eLPF School Evaluation

This activity requires using the eLPF in my own educational context.

Learning outcome actions

Prepare a blog post of 400 to 500 words where you summarise the results of your whole school evaluation using the eLPF. Describe the organisation in two or three sentences  Consider scanning or taking a photograph of your shaded  e-Learning Planning Framework template  to illustrate your blog post. (Be sure that you do not disclose organisation details.) Summarise your average rating of the school for each of the 5 areas and justify your decision.  List examples of the evidence you consulted to inform your value judgements

Description of the organisation:
The organisation involved is a decile 9 secondary school in urban Canterbury. The school's current e-learning approach is characterised by high academic expectations and blended learning. The school has this year invested in ongoing professional development from Core Education, and has 15 teachers involved in this programme. The school aims to implement school wide BYOD in 2016, but already has many senior pupils using digital technologies in class.

eLPF - Whole school level

Summaries and justifications of ratings for the 5 areas:

• Leadership & Strategic Direction: 
• I think that the leadership & strategic direction of the school is at the 'extending' level.
• The school vision clearly incorporates e-learning and the school is actively seeking to pursue the effective use of ICT to support pedagogy. 
• Good ERO report in 2013 in regards to e-learning & ICT implementation. It states that "the college is involved with a number of local schools that are focused on meeting the needs of 21st century teaching and learning" (ERO, 2013, p. 3). 
• Professional Learning: 
• I think that the professional learning of the school is at the 'extending' level. 
• This year the school has made a significant investment in its staff by signing up to an ongoing professional development programme run by Core Education. 
• The school is part of the VLN and a cluster of schools in the Canterbury area that support each other with ICT issues. 
• Beyond the Classroom:
• I think that the 'beyond the classroom' of the school is at the 'engaging' level. 
• The school is part of the VLN and a cluster of schools in the Canterbury area that support each other with ICT issues
• Parents and community were consulted about the introduction of BYOD in 2016 
• More interaction needed with local iwi and Maori and Pasifika communities. A lot of this is already being done but not necessarily around e-learning. These are some of our "priority learners" as stated by the MoE so we need to make sure they are included in all our planning (Ministry of Education, 2007). 
• Technologies and Infrastructure:
• I think that the technologies and infrastructure of the school are at the 'extending' level. 
• Great infrastructure (most of the time) as we recently had a SNUP upgrade. Wireless has improved drastically but occasionally can play up. 
• Very good support from New Era IT. There is a great IT person employed full-time at the school who is there to help whenever needed. 
• More wireless modems put around the school to extend the coverage to all areas (hall, gym etc.)
• Teaching & Learning:
• I think that the teaching and learning of the school sits on both the 'engaging' and 'extending' levels. This is because the pedagogy, assessment and content around digital technologies is very different within every department. Some departments are using OneNote, Sites, Google Docs and other effective pedagogical tools, however other departments are less keen on the idea. 
• It is also important to note that some teachers have voiced that active and frequent use of digital technologies in their subject is not appropriate as it is not necessary for their context. 
• Digital citizenship is encouraged and emphasised. It is compulsory for junior students to participate in the digital citizenship programme where they learn about cyber-safety and cyber bullying. Students also learn about their digital footprint and how to be appropriate and safe online. 

Possible next steps:

• As a staff, explore and begin to trial ways of designing activities that model effective pedagogy, integrating technology 
• Clarify a shared vision and strategic direction - SLT to discuss with staff 
• Establish priority areas and design, conduct and review trials. 
• Look at how technology can be better used to further support GATE, Maori, Pasifika students and other priority learners. 

DISCLAIMER: My assessment was conducted as a personal learning exercise to gain understanding of the eLPF and my assessments are restricted to public documentation without detailed insights into all organisational processes. 

References:

Core Education. (n.d.). e-Learning Planning Framework. New Zealand. Retrieved from http://elpf.vln.school.nz


Education Review Office. (2013). **** (name of school) Education Review Report. Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/Early-Childhood-School-Reports


Ministry of Education. (n.d.). e-Learning Planning Framework. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework


Ministry of Education. (2007). New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

The e-Learning Maturity Model and the e-Learning Planning Framework

This week focuses on the organisational aspect of change in education, rather than the personal context.

e-Learning Maturity Model - RELEVANT TO TERTIARY SECTOR
The idea of e-maturity is prevalent in this section, which before today I had not heard of! E-maturity is the idea that institutions need to have a sustainable framework in order to maintain, develop and secure e-learning over a period of time. This framework must be able to be replicated, extended and sustained even with the integration of new e-learning technologies and/or approaches.

Video - Dr Stephen Marshall from VUW

• Developed the e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM) in response to the problem experienced by lecturers in losing their academic work when others left (i.e. lecturer moved to another institution)
• Planning and standardised approach needed to ensure materials/info isn't lost 

e-Learning Planning Framework (eLPF) - RELEVANT TO SCHOOL SECTOR

What?

