text:
Statewide Design
eLearning System for Arizona Teachers and Students
Customer: Arizona K-12 Education
September 2005 Design Version 3
For information contact
Lead Designer: Theodore C. Kraver Ph.D. President eSATS Inc. 602-944-8557 firstname.lastname@example.com www.azelearning.org
Initial Sponsor:
Greater Arizona eLearning Association Inc. Chairperson Barbara Kraver Ed.D. 602-944-2324 firstname.lastname@example.com Coordinator Steve Peters 520-321-1309 firstname.lastname@example.com www.gazel.org
Working Date ? 9/19/2005 Ep50905eSATSDesignRev3
Preface 1
Initial Design Team: The eSATS design team was formed under the auspices of Greater Arizona eLearning Association, an industry cluster within Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The eSATS volunteers who developed Design Version One from mid 2003 to mid 2004 were: Ted Christensen - Arizona Board of Regents Eugene Holmquist - Ensynch Ted Kraver ? Global eLearning Industry Association Glen Shand - Digital Concepts Inc. and Co-Chair Greater Arizona eLearning Association Hank Stabler - Learningstation Inc. Kathy Young - Ariaratnam Solution Select Consulting and Co-Chair Greater Arizona eLearning Association Jim Zaharis - Greater Phoenix Leadership DESIGN GOALS Academic Performance => Prepare Arizona's children to graduate from high school with a clear path to lifelong learning, the 21st century workplace, training for good citizenship, and family happiness. Design Challenge => Transform Arizona's Statewide K-12 education from the current technology-enhanced legacy system to a true eLearning system. Time/Cost Constraints => Limit the ten-year net cost/per/student to 3% of current K-12 Expenditures, with post-transformation costs lower than current costs. 2005 Legislative Effort: In 2004 eSATS was incorporated as a 501(c3) non-profit educational (design-advocacy) organization. The eSATS design was captured in Senate Bill 1181, which went to committee with bipartisan sponsorship. Although all thirty-two legislators understood and liked the concept after being briefed on the bill, liked the visionary - pragmatic approach of the eSATS eLearning design, the first year $135 million price tag kept it from being heard during Arizona's tight 2005 fiscal year. 2006 Legislative Preparation: Much has been learned from the past legislative session, and Design Version Three was completed by August 31, 2005 to includes current Arizona K-12 eLearning implementations by many sources. Policy and plans for eLearning being developed for our Governor, AZ Department of Education, educational associations and districts are reflected. A legislative team of advocates and support will be ready by October to write and support a new bill in the 2006 legislative session. Notice: Unless so noted, it is not to be presumed that any of the organizations or individuals referenced in this design document have approved or committed to participate in the creation or advocacy of the eSATS design.
Prolog: Mental Model for K-12 eLearning Challenge: When industries are transformed by technology, new descriptive terms become necessary. "Horse-less carriage" and "flying machine" become "automobile" and "airplane". "Educational technology" was good enough when legacy education processes of lecture, seat work and recitation were supplemented by computer labs. But during the past ten years, processes have started to shift toward guide-on-the-side integration of "learning technology" into the classroom. eSATS eight-year vision is of 1:1 computer-student access, continuous teacher professional development, digital curricula with formative assessment, and use of the Internet's resources -- the new term is "eLearning." What is eLearning?: Small "e" and capital "Learning" expressed the team's belief that computers, digital media, digital curriculum and systems are in a supporting role to learning which takes place within the teacher-student nexus. No one will argue about the difficulty of creating a mental model of eLearning, let alone communicating that model to others. The learning industry, unlike other mature industries, is focused on the mind rather than on materiality. Design Criteria: The eLearning design criteria must produce a system to deliver maximum and sustained academic achievement. The connection between student and teacher was selected to be center of the eSATS design: The student --with teacher, family and community-- develops an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) that is renewed for each of the 13 curriculum years within K-12 education; Then, students and teachers spend three to seven times more time in relating and communication with one another to execute that plan; Digital curriculum is fine-tuned tool to meet individual learning needs; The learning is delivered for each subject at a pace most effective for the student; Continuous formative assessment (minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour) guides the student and teacher collaboration process; The student can learn within a traditional class or small team, or as an individual learning; depending on the most effective learning group for the student and digital curriculum; The curriculum year ILP is complete when and only when the student masters the required curriculum as documented by summative assessment. With these criteria for K-12 learning, the design is implemented with the support of continuous professional development, digital curriculum, computers, connectivity, statewide and local data system, and technical support. Keep the Teacher-Student learning and "e" front and center as you review this System Design to evolve your mental model of eLearning.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
What Needs to be Done:
The Mission of Arizona's Department of Education "To increase the quality of public education in the State of Arizona by raising expectations and providing support, resources and assurances that enable schools and students to excel." 28
How To Do It:
The Mission of eSATS "To increase the academic performance and retention of students, and the professional performance of teachers within Arizona's K-12 education system to meet and exceed the raising expectations of the 21st Century knowledge economy using the extraordinary accessibility, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of an eLearning systems design.
Deliver individualized mastery learning to all Arizona students, which will produce significant increases in academic achievement and graduation rates by 2012.
Guiding Belief and Logic
To achieve the goal requires a transformation, not just incremental reform of K-12 education. eLearning is the only cost effective means to effect this transformation. eLearning is the transformation of choice for 21st Century workforce training21, higher education and military simulation. Arizona has unique eLearning strengths. By implementing eLearning transformation of K-12 education now with a system design Arizona would lead the nation in both education and economic development in ten years. Arizona's cluster of eLearning enterprises and eLearning K-12 education would become the center of the vortex of the global eLearning industry.
Us a foundation of 15 years of research and experience to create a systems design and advocacy plan that is uses to write and pass legislation that enables and funds the K-12 eLearning transformation.
Key: Large Increase in Teacher-Student Contact Time
"eLearning System for Arizona Teachers and Students"(eSATS) was selected to emphasize the connection between student and teacher that is supported by digital curriculum. The goal is not to replace or disintermediation the teacher, but rather to allow much more teacherstudent contact time for subject mastery. Though it seems counterintuitive, eLearning will actually make education a more humanized process. Legacy Education Legacy education form of teacher-student interaction based on lecture, seat work and recitation has been developed to a high level of effectiveness over the past 125 years. But it is at the end of its innovation cycle with its current tools of books and blackboard. 1
Transformation Requires Different Approach than Reform
Legacy education reforms are made slowly at the margins by crafting imperatives, making plans and advocating for change. But effective transformation happens quickly and needs a powerful driver that can address the entire education system. That driver is a systems design that includes all aspects and players (education, business, governance, eLearning enterprises) in the transformation.
Design Summary 2005-2008 Three Year Bridge (Intellectual & Acceptance Infrastructure)
Education and Professional Development Institute built to support; $1200 per teacher per year professional development (mostly on-line); Colleges of education transformed to eLearning; Notebooks and essential software suite for every teacher; One eLearning master mentor per 50 teachers; Digital Curriculum Institute built to provide: eLearning extension agents for every classroom; Access to universe of qualified digital curriculum selectable for student's individualized learning needs; Auditor General creates accounting-auditing system to fund individual students for "mastery year" rather than "seat year"; High-speed connectivity to Internet into every Arizona classroom; 150-300 current schools funded and supported to transform to eLearning Centered Schools. 2008-2012 Five Year Build Out (Reaching All Teachers & Students) 20% teacher salary increase - eLearning certification + productivity; Computer interface to student 1:1 ratio in classroom Student and teacher to state level, a full access data-decision support system for administration, assessment (formative & summative), access to professional development and instruction, research; Technical support delivers 99% "up" time; Rest of 2000 traditional and Charter schools transformed to eLearning Centered Schools;
Challenge => Opportunity
Over the next ten years Arizona's population of 1,000,000 students and 50,000 teaching professionals is on pace to grow to 1,350,000 students and 65,000 teachers. Growth of this magnitude places huge stresses on our ability to build schools, engage highly qualified teachers and expand our supporting systems. But growth also provides a unique opportunity to adopt eLearning within new schools as well as transform existing schools. It also provides an opportunity to incorporate the long range cost savings afforded by eLearning. Even though Arizona is a low cost K-12 education state, the total bill for the next 10 years including growth will be approximately $94 billion. This is based on an all-up current cost of $8400 per student and no inflation. The Rodel Foundation, in an exceptionally comprehensive 2004 study of legacy education, calculated the cost of investing in their "Lead with Five" reforms as $1900 per student which brings the ten -year cost of the best possible legacy education system for Arizona to $116 billion. The eSATS ten year net cost with 2
savings is $2.5 Billion with a total of $96 billion or a 2.2% increase for ten years. Net savings are promised after the tenth year. The design team sought the strongest possible linkages with the players in education including the major associations, institutes, colleges and districts; in governance from the governor, boards, agencies, legislature and department of education; in business from leading companies and associations; and in eLearning enterprises. Where possible their emerging policies and initiatives were incorporated into the eSATS design.
