San Antonio Technology and Education Coalition (SATEC ...



San Antonio Technology and Education Coalition (SATEC)

Evaluation Report

School Year 1998-1999

I. Introduction to SATEC:

The San Antonio Technology in Education Coalition (SATEC) is a technology rich educational collaboration between two large public independent school districts and one private school system in city of San Antonio, Texas. SATEC seeks to connect student learning to concrete experiences through the seamless integration of technology into curriculum and instruction by developing a training and application model. This model will first be piloted in the Coalition's critical need area of Algebra I through a hands-on, data-driven approach to the learning of algebraic concepts using such tools as computer-interfaced probes, image analysis software, and spreadsheet-based simulation activities. These technology tools will radically change the environment of the teaching/learning process for Algebra I. The intent is to change current teaching/learning practices through technology training into all curricular areas.

SATEC has been in operation since 1997 when it received a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant from the United Stated Department of Education. The SATEC Program provides the resources to improve the mathematical skills of middle and high school students by incorporating the latest technological innovations into the classroom instruction. This is accomplished by using the technology to help the students make the connection between abstract mathematical concepts and concrete, real-world experiences. SATEC seeks to have a seamless integration of technology into the curriculum and instruction.

Three high schools, each from a different school district, participated in the 1998-1999 SATEC project in San Antonio, Texas. The three high schools are briefly described below:

High School "A" resides in one of the largest Independent School District in Bexar County, San Antonio, Texas. Total student enrollment of the district surpasses 50,000 for the 1998-1999 School year. There are thirty-five elementary schools, ten middle schools, and six high schools in the district. The socioeconomic status of the High School "A" is low to medium high in household income and average residential property value. The high school’s student population consists of a large Hispanic and African American population. The school is considered to consist of a “minority-majority population” of students. Fifty percent of the students who attend High School "A" are classified by the Texas Education Agency as "Economically Disadvantaged". In addition, 54.3% of the students who attend High School "A" are classified by the Texas Education Agency as "At-Risk" for not completing high schools.

High School "B" resides in one of the largest Independent School District in Bexar County, San Antonio, Texas. The socioeconomic status of the High School "B" is low to very low in terms of household income and average residential property value. The high school’s student population consists of a large Hispanic and African American population. The school is considered to consist of a “minority-majority population” of students. In terms of overall socioeconomic status of the residents in the district, High School "B" is lower than High School "A". Almost eighty percent (79.7%) of the students who attend High School "B" are classified by the Texas Education Agency as "Economically Disadvantaged". In addition, 60.1% of the students who attend High School "B" are classified by the Texas Education Agency as "At-Risk" for not completing high schools.

High School "C" resides in a private school district in San Antonio, Texas which consists of a high school, several middle schools, and several elementary schools. The high school’s student population consists of a majority of low income Mexican American students. In terms of overall socioeconomic status of the students who attend High School "C", the average residential property value and household income is considered to be low to very low.

II. Qualitative Observations Pertaining to Senior High School A:

During the 1998-99 school year, Algebra I classrooms at senior high school "A" were observed by the SATEC evaluation team members on the average of once every three weeks for the entire year. Observations were aggregated for the SATEC participating/experimental classrooms and summarized by "teacher observations" and "student observations". Teacher observations concerned observing and recording teacher behaviors during lessons in which technology was used. These observations were supplemented with teacher interviews and lengthy, ongoing dialogues with the SATEC experimental teachers. Student observations concerned observing and recording student behaviors during lessons in which technology was used.

Observations of SATEC Experimental Teachers:

• Teachers tended to use the graphing calculators to work practical problems during lessons.

• Teachers tended to emphasize the process and the meaning of the process, rather than product with both graphing calculators and computers.

• Teachers seemed enthusiastic, engaging, and to demonstrate effective teaching practices that included brief explanations of what was going to happen, a demonstration of how to work a problem, guided practice with graphing calculators or computers, checking for understanding, and closure of the lesson.

• Teachers seemed to point to various aspects of a problem being worked because the lessons were visually orientated on graphing calculators or computer screens.

• Teachers seemed to have high expectations with the use of technology and communicated these high expectations to their students.

• Teachers seemed to expect much from their students, and students seemed to live up to these higher expectations.

• The graphing calculators, with the use of the overhead projectors, were highly beneficial when it came to instruction. Teachers would model, demonstrate, and verbally lead students through the process of finding a solution and ask them for independent practice with the graphing calculators.

• Teachers seemed to like what they were doing--the technology seemed to add a very positive dynamic to the classroom.

• The classroom environment and atmosphere were generally very positive and work oriented.

