ranged from 0 percent to 100 percent. The average percentage of districts meeting state definitions was 56 percent.

Teacher and student use of technology for teaching and learning. Larger percentages of teachers reported using technology for a variety of professional practices on a weekly basis in 2006-07 than in 2004-05. The biggest gains were in teachers’ use of technology to “develop curricula or assignments in reading, math, or other subjects” and to “present reading, math, or other subject concepts to students.” The only two exceptions to this trend were using technology to test students, which decreased, and using technology to collaborate with experts or teachers in other locations, which did not change during this two-year period.

Assessing student technology literacy. One of the GPRA measures for the EETT program is “the percentage of students who meet state technology standards by the end of the eighth grade.” Forty-four states had either stand-alone technology standards for students or technology standards that were integrated into other student academic standards. Six states reported conducting statewide assessments of student technology literacy in 2005-06, up from just two states in 2002-03. Twenty-five states reported relying on districts to assess student technology literacy. For the 12 states that reported data, the average percentage of students meeting technology literacy standards was 64 percent; percentages ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent.

Evaluation of the Enhancing Education through Technology Program

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
19
Jul

Technorati Tags: ,

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
19
Jul

ARRA Implementation Briefinghttp://www.gilfuseducationgroup.com/wp-admin/post-new.php
Archived Video Webcast – Recorded on April 3, 2009
View the Archived Webcast:

WindowsMedia | RealMedia
Captioned version: WindowsMedia | RealMedia

On April 1, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced that $44 billion for states and schools is now available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. On Friday, April 3, 2009, the Secretary convened a briefing for over 150 education association/organization leaders to discuss the implementation of ARRA.

The panelists were:

U.S. Department of Education:
Secretary Arne Duncan, Marshall Smith, Jonathan Schnur, Tony Miller, Joseph Conaty, Zollie Stevenson, Ruth Ryder

National Education Association:
Joel Packer

American Association of State Colleges and Universities:
Dr. Constantine Curris

Association School Business Officials International:
John Musso

American Association of School Administrators:
Bruce Hunter

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
19
Jul

With the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009  the Gilfus Education Group is dedicated to providing the latest news on how this will affect the Education industry.  Here you will find a collection of the most pertinent information from the Act as it relates to research operations. Expected target investments.

Education Specific Recovery:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA):
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act website: www.recovery.gov

Other Agency Specific Recovery:

Articles and Other News:
The New York Times

Category : Education Consulting | Blog
18
Jul

January 5th, 2008
Stephen Gilfus, a founder of Blackboard inc, serial entrepreneur, and a well known figure in the eLearning industry, today, announced the formation of the Gilfus Education Group, an organization focused on providing independent consulting, implementation and research services to educational institutions, industry investors and the educational companies that serve them.

“Today’s educational institutions are as challenged as ever. Struggling to be operationally and financially efficient, meeting the needs of the new social landscape, providing greater student services and at the same time trying to keep up with changing technology and services”. It is for this very reason that the Gilfus Education Group was formed. To provide assistance to educational organizations in making strategic decisions, remaining compliant in industry regulations, optimizing operations and IT Infrastructure and removing the mystery of today’s educational technologies.”

At its core the Gilfus Education Group is aligned to assist in the development of the educational industry by assisting:

  • Educational Institutions: Secondary and Post-Secondary (For and Not For Profit)
  • Educational Technology and Service Companies (Existing and New Market Entrances)
  • Industry Investors (VC and Private Equity Firms)

Through each one of its internal practices the Gilfus Education Group provides critical capabilities to its clients for effective decision making and successful implementations.

Technorati Tags:

Category : Education Consulting | Gilfus Education Group | Stephen Gilfus | Blog