TLCF2001 Pilot School
Preliminary Summative Assessment Report

BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
System Name:	Oak Ridge Schools
School Name:	Willow Brook Elementary
Grades Served:	K-4
# of Students	381
Total # of Teachers	36.5 + 21 Teacher Assistants
# full-time teachers at your school	36
# part-time teachers at your school	1
# of non-teaching administrators in your school	2.5

The following set of responses is submitted as part of the summative assessment report from the named TLCF2001 pilot school by:
By
	(signature)
Printed name	Susan M. Mullan
Date	May 5, 2002

A. SPECIAL PROGRAM FEATURES

1. List any slogans, program names or special features that are unique to your pilot school program.

We are a year-round school, our training and everything else is year-round. One of our slogans is, “Every Season is a Learning Season.”

Our teachers were all trained on the use of laptop computers, so our computer training sessions were called “Laptop Labs.”

2. Based on your knowledge of what other TLCF2001 pilot schools have done (as you have learned through networking with other coaches and reading journals), what special accomplishments do you believe make your program “unique in all the world”?

• A laptop for each teacher (leveling the playing field for all teachers, giving all a new multi-media machine with Internet connection and current office applications)
• Using laptops for incentive for training (6+ hrs. of training was required before teachers were issued their laptops.)
• Allowing faculty staff development time to develop their technology teaching resources and their technology projects.
• Having nearly 100% of our faculty involved in training and publishing their projects
• All faculty members have their own portfolio websites (published on our intranet), including biographical information, classroom information, and links to their multimedia projects

B. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION
3. What percentage of your teachers did NOT participate in any technology integration professional development at your school this year?	100 %
a. Briefly explain why:
Our last ‘hold out’ scheduled/requested professional development time with me for 8:30 this morning! (This teacher has been unable to participate previously due to surgery and complications this year.)
4. What percentage of your administrators DID participate in at least one technology integration professional development at your school this year?	100 %
5. Did you, at the beginning of the pilot year, REQUIRE (instead of merely encourage) teacher participation or teacher completion of projects?		NO
a. If you did not require participation at the beginning of the year, was that strategy effective?	YES
b. If you did not require participation at the beginning of the year, did you later add requirement?		NO
c. Did changing the strategy work?	N/A

C. WEB PAGE PUBLICATIONS
6. Did your school have its own web page BEFORE this grant year?			YES
7. Does your school NOW have its own web page?			YES
8. Did the location of your web host change during the course of the year?			YES
9. If YES, WHY? Our district web sites and our official school web sites have been in the process of being redone this year. In that process, a specific and inflexible format was adopted. Because of the requirements of the grant and the overall need for publishing logs and projects, I established Teacher1.com (last August) for publishing TLCF requirements and resources for our teachers for technology training.
10. Where on the web are you NOW publishing your grant requirements?
School web server:		School web server name:
System web server:		System web server URL
Free web hosting service	X	Host Name www.teacher1.com (Donated by coach S. Mullan)
Other		Other Name

D. BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES
11. What percentage of your teachers submitted best practice examples?		By May 30, 2002: 100 %
12. What strategy did you use to elicit technology integration best practice examples from your teachers?	I introduced technology integration examples, trained teachers on use of software, and also offered continual workshops to give staff development time to complete projects, offering “over the shoulder” guidance for developing and completing projects. I have also been using teachers’ planning periods to individually tutor and work with project development. Each teacher that completes a project gets to display it at a faculty meeting, and publish and share it online.
13. What change in strategy will you use (or have you used) for the second set of examples due in June?	None, this strategy was effective, but it has been necessary that I check (in a non-confrontive way) with each teacher that has an uncompleted project (all have started projects, some had difficulty completing them.) We discuss the project plans, professional development needs, and timeline set to submit the completed project by May 30, 2002.
14. What positive and/or negative impacts occurred from faculty participation in creating/submitting best practice examples?	Positive: It was effective to teach teachers skills to create technology projects for classroom use and also have them reinforce, use, and be accountable for those skills by making a project to submit for the rest of the faculty to share. Negative: There was pressure and intimidation for those who had not participated in technology use before or had undeveloped technology skills. There is a strong feeling of accountability in this school, and even though projects weren’t mandatory, all teachers felt obligated to complete and share a project.
15. What do you, as a coach, think you could have done differently to engender engaged technology best practice from your teachers?	Any more “engendering” would have caused negative response. (100 % participation speaks for itself.)
16. What say did your faculty have in who comprised the best practice jury panel?	The entire faculty was our best practice jury panel.
17. Did you publish on the web a thorough description of the jury process used for your best practice examples?			YES
18. Has your faculty devised a rubric for the best practice examples?			YES
19. If yes, what were the key assessment criteria on the rubric? Direct Curriculum connections, Clarity of topic taught (understandable and developmentally appropriate for student use), appropriate use of technology (effectively using and not over using computer features and functions), use of multimedia to facilitate learning and maintain high-interest. Note: ALL projects are to be appropriate to be shared with all. (For example: a recent health presentation that contained content only for 4^th graders that was inappropriate for other grades was not published.)
20. How many examples of winning best practice did you publish mid-year?			6 +
21. How many do you anticipate publishing at end of year?			50 +

E. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
22. What is your greatest cause for celebration about this pilot program?
Teachers NOW have the hardware, software, and the skills to use technology as a practical and effective way to teach curriculum objectives. Teachers NOW use technology with their teaching regularly, teachers NOW look for technology solutions for their teaching challenges. NOW teachers share their technology tools through our server and online. None of these fantastic results were the case before the pilot program existed.
23. In your estimation, what percentage of your faculty now uses technology as part of the everyday teaching and learning process?	85 %

F. SOFTWARE
24. List all software materials you or your teachers have used as part of this pilot year program. Beside each title, use the following code to indicate whether the software was NEW to the school during the pilot year or whether it was already there prior to the grant. 1=NEW; 2=PRIOR Knowing what you and your faculty now know, place an “E” next to those that are the MOST ESSENTIAL software titles or types for a school intent on learning to use technology as a tool for everyday teaching and learning.
“E” 2. Leap Frog Math (an interactive, graduated math package for grades K-4) (already purchased) 1. Microsoft Windows 2000 Pro (operating system) (New) “E” 1. Microsoft Office 2000 Pro: Microsoft Word 2000 (New) Microsoft PowerPoint (New) Microsoft Excel (New) Microsoft Publisher (New) 1. Microsoft Windows Server (necessary for Intranet and network software) (New) 1. Microsoft Encarta (New) for Library and Science Center 2. Accelerated Reader (Reading comprehension testing software, already purchased)
25. What software did you purchase through the grant this year that you did NOT originally anticipate or include as part of your grant application? Briefly indicate why you added it and tell whether it was a good choice.
none
26. What software from your grant application did you NOT purchase after all? Why did you change the plan?
none
27. Did you use grant money to invest significantly in special purpose curriculum software package(s)? If yes, complete the table below.				NO
27a. Software Name	27b. Why was it purchased?	27c. Which students /teachers use it?	27d. Measures used to evaluate the impact
Not applicable

G. HARDWARE
28. Think of all the classrooms in your school. Categorize them by the hardware BEFORE the grant and what is NOW found in them at this point in the grant. Indicate what percentage of classrooms have how many of each. (Use rounded figures) In addition, for computers, indicate the general age of the items counted. E.g. 50%:1 (new); 25%:0; 25%:1 (new) & 2 (older than 5 yrs)
	Student workstations		Teacher computer			Presentation equipment	Printers
BEFORE% : # (age)	100% have 1, 2-4 years old 80% have 1-2, over 4 years old 10% have 4, 2-4 years old		60% have 1 older than 4 yrs 20% have 1, 2-4 years old (Please note: this 80 % of these teacher computers were not able to view current Internet sites or capable of using modern office software applications.) 20% have 1 (new)			60% have 1 older than 4 yrs 20% have 1, 2-4 years old 20% have 1 (new)	40% have 1 older than 4 yrs 30% have 1, 2-4 years old 20% have 1 (new)
NOW % : # (age)	100% have 1, 2-4 years old 80% have 1-2, over 4 years old 10% have 4, 2-4 years old 20 % now have 1 additional student used station 1-2 years old 20 % now have 1 additional student used station 2-4 years old		60% have 1 older than 4 yrs 20% have 1, 2-4 years old (Please note: this 80 % of these teacher computers were not able to view current Internet sites or capable of using modern office software applications.) 100% have 1 (new)			60% have 1 older than 4 yrs 20% have 1, 2-4 years old 100% have 1 (new)	40% have 1 older than 4 yrs 30% have 1, 2-4 years old 100% have 1 (new)
29. What hardware did you purchase with the grant that you did NOT originally include as part of your grant proposal? Why did you add this to the picture?				30. What hardware originally specified in your proposal did you NOT purchase? Why?
Teacher printers, placing printers into individual classrooms made printing more accessible, and made teachers use their computers more.					Networked color printers – This item was deleted and because of teacher choice and recommendation, new printers for each classroom were purchased instead.
Was this a wise decision? Why or why not?		YES			Was this a wise decision? Why or why not?				YES
Yes, this was a wise decision, this practical convenience and availability of printing caused teachers to “buy into” the greater use of computers in their classrooms.					At the elementary level, teachers are thrilled to have high quality (new) color printing in their own rooms.
31. If you used grant money to purchase computers or other equipment for use in computer labs or libraries, what equipment did you purchase and for which of these locations?
FOR LABS					FOR LIBRARIES
					4 student computer research stations, a networkable printer
a. Why did you elect to place new hardware in these locations?					Students will constantly use these resources for student projects, Internet research, etc.
b. Why or why are you not happy with this decision?					Happy with this decision, the library is a very well accessed and well used resource area for our students.
32. Approximately what percentage of the teachers in your school have a computer to use without having to share it with other teachers?								100 %