• It is important to consider an ecological perspective as it leads to better understanding of the issue (Harrison, Tomas, & Crook, 2013). 
• e-Maturity reached by setting student expectations, strong home-school links, and organisation of student work and resources (Harrison, Tomas, & Crook, 2013). 
• Students able to track their progress, see their homework and work covered in class (Harrison, Tomas, & Crook, 2013). 
• The e-Learning Planning Framework is a "tool to help schools and teachers measure their e-learning capability" (Ministry of Education, n.d.). It provides a roadmap to help schools see where they sit in terms of e-learning, and steps they can take to support this further. (Ministry of Education, n.d.)
• There are 4 phases of the ELPF - Emerging, engaging, extending and empowering. These phases involve leadership, professional development, teaching, learning, infrastructure, technology and outside factors (Ministry of Education, n.d.).
• Useful for schools to see where they are 'sitting' and also provides valuable feedback on how to improve or move forward in the process. Leadership and staff can be involved in a survey that can be tailored to suit the needs of the school, staff and students. 
• It is important to note that the eLPF is not a punitive framework, but actively tries to encourage schools to adopt effective digital technologies and pedagogy. 
• The eLPF has 5 different components that all have to be in sync and work cohesively in order for it to work. These 5 components include: leadership & strategic dimension, professional learning, teaching and learning, technologies and infrastructure, and beyond the classroom. The infrastructure is arguably the most important foundation for e-learning, as it cannot happen without adequate wireless and internet connection. The shift needs to come from the 'top' and trickle down through the staff and students. If SLT are not 100% sold on the idea, then the staff will think it is not important. Teachers need to be shown and given the opportunity to explore how their pedagogy will change, and how to do this. The community needs to be included in all proposals, as they are important drivers of change too. 

Source: TKI, http://www.elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework 

So what? 

After reading about the eLPF I can see its value and potential when applied to a school setting. This framework has been designed specifically with the New Zealand school sector in mind, and was also made by New Zealand teachers and other involved in education. This makes it valuable as it is specific and useful to our context. It is very useful to school leadership in order to gauge where they are sitting on the spectrum in terms of eLearning within the school. It is also valuable as it provides the opportunity to gain feedback from teachers and other via the survey. It is important to note that the eLPF can be adapted and changed to suit the needs of individual school.

A critique of the eLPF is that some of the stages within the eLPF are quite vague and very 'ministry'. Unless a large proportion of the staff and SLT complete the survey then an accurate picture of the school cannot be justified.

Now what?
NOTE: Please read next blog post on applying the eLPF to my school context. 

Questions to answer: 

1. Does the process of maturing to support the adoption of digital technologies occur only in one direction or can an organisation become less mature?
An organisation can go in either direction when it comes to being mature with digital technologies. Dr Stephen Marshall discussed the idea that when tech-saavy lecturers leave a university they often leave with their ideas, work and resources. This can mean an organisation loses some of its digital technology maturity, and they are back at square one again.

2. Does the adoption and rejection of different digital tools make this an over simplification? 
Yes, as different digital tools suit different contexts.

3. If so, is maturity the best term for this phenomenon? 
As Niki Davis states wisely "perhaps maturity should be contested as a term so that a word is used that does not appear to assume that digital technologies are inevitable". I would have to agree with this comment, as the word 'maturity' can have a negative connotation. If an organisation is not seen as mature when it comes to digital technology, there can be negative outcomes such as loss of face in the academic world. Both tertiary and secondary institutions need to be seen as proactive and relevant when it comes to digital technologies.

Stages of the eLPF. Image retrieved from https://magic.piktochart.com/output/1650583-how-to-use-the-elpf

References:

Core Education. (n.d.). Educational Positioning System (EPS). Retrieved from http://eps.core-ed.org/about-eps 

Davis, N. E., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). A co-evolutionary perspective on the restructuring of schooling systems in the digital age. Journal for Computer-Assisted Learning, 29(5), 438-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Harrison, C., Tomás, C., & Crook, C. (2013). Becta Impact data reanalysed: E-maturity and ICT adoption in UK schools. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/colinharrison83/earli-2013-harrison-tomas-and-crook 

Marshall, S. (2006). What are the key factors that lead to effective adoption and support of e-learning by institutions? (Proceedings of HERDSA). Rotorua, New Zealand. 

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). E-Learning Planning Framework. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework 

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. 

Victoria University of Wellington. (n.d.). E-Learning Maturity Model: Version Two Processes. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/TwoProcesses.shtml 

Research - Annotated Bibliography

After getting some feedback from Niki Davis on my assignment, she recommended that I have a look at the Pegasus Digital Devices Project research. What a great find! This report is very useful when looking at change in education, and provides brutally honest stories of success and failure in implementing digital devices in the classroom.