• The instruction in these classrooms were very labor intensive. In other words, teachers had to do quite a bit of explanation, modeling and demonstrating before, during, and after the use of technology.

Observations of SATEC Experimental Students:

• The students seemed to be highly engaged with the process and the product of each lesson.

• Although the students were product oriented, they also focused on the process in each lesson.

• The students were more "turned-on" by the lessons with the use of technology.

• A hands-on approach to working algebra problems was seemed preferable.

• The students worked cooperatively to solve problems with each lesson.

• The students appeared eager to share their results.

• The students did more of the talking in the classes with the graphing calculators and/or the computers compared to the teacher dominated instructional environment.

• The students appeared to "show off" their computer skills for visitor to the classroom.

• The student comments were mostly positive with less complaining (such as, "oh Miss, why do we have to do this?").

• There were higher levels of students engaged in the lessons with the use of technology.

• There were very few discipline problems in the classes observed.

• The students were generally very positive and work oriented.

• Many of the students struggled to understand basic concepts for a given lesson. Two to three partners would work a problem successfully. But, concepts were not fully understood by all students.

III. Qualitative Observations Pertaining to Senior High School B:

During the 1998-99 school year, Algebra I classrooms at senior high school "B" were observed by the SATEC evaluation team members over the course of the school year.

Overall, several observations during the evaluation period revealed that the technology was not used as effectively as it could have been for enhancing student understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, it was observed that some computers were frequently used by students to play software games unrelated to algebra content. It was noted on a few visits to one particular classroom that the computers had gathered dust from not being used in the learning process. Some specific teacher observations are annotated below.

• Some teachers seemed to be afraid of the computers and the corresponding algebra software provided to them by the SATEC project.

• Two teachers appeared intimidated by their lack of computer knowledge.

• Two teachers seemed to have problems understanding the algebra subject matter that they were responsible for teaching.

• All of the teachers at high school A viewed evaluator observation as intrusion.

• If the teachers knew an evaluator observation was scheduled, they appeared to choreograph a "dog-and-pony" show related to the subject matter.

• These classroom observations provided evidence that the initial step of introducing a computer-assisted algebra curriculum was accomplished.

• However, the process for selecting teachers seems problematic and resulted in teaching professionals associated with the program with questionable qualifications relative to mathematics.

• This impression is supported by wide variation in technology integration in the classroom teaching environment observed in high school A.

IV. Qualitative Observations and Justification for Excluding System C School from the SATEC Evaluation:

During the 1998-99 school year, Algebra I classrooms at senior high school system "C" schools were observed by the SATEC evaluation team members on the over the course of the school year. Observations were aggregated for the SATEC participating/experimental classrooms and summarized by "Observations of SATEC Experimental Schools and Administrators ","Observations of SATEC Experimental Teachers", and "Observations of SATEC Experimental Students". Teacher observations concerned observing and recording teacher behaviors during lessons in which technology was used.

Observations of SATEC Experimental Schools and Administrators:

• Since the inception of the SATEC project, one high school and two middle schools in system "C" schools have been involved in Coalition (SATEC). These three schools are among the original schools that launched the SATEC project in 1996. From the beginning there were difficulties and challenges with the system "C" schools' use of the technology and attendant software, as well as the collection of data.

• At one of the system "C" schools, the administration seemed to be uncooperative from the initial stages of the project. The administration of the school appeared to be uncooperative with the project's goals and the evaluators. As a result, the evaluation team was unable to develop a working relationship with the project teacher. This was particularly troubling, due to the fact that this particular school had the strongest teacher of the three system "C" schools, although she left after the first year.

• In another of the system "C" schools, the administration was more supportive, but did not appear to have a conceptual grasp of the foundations of the project objectives. In this case, the project teacher assigned seemed to be the source of the challenge. The administration was supportive of the project evaluation team and attempted to facilitate the collection of data.  

• The third system "C" school was a high school. The administration did not support the project's goals and objectives. The project teacher assigned to this school was given no support by the administration, whereby the school administration delegated full responsibility of the project to him.

• Overall, the administrative support provided to the SATEC project from the system "C" schools was an impediment to the project's goals and objectives. Based on the lack of integration of the technology provided in the Algebra I classrooms, the evaluation of the project's goals and objectives at these schools was questionable, making any available data not valid and/or reliable.

Observations of SATEC Experimental Teachers:

• Based on numerous classroom observations, the degree of technology integration in the system "C" schools involved in the SATEC project was minimal. For the most part, project teachers used traditional methods for teaching Algebra I. The degree of technology integration could be summarized as questionable, at best. It appears that project teachers did not take to fully integrate the lessons developed for the project. This may be due to the lack of competence in the subject matter itself.