Section 1
New Era => New Technology
Learning Innovation Cycles
Reading, writing, and education have Compulsory 2005 CE always been intertwined. When writing Education was invented seven thousand years Printing ago, it immediately created illiteracy.32 Press The ancient Middle Eastern desert Arizona K-12 Paper dwellers could have called it the "analog divide." Forty-five hundred years later, a Roman sergeant shouted instructions to Lecture his troops, and the lecture was born. Paper was invented by Ts'ai Lun during Hand Writing 105 CE in China, and he profited 5000 BC handsomely. It took Europe another Figure 1 1,000 years to re-invent papermaking. In 1450, Gutenberg invented the printing press, and the cost of books dropped by a factor of 400, and the analog divide closed somewhat. In the 1890s, our legacy K-12 education system with its components-- lecture, seat work, recitation and books-- was penned into law. The current technological innovation, eLearning, is transforming learning once again. It changes the analog divide to digital and then closes the divide it so anyone can step across. Demand Exceeds Marginal Improvement 3 Let's blame Alvin Toffler for our current K-12 problems. The author of "Future Shock" named the global economic transformation: agricultural age begat industrial age begat information age. The waning of the agricultural age triggered compulsory education. During the recent industrial age our schools taught basic skills to most students and higher-level skills to those going into the professional ranks. With plenty of manual jobs, legacy education met the demand, and continuous marginal improvement adapted to evolving needs. Employers and the public were satisfied. Then the information age upset the apple cart. Since the 1950's, blue collar jobs have plunged from 50% of the available employment to well under 25%, to be replaced with white collar jobs, while the professional ranks have remained relatively constant at 25%. While basic literacy skills are mandatory for both manual and white collar jobs, many technicians in the trades now need a higher level of literacy and thinking skills than office workers. The rapid growth of this new demand has exceeded legacy education's ability to deliver. Arizona leaders and public-private organizations have been working hard for decades to reform Arizona's K-12 system. Faced with a large and complex system under decentralized governance they have made only limited progress. 4
Continuous marginal improvement seems no longer effective. So what about addressing legacy education from a systems approach?
Transformation Needed
In 2004, Arizona's Rodel Foundation conducted a well funded comprehensive study using expert consultants in legacy K-12 reform. The consultants were charged with reviewing the research on all potential K-12 reforms that could improve academic performance. They developed "Lead with Five" recommendations of the most effect reforms and calculated the cost.73 Their data indicated that Arizona could move from 44th out of 50 states to average in academic performance if these reforms were adopted statewide. With expected 3% annual growth rate in Arizona school population over the next ten years the total cost of the current system at a fixed $8400 of public funding per student will be $94 billion. The "Lead with Five" improvements would cost an additional $1900 per student, pushing the ten-year cost to approximately $116 billion.
AZ Student Population Increase Students FundingMillions Cum Current Plus Rodel Cum Rodel 04-05 0.031
05-06 0.030
06-07 0.030
07-08 0.030
08-09 0.030
09-10 0.030
10-11 0.030
11-12 0.030
12-13 0.030
13-14 0.030
14-15 0.030
8219 8219 10079 10079
8466 16685 10381 20459
8720 25405 10692 31152
8982 34387 11013 42165
9251 43638 11343 53508
9529 53166 11684 65192
9814 62981 12034 77227
10109 73090 12395 89622
10412 83502 12767 102389
10724 94226 13150 115539
Annual and Cumulative Costs ($Millions) with Legacy K-12 Education Reaching the average of current United States academic performance would be a great achievement. But it would fall far short of what is needed for an educated population competitive in the 21st Century economy. Clearly the best that legacy K-12 education can offer is not enough and is not cost effective. Another alternative is needed. When an entrepreneur is boxed in by performance and/or cost barriers, he usually takes a serious look "outside the box." In the information age this invariably means looking at emerging technology. The step to solution is to determine what customer's key decision leader wants and will they buy. Voice of the Customer In the early 1990's the conventional wisdom said that K-12 education had a few more years in the political spotlight, and then other issues would crowd it out. Surprise! Twelve years later every governor, business leader and national spokesman remains committed to reform K-12 education.
Governor Napolitano: "My first priority, today and always, is education. ... fresh look at re-engineering our public school system to suit the modern needs of our students, instead of retrofitting the same outdated model we have been struggling with for decades."74, 75 ? Supt. of Ed. Tom Horne: "Our planned state support for technology and datadriven instruction will generate a major leap forward for teachers in individualizing instruction."46 ? Greater Phoenix Business Coalition: "Strengthen P-20 education which is vital to workforce." (brochure). ? Greater Phoenix Leadership "...build leadership and create school environments in which all students achieve at high levels." 77 ? Alan Greenspan: "Lack of educational training poses the greatest threat to future American prosperity." ( Arizona Republic - 2004)John Adams: "Laws for the liberal education of the youth are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."(early 1800's ? not speaking specifically about Arizona!) ? Ron Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education "Education is the only business still debating the usefulness of technology."72 ? Susan Patrick, Director of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education, "Seventy-two percent for all first graders use a home computer."72 For the past two decades, public-private workshops addressing almost any community-economic subject have decided that K-12 education as the critical issue. Arizona is ready to move beyond imperatives for change and plans to change. Governor Napolitano's re-engineering implied a legacy redesign, the eSATS design team looked outside the box to an eLearning re-engineering eLearning systems design. Faced with an immense challenge that both dollars and decades had yet to solve, the team decided at the beginning to work with certain imperatives: Meet the current challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act which mandates that all students perform at or above the C level without grade inflation and all teachers are highly qualified; Prior attempts focused on computers and connectivity alone have not produced expected results, so we must look at the other end of the spectrum -- the learning nexus of teacher and student; All research since Socrates shows that individualize tutoring, with the intrinsic reward of learning to mastery can engage almost all potential students and eliminate failure; Build on the current Arizona implementations of eLearning and incorporate all existing reforms involving technology into the design. The design started with secondary research of over 100 recent studies and support documents that plan and assess eLearning in K-12 schools and other venues. The task team relied on these sources and prior implementation designs as well as 6
knowledge of the current state of Arizona's K-12 eLearning to create the eLearning systems design for eSATS. The eSATS design has two first steps that focus on the teacher ? student nexus. The first is the transformation of the teaching process from legacy education to eLearning. Second is the movement of the digital curriculum and the computers out of the lab and into the classroom. The technology rich classroom is a must. It proves full student access starting with at least 4:1 students per computer interface and within a couple of years expands to 1:1.9 Laptops at 1:1 have the added advantage of expand learning time in the home and flexibility in the classroom.61 Class rooms then become work spaces like those we all are familiar with. We can no longer accept one machine for each eight students, anymore than we can implement a learn-by doing environment for teachers with a few five year old computers in the back of the room.
