ROTW: Electronic learning growth

by | Jan 9, 2008 | Research and Evaluation | 0 comments

It’s a new year and I think it’s time to revive the Wednesday Report of the Week (ROTW)! I’ve made a public Google Notebook page for those of you who are interested in the reports I feature here:

I’ll begin the new year with an Ambient Insight report that came out last November and was featured in T.H.E. Journal. The market analysis forecasts that K-12 education will have the highest demand for self-paced electronic learning products over the next five years. Ambient Insight studied six major types of self-paced e-learning products:

  • IT packaged content
  • Non-IT packaged content
  • Custom content and technology services
  • Learning platform hosting services
  • Software tools
  • Installed learning platform technology

Sam Adkins, the company’s chief research officer, was kind enough to explain to me the different categories. Here’s what he said:

  • Packaged content is commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) content sold as a
    self-contained course (think "shrink-wrapped" as an analogy) – it has a retail
    price per package. It is "built once, sold many times."
  • IT-based packaged content is courseware designed to teach software skills.
    We break it out for suppliers because in the early days virtually all of
    elearning content was IT courseware. Those days are long gone but suppliers
    still want to see the forecasts.
  • Custom content is a "one-off" created for customers. Suppliers charge a
    service fee (usually time and materials) for it. There are many technology
    services as well.
  • Hosting services are platforms provided to customers as a Web-based service
    and the customer does not own the software, per se. They pay for it, usually
    with a subscription fee. Lately people are referring to this as "Web 2.0"
    although there is no consensus on the meaning of that term.
  • Installed technology is the opposite of hosted technology and customers
    install it themselves.

It would be interesting to see which categories will see the biggest growth for K-12. I’m hoping it’s not ‘drill and kill’ software.

Notes

I can’t emphasize enough how helpful Mr. Adkins was. Despite his belief that his company’s research is "written exclusively for product suppliers and that very few practitioners or thought leaders gain much value from the data," he was gracious enough to have several e-mail exchanges with me until I understood the categories for this blog post. Thank you, Sam!

The nation’s best high schools?

by | Dec 5, 2007 | News and Events, Research and Evaluation | 2 comments

U.S. News has come out with its list of the best high schools in the United States. Andy Rotherham of Education Sector explains the thinking behind the list. Jay Mathews at The Washington Post, who compiles his own list each year with Newsweek, has a very thoughtful reply to the new rankings, including interviews with administrators and other experts, many of whom question the idea of even ranking high schools at all. Check out the rankings and the debate; they make for some interesting reading.

[thanks to the Principal’s Policy Blog for pointing to me to these]

GDP overachievers

GDP overachievers

by | Nov 29, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Miscellaneous, Research and Evaluation | 7 comments

Yesterday Karl Fisch and I were e-mailed a link to a video from Shocking Economics. Although I’m neither a demographer nor an economist, the video got me thinking… (bear with me here; there’s a point at the end of all of this!)

As you can see in the spreadheet I made [.xls or .pdf], there is an extremely strong positive correlation (cell E2) between a state’s overall population rank (column D) and its overall GDP rank (column F). In other words, the more people in the state, the bigger GDP it has. California has the most people and it has the biggest GDP. This makes sense.

However, some states seem to be more GDP-efficient than others. For example, Connecticut is ranked 29th in overall population and 23rd in overall GDP, but is the 4th-ranked state when it comes to GDP per capita (column G). In contrast, Alabama is ranked 23rd in overall population and 25th in overall GDP, but is the 45th-ranked state in terms of GDP per capita. Connecticut’s GDP over/under (column H) is +19 (23 minus 4). Alabama’s is -20 (25 minus 45). Connecticut appears to be a GDP overachiever, while Alabama seems to be an underachiever. Dollar for dollar, person for person, Connecticuters are contributing more to the overall national economy than Alabamans.

As the spreadsheet shows (cells K26:K29), states in the Northeast and Pacific regions (as defined by the U.S. Census) are, on average, more GDP-efficient than states in the Midwest or South. There are moderately strong correlations between states’ over/under ratio and their overall population rank (cell E4), overall GDP rank (cell H5), and GDP per capita rank (cell H6). States with smaller populations are moderately more likely to have a higher GDP per capita rank and a better GDP over/under ratio.

So here are 10 select states [click on image for larger version or download the PDF]:

GDP_Correlations_2

While some of the states (Montana, Maine, New Jersey, and Maryland) have overall GDP ranks and GDP per capita ranks that are congruent, you can see that there are large discrepancies in GDP over/under between the lowest states (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Arizona) and the highest states (Wyoming, Alaska, Delaware, and Rhode Island). Florida is #4 in overall GDP but #34 in GDP per capita. Wyoming is #48 in overall GDP but #5 in GDP per capita. The lower states seem to be under-contributing to the national economy.

So how does a state like Michigan or Arizona increase its GDP per capita? Well, in today’s day and age, I think these states need to follow the lead of West Virginia (over/under of -9). West Virginia is making strategic, long-term investments in 21st century skills initiatives for its schools. To its credit, it sees that a focus on digital technologies and preparation of a globally-competitive workforce is the best solution for an anemic state economy. It’s probably no coincidence that five of the first six states to join up with the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (in red on the spreadsheet) have neutral or negative GDP over/under ratios.