• In summary, a commonality among the three system "C" schools was the resistance of the teachers and administration to integrate technology into Algebra I classrooms.

Observations of SATEC Experimental Students:

• The achievement of the students at the system "C" schools did not meet the expectations of the project. It should be noted that the Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT) pre-test scores indicated most of the students were not prepared for Algebra I. In addition to the initial challenge, the technology was not integrated into the Algebra I classrooms.

V. Qualitative Observations and Summary of Focus Groups Held With Teachers from High Schools A and B, and School System C:

Teacher Focus Group Summary

Research Methodology

The technology project school district participants included three clusters of middle and high schools in San Antonio, Texas. Public School District A had algebra classes from two middle schools and one high school in the project. Public School District B selected algebra classes from two middle schools and one high school for participation. Lastly, algebra classes from three private high schools were included in the study.

Thirteen teachers comprised the teaching professionals selected to use technology to enhance algebra course curriculum development and implementation. Three focus group sessions were conducted during the 1998-1999 school year to evaluate teacher attitudes regarding program success. Sessions were held before classes began (August 14, 1998), at the midpoint of the school year (November 30, 1998), and at the end of the school year (May 17, 1998).

Focus group structure was designed to allow teachers to determine and assess program goal accomplishment. Additionally, teaching professionals were able to identify program successes as well as problematic issues associated with the project.

Teacher Focus Group Analysis

Focus Group Findings –(August 14, 1998). The teachers identified and discussed anticipated program accomplishments. Technology was viewed as the vehicle for integrating abstract concepts with “real world” applications for students. As a result, students will learn concepts rather than just memorizing them and have the opportunity to teach each other more effectively. Many of the teachers felt that through technology students would be more motivated and excited about algebra. Additionally, the physical location of computers in the classroom would change the interaction dynamics between students and between students and the teacher.

Teachers, through a brainstorming process, identified twenty-six project goals (see Appendix A). They also prioritized the goals by voting for the most important ones (each focus group participant had seven votes). The summary in Appendix A demonstrates that pre-planned lessons based on the computer technology were seen as the most important goal. Linked to the pre-planned lessons was the goal of developing a clear algebra scope and sequence as well as the ability to apply all SATEC materials received by the teachers. Getting students excited about algebra and applying it to a variety of societal issues were illustrated in multiple goals.

Focus Group Findings –(November 30, 1998). In the midyear session, teachers reported students appeared to be motivated and willing to try new things. They became engaged in the activities, participated in more group interaction and without knowing it they were learning math concepts as the technology appeared to make learning more fun. Student algebra scores improved and the technology seemed to help clarify the concepts.

Teachers reported positive effects as teaching professionals and one individual even stated the professional development was “great.” They also found greater peer collaboration, more patience with the students, and greater knowledge of computer technology.

Appendix A provides additional information obtained from the focus group session.

Focus Group Findings –(May 17, 1998). In the concluding session, teachers echoed the accomplishments of the earlier focus group and reported: students became more comfortable with math, they participated in group work, appeared to be more excited about learning and math scores showed improvement. Participants provided examples of interesting technology accomplishments and many developed an ability to teach algebra differently as well as more opportunity to interact with other teachers.

See Appendix A for detailed information for the focus group session.

Project Goals and Problems. The goals for the SATEC program were discussed in the September and May and focus group sessions. The goals changed significantly between the first and final sessions. By May 1999, teachers had a year’s experience using technology in the algebra classroom. As a result, the goals for the following school year were mostly tied to learning from mistakes, better planning, and the need for better communication between the teachers and the administrators. Teachers expressed concerns for larger classrooms for math classes because of the amount of space needed for computers and technology accessories.

Teachers identified and discussed issues of concern related to the project in each focus group session. The most important problem areas were related to technology. More specifically, classroom space, software and hardware problems, class time constraints, the need for more computers, and some student apprehension about using the computers were viewed as problems. Another issues involved student discipline. An example was provided that some students could stay outside the parameter of classroom participation and use lack of computers as an excuse.

Adjusting to algebra computer technology proved to have issues of its own. For instance, computer set-up and start-up issues, student adjustment, and teacher adjustment to a different teaching style posed significant problems.

VI. Quantitative Analysis and Results Pertaining to Senior High Schools A and

B:

A. Student information:

Information on student’s academic performance was collected on the semester final grade of Algebra I classes and the end-of-course Algebra I test. For academic year 1998-1999, only two high schools and three middle schools implemented the SATEC curriculum. For the purpose of creating comparable and equivalent comparison groups, we only included students in this part of the analysis if they had attended two semesters of a regular Algebra I course at the same campus, as well as participated in the end-of-semester Algebra I test during academic year 1998-1999. Furthermore, since only one section of Algebra I was offered in each participating middle school, which all implemented SATEC curriculum, it was difficult to identify a comparable contrast group at the middle school level. Therefore, we did not include the middle school students in this part of the analysis.