System Design
A number of major eLearning "design reports" were used. Team members have played roles in the formation of the first four. They include: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federal government's Advanced Distributed Learning System for both civilian and 4 military transformation of legacy training and education to global eLearning; CEO Forum study results in four School Technology and Readiness reports for 1 K-12 achievement; Arizona Department of Education's Arizona Education Technology Plan 43 2004 ; currently under revision for implementation. "Toward a Golden Age In American Education," U.S. Department of Education, National Technology Plan, Susan Patrick, January 2005. http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/ 76 A recent solicitation for a similar eLearning system by Homeland Security 7 Agencies . Seven meta-studies/analyses by Dexter Fletcher of Institute of Defense Analysis and Robert Foster of Office of Secretary of Defense. 32 to 38 Learning for the 21st Century ? A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills72.
During the past twenty years, eLearning adoptions have continued to lay the groundwork. Almost all districts have some eLearning adoption in place. Vail High School is opened in the fall of 2005 with 1:1 computing for students. Paradise Valley District has notebooks and projectors for all teachers. Snowflake District has an exemplary rural adoption and Wilson District has had 1:1 computing with full teacher professional development and digital curriculum since 1993. Arizona School Services through Educational Technology has recently expanded its role in teacher professional development. The School Facilities Board's investment of $240 million in technology equipment projects has brought an 8:1 ratio of multimedia computers to students and 100 MB connectivity to all classrooms in Arizona. The funding also provides access to digital 7
curriculum, Internet, and email for a million teachers and students through the Application Service Provider system of the Cox Education Network. But state funding for this system ended June 30, 2005. This implementation, focused on computers and connectivity, had delivered about fifteen percent of what is needed for a complete and effective eLearning system. Arizona led nationally in this area of connectivity and portal support during the early 2000's and eSATS will build on this foundation.
K-12 eLearning objectives
Technology Tool Skills: The first is foundational, and is addressed by the Arizona K-12 Academic Technology Standards78. This standard focuses on technology tools to succeed in society, the workplace and education. eSATS assumes that these skills will be more than achieved when student learning is supported by the home computer and the other three components delivered by eSATS. The second component is using technology to learn basic skills. The third is learning higher skills with (information) technology33. A recent national study has defined the 21st Century Skills that include elements of all three, especially higher level thinking. Basic Skills: reading, writing, speaking, memorization, and arithmetic. These are directly supported by computer applications which can include Computer Based Instruction (CBI) for drill and practice with immediate assessment feedback. Higher Level Thinking: problem-solving ability, capacity to locate, evaluate, and use information via the Internet, multiple languages, effective multimedia use, conceptual development, critical thinking, creativity, and research skills are supported by productivity applications dealing with word processing, spreadsheets, databases, presentations; multimedia applications to deal with photographs, music composition/performance, movie making/editing, and CD, DVD, and web page construction tools; and tools supporting intelligent tutors, simulation, and synthetic environments. 21st Century Skills72: Information and media literacy; communication; critical thinking and systems thinking; problem identification, formulation and solution; creativity and intellectual curiosity; interpersonal and collaborative; self-direction; accountability and adaptability; and social responsibility. Research Goal for Academic Performance eSATS must provide a student learning environment through which the Secretary of Defense's learning performance goal of one letter grade improvement can be achieved in each Arizona course.
No Child Left Behind Line
No Child Left Behind Line
2 1
Next Generation eLearning
Number of Students
Number of Students
Effective eLearning Legacy Education
Current eLearning Current Education
Academic Performance
Academic Performance
Current eLearning Potential Fig 2
Next Generation eLearning Potential Fig 3
The holy grail of learning is one-on-one human tutoring. With tutoring, "C" students can consistently learn at the rate of "A" students as shown in the graph. Studies also show the bell-shaped performance curve narrows as it moves to the right. This will greatly reduce the "D" and "F" student dropouts due to academic failure. Individualizing the pace and engagement with eLearning also retains gifted students. The ten-year eLearning research roadmaps produced by the federal government, national associations and Department of Defense describe the research to reach this level of improvement.12 It is expected that over the next ten years this emerging eLearning technology will reach K-12 eLearning environments. Arizona can move forward with effective eLearning now: Students entering Kindergarten are digital media savvy and ready for eLearning.69 Arizona adults must only commit to adoption of a complete eLearning system. If any component of the system is weak, the rest will falter. There are seven major components of the eSATS systems design: ?
Digital Curriculum Connectivity Computers Funds Professional Development
? ? ?
Aligned Technical Support Time Assessment
? ? ?
Education and professional development of teaching staff; K-12 subject and student appropriate digital curriculum with content and courseware; Digital assessments aligned to standards and student needs; Computer interfaces and high-speed connective fully accessible; Technical support; Time Funding
Seven eSATS Components Figure 4
Forecasts and Assumptions \
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? eLearning raises academic performance 30% to 50% moving Arizona's ranking from fourth quartile to the first quartile; The dropout rate will decrease significantly and the resulting increase in student population must be addressed in the financial calculations; Current growth will continue at a 3% compounded rate (30,000 new students, 1600 new teachers and many dozens of new schools each year); Four years will be needed for individual teachers to fully master eLearning theory and processes through professional development and education; It will require eight years to change from 8:1 to 1:1 students to computer ratio; Over 1000 new mentor teachers and 3000 technicians will be required; The current Student Accountability Information System-IDEAL system can be significantly expanded to fully serve the summative-formative assessment, administration, research and instructional needs of eSATS; An inclusive systems approach led by stewards is better than either a top-down or individual district by district approach; Adequate knowledge of and access to the global of sources of teacher education and professional development, and digital curriculum are not currently available; New formulas and regulations are needed to align funding with student-mastery year and abandon seat year funding; The most effective tranformational unit is the school; Arizona's current broadband initiative will complete the build out to all Arizona classrooms within three years; The major cost savings afforded by eLearning will applied to ameliorating the cost of implementing eLearning; The removal of one calendar year from the average Arizona student's K-12 education will be beneficially accepted by families, schools and our colleges; A three year bridging to build intellectual infrastructure will be needed before the five year buildup to full implementation can take place; Implementation funding will ramp up over four years and then decrease as cost savings start taking effect; The timing is right and leadership is ready, willing and able for the difficult task of implementing K-12 eLearning transformation in eight years.
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 S tude nts Compute rs Te ache rs
Projections - Millions Figure 5
Section 2 Design Methodology, Experience and Advocacy
Design Methodology
There are two crucial knowledge sets needed before any large system design process can start. First are the needs of the customers: the educators and administrators who will have to implement the K-12 eLearning design, and the business people who need a 21st Century workforce and already use eLearning. The second is the design components, which come from the research communities (colleges, institutes, laboratories), professional development providers, and eLearning enterprises. Although there major and minor redesign processes that will be continuous through implementation, the basic design sequence then matches performance requirements with expected performance of the component based system. A gap analysis determines what exists vs. what needs to be developed or acquired from available sources. Then the timing, costs, implementation phases, responsibilities, and assessment data aspects are developed. Finally it's back to the customer for approval, commitment and advocacy.