H. LAPTOP/WIRELESS COMPUTING
33. Did/do you have laptop computing in your school BEFORE the grant/NOW? If yes, answer a and b below.			BEFORE		NOW
				No	Yes
34. Did/do you have wireless computing in your school BEFORE the grant/NOW? If yes, answer c and d below.			BEFORE		NOW
				No	Yes
a. Tell how the laptops are now deployed and who the primary users are.
Laptops are distributed to each teacher. They are primarily used for instructional tools with the large screen TV’s, and as well used to create, access, and share teaching tools and resources.
b. How have laptop security issues been handled?
Our school has been in a high security mode. (no additional security measures were taken.) Video security cameras are always on and recording throughout the school. Outside doors are all locked except for the main entrance. Outside windows are not left open. I keep our lab door locked when I am not in the room.
c. How many wireless laptops do you have and how many laptops per cart?	# laptops: 40	# laptops per cart: no carts
d. Characterize both the positives and negatives of a wireless laptop computing deployment strategy.	Positives	Negatives
	These computers allow us to have BOTH a teachers’ technology training lab (by “recalling” the laptops at any time), AND new multimedia, networkable computers for each individual teacher.	Security Risk (theft) Additional training is required for use and care of laptop hardware (different configurations than a desktop, hardware is more fragile, etc.)

I. BENCHMARKING and EXTERNAL EVALUATION
35. Prior to participating in the TLCF2001 grant, what experience did your faculty have with writing program benchmarks?
This school year was the first year that teachers have had significant input in benchmarks and in the school improvement plan.
36. What percentage of the faculty participated in generating the TLCF2001 benchmarks for your school?	All teachers input was requested
37. If you were to participate in this program for one more year, do you think the specific benchmarks developed by your school for TLCF2001 would still be an appropriate measure of progress? Why/why not?
Yes, combined with the focus areas of our school improvement plan, because these plans specifically and practically address the areas that need improvement in our school, as assessed by student achievement test results, and faculty and administrative assessment.
38. Characterize the faculty and administration response to the presence of external evaluators and classroom observers.
Our evaluators did not interrupt classroom activities unnecessarily. In general, there was a positive response to the external evaluators by both administration and faculty. This staff is accustomed to visitors coming to the school, so guests in the classroom are welcomed and are not a new phenomena.