I don’t know if all of this would make sense to an economist, much less a ‘shocking’ one, but it sits well intuitively with me. Although the video points out that our system has worked well for us to date, it also is true that our world is transforming itself in revolutionary ways. Don’t we want our state educational systems to be proactive rather than resting on their laurels and one day waking up to find that their economic models no longer work?

Youth violence and electronic media

by | Nov 28, 2007 | Blogging, Communication, Law, Policy, and Ethics, News and Events, Research and Evaluation, Safety and Security, Tech Tools | 0 comments

This arrived in my e-mail inbox yesterday:

CDC REVIEW OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND YOUTH VIOLENCE
Research Shows Increase in Electronic Aggression

In September 2006, experts from academic institutions, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations gathered at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, to better understand the varied ways new media technology – blogs, instant messaging, chat rooms, email, text messaging and the Internet – influences youth aggression. The two-day meeting, "Electronic Media and Youth Violence," was held to review current research and to discuss the implications for youth, parents, school staff, and educational policymakers. Data from the review show although rates of electronic aggression are lower than rates of physical and verbal aggression, these rates seem to be increasing. In 2000, 6 percent of internet users ages 10 to 17 said they had been subjected to online harassment; by 2005, the percentage had risen to 9 percent – an increase of 50 percent. 

The complete review can found in the December 2007 supplement of the Journal of Adolescent Health. To access a complete copy of the Journal and the supporting issue briefs, which summarize the research and discuss the implications of these findings for youth, parents, school staff, and educational policy makers, please visit www.cdc.gov/injury.

A few thoughts…

  1. Most parents probably don’t do near enough at home to teach and monitor children’s appropriate usage of electronic communication tools. We know that schools and religious institutions don’t when kids are with them. So why should we be surprised that some children and adolescents are using these tools for inappropriate purposes? It’s like Lord of the Flies out there when it comes to adult supervision!
  2. The JAH research articles on this topic are impressive. It’s going to take me a while to read through them all. My first scan, however, is that while there seems to be a bevy of top notch, peer-review-quality research there, it’s all on the harmful effects of communication technologies and none on the empowering effects of the same. We need good, data-based information on this topic, but I’d like to see academia provide some counterpoint research on the positive aspects too, not just more fear-driven research. I want to also see a two-day meeting on Electronic Media and Youth Empowerment. We’re not going to back to a tech-less society. Why can’t we get info on both sides of the coin so that we can make intelligent decisions about this stuff?
  3. ‘An increase of 50 percent’ sounds ominous. An actual rise from 6 percent to 9 percent doesn’t. Presentation makes all the difference.
  4. The policy implications from the expert panel crack me up. Essentially the panel said ‘The federal government should do very little. The states should do more. School districts and schools should do the most.’ In other words, they could have just typed the word ‘federalism’ on a piece of paper, handed it in, and gone out for coffee. Nice job, folks!
GDP overachievers

UCEA 2007 – How national technology policy REALLY gets made

by | Nov 17, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, News and Events, Planning and Funding, Pre-Service Preparation, Professional Development, Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration | 0 comments

Friday was the first day of sessions at the UCEA convention. CASTLE sponsored a panel discussion on national K-12 educational technology policy, moderated by Drs. Sara Dexter (U. Virginia) and Matt Militello (U. Massachusetts-Amherst).

Podcast16x16 green Listen to the podcast! (73.9 Mb, 81 minutes)

Panelists

  • Hilary Goldman, Director of Government Affairs, ISTE
  • Dr. Mary Ann Wolf, Executive Director, SETDA
  • Doug Levin, Senior Director of Education Policy, Cable in the Classroom