Voice of the Customer
Over past decades, eSATS design team members have been directly engaged with a wide range of customer-based participative strategic planning and pilot implementation processes. The idea that linked Arizona economy development and education technology was first articulated fifteen years ago within the Enterprise Network Strategic Planning Taskforce and was elaborated in the Phoenix Futures Forum (PFF) and Arizona Strategic Plan for Economic Development (ASPED). Up through the mid 1990s, the Learning/Research/Enterprise Inc. (PFF action group) and the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ASPED foundation group) developed plans and laid critical groundwork for eLearning implementation. Arizona Department of Education: In the early 1990s, Kathryn Kilroy of the Arizona Department of Education produced the first statewide K-12 technology plan: "Technology Integrated Educational Delivery System45." (TIEDS). Revisions in 199744 and 20026 were followed by 200443 "Arizona Educational Technology Plan". Arizona Educational Technology Plan used the results of a major workshop supported by leading Arizona businesses and facilitated by CRESMET of the ASU College of Engineering16, 42. A new Arizona Department of Education technology plan for 200581 is being developed by Cathy Poplin with the additional criterion that it be an implementation plan. Arizona Learning Technology Partnership: In 1995, the L/R/E and ATIC, with AT&T support and Arizona Department of Education guidance, formed the Arizona K-12 Learning Technology Partnership (ALTP--a GSPED partnership). The ALTP www.altp.org created a statewide Arizona K-12 eLearning strategic plan with eight major efforts. ? Conducted focus groups with nine organizations that ranged from the Arizona Education Association to the Gila River Indian Community Schools. Soon afterward one of the groups, the K-12 technology directors, organized the Arizona Technology in Education Alliance (AZTEA) 48; 11
Solicited and received eighteen white papers on requested topics for eLearning in Arizona K-12 education from expert leaders within what are now the eSATS four communities47;
Summary of White Papers A K-12 Superintendent's Perspective Apache-Navajo Counties: Rural Information Network Perspective Arizona Libraries Technology Issues Arizona Department of Education: Automation Plan Arizona Telecommunications and Workforce Development Issues Community College Link to the Arizona Learning System Economic Development Issues Education Software Market Effective Integration of Technology into School Districts K-12 Technology Directors' Perspective Legislative Issues Military Labs' Perspective on K-12 Learning Technology Parent Perspective Small High Technology Business View Teacher Training Teachers' Role in Educational Technology Telecommunications Providers' Issues University Support and Vision for K-12 Education
? ? ? ?
? ?
Engaged a consultant to conduct thirty interviews with a different set of statewide leaders and experts in K-12 education49; Produced a forecast of emerging technologies50; Produced a study report in the eLearning situation in Arizona and other states51. Facilitated a statewide (Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff and Sierra Vista) strategic planning task group using participative techniques and data from the prior studies to craft a statewide strategic plan for accelerated adoption of eLearning within Arizona's k-12 education system54. Produced a visions-systems and issues study paper52, 53. Developed a situation assessment on Arizona eLearning.55
In 1997 ALTP advocated at the legislature for accelerated adoption of eLearning, with the equipment and technology piece as part of the Students First legislation ,and the School Facilities Board guidelines to bring Arizona K-12 schools up to a minimum eLearning standard. The advocacy paid off with the School Facilities Board's $210 million build out by Qwest and Cisco of the 8:1 computers and high-speed connectivity into every K-12 classroom. The Cox Education Network received $27 million to provide an Application Service Provider, email addresses, and access to digital curriculum for Arizona teachers and students.
In 2000, eSATS team members were engaged in the Governor's Arizona Partnership for the New Economy (APNE) planning process. Their venue was the eLearning Hot Team, which advocated an eLearning industry cluster organization. From that came the Greater Arizona eLearning Association which became a cluster organization within Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development until the dissolution of GSPED in December of 2003. In early 2003, Greater Arizona eLearning Association interviewed leadership of over twenty leading Arizona eLearning enterprises. The second ranked issue (behind eLearning product research) was the need to use eLearning to transform K-12 education I Arizona. Most of these enterprises were not in the K-12 marketplace but felt the civic drive to use their eLearning knowledge to support K-12 education transformation. The Greater Arizona eLearning Association board started with the 1997 ALTP "eLearning" strategic plan for K-12, reviewed the implementation of the Qwest-Cisco-Cox system, and decided to launch an eLearning design effort on September 1, 2003. The volunteer design team evolved a brisk set of tasks to be completed by the end of 2003: ? Identify and complete a set of interviews with Arizona business, governance and education steward-stakeholders for K-12 education (done); ? Create a first draft system design for full implementation of eLearning-based transformation of K-12 education ? eSATS (done); ? Develop a crystal clear message (done); ? Organize an advocacy coalition of steward-stakeholders (done). eSATS Team eSATS design team members were experienced in Arizona educational advocacy. One of the team was part of the Special Education movement in the 1970s and early 1980s, which created funded programs for the special needs of 12,000 Arizona gifted and talented children. He was also president of one of the first twenty five charter schools in 1995 ? for adjudicated youth. Several participated in the advocacy that resulted in the Qwest-Cisco-Cox system. Another was superintendent of Arizona's largest school district for fifteen years of eLearning adoption. The driver behind the Arizona Regents (Online) University was on the team, as well as the developer of the Application Service Provider for the Cox Education System were members. Included also was a founder of AzTEA, the information technology director of Peoria district, an early adopter of a major K-12 eLearning system. Implementation Power Needed Since the 1983 national study "A Nation in Crisis," many initiatives have been launched but few have had even marginal success. Now President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" initiative requires improvements that only eSATS is designed to achieve. eSATS goal for K-12 students to perform at one grade level higher is both audacious and practical enough to secure the attention of Arizona leadership. eSATS is poised to deliver on twenty years of expectations but attention is not enough, what is needed is commitment across the board. The produced the final criteria for eSATS ? created the advocacy design in conjunction with the implementation design.
Enter P-20 Architecture and Stewards To transform an entire state education system, an inter-organizational architecture is needed. Fortunately the P-20 architecture and its steward concept is accepted in Arizona. P-20 was developed by the Greater Phoenix Leadership and Maricopa Community College District and addresses the integration of education over the life span of Arizona's citizens. The four major sectors are ages 0?5 (Pre-K); Kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12); colleges--both community and universities; and employers--workforce. Governor Napolitano has created a P-20 council to address the high school ? college transition for students. Support for eSATS must pass though all P-20 linkage points. Stewards are defined in the Morrison Institute for Public Policy Five Shoes Waiting to Drop on Arizona's Future82 as careful and responsible managers of what is entrusted to their care -- the counterpoint to one issue ideologues. Stewards work within an integrated vision, with broad collaborative networks in order to solve big complex problems. They commit to the long-term well being of places and people. They are leaders who cross boundaries and build coalitions for sustained action. Stewards are people who have 360degree vision, recognizing interdependency between education, economy, environment, and social equity.
? Greater Phoenix Leadership
Figure 6
The current education system has evolved historically as separate silos. But with new organizations like Arizona Business and Education Coalition83 and Governors Council on Innovation and Technology,84 effective linkages are being forged. First -generation eLearning is being adopted along the entire spectrum of P-20, easing implementation of eSATS. Supporting linkages will include colleges and enterprises providing teachers eLearning education and professional development. Preschools will provide students ready for K-12 eLearning. Military, federal and eLearning enterprise research on workforce eLearning will support the development of K-12 and teacher professional development curriculum. Government, business and education leaders have an image of workforce eLearning within their organizations. With eSATS the P-20 system will have a power center for their eLearning adoptions. 14
eSATS Advocacy Organizational Design The organization that advocates implementation of the eSATS system design include comprise stewards seasoned with flame throwers. Although the organization may evolve into a larger coalition after its initial success, it must be entrepreneurial and flexible as a "gazelle". To position itself to attract steward-stakeholders, eSATS has connected-thedots between current initiatives and built them into the eSATS desing. eSATS design team has identified almost all entities engaged with eLearning to implement K-12 reforms. eSATS will attempt to include their linkage people as part of the eSATS advocacy coalition. As eSATS outgrows its flame throwers and builds a coalition, K-12 eLearning stewards would take ownership of the eSATS implementation initiative. Five K-12 steward groupings have been identified: ? ? ? ? ? K-12 Education--have the nitty-gritty task to embrace eSATS, implement it, and make it work; Higher Education--must educate the eLearning savvy teachers and research and develop new generations of digital curriculum; Businesses and Economic Development--They have the task to support the initial launch of eSATS and empower its advocacy; Government Entities--have the task to provide governance, advocacy, change rules and regulations and legislate the funding for the implementation of eSATS. eLearning Enterprises--have the task to provide eLearning expertise and entrepreneurial leadership to its launch and early growth, and deliver digital curriculum and educator professional development.