J. TECHNICAL SERVICE and SUPPORT
39. Give an estimate of the percentage of your time you spent in technical service and support.	25%
40. Does your district have an online technical support request system?	YES
41. Prior to the grant year, were you the person in your school generally regarded as the tech support or go-to person?		NO
42. Characterize the additional burden that your grant placed on your system’s technical support personnel.
Assisting with planning and approving the initial TLCF 2001 grant budget, Delivering hardware to the school, Setting up Windows 2k profiles, Installing Office Software, Oversee and support Wireless Internet Installation, setting up new network server and Windows 2K server software, support for new email users, etc.
43. Characterize the extent to which individual teachers have learned, as a result of participation in this grant, how to better solve their own simple computer problems.
Teachers are more likely to remember the typical trouble shooting steps and put them into use more often. Teachers are more willing to check cables, system errors seem to be less foreboding, teachers are more likely to try shutting computers down and re-booting to cure ailments. Teachers are more willing to report a problem that they can not resolve, instead of letting the computer go unused because of frustration or lack of troubleshooting knowledge.
44. Characterize the extent to which individual teachers have learned, as a result of participation in this grant, how to better troubleshoot their own simple computer problems and thereby describe them for technical support requests.
Teachers are more likely to remember the typical troubleshooting steps and put them into use more often. Teachers are more willing to check cables, system errors seem to be less foreboding, teachers are more likely to try shutting computers down and re-booting to cure ailments. Teachers are more willing to report a problem that they can not resolve, instead of letting the computer go unused because of frustration or lack of troubleshooting knowledge.
45. Characterize your own personal growth in troubleshooting technical problems.
Troubleshooting technical problems has always been one of my strengths, and it has been improved by expanding the hardware and software that I am familiar with.

K. COACH PARTICIPATION
46. Did you participate in writing the original grant?		YES
47. Were you among those teachers originally considered for technology coach?		YES
48. Did you teach at the pilot school during 2000-2001?			NO
49. Do you have an administration endorsement?			NO
50. What prior experience have you had in serving as a “coach” (either in or out of school)?
I had 5 years experience with College, Faculty and Staff technology teaching.
51. What is your teacher certification and endorsement area?	1-8, Masters of Teaching Arts
52. Including this year, for how many years have you taught?	6
53. Characterize how you used technology in your classroom before this year as coach.
I had 5 years experience with College, Faculty and Staff technology teaching. I used technology for every aspect of teaching and delivering content. (Of course, integrating technology with instruction was the content.)
54. Will you return to the classroom next year? (was administrative)
a. How do you plan to “catch up” to your fellow teachers with integrating technology into everyday teaching and learning when you do return to the classroom?
Not applicable
55. What do you think is the single most important contribution to the teachers and students at your school that you have made as a result of serving as tech coach for a year?
Establishing the confidence in teachers that they CAN and use technology!!!! Technology CAN be put into practice regularly, teaching methods can be dramatically improved, and student learning and interest level can be increased by creatively using computer resources and multimedia projects.
56. What do you think is your most important professional development accomplishment for yourself as a result of this year?
Keeping technology staff development training effective, alive, and lively; Continually Adapting to new hardware and software training models; Maturing Leadership and Administrative Skills
57. Before serving as coach this year, to what extent had you engaged in reflective practice? In journal writing?
To nurture reflection and to promote the development of a reflective perspective, other forms and formats (other than essay format) are encouraged in the educational environments that I have observed, and as well in many educational research articles on reflective practices. Personally, I collect and document staff development tools, ideas, resources and publications. I also stay very attentive to feedback from teachers and staff development experiences. I explore software solutions and try to keep current with emerging technology trends, realizing that staff development has to be 100% applicable and usable in current teaching and hardware constraints, while being aware of future trends and upcoming training needs. I especially value the shared experiences and opinions of other educational technology professionals, helping me to put a perspective on my own methods and challenges. When I see what challenges others technology–using schools face, it helps me find ways to predict, dodge, or solve these same challenges with my staff development programs. The use of journal writing and reflective practice is (ideally) to expand and promote the development of the teaching professional, used to challenge and improve teaching skills and methods. Writings from this process are not appropriately used if they are also promoted as public records of grant activities. This public record of journals makes it a challenge to avoid the phenomena of “sterile reflection on demand.” Other methods of depicting grant activities, such as detailed surveys like this that bring out data, analysis, and reflection of the grant program in each pilot school are more appropriate to compare TLCF programs and to reveal effective technology infusion efforts. Standard project management tools such as timelines and flow charts that include descriptions of events as well as critical assessments and reflections, could give a detailed documentation of the nature and deployment of grant activities. These optional formats could more clearly depict directions, emphasis, and activities, while giving abundant information for assessing and redirecting the TLCF plans as needed for mid-year revisions. Journal writing could be of optimal use within individual school programs, but it is just not a format that is best suited to serve as public documentation of grant activities.
58. Contrast your journal writing from the beginning of the year with that in the closing months of the school year. Consider specificity, reflective quality, ease of writing, and impact on how you scaffold subsequent activities.
Our staff development activities through the year act as scaffolds to build on. It is a challenge to direct journal writing to specificity, with time constraints pushing journal writing requirements to my ‘at home’ desk after hours, but it is progressing.