With the above delimitation, data was extracted from four hundred eighteen (418) 9th grade students from High School "A" and High School "B" in academic year 1998-1999. Of the students whose information is used for the analysis, there were 212 females and 206 males. The students were comprised of two-hundred fifty (60%) economically disadvantaged students and two-hundred thirty-five (56%) students who were considered "at-risk" by Texas Education Agency standards for academic failure and/or school drop out. The ethnic composition was 33% African American, 47% Hispanic, 18% white-non-Hispanic and 2% Asian.

In the following analysis, the experimental group (EG) was composed of 161students who attended two semesters of the Algebra I course with the same teacher using the SATEC curriculum. The control group (CG) was composed of 257 students who took the Algebra I course with the same teacher for two semesters without exposure to SATEC curriculum.

B. Research Hypotheses:

Quantitative analysis was focused on objectives/outcomes postulated as our research hypotheses by the SATEC evaluation team for SATEC challenge grant. With the available data collected in 1998-1999 school year, we are only able to assess three of the seven SATEC challenge grant hypotheses. They are:

SATEC Objective 1.2: The percent of SATEC program students who pass the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination will be higher than the percent from a comparable group of non-SATEC students.

SATEC Objective 1.4: The average standardized score on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination for all SATEC Algebra I students will be higher than for a comparable group of non-SATEC students.

SATEC Objective 1.7: The daily attendance rate will be higher and the number of office referrals will be lower for SATEC program students when compared to non-SATEC program students in comparable classes as measured annually.

In addition to the above hypotheses, we also included student final course grade averaged over two semesters. We postulated that the average final course grade for all SATEC Algebra I students will be higher than course grades from a comparable group of non-SATEC students. Because data on the number of office referrals was not available, Objective 1.7 was only evaluated with daily attendance information. Therefore, we will include four outcome variables in our analysis.

C. Analysis Results:

Initially, we performed our data analysis to evaluate each of the four hypotheses using univariate one-way analysis techniques. Then we examined several factors that may have caused confounding effect on our hypothesized relationships. Through this exercise, we were able to gain some important insightful understanding about the impact of SATEC curriculum on the outcome variables. The following is a summary of steps taken in data analysis.

1. Passing rate on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination.

Table 1 shows the passing rate on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination. While 21.1% of the SATEC participants passed, 26.5% of the non-SATEC participants passed the end of course Algebra I examination. There was no significant difference between the percent of students who passed the end of the course Algebra I examination in the experimental group and the control group (x 2 (1) = 1.255, n.s.).

Table 1.

[pic]

2. The final course grade standardized score on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination, and total days of school absence.

Table 2 displays final course grade, standardized score on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination, and total days of school absence for comparison between the experimental group and the control group, as well as between two participating high schools within each experimental condition.

One-way F analysis was performed on the final course grade, standardized score on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination, and the total days of school absence. As can be seen from Table 8, there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the end of course final grade in Algebra I, standardized algebra score in 1998, and total days of absence, respectively. Students in the experimental group (M= 72, SD= 11.71) had significantly lower final grades for the Algebra I course compared to students in the control group (M= 75, SD= 10.51) (F(1,416)=7.49, p < .006). Students in the experimental group had significantly lower standardized end of course Algebra I scores (M= 1408, SD= 104.73) compared to students in the control group (M= 1438, SD= 102.57) (F(1,416)= 8.122, p < .005). Students in the experimental group (M= 8.9, SD= 8.37) missed significantly more days of school than students in the control group (M= 6.7 SD= 6.68) (F(1,416)=8.43, p < .004).