Section 3 System Design: Innovation Central and Six Major Components
The eSATS system design draws on many sources but particularly the results of a fiveyear project (1996 to 2001) by the CEO Forum on Education and Technology1 www.ceoforum.org, email@example.com. During that period, the forum published four major studies.1 The nineteen forum members, high-level executives from an eclectic mix of major technology companies, consultant organizations, and national educational associations, were supported by Washington-based IT Strategies, headed by Ken Kay. Ken has a second home in Tucson and is involved with Tucson information technology associations. The CEO Forum started the design process by integrating the four pillars (components) presented in President Clinton's Technology Literacy Challenge: Hardware, Connectivity, Digital Content, and Professional Development. Its summary product is the School Technology and Readiness (StaR) chart (Appendix A.) STaR charts are comprehensive matrix tools to assess progress of schools from Early Tech, Developing Tech, Advanced Tech, to Target Tech. The first report "Integrating the Four Pillars," was followed by "Digital Content" and "Professional Development." The final work addressed Student Achievement by integrating prior work with Assessment, Alignment, Accountability, Access, and Analysis. State level design information and imperatives were drawn from Arizona Department of Education's "Arizona Education Technology Plan6" and "Masterplan for IT in Education (Singapore)14" among others. The current state of eLearning adoption in Arizona is between Developing Tech and Advanced Tech on the CEO Forum's progress chart. From that framework, the design team concluded that Arizona is about 15% of the way toward a full K-12 eLearning implementation. This level of adoption provides a strong foundation of people, systems, organizations and expertise to implemented complete system design. Components: System designs are build from major interacting components. From the above sources and design processes eSATS was designed with six major components. Several require a new institute and new information system and financial system are required. ? ? ? ? ? ? Teacher and Staff Education and Professional Development (institute); Digital Curriculum (institute); Assessment, Access, Accountability and Decision Support(information system); Computers and Connectivity; Technical Support; eLearning Center School (financial system).
All systems need a leadership and control center. The "seven component" will be:" ? Innovation Central (Institute) 16
Most K-12 systems that have adopted educational technology have failed to reach their expectations for academic performance increase. Almost all have adopted an incomplete set of these seven crucial systems design components. Imagine a find jet airplane with automobile engines and no wheels. Past adoptions have struggled with the lack of funds for a complete system; early stage technology, resources and pedagogy; and sporadic upgrades. The eSATS design team learned from these prior efforts and have strived to cover all bases. Innovation Central detailed design is followed by the other six components. Note: The representation of this design in legislation is presented in Appendix B by arranging the sections of 2005 Arizona State Senate Bill SB 1181 into the framework of this Section 5. Note: The use of the word "district" means school districts, and charter and alternative schools.
Section 3.1 eSATS Innovation Central (eSATS IC)
Large system innovation and transformations of the magnitude of eSATS can start with an ad hoc coalition of mutual interest. But once enabling and funding legislation is in place, the advocacy stewards and educational leaders require a single entity to coordinate and lead the statewide implementation. That independent organization will be eSATS IC. eSATS IC, an Arizona non-profit corporation, should be housed within the community of educational organizations and State agencies, boards and departments centered in downtown Phoenix. It will be governed for the first ten years by a board of directors that have strong linkage to organizations within the five major communities (K-12 education, higher education, governance, business and eLearning enterprise). As the innovationhigh growth phase winds down in five to ten years, eSATS IC will be dissolved. Or it may be redesigned to provide continuous transformational support and leadership. With responsibility for a transformational program reaching $500 million a year level, the eSATS IC will grow to approximately fifty people during the first six years, and then shrink as eSATS matures. The fully burdened cost estimate is $100,000 per person. eSATS IC will provide additional administrative funds to organization responsible for implementing major aspects of eSATS. Arizona Department of Education has statewide responsibility for contracting with and funding the transformation of eLearning Centered Schools; in-service teacher and staff professional development; collaboration with Arizona Board of Regents for the eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute; Student Accounting and Information System (Student Accountability Information System) and all its expansions and extensions into the data and assessment areas; teacher notebooks and essential software and projectors; and instructional systems for eLearning and communication. Administrative costs would start at $4.5 million and plateau at $10 million in year six. Arizona Board of Regents has the responsibilities to assure that the colleges of education graduate and support eLearning savvy teachers (both pre-service and graduate), house and support the Digital Curriculum Institute, step up eLearning research, house and support a K-12 ADL Co-Lab; and provide support and collaboration with Arizona Department of Education for the eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute. Administrative costs would peak at $4 million in year three and then decline to a $1 million in the out years. Office of the Auditor General has the responsibility of designing, developing rules, prorogating and operating the eLearning Centered School accounting and auditing system. In year three administrative and legal-staff costs would peak at $2 million followed by a decline to $200,000 in the out years for education and training of district administrative staff.
Government Information and Telecommunications Agency has the responsibility for assuring that affordable high speed Internet is available to schools not yet served. Their administrative cost would be $300,000 for the first three years followed by a decline to $100,000 for ongoing efforts.
Administrative Cost
12 10 Millions 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ye ar s Innov ation Central A DE A BOR A uditor General GITA
Figure 7
ADMINISTRATION Innovation Central ADE ABOR Auditor General GITA Total State
2 5 2 0.6 0.3 $12 $12
3 6 3 1.5 0.3 $17 $17
3.5 7 4 2 0.3 $20 $19
4 8 3 1 0.3 $19 $18
4.5 9 2 0.5 0.2 $19 $17
5 10 2 0.2 0.1 $20 $18
4.5 10 2 0.2 0.1 $20 $17
3 10 1 0.2 0.1 $17 $14
1.5 10 1 0.2 0.1 $16 $13
0.5 10 1 0.2 0.1 $15 $12
Table 1
Human Ecosystem "The most pragmatic tool a business manager can have is a good theory." Peter Drucker
eSATS IC will take the initiative in developing research knowledge into operational policy and tools for eSATS implementation. The heart of the information age is people working and learning together. It is a human based networked system that is quite different than the input-output of the industrial age factory model. Organizational and management theories are evolving but eSATS IC could gain a major competitive advantage if it had first use of organizational development theories for K-12 eLearning human systems. A leading body of theory results from the study of the human ecology system (ecosystem). The June 2004 Arizona Town Hall participants along with a host of others have voiced the imperative "Parents must be partners with the school in the education of their children.86" The design team could not find a plan, let alone a proven design on how to deliver consistent parent support for every K-12 student. Especially with the economic, interests, knowledge level, language and time challenges of parents. eSATS must craft its own 19
solution within the context of eLearning and information age, the human ecosystem theory will be called on to provide the design tools. Definition: Parents and schools are only part of the ecosystem that shapes and drives a student. Current theory describes this ecosystem with five layers: ? ? ? ? ? Microsystem--the student's family, home, school, peer group, church, immediate neighborhood...are all microsystems; Mesosystem ? is two or more microsystems linked together. The interaction between home and school will reinforce behaviors within both systems; Exosystem-- delivers indirect but powerfull effects as outside forces. These include board of education, parents work conditions, state academic standards, department of education, employer needs...; Macrosystem--includes cultural beliefs, values, attitudes, customs, national government, laws ? propagated by the cultural memes and structure of society; Chronosystem -- the student is influenced by different systems at different times over the years.