L. SUSTAINABILITY

59. What plans are in place so that new teachers in your school will become part of the professional learning community your faculty has created during this year?

New teachers are invited to undergo the same program as our ‘mainstay’ teachers have, I simply tutor new teachers separately – during lunch, planning periods, or after school to ‘catch them up.’ I am currently tutoring a set of (2) new teachers after school until they ‘catch up’. They are anxious to receive their laptops and they understand the need for and are appreciative of the small group training.

60. How will you and your faculty continue to be creative and keep the enthusiasm alive?

We CONTINUALLY find new and creative ways to use technology in teaching. Just last week, for example, one of our teachers discovered that her special education students love to see their name on the TV. She has since put all student names on presentations, with interesting effects to maintain student interest, helping her to meet a curriculum objective of name recognition and letter recognition in a way her students love. Also, a first grade teacher discovered the shapes and drawing tools on her presentation software, just when her grade was reviewing polygons and non-polygons. She made a presentation that visually taught the concepts in a clearer, brighter, and better way than she could by using the board or the small visual aids that are part of the teaching material sets. Teachers are also finding student research online and on multimedia encyclopedias a new and exciting way to bring subjects like geography to life.

61. How will the professional learning community at your school nourish those teachers for whom technology integration remains a major challenge?

Our grade level groups continue to support each other. These groups were established before the grant, and they are already in place as effective support groups.

62. What is the current plan for the use of bonus money, if it is earned?

We would like to continue the current program, with the implementation of a new student lab and the continued placement of a technology coach to keep the technology professional development a regular part of the school improvement efforts.

M. OUTREACH and PUBLICITY
63. Has your school’s pilot program been featured in the local media?					YES
64. Have other coaches visited your school?							NO
65. Have educators, besides coaches, from other schools in your vicinity visited your program?					YES
66. Have you or any of your teachers presented the program to parent groups?					YES
67. Have you or any of your teachers presented the program to local school board or civic groups?					YES
68. Have other coaches visited your school?							NO
69. Are you planning to participate in the TETA Summer Institute in July?					YES
70. Are you or any of your faculty members thinking about presenting at the fall Technology Conference in Nashville?					YES
71. Would you be willing to mentor a coach-to-be of a future grant recipient?					YES
72. Would your school be available to serve as an informal demonstration site for future EdTech grant recipients?					YES
73. Would your teachers be ready to work with grade/content alike teachers in other TN schools and share ways to integrate technology?					YES
74. Is your principal ready to share leadership wisdom with other administrators who are asking how they might be able to get their faculty engaged in a similar endeavor?					YES
N. STUDENT IMPACT
75. List the THREE most important effects this grant has had on the children in your school.
Children look forward to classroom activities that now involve computer use (instead of moans, they literally have cheers) and have a better, more positive attitude about their learning when technology is being used. This has especially been a factor in our first grade classrooms, where our students have led our teachers into greater technology use by their excitement and enthusiasm. Children are more excited about the curriculum content, and are more attentive to the content that they are learning when technology is used in the classroom Children have taken great pride and more initiative than before when creating computer projects that are being published
76. To what degree did your faculty see any evidence that using technology as a regular teaching and learning tool will ultimately make a positive difference in student achievement?			77. To what degree did your faculty see any evidence that technology has a negative impact on student learning?
Not at all	Some	A Great Deal	Not at all	Some		A Great Deal
(76) Our students were the evidence – their attentive interaction with and enjoyment of content as it is now delivered using presentations speaks for itself. Students ask to REPEAT formerly boring exercises and classroom activities now that they are on “TV.”			(77) A few comments that science photos used in presentations were too graphic
78. How confident are you that your school will earn the bonus?			Not at all	Some		A Great Deal

O. STATE TECHNICAL SUPPORT

79. To what extent did the all-coach workshops with Dr. Lowther influence the manner in which your program was put into effect?

It would have been more beneficial to spend time interchanging ideas, programs, solutions, etc. with other coaches. This interaction and collaborative interchange would have been an ideal reflective practice. The experience of those “in the trenches” is current and immediately useful to assist our pilot programs. The “bleeding edge” circumstances that are a result of installing and using new hardware, operating systems, software, and training methods beg for input and practical solutions from those in similar circumstances. However, the advisory concepts and handouts from Dr. Lowther were appropriate and useful for technology integration staff development.