Table 2

|SATEC STATUS |School |Course Final Grade |Standardized |Total Days of Absence|

| | | |Algebra Score in 1998 | |

|Participant |High School A | | | |

| |Mean |77.60 |1454.33 |5.00 |

| |N |67 |67 |67 |

| |Std. Deviation |10.69 |107.92 |5.47 |

| | | | | |

| |High School B | | | |

| |Mean |68.01 |1375.85 |11.73 |

| |N |94 |94 |94 |

| |Std. Deviation |10.77 |88.16 |8.96 |

|Total | | | | |

| |Mean |72.00 |1408.51 |8.93 |

| |N |161 |161 |161 |

| |Std. Deviation |11.71 |104.06 |8.37 |

|Non-Partic. |High School A | | | |

| |Mean |74.02 |1446.24 |5.85 |

| |N |213 |213 |213 |

| |Std. Deviation |10.84 |102.36 |5.70 |

| | | | | |

| |High School B | | | |

| |Mean |79.89 |1398.41 |11.30 |

| |N |44 |44 |44 |

| |Std. Deviation |7.00 |95.06 |8.96 |

|Total | | | | |

| |Mean |75.02 |1438.05 |6.78 |

| |N |257 |257 |257 |

| |Std. Deviation |10.51 |102.57 |6.68 |

|Total |High School A | | | |

| |Mean |74.87 |1448.18 |5.64 |

| |N |280 |280 |280 |

| |Std. Deviation |10.90 |103.58 |5.65 |

| |High School B | | | |

| |Mean |71.80 |1383.04 |11.59 |

| |N |138 |138 |138 |

| |Std. Deviation |11.18 |90.69 |8.93 |

|Total |Mean |73.86 |1426.67 |7.61 |

| |N |418 |418 |418 |

| |Std. Deviation |11.07 |104.02 |7.44 |

3. Summary of data analysis:

An initial examination of the data analysis indicates that none of the SATEC Objectives were supported based on data collected during 1998-1999.

SATEC Objective 1.2: There was not a significant difference on the passing rate for the end of course examination between the experimental group (21.1%) and the control group (26.5%) (chi-square (1) = 1.25, n.s.).

SATEC Objective 1.4: Students in the experimental group had significantly lower standardized end of course Algebra I scores (M= 1408, SD= 104.73) compared to students in the control group (M= 1438, SD= 102.57).

SATEC Objective 1.7: Students in the experimental group (M= 8.9, SD= 8.37) missed significantly more days of school than students in the control group (M= 6.7 SD= 6.68) (F(1,416)=8.43, p < .004).

Course Final Grade in Algebra I: Students in the experimental group (M= 72, SD= 11.71) had significantly lower final grades for the Algebra I course compared to students in the control group (M= 75, SD= 10.51).

4. Impact of Confounding Variables:

After careful examination of potential confounding variables (student gender, family economic status and at-risk for academic failure status), we strongly believe the lack of support for the proposed research hypotheses was caused partially by differences in the two participating high schools in terms of student population and partially by the implementation procedures of the SATEC curriculum at High School "B: (please see qualitative observations and analysis of High School B). First, students who were identified as economically disadvantaged and at-risk for academic failure by Texas Education Agency were more likely not to pass the state end of course Algebra I examination, scored lower on the standardized state end of course Algebra I examination and course final grade, and had more school absences compared to their counterparts. Similar findings have also been reported previously in this student population.

In the case of SATEC outcome evaluation, the two factors created further confound since High School B had higher percentage of students as economically disadvantaged and at-risk for academic failure compared to High School A. As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, there were less students (50%) at High School A identified by the Texas Education Agency as economically disadvantaged compared to 79.7% at High School B (x2 (1) = 32.72, p < .0001). The percent of the students identified by the Texas Education Agency as at-risk at High School A was 54.3%, whereas the percent of at-risk students at High School B was slightly higher at 60.1% (x2 (1) = 1.062, p < n.s.). As a result (see Table 5), more students at High School A (31.8%) passed the end of the course Algebra I examination compared to 9.4% of the students at High School B (x 2 (1) = .23.868, p < .0001).

Table 3

[pic]

Table 4

[pic]

Table 5

[pic]

To further investigate the confounded relationships between SATEC curriculum and outcome variables, we performed our analysis again separately for the two participating high schools.

As can be seen from Table 6, 38.8% of the SATEC participants at High School A passed the end of the course Algebra I examination, whereas, 29.6% of the non-SATEC participants passed the end of the course Algebra I examination at High School A. 8.5% of the SATEC-participants at High School B passed the end of course Algebra I examination, whereas, 11.4% of the non SATEC participants passed the end of the course Algebra I examination at High School B. There was no statistically significant difference between the pass rates for participants versus non-participants on the end of the course Algebra I examination at both High School A (x2 (1) = 1.599, n.s.) and High School B (x 2 (1) = .049, n.s.). However, the passing rate was 9.2% higher in the experimental group at High School A.