Resources: An opportunity is at hand in Arizona in the person of Greg Hickman. Greg was a researcher on the field of human ecosystem and at the Center for Arizona Future (Latti Coor) when he provided input to the eSATS design. He is now heading up a research program for the Rodel Foundation at the Arizona State University College of Business. Dr. Hickman conceptualized a center that would develop K-12 human ecosystem policy and tools specifically for eSATS IC. This policy design would guide the implementation of eSATS along its twenty year growth cycle. The policy would guide the organizational and implementation redesign, launch, bridging from legacy education to eLearning, rapid growth and maturity. For example eSATS IC would use mesosystem and exosystem theory to guide eSATS interactions and expectations from its five communities. Microsystem and mesosystem theory would support significant enhancement of student-home-school interactions. Human Ecosystem Center would be created for research and development on the human ecological aspects of Arizona K-12 education. The Human Ecosystem Center will be use all levels of the Arizona K-12 education system as its test subject. This systems approach will address all five layers of the ecosystem. Parents, students and teachers are expected to be the most critical aspects. But microsystem peer groups to exosystem state level leadership have critical roles to play. The results of this theoretical - field testing work would support development of policy tools and implementation designs to be used by eSATS IC. The eSATS IC Human Ecosystem Center would not be a policy research center where the outcomes are papers, presentations and prestige. This would be a policy design and development operation focused on transforming Arizona K-12 education to an eLearning powerhouse. The data system from Student Accountability Information System in the AZ Department of Education will be expanded to include human ecosystem data at the appropriate level of granularity to support continuous eSATS policy redesign along its Chronosystem .
Human Ecosystem Center Design: This center will be created as a fully integrated policy development center. A center president and leading experts from the five major human ecosystem disciplines: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem will be grouped in one location. There will also be at least three marketingoutreach-communications professionals to promote, develop and maintain two way connectivity and support between the center, its field customer-subjects and clients which are eSATS institutes and eSATS IC operations and leadership. eSATS IC will contract with a currently operating or a newly formed organization to house, support and manage the Human Ecosystem Center. The Human Ecosystem Center will be operational within one year and fully staffed within two years. Guided and overseen by eSATS IC. The approximately 15 professionals will be joined with support staff who will provide outreach, education, field research and administrative functions. Cost: The average cost with burden of an R&D professional of the caliber needed is $150,000 a year or $2.25 million for fifteen professionals. An additional $ $750,000 is needed for support staff, field study costs, consultants, facilities and outreach.
Human Ecology Institute
4 2 0 1
Figure 8
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 10
Human Ecology Center
Table 2
Section 3.2 Teacher ? Staff Education and Professional Development
"Teacher education is probably the most important element of successfully integrating technology into our schools," Lewis Solmon.13
Definition and Scope
Teacher and staff include all K-12 school staff and administration whose professional activities effect student learning. This cadre may expand to include the parents and other community members who engage students. Education and professional development may be provided by pre-service education in colleges and universities; on-the-job training and education from mentors staff or peers; formal training and education during release or non-service hours in traditional classes or by using eLearning resources; and informal learning that uses the Internet and other sources to find data, information and resources.
Arizona teachers transform their practice to a higher level of professionalism with greatly increased student contact time. The technology part of eLearning delivers a tailored and patient student instructional interface which minimizes teacher lecture and clerical loads. With eLearning delivering formative assessments and removing most administrative loads teachers are able to deliver individualized real-time instructional decisions and support for their students. Teacher satisfaction soars as the new found time, eLearning tools and transformative professional skills allow them to develop effective relationships and create academic success with all their students.
Current Situation:
The Education Commission of the States rated two states (Indiana and Maine) as OK on professional development, eight adequate and the rest including Arizona "off track." Although 99 percent of teachers are "exposed" to professional development, only a third of it is connected to classroom applications.10 A survey of technology directors conducted by the Milken Institute found that many district computers were not being used. An important reason cited by fifty percent of overall respondents was that "teachers are not trained to use them." A 1999 study had U.S. teachers averaging 21 hours of training on eLearning (15 percent of a single college semester course!). There is little indication that much has changed in five years. In the past, student teachers have received little about eLearning in preservice education and field service. Teacher access to professional development in the form of eLearning in their classrooms is low. As a result, 90 percent of eLearning-savvy teachers report they are self-taught. Only 20 percent of teachers feel prepared to integrate eLearning into their classrooms. A 2000 survey from the National Center for Education Statistics showed that teachers spend about a day or less in professional development in one content area. About eighteen percent of professional development was related to school improvement activities and only fifteen percent receive follow-up materials or activities. Teachers who felt the professional development improved their teaching averaged only twenty percent.66 22
Most workshop training is too short in duration and too limited in effectiveness. Teachers need to be taught much more than the entry-level use of computers. Even when they receive workshops on eLearning integration, there is little follow-up, their teaching environment is ill-equipped, and/or there is little mentor support for continuous on-the-job transformation. Teacher Beliefs and Support: It is difficult for most teachers to cast off the legacy model and embrace the eLearning model of collaboration-inquiry-interaction. This is not surprising in light of inadequate modern classroom computers, narrow range of digital curriculum and spotty professional support and mentoring. Professionals in many other information-based industries had to labor over the past two decades to transform their practices from paper and pencil to computer-assisted workflow. But with adequate funding, the right computer equipment and software, and management support they were finally successful. The transformation is risky, difficult, and time consuming. The teachers must believe that there will be significant benefits for their students, and they must have administrative support. Their beliefs will change at each stage as their experience grows. Observing successful models in practice allows them to look before they leap. Mentors are vital in changing teacher beliefs about eLearning.
What is Needed:
When teachers are taught how to use eLearning effectively, student academic performance improves. In one study, math scores jumped a half grade level (13 weeks). Ten hours of training is better than five or fewer hours. Rhode Island put twenty-five percent of its teachers through a sixty-hour entry-level course and provided notebooks and software for classroom and home. Email use jumped from thirty-four percent to 98 percent. On the other hand, novice eLearning teachers tended to focus on the multimedia, glitz, and technology--under-emphasizing content. Teachers must be able to use eLearning for their own education and professional development. Completion of training in computer use, applications, and the Internet within the context of legacy education will be a necessary first step. As the eLearning foundation is developed, the focus will shift to learning how to use eLearning tools, methods and context to transform their teaching. Apple Classroom Of Tomorrow (ACOT) developed a one-week practicum and four-week institute with one-year follow-up support. The teachers learned to develop successful learning environments for students including exploration, reflection, peer collaboration, authentic learning tasks, and hands-on active learning. What worked for students also worked for teachers. Their follow-on Project CHILD provided a year of training and coaching that extends to collaborative teaching strategies and research materials. Recent Efforts: During the early 2000's teacher training by Arizona School Services through Educational Technology delivered a three-hour introductory and overview training module on using the Cox Education Network. Also, a 15-hour integration training module provided professional education to teachers on becoming eLearning practitioners. The allocation of $2 million for training of 44,000 teachers was about $45 a teacher.
Needs Served:
The Arizona eLearning transformation is designed to assure that all educators are educated, trained and motivated to use the eLearning tools and methods. The ten year population growth from 50,000 to 65,000 educators added to replacement for retirement and departure presents a challenge. The retention of educators at the top of their profession is just as severe. eSATS serves this need directly by creating the eLearning education and professional development curriculum framework and certifications, locating and vetting the resources, and providing mentors and adequate funding for education and professional develop for each teacher. The mentor system provides and additional career opportunity. The efficiencies and effectiveness of eLearning will fund a 20% additional (over cost of living) raise in salary for teachers as their eLearning qualifications increase. At 2% a year over ten years ? this real increase in wages will assure attraction and retention of the best educator cadre in the country. The transformation/creation of Arizona's education and professional development system will serve as a model for the nation. Major attributes include: ? ? ? ? ? Pre-service eLearning-based college education One master-mentor teacher per 50 school teachers; An integrated set of legacy and eLearning delivery means: classes, workshops, conferences, courses, on-the-job; just-in-time, future preparation, learn by doing, learn by thinking, formal, and informal. An integrated curriculum framework, certification and delivery system; All supported by an eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute.