Some main themes

  • In the mid– to late 1990s, there were LOTS of national funding initiatives aimed at K-12 ed tech – all were replaced by EETT, which is much smaller and more limited – today, EETT has declined from over $700 million to $272 million – in the past, the Bush administration has even attempted to zero out the EETT budget – Congress has saved the program but at increasingly lower levels
  • There is a perception that the job is done
  • Teachers have not been trained how to use technology to improve student learning outcomes
  • Educators are moving slow – lots of missed opportunities – extremely incremental change in a revolutionary environment
  • TPCK model – preservice teachers should not take separate ed tech classes – should be integrated with content-specific methods courses
  • We are finally starting to get research that is helpful for policy purposes – for example, the eMints program in Missouri and other states
  • The amount of education that people need is astounding – state and federal policymakers, education associations, the public – they make major assumptions about what is happening that just aren’t true
    • Example: because nearly all schools are wired, people truly think that means that all kids have access to the Internet – far from being true – only buildings and teacher computers are wired – every student is NOT wired and connected
    • Example: lots of money has been poured into student information systems – as a result, people think that teachers are getting data that informs their day-to-day instructional practice – again, this is far from true – in most districts, the data that are in these systems are not that granular
  • You have to use sexy vocabulary – the terms of art – that capture policymakers’ attention – right now it is global competitiveness
  • High school reform and other change efforts – technology is not specifically articulated as a component – it thus gets lost or left out
  • Ed tech policy is still fairly immature – we’re in our tweens
  • Groups like NEA, AFT, NSBA, AASA, NASSP, and NAESP are not knowledgeable about technology – they advocate for Title I, IDEA – they don’t advocate for ed tech
  • The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is trying to change the conversation rather than trying to figure out how to fit ed tech into existing paradigms / models / laws – this is a real herky-jerky process
  • There is not, and has not been, a systemic long-term research agenda, funded by policymakers, to answer key research questions about K-12 educational technology
  • What kind of research is needed to further the cause of K-12 educational technology?
  • Most education academics are naive about how policy gets made – don’t really understand the policy process – much educational research is not pertinent or helpful to policy conversations and the questions that are being asked by policymakers – we have to remember that ed tech is only one voice of many
  • ETAN – www.edtechactionnetwork.org – you don’t have to get to DC – can plug in your e-mail and zip code and get resources and information – just 12 letters can make a difference – meeting in local offices back home also make an impact – asking questions at local town halls sponsored by legislators
  • We were blessed in the 1990s with the folks that were in the U.S. Department of Education (US DOE) – there are lots of places where this can break down – there are not strong advocates there today – one place to focus advocacy efforts is the US DOE, not just legislators
  • Why has school leadership been left out of the ed tech policy conversation and policy efforts? – historically, efforts were focused on affecting the classroom, not on changing the system – promising levers appear to be 21st century skills, data-driven decision-making, and cybersafety
  • We could draft Title II legislation around professional development for administrators regarding technology leadership

TechPolicyPanelWeb

[left to right: Sara Dexter, Matt Militello, Hilary Goldman, Mary Ann Wolf, Doug Levin]

Violent video games as exemplary teachers of aggression

by | Nov 9, 2007 | Gaming, Research and Evaluation | 9 comments

Iowa State University researcher Dr. Doug Gentile studied 2,500
children and adolescents and found that violent video games do indeed foster
hostile actions and aggressive behaviors. Here’s the money quote:

We know a lot about how to be an effective teacher, and we know a lot
about how to use technology to teach. Video games use many of these techniques
and are highly effective teachers. So we shouldn’t be surprised that violent
video games can teach aggression.

Get the full
story at the ISU News Service.

Route 21 and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills

Route 21 and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills

by | Nov 7, 2007 | Leadership and Vision, Miscellaneous, News and Events, Planning and Funding, Reading, Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration | 2 comments

[cross-posted at the TechLearning blog]

At the SETDA Leadership Summit and Education Forum, we’ve been talking a lot about 21st century skills, so I thought it might be helpful to highlight some of the work that the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has been doing.

The Partnership has been quite busy lately. In October, it announced new poll results that showed that a significant majority of voters ‘are deeply concerned that the United States is not preparing young people with the skills they need to compete in the global economy.’ Here’s an excerpt from the full report:21stCenturySkills01

As I noted on my blog earlier this week, on Monday the Partnership, SETDA, and ISTE released a paper on maximizing the impact of digital technologies for 21st century learning. The document contains examples of successful programs that can be used as models, guiding questions for stakeholders, and action principles for moving forward. Plus there’s also this great (if depressing) quote:

No industry or organization can remain competitive today without making comprehensive use of technology as a matter of course in all of its operations. . . . [E]ducation is the least technology-intensive enterprise in a ranking of technology use among 55 U.S. industry sectors, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Today the Partnership released a new resource, Route 21:

[Route 21] represents the first comprehensive, go-to online resource for high-quality content, best practices, relevant reports, articles and research to assist practitioners in implementing 21st century teaching practices and learning outcomes. Route 21 harnesses Web 2.0 features to allow users to tag, rank, organize, collect and share Route 21 content based on their personal interests. Individuals will continuously update the site with relevant examples as well as share their reactions and insights on implementing 21st century skills in their state, district or school.

You can read the press release, watch the 10–minute video, or dive right into the resources and tagging tools:

21stCenturySkills03

Also, for those of you who didn’t know, the Partnership recently updated its famous rainbow framework in order to better highlight essential supporting conditions:

21stCenturySkills02

[read more about the framework]

In addition to the resources already described, the Partnership has a number of useful reports, issue briefs, and literacy maps, the latter of which are intended to give some examples of 21st century literacies in practice. Many of the Partnership’s presentations are available online, as are some nifty tools for educators and policymakers.

In short, the Partnership is working hard to help us move our nation’s schools forward. There are numerous helpful resources on the Partnership’s main site and in Route 21. I encourage you to check out what the Partnership has to offer.

SETDA – Maximizing the impact (take the survey!)

by | Nov 6, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, News and Events, Planning and Funding, Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration | 1 comment

SETDA, ISTE, and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills released a document last night called Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system.

Take this survey and see how you’re doing on the ‘Guiding Questions for Stakeholders.’ Due date = November 14. I’ll publish the results on November 16.