Table 6

| | |SATEC status |Total |

|

|SCHOOL |Algebra test result |Participant |Non participant | |

|

|High School A |did not pass |41 |150 |191 |

|

| | |61.2% |70.4% |68.2% |

|

| |Passed |26 |63 |89 |

|

| | |38.8% |29.6% |31.8% |

|

| |Total |67 |213 |280 |

|High School B |did not pass |86 |39 |125 |

|

| | |91.5% |88.6% |90.6% |

|

| |Passed |8 |5 |13 |

|

| | |8.5% |11.4% |9.4% |

| |Total |94 |44 |138 |

|

For the outcome variables of the final course grade, standardized scores on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination, and the total days of school absence, we again found that High School A students in the experimental group benefited from SATEC curriculum over students in CG (see Table 2). For SATEC students, the end of the course final grade in Algebra I and the standardized algebra score were 77.6 and 1454.3 at High School A and 68 and 1375.9 at High School B. For non-SATEC students, the end of the course final grade in Algebra I and the standardized algebra I score were 74 and 1446.2 at High School A and 79.9 and 1398.4 at High School B. In addition, as can be seen from Table 7, the total days of absence in Algebra I was 5 for SATEC participants at High School A and 11.7 for SATEC participants at High School B. For non-SATEC participants the total day of absences was 5.8 at High School A and 11.3 at High School B.

Upon completing our study of the impact of confounding variables, it seemed clear that the SATEC curriculum was somewhat beneficial to the students in the experimental group at High School A.

VII. Concluding Summary Statements:

Initial quantitative univariate data analysis indicates no support for the four research hypotheses in the areas of the passing rate of the state end of course Algebra I examination, the final course grade, the standardized score on the state Algebra I End-of-Course Examination, and the total days of school absence. However, the issue of the rather strong confounding variables suggests that the difference in student’s status in terms of economic disadvantage and being at-risk between the two participating high schools may have partially masked the impact of the SATEC program. Low academic performance at High School B was attributed to a higher percentage of students being economically disadvantaged and at-risk for academic failure.

At High School A, the students who participated in the experimental group for two consecutive semesters performed slightly better, although not statistically significant than students in the control group. We attribute the limited benefits of the SATEC program to the fact that it was a pilot year for the project and much of the curriculum was in the process of being written and implemented for the fist time.

The lower academic performance at High School B may also be linked to pedagogical issues of the SATEC curriculum implementation. These issues are discussed above in this report under qualitative observations. Teachers must be recruited for the SATEC project who are certified by the state as experts in their content area (Algebra I), and for whom technology is not something they wish to avoid. Both the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the SATEC project reflected in this report represents a "base line", initial attempt to establish the validity of the SATEC curriculum by participating teachers. It seems apparent from the qualitative observations that teacher commitment to the SATEC project, administrative support for the SATEC project, and technical support for the SATEC teachers is of paramount importance to the success of the SATEC project.

Finally, many of the challenges with the evaluation of this project (high numbers of economically disadvantaged and at risk students, lack of commitment on the part of some teachers and administrators, and difficulty assimilated technology in the classroom) are perennial challenges which are not unique to this project and confront our nation at large. Economic disadvantage and the accompanying at-risk status of students in urban schools is a greater problem than the SATEC curriculum can completely overcome.

Appendix A

Summary of Algebra Teacher Focus Groups:

I. SATEC FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY - AUGUST 14, 1998

A. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCEPTS OF WHAT THE PROGRAM CAN ACCOMPLISH? (TEACHERS):

• Use technology to integrate what we do in the classroom.

• Technology will allow us to reach harder learned, more abstract concepts.

• Provides a bridge to today’s technology.

• Will grab and hold attention of students (with technology).

• Provide more opportunities for student learning of concepts rather than memorization.

• Speed up some things, add things, and take things out.

• Self discovery, actually identify (discover) the concepts.

• Bring some things in the real world into the classroom.

• Focal point and get the students into group work.

• Turn the classroom into a student-centered classroom rather than a teacher-centered classroom.

• Motivation for those students who are low achievers (traditionally)

• Relevancy of algebra provides opportunity and incentives for potential opportunities (widening possibilities).

• Creates higher attendance, excitement and attention.

• Makes math real.

• A program to improve instruction and learning, with teacher involvement.

• Ends some of the frustration in teaching math.

• A motivator for students in general.

• Creating algebra as it is needed. (A shift of algebra usage).

• Nature of classroom environment has been changed (orientation, use of equipment, etc.).

• Improve scores.

B. WHAT WERE THE LEAST HELPFUL ASPECTS OF THE TRAINING PROVIDED TO YOU? (TEACHERS)

• Much material crammed into short a amount of time (summer class).

• Training/trainer was random (no continuity with trainers).

• Assumed computer literacy on the part of participants.

• Felt we were being talked down to (summer class).

• Not enough time for practical application.

• Hard to apply techniques, lessons to actual classroom exercises.

• Can’t utilize some of the programs in the classroom.

• Our concerns and needs were not heard. (Summer).

• In the dark about scheduling (training) and what you were supposed to do.