Design Specification:
Teacher and staff professional development and education for each educator within their individual learning plan for their domain which includes: Pre-service education: A significant percentage of eLearning-savvy entry-level teachers are needed within four years of the launch of eSATS. Arizona's university and college teacher education programs must be rapidly transformed to deliver education on eLearning theory, pedagogy, process and practice. Master-mentor Teachers: Teaching is an intensely human activity that addresses learning as an art form. As in any profession there is a small cadre of masters of their practice and art. Master teachers take many years to develop and seem to have unique inborn talents. eSATS will require at least 1000 of these experts (2% of teacher population) in the schools to support eLearning adoption and continuity state wide. In-service professional development and education: Comprehensive and continuous professional development for teachers and staff members is absolutely crucial for eSATS success. Most teachers have some experience in using computers for office applications, email and the Internet. But eSATS will require them to learn a much higher level of understanding and skill to transform their classrooms into eLearning environments. eLearning professionalism must be achieved not only by the academic staff but also by information technology staff, librarians, digital curriculum 24
experts, and school leadership. eLearning technology will deliver Web-Internetcomputer-digital content, courses, knowledge, and digital curriculum through online learning with chat and expert access, and collaborative learning in the teacher's classroom, study area, and home. Teachers will have to learn to use these continuously improving tools and resources to the fullest. Curriculum framework: will reflect the International Society for Technology in Education professional development standards along the eLearning skill continuum from entry to invention or to Target Tech. The curriculum framework will include Arizona Department of Education and district certification for learning achievements along the continuum. Legacy classes and courses will blend with eLearning. The scope and sequence of curriculum offerings will address the individual needs of the educator and evolve over time. eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute: This institute will deliver support to both student and in-service teachers as they enter the world of K-12 eLearning. The eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute will collaborate with the Human Ecosystem Center and the Digital Curriculum Institute as they develop and evolve the eLearning ecosystem policy and design tools and digital curriculum for teachers and staff professionals. eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute will be formed as a partnership between Arizona Department of Education and Arizona Board of Regents. The initial task will be to develop a comprehensive curriculum framework for educator education and professional development from pre-service to master-mentor levels of expertise. It will research and develop certification requirements to be implemented by Arizona Department of Education. eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute will also find and assess all sources of eLearning education and professional development that is accessible by Arizona teachers and staff. eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute will provide a recommendation service to support teachers and administrators.
Design Details:
The eSATS professional development system will shift from isolated learning and occasional workshops to continuous eLearning. The eSATS curriculum frame includes both teacher standards and certification criteria. The emphasis will be on collaborative structures, diverse and extensive professional-learning opportunities, and an emphasis on teacher accountability and student academic results.67 Education and Professional Development: The curriculum for Arizona teacher professional development over the five eLearning developmental stages is still incomplete. The eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute will be responsible for accelerating the development of a system that full serves all five stages. Their curriculum experts will seek out and engage the accessible universe of legacy and eLearning sources. The legacy model of formal teacher professional development expects the typical learning task for the teacher to be the approximate equivalent of college course per year. If we used this model for eSATS the number of classes to deliver one course each for 50,000 25
teachers would be 1,000 per semester. One thousand new eLearning classes is a significant challenge for legacy college education. But the emerging world of online professional development provides another means to meet this 1,000 percent increase in demand. A wide variety of public and private sources exist. School districts provide in-house training-education with the teachers being relieved by substitutes. Many in-state and global online courses are available. Sources include community colleges, ASSET, Arizona universities including NAU's K-12 Center, and private colleges such as University of Phoenix Online and Grand Canyon University. Other online sources include the Arizona Regents Virtual University now based at Northern Arizona University and Western Governors University68. A number of Greater Arizona eLearning Association eLearning enterprises are expected to invest to develop courses and provide instructors and facilities to capture a piece of this professional development business. With their online capabilities, the demand this local market would drive a global market with Arizona companies. They could be first into the market with significant experience advantage over global competition. Mentors: A district-based cadre of master-mentor teachers will provide just-in-time/onthe-job eLearning education and training for Arizona's 50,000 teaching staff. The ratio will be one mentor per 50 teachers. The average student/teacher ratio (including special programs, librarians, etc.) is 18. A school with a population of 900 students would have 50 teachers and require one master-mentor teacher. With more than twenty years of experience with educational technology in Arizona a small cadre of teachers has developed to master-mentor level. This cadre must be increased to 1,000 within four years to fully support eSATS implementation. This cadre will revitalize teaching and present an exciting career path opportunity. Teacher Salaries: The hiring and retention of the most able teachers will be easier with the nation's best professional development and eLearning system and the day-to-day support from mentor teachers. The productivity of these teachers is expected to slowly increase over the next ten years. The less able teachers and those who decide to remain legacy teachers will seek other opportunities. As with other information-based industries, the workforce will slowly shrink while proficiency, productivity, and salaries increase for the most able teachers. The expected productivity increase would be 10% over ten years based on teacher-student ratio. The salary increase has been set at 20% above inflation adjustments over ten years to match individual teacher success moving up the eLearning certification ladder. Proficiency Stages: Teacher professional development starts with training on using the Internet and productivity software applications. It evolves to formal teacher education, mentoring, and on-line eLearning anytime, anyplace. Arizona Learning Technology Partnership Inc. (ALTP) and CEO Forum separately developed four similar stages of teacher professional development and transition. Arizona School Services through Educational Technology and ALTP integrated the results of the following four major research, study, and analysis efforts into a digital curriculum framework2: 26
? ? ?
The International Society for Technology in Education set of student, teacher, staff, and administrator professional development standards and National Educational Technology Standards, Spring 1999 that were submitted to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and Road Ahead studies18,56; The CEO Forum's STAR Report ? School Technology and Readiness1 that addresses the need for technologically aware personnel in the workforce; A decade of research by Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow19 providing a qualitative and quantitative analysis of technology integration and the required professional development; The Milken Exchange's The Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress20 for identifying the need for technology in schools, a method for determining that need and a set of indicators for evaluating the use of technology by assessing the following: learners, system capacity, community connections, technology capacity, and accountability.
eSATS design team elaborated on the ACOT development stages of teacher-staff professional development and education within the systems design: ? Entry--Educators learn the basics of computer, productivity applications such as word processor, spreadsheet and presentation; and use of WebInternet-networks with a browser. They have a computer for their use. Their students have limited use of a computer lab, but the teacher is not directly engaged. Students that do not have computers at home learn to use computers in school; Adoption--Educators move from the initial struggles to successful use of technology on a basic level including student records, media access and presentation from their projector, and PowerPoint presentations. They have mastered the subject matter of their teaching discipline, there are modern, multimedia computers in the classroom with one for eight students; Adaptation--Educators adapt eLearning into legacy classroom practice. The focus for the educator is enhanced student productivity to academic standards by using drill and practice applications, word processing, spreadsheets, PowerPoint, email, and Web-Internet. Teachers use computers to enrich digital curriculum and use web sites for reference material. Students learn to learn in a media-rich learning environment and are mastering the basics of 21st century information worker skills with one computer for four students; Appropriation--Having achieved mastery over a wide range of eLearning tools including digital curriculum-based instructional and assessment software, educators use it "effortlessly" as a tool to accomplish a variety of traditional instructional and management goals. For example formative assessment programs for essays unload the teacher to spend more time in direct guidance of each individual student. Students show marked improvement in their academic performance. Teachers have mastered the source locations and knowledge within the digital curriculum of their teaching discipline. Students are mastering the higher thinking aspects of the 21st century skills with eLearning support;
Invention--Educators are engage in the development and adoption of eLearning environments focused on collaborative small groups and the individual student. With eLearning assessment and delivery support, including intelligent tutors and simulations, learning becomes collaborative, interactive, and responsive to individual learning needs. Student assessment systems support real-time coaching and learning and mastery testing at the end of the unit or semester. Enabled by the eLearning technology, the educator redefines the learning environment and teaching methods to eLearning (collaboration, inquiry, interaction, exploration). Students learn to manage their own learning in a constructive mode at their best pace while they enjoy significantly increased student achievement. The educator has a transformed practice which includes significantly increased student contact and guidance, and may include production-web publishing of eLearning grade digital curriculum.