80. To what extent did the program administrator’s occasional response(s) to your journal entries support or detract from your efforts as technology coach?

81. How important were the insights you expressed in your formative assessment report in refocusing the remainder of your program year?

Insights made and revisions of focus were already in place by January 1, affecting the rest of our year with continued teacher workshops and a major undertaking of student projects.

P. MODES of PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
82. Please indicate the overall percentage of time spent on each type of professional development (should total 100%). Then, for each category, indicate the percentage of time spent on the options. For example, 30% of the training occurred after school with 10% having stipend for the teachers and 90% not having stipends.
During school:			10		Ü During teacher planning				X	OR Ü With substitutes for teachers
After school:			70		Ü With stipends for teachers				X	OR Ü Without stipends for teachers
On Saturdays:			20		Ü With stipends for teachers				X	OR Ü Without stipends for teachers
Before school:			0
83. Which of the above proved to be the most effective in terms of teacher participation and productivity to purpose?													All! Teachers needed variety and options of time slots.
84. What average amount of paid time per teacher did your program provide for teachers to develop lessons which used technology?
During training:				_____4_____ paid hours			Outside of training:				_____2______paid hours
85. What impact did external events imposing unforeseen limitations on your schedule for professional development have on the overall impact of your program? (If possible, describe these events and how you were able to modify and adjust).
At the beginning of the year, our contract for the TLCF grant from the state was post-poned for an additional month beyond what was anticipated, which post-poned our hardware purchase. (Our school district could not legally obligate money for any purchase without the contract in effect.) We had to wait additional time for hardware to be delivered , which post-poned our teacher training on this new hardware, losing this month of valuable time in the beginning of our school year. (This time was used wisely to plan grade level projects, etc., but we lost two full weeks of staff technology training days with the hardware as was planned during our Fall Break.) Also, our wireless networking was not fully in place until February, and ‘fixes’ and additional cabling were still being added in March and April. Thus, Internet training was not usable on our new teacher stations until ¾ of the school year was over.
86. How were the groups for professional development events composed?
	X	Voluntarily						In other teams related to teams pre-existing in school
		Assigned by coach or other administrators						Describe:
	X	In grade-alike groups
		In content-area groups						Other (Describe)
	X	By technology proficiency
		No particular organization
87. Who determined how the professional development groups were composed?						The Faculty, and the Technology Coach
88. How effective was your grouping strategy?
Grouping by technology proficiency for the basic hardware and software instruction was very workable. However, as the tech coach determined, grouping by grade levels for technology project planning was efficient and helpful for keeping projects curriculum centered and to avoid duplication of efforts. When the basic training was completed, and the basic outline of technology projects were already determined, then if was most effective to offer a varied and flexible schedule of time slots in order to fit training into teachers’ busy schedules.
89. List the technology-related conferences or conventions that you and/or teachers from your school attended as part of this program and indicate how many teachers attended each. Place an * next to the ones you attended.
*Tennessee Educational Technology Conference *Florida Educational Technology Conference
a. Taken as a whole, what percentage of your entire faculty attended one or more conferences through this grant?														25
b. How was it determined who would attend the conferences?
ALL full time, certified faculty were invited, those who were interested. able to attend, and who whose classrooms would benefit were sent. (Due to very busy schedules of our faculty, these limits were sufficient to stay within our budget.)
c. What strategy did you use so that teachers not attending conferences were able to reap the benefits of those who did?
I had teachers write about their discoveries and technology tips collected from conventions. These were either shared at a faculty meeting and/or published online.
90. Did your program use or plan to use on-line professional development courses for your faculty?																		NO
a. Name the courses and the providers. Place an * next to those you yourself took.
b. What percentage of your faculty utilized these offerings?															N/a
c. What was their completion rate?															N/a
d. What strategy did you use to establish a community of on-line learners so your teachers could work with each other rather than in isolation in these courses?
N/a
e. Which of these courses would you recommend to others, for what purposes, and why?
N/a
f. If you were asked for your recommendations about using on-line professional development delivery systems, how would you recommend?
I have been using online courses and resources for supplemental purposes. I have several such “free” courses and resources linked from our site. I would still recommend scheduling “in person” training whenever possible.
g. As coach, were you able to ascertain any common characteristics among those teachers for whom on-line courses were effective and those for whom they were less effective? What were they?