• Lack of continuity in lesson organization.

• Variation in the expertise of participants caused problems with time sequencing of classes.

• Difficult to catch up if you missed the training at the beginning.

• Personality of the trainer: sexist (perhaps), talked down to participants, not knowledgeable.

• No capability of one-on-one training.

• Provided frustration.

C. WHAT WERE THE MOST HELPFUL ASPECTS OF THE TRAINING PROVIDED TO YOU? (TEACHERS)

• Going over the lessons as a group gave us students’ perspective.

• Gave us a sense of accomplishment and more confidence.

• Hands-on activities were great (spring).

• Received a lot of good training in a small amount of time.

• Group training allowed us to learn from instructor as well as each other.

• Activities and assignments stimulated creativity.

• Training allowed us to focus on SATEC.

• Getting together the project cohort (social networking).

• The project teachers bonded.

• Training on the specific hardware and you could take it [to own classroom] to practice.

• Spring training (instruction) allowed everyone to pick up something.

• Provided possibilities for using hardware/software in the classroom.

• Allowed us to know what (technology) is available (out there).

• Excitement!!!

• Leaned a lot from instructors.

• Speakers were good.

D. WHAT GOALS WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH? (TEACHERS)

• Want a basketful of eggs, i.e. lessons for everything, or a lot of pre-planned lessons. [16]

• Know “when” to use this information. [4]

• Excited at the end of the year as now. [7]

• To be able to apply all SATEC materials received. [8]

• To have clear idea with scope and sequence and how it is going to be aligned in the class. [8]

• To know how to use everything available. [7]

• For students to say they had fun, learned some things, and was exciting. [6]

• To instill a love of math in students. [3]

• Train more teachers to use this technology and teach algebra this way. [3]

• Be comfortable with the unknown of teaching this way. [3]

• Be able to trust the process. [3]

• To be able to train the students so effectively so they can train each other. [2]

• Have community and students feel closer to the school. (Change attitudes) [2]

• Help students know they can transform algebra into everyday life. [1]

• Find more things to apply. [2]

• Do algebra without the technology.[2]

• Parents will become involved as the students have become excited. [2]

• Love of math as evidenced by increasing scores. [2]

• A desire for them to learn more (choosing higher math courses). [1]

• To have students have a sense of being successful and using technology in the “real” world.[1]

• Students will feel comfortable with algebra and computer.

• Parents see that technology is only as good as basic knowledge of math.

• To be able to plan better.

• Specific lessons for teaching algebra.

• Want students wanting more based teaching with technology.

• Feel like a good math teacher, again.

• Shift to standards- based teaching.

E. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES/CONCERNS PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT? (TEACHERS)

• Need additional assistance (individuals).

• Problems of equipment delivery and installation.

• Need designated specific training.

• Lack of appropriate support from the

F. PROGRAM RATING AVERAGES. (Based on 1 to 10 scale with 1 being lowest, 10 being highest)

Course Average Rating

Spring 7.6

Summer 4.9

Graduate course 5.6

II. SATEC FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 30, 1998

A. HOW HAS USING THE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT?

• Students are motivated.

• Students are more willing to try new things.

• Students become engaged longer in activities.

• The lessons facilitate group work and cohesion between students.

• Students take control of their own learning.

• Students show more interest in the material.

• Technology provides variety.

• Technology facilitates learning, while books facilitate memorization.

• Technology has allowed me to become more of a facilitator and less of a leader.

• Student confidence levels are boosted. Students are more motivated to continue with lessons.

• Makes math more fun.

• Without knowing it, they (students) are learning math concepts.

B. HOW HAS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED THE STUDENT IN LEARNING ALGEBRA?

• Makes algebra come alive. (This is related to problem solving).

• "Slower" students feel they are included and a part of something; gives confidence.

• There has been a change in some slower student grades.

• The students "see" algebra.

• Contextualizes algebra; places algebra in context for related experiences.

• Helps clarify material and makes it more understandable.

• Makes algebra "real world" and easier to manipulate and visualize.

• Gives students a chance to play with "messy" algebra problems.

• With technology, algebra becomes participatory.

• Mistakes are easier to correct, thus students are more willing to make mistakes and tackle problems.

• Students are more involved in the learning process.

• More problem solving based.

C. WHAT UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF USING COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM?

• Room space. Layout of room; where we put students, limited space problems.

• Software problems in terms of transferring and loading.

• Lack of experience and training in computer technology.

• Time problems; the lessons take a lot of time and there is not enough classroom time to complete them. The lessons are long.

• Not enough computers per student ratio (ideal ratio would be 2 students per computer).

• There is always a student outside the parameter who can use the lack of computers as an excuse.