Reference: Taylor, L., Fagan, T., & Dunmill, M. (2014). Disrupting the boundaries of teaching and learning: How digital devices became a resource for transformative change in a time of crisis. The Pegasus Digital Devices Project 2013. Te Toi Tupu, Ministry of Education and Core Education. Retrieved from http://www.core-ed.org//sites/core-ed.org/files/Pegasus-Report-full.pdf

Description: This report focuses on the findings from The Pegasus Digital Devices Project which was a collaborative project set up by the Greater Christchurch School Network (GCSN) after the major earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. The main aim of the GCSN after the earthquakes was to make sure that students and staff of 11 schools in the Pegasus Bay region were supported and had adequate professional development, infrastructure and devices. This report discusses the project and how devices were integrated among schools, and the transformative change and learning that came as a result of using these devices. This change did not just focus on the transformation of students, but also the teachers and community as well. The findings of this report are based on the stories and reflections of those involved, and aims to put equity at the heart of the project. Six principles taken from Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd and Hipkins (2012) were used to examine the change and affect of digital devices on learning. The key findings from this report showed that after the hard work of initially setting it up was completed, the rewards in terms of students learning was hugely beneficial. Students were actively engaged, collaborated with their peers, experimented and some even improved their literacy skills. Many teachers also had positive experiences, and spoke about their classroom becoming more inclusive and collaborative relationships developing with their colleagues. This said, the integration of digital devices was only successful when there was adequate school leadership, infrastructure, ongoing professional development and positive teacher attitudes. The biggest transformations came when teachers consciously aimed to be more inclusive and allowed change to happen in the classroom.

Evaluation: This is a great report that provides an insight into how digital devices can be used to support schools after a major disaster. It was completed recently and locally so is relevant to my context. Although some of the schools involved in the project are primary schools, the ideas and theory behind the transformations are tangible and useful for all levels of education. It is important to note that the findings are very specific to a community recovering from a natural disaster, so some theories should not be generalised. This said, the report does provide some important themes and principles that may be useful to schools wanting to implement the use of digital devices in the classroom.

Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM)

Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM)

Reading:

Reference: Evans, L. & Chauvin, S. (1993). Faculty developers as change facilitators: The concerns-based adoption model. To Improve the Academy. 12. 165-178. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=podimproveacad
Description: This article deals with the idea that concern comes in different stages, and if understood correctly can be used as a foundation for intervention. The CBAM model is analysed and used as a change mechanism for faculty developers. Planned change can at times be hard to implement as educators are often inherently opposed to change and often feel that their roles are being threatened. The process of change involves adjustment of thinking and doing, and can be a roller coaster of emotions, concerns and views. It is important to note that each individual will react to change differently, and understanding this is essential to implementing long-lasting change in practice. Change is a process, and this process has highlighted seven 'Stages of Concern' (see figure 1 below). Knowing which stage(s) of concern an educator is at is essential component of facilitating change. Establishing what stages educators are at could involve informal discussions, 'Stages of Concern Questionnaire' or open-ended statements. Once the right stage has been established, the facilitator of change can then implement the right information/tactic/intervention to suit (see figure 2).
Evaluation: Due to the date of publication, some would consider this information outdated in a world changing so rapidly in regards to ICT. This said, change is still a very relevant and real thing in education today. The information is valuable to change facilitators as it is not restricted to a 'type' of change which means it can be used in many different contexts of change. This article is also valuable to my context as it gives practical advice on how to facilitate and react to change.

Source: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=podimproveacad

Source: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=podimproveacad 

My Personal Context

Aim: Apply the CBAM model to my context and tighten my focus to one educator working in one ecosystem.

Research question: "In what ways can a classroom practitioner support and encourage colleagues in the uptake of BYOD in the classroom?"

My context: Decile 9 New Zealand high school

One chosen ecosystem: I would like to see this change implemented in the classroom. This change of new technology will affect teaching practice, students and teachers.

Relation to the 7 stages of concern in CBAM: I think that most of my colleagues are ranging from stages 1-3 as the change has not directly happened yet (BYOD will be implemented school wide in 2016 so the process of change has started this year to prepare teachers for this shift). Some teachers who have been using BYOD in their senior classes are on stages 4-6 but these are not many.  I think that there needs to be more time and energy put into the following:

• Pair up "those who know" and "those who don't know" to share ideas (stage 1)
• Build the confidence of the teachers (stage 2)
• Clarify information so that everyone gets a clear picture of the purpose (stage 2)
• Accept feelings and try to move forward and be positive about the change (stage 2)
• Look at how other schools are doing/have implemented BYOD successfully (stage 2) 
• Help with planning a BYOD programme (stage 3)

References:

Evans, L. & Chauvin, S. (1993). Faculty developers as change facilitators: The concerns-based adoption model. To Improve the Academy. 12. 165-178. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=podimproveacad