We do have two teachers that are taking online instruction (not paid for or supported by the grant) for use of Internet resources. This has been effective for them because they are very diligent about spending time regularly to complete their sessions, and they support each other in these efforts. (A main factor that may prompt their diligence is that they are in a course that will earn necessary credits for maintaining their professional teaching licensure.)
h. Were there any online courses originally planned that you did not, in the end, actually use? Which ones? Why?
no
91. Did your program utilize outside presenters for professional development for your teachers?																	NO
a. Name the presenters and their topics
b. Which of these would you recommend to others? Why?
N/a
92. Did your program have other teachers from within your faculty serve as peer professional development presenters (either formal or informal)?												YES
a. What percentage of your faculty served in this capacity?												5%
b. Was this a part of your original design? (i.e., having assistant coaches)																NO
93. List the workshop topics which you yourself presented to faculty at your school. Think about which ones seem to have had the most positive impact on the teaching practice of your teachers. Then rank order them with “1” indicating most positive impact.
“1+” Technology Literacy 6 hour course (required for laptop recipients) - Topics covered: Use and care of Laptops, Win 2K, MS Office 2K, Introduction to Technology Integration Methods Teaching with Microsoft PowerPoint 2000 Ideas and Examples for Integrating Technology with Curriculum “1” Presentation Projects Workshop “1+” Grade level collaborative technology project planning MS Word Training MS Publisher Training MS PowerPoint How-2Training “1” MS PowerPoint Make It &Take It Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets and Curricular Applications “1” Internet Resources for Students and Educators FETC Planning, Gathering, and Sharing of Technology Resources E-Mail, Oak Ridge Schools WebMail “1” Creating Intranet Portfolios/Web Editing More Courses are anticipated
a. Which of these have you also presented to teachers elsewhere?
Technology Literacy (Hardware, Operating Systems, Applications Software, Methods of Technology Integration) Teaching with Microsoft PowerPoint Ideas and Examples for Integrating Technology with Curriculum Presentation Projects Workshop Collaborative technology project planning MS Word Training MS Publisher Training MS PowerPoint How-2Training MS PowerPoint Make It &Take It Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets and Curricular Applications Internet Resources for Students and Educators E-Mail Creating Online Projects/Web Editing
94. From your year of experience as a technology coach, what qualities of professional development do you now see as critical in order for teachers both to learn to integrate technology and to actually use it in everyday teaching and learning?
In order to run with technology in the classroom, you have to learn to walk with it first! It is critical to have an understanding of computer hardware basics, operating system basics, and software applications basics! (It was VERY helpful to have all faculty have the exact same hardware, operating system, and applications software.) Once the foundation of basic operating skills is built, concurring with teachers of like grade level to determine effective, practical, and curriculum centered technology integration for their classroom is critical. This brings technology to the accepted and expected teaching practices “table”. After technology integration practices have been accepted, time needs to be allowed for these projects to be created, and put in use. Staff development time must be allowed for casual, “over the shoulder” technical guidance. The support of other similar grade level teachers is also critical to reinforce and encourage the teachers to “buy into” daily use of technology in the classroom. The next critical step is the sharing and accessibility of created resources. Relying on copying files and sharing floppy disks is not practical or efficient for long-term sharing of teaching resources. Teachers need to publish projects to be accessible online, or shared through the local network. The next step for teachers to allow the common use of student technology projects to bring their learning to digital life, and then the final frontier is the practice of publishing student projects. As a staff development method, I promote every opportunity to display technology infusion efforts in use. Events to display and “show off” technology integration methods such as open houses, parent-teacher conferences, principal evaluations, media opportunities, parent and community visitors, school administrator visits, and other frequent guests are a great incentive! Overall, the best staff development method at my disposal is to positively encourage and empower our teachers with technology infusion skills and methods, and to instill the confidence to use these skills and methods regularly in the classroom.

COMMENTS:

It has been an outstanding privilege to work in this school environment with truly professional educators. The experience becomes even more of a privilege when we have been allowed to use current technologies and staff development opportunities to develop, promote, and share technology integration tools for our students. I speak for myself and for our school faculty and staff when I express the inspiration that this project has given for us to continue to use technology integration to make the most high-interest, effective learning environment possible for our students.