• Students get into everything else, change everything around and ignore the lesson. This creates problems for the next student and takes up the teacher's time trying to fix it.

• It is much harder to make up the work.

• A number of students are reluctant to work on computers. They are afraid to demonstrate incompetence in front of the other students.

• Lack of academic background has caused problems with students using the computer.

• A few parents were reluctant to have their children involved in the technology algebra class.

• Cannot send technology home.

• Honors student (some) are lost coming into the classroom.

• No Internet "hook-up."

D. HOW HAS THIS APPROACH TO TEACHING NEGATIVELY EFFECTED YOU AS A TEACHING PROFESSIONAL?

• Isolated from other math teachers.

• Frustrations due to lack of help with technology implementation.

• Perceptions of extra time and now are expected to be on more committees and do more work. Assumptions of so much extra time!

• Technology is now stamped on your forehead; everyone assumes you have expert knowledge.

• More pressure about expectations of what the SATEC project will do.

• *Special education students placed in class with technology assuming this will "work" for them. The classroom looks like two different classrooms!

• One teacher feels she is not using technology to the fullest and not giving all she could to the students.

E. HOW HAS THIS APPROACH TO TEACHING POSITIVELY EFFECTED YOU AS A TEACHING PROFESSIONAL?

• Have become more knowledgeable about technology.

• Have become more patient with self and the students.

• Peer collaboration.

• Have learned to teach math more attuned to student needs.

• Challenged to be more creative.

• The professional development has been great!

• Great opportunity to see what is out there.

• Able to create more activities due to the technology.

III. SATEC FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY - MAY 17, 1999

A. WHAT WERE YOUR MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH USING THE TECHNOLOGY?

• Technology lessons; involving the use of technology in lessons.

• Some students became more comfortable with math.

• Peer collaboration.

• Finding out what did not work.

• More arrows/tools in the tool box. More hardware for supporting algebra.

• More group work.

• More opportunities for students to teach students.

• Grapher gives non-threatening feedback.

• Establishment of scope in sequence.

• Teachers learned a lot; staff development.

• Got the “ship turned around” instead of lecture only. Ability to teach algebra differently.

• Lots of opportunity for teachers to interact with each other. Teachers with similar problems.

• Kids appear to be more excited about learning.

• Opportunity to draw more students in for enrollment; opened doors for special programs.

• Creation of different classroom environment.

• Improved math scores.

• Improved collaboration with other disciplines.

• More excitement in math department because of SATEC.

B. HOW DID THE SATEC PROGRAM INFLUENCE YOUR STUDENTS?

• More comfortable with using technology.

• They came to math room at lunch and in the morning to work on other subjects.

• “Good” noise in the classroom.

• Students asked questions because they were excited.

• Students think more mathematically and less based on formulas.

• More involved; more peer tutoring, more participation.

• Students more interested in technology; they want to use technology, take more initiative.

• Enabled students to use spread sheets, and graphical analysis.

• Behavior changes; more calm, cooperative, eager to learn.

• More willing to discuss in front of class, more willing to present.

• Improved student comprehension; non-threatening feedback.

• Students found different ways to solve problems, explore more.

• Students learned how to operate in a group.

• Improved student attendance.

• Students seemed to like math better after technology.

• Concept of learning changed; they were learning things without knowing they were learning.

• Non-SATEC students inquired about algebra class.

• More hands-on learning.

• Kids felt special.

C. WHAT WERE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH USING THE TECHNOLOGY IN YOUR CLASSROOMS?

• Problems with where each teacher started in terms of discipline, etc…

• “Large” learning curve for teaching curve for professionals (technology).

• Pick up extra jobs because of the technology.

• Coordination of dates-problems-especially among teaching professionals.

• For students the adjustment to a different math environment was a problem.

• Lack of implementation of Internet access.

• Set up problems; software was slow to get there, transition from non-technological to technological. Setting up the system was a major task.

• Start up problems.

• Making the shift in teaching style; transition problems, more expectations from others.

• Communication problems between different groups, planning problems.

• Technology repair support very lacking.

• Time constraints.

• Security; hardware disappearances.

D. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE NEXT STEP OF THIS PROGRAM?

• Plan better.

• Learn from the mistakes.

• Larger room for math classes.

• Begin some work on interdisciplinary lessons. Expand the use of technology in algebra.

• Communication with school administrators about SATEC needs to improve.

• Expand the use of technology within the classroom.

• Make sure room is set up before the new teacher starts.

• Different probes for different lessons.

• Get other teaches involved.

• Buy more graphers for non-SATEC teachers.

• SATEC campus.

• Get Internet.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download