Appendix D has the details on the ISTE professional development standards over these five stages for not only teachers but technical support and leadership: ? Technical Support ? Advanced Technical Support ? Teaching Fundamentals ? Teaching Integration ? Leadership There is striking evidence supporting the need for principal and administrative support. Leadership must be committed to the transformation and maintain its instructional leadership in this transformed mode. Principals must provide time for professional development and education, give recognition for success, and give authority and flexibility for scheduling and curriculum objectives. Certification and pay scale criteria must be changed to reflect successful eLearning professional development and success in the classroom. The CEO Forum1's target tech teacher (TTT) functions at the Appropriation and Invention capability. This teacher will be highly effective in an environment that has: studentcentered learning, multi-sensory stimulation, multi-path progression, multimedia, collaborative work, information exchange, active/exploratory/inquiry-based teaching, critical thinking, and informed and data-supported decision making, proactive/planned action and authentic environments, and real world context.
Funding Models:
The budget issue that arguably is most critical to a school district's ability to achieve its technology goals is staff development. To underscore this point, the U.S. Department of Education had recommended that school districts set aside 30 percent of their technology budgets for staff training and development. The Massachusetts Software Council points out that many businesses match every dollar they spend on computer hardware or software with another dollar for training. They recommend that at least one-fourth of a school's technology budget be set-aside for that purpose. Unfortunately ratios like this 28
only work if there are adequate investments in computers, connectivity, digital curriculum and technical support. A large component of in-school staff development cost is substitute teachers. The teaching staff must have time for professional development during their regular work hours. In a well-publicized model21 of school-technology costs, http://www.uark.edu/mckinsey/ McKinsey & Co. assumed hiring substitute teachers would cost $100 a day. Also, 1.5 full-time staff members would be needed to conduct training. Another model developed by Integrated Technology Education Group, LLC, for the National Center for Supercomputing Applications calls for a minimum of five days of training per year per teacher and two days per year per administrator, as well as an additional six days per year of informal peer-to-peer training. This is just for Internet connectivity. The model adopts 30 percent of the computing budget for staff training as the goal to which districts should aspire, but considers 15 percent to be the minimum acceptable. A 1996 RAND study of eight pioneering high-tech schools found that the cost of staff development ranged from $15 to $35 per student per year, with most schools spending about $25. As a share of their technology budgets, the percentages ranged from 22 percent to 5.5 percent, with the average being about 10 percent. This $400 per teacher is approximately 20 percent of the $2000 annual cost per employee invested by informationbased industries. Smart Valley, a 1990's initiative by Silicon Valley companies to network schools and other community institutions in that area, approached the issue another way. It recommended in a school networking guide22 that "an average starting point" should be to allocate approximately $1,500 per year for each person requiring training. An early 1990s study assumed that the typical school with 700 students and 33 staff members would spend $2,000 per staff member for staff support, materials and mileage and $35 an hour for trainers (with a projected 2,000 hours required per school). During the 2003-2004 school year, United States schools spent an average of $103 per student on educational technology.85 The break out was $71 on computer hardware, $17 on software/content, $9 on outside services including connectivity and only $6 on staff development. With 18 students per teacher, the current funding for educator profession development was $110 per teacher, not the $2000 needed for a high-end information professional. In general these analytical and field studies conclude that eLearning investment should be approximately 30 percent equipment and 70 percent connectivity, professional development, technical support, and digital curriculum (content and software). Currently schools spend less than 6 percent on professional development. There are four reasons:
? ? ?
? ?
Funding for eLearning is, on average, only 20 percent of the level needed. Without Target Tech levels of equipment in the classroom most teacher professional development cannot be effectively applied; The eLearning mental model of teacher-student focused learning is still struggling to replace the mental model of computers and wiring; The concept still prevails that all the school has to do is teach "computers." The eLearning model of enhancing teaching if all subjects with computers has not yet universally penetrated. Unfortunately most of the State academic standards only include teaching about computers ? a subject of importance in the 1980's but not very relevant today. A vast majority of students enter school with internet skills well in hand. They prefer multi-media to books and blackboards76; The persistent notion is that computers in the classroom are primarily for administration and summative assessment purposes, not formative assessment and instructional. The most recent edition of Education Week's annual Technology Counts 2005 issue85 addresses the switch from instructional technology in the classroom and teacher professional development of prior issues to data systems to support the expansive reporting requirements and ambitious student-achievement goals set forth in the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Teacher and Staff Education and Professional Development: The 1999 Arizona Learning Technology Partnership decision support model written in Excel was used to simulate the growth and flow of the Arizona teacher population within the five eLearning development stages for the next 20 years. The number of teachers in Arizona has been growing at a rate of approximately 1500 teachers per year. The additions are a mix of college graduates, reentries and out-of-state hires. The deletions are a mix of retirees; teachers who decide to quit or change careers; and those leaving Arizona. It includes the distribution of teachers within five teacher proficiencies stages. The current requirement for net teacher inflow to Arizona's districts is 5000 per year. By using historical data, current year data, forecasts of student graduation population growth, and years it takes to train-educate-mentor a teacher along the stages of proficiencies, simulations of future cadre capability stages were calculated. Professional development costs for teachers at each level of eLearning capability can be specified. Costs can also be differentiated between studying for certification for the next level and maintaining capability at the current level. The cost effectiveness of added retention and acceleration of qualification could also be studied. This decision support model was used to determine the detailed funding required for the teacher professional development for the ten years of the eSATS design. The simulated analyses resulted in the need for approximately $1,200 per year of direct cost per teacher for in-service professional development. The $60,000 per year per master-mentor teacher cost averages to $1,200 per teacher. This investment is a factor of twenty larger than current average support for teacher professional development and education at approximately $110 a year.
Teacher and Staff Education and Professional Development
$200 Mllio s in $150 $100 $50 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ye a rs Tot Mentor Cost $M Tot Prof. Dev $M
Figure 9
Percent Engaged Teachers & Staff Prof. Dev/Teacher Tot Prof. Dev $M Mentor% Teacher Mentors
Cost/Mentor $60,000
45000 8%
Yr 1 25%
Yr 2 50%
Yr 3 75%
Yr 4 100%
Yr 5 100%
Yr 6 100%
Yr 7 100%
Yr 8 100%
Yr 9 100%
Yr 10 100%
$1,200 $15 0.020 257
$1,200 $32 0.020 528
$1,200 $49 0.020 817
$1,200 $67 0.020 1121
$1,200 $69 0.020 1155
$1,200 $71 0.020 1190
$1,200 $74 0.020 1225
$1,200 $76 0.020 1262
$1,200 $78 0.020 1300
$1,200 $80 0.020 1339
Tot Mentor Cost $M Total $M
$15 $31
$32 $63
$49 $98
$67 $135
$69 $139
$71 $143
$74 $147
$76 $151
$78 $156
$80 $161
Table 3 eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute: Arizona Department of Education and Arizona Board of Regents are each funded up to $8.5 million a year for the eLearning Education and Professional Development Institute. The $17 million total is based on the need for a core staff of 50 digital curriculum experts and 50 outreach professionals to work statewide with teachers and staff. Cost of each professional staff member with their expenses and overhead is estimated at $125,000 per year. This funding also supports the Arizona Department of Education eLearning educator certification operation. About $4.5 million is expected to be used by the Arizona Board of Regents for transforming their colleges of education with an eLearning curriculum.
eLearning Teacher Education and Professional Development Institute
$20 $15 $10 $5 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ye a r eTE P DI ABOR eTE P DI ADE
Figure 10 31
Yr 1 eTEPDI ADE eTEPDI ABOR Tot eTEPD Institute $M $5 $5 $10
Yr 2 $6 $6 $12
Yr 3 $7 $7 $14
Yr 4 $8 $8 $16
Yr 5 $8 $8 $16
Yr 6 $8 $8 $16
Yr 7 $8 $8 $16
Yr 8 $8 $8 $16
Yr 9 $8 $8 $16
Yr 10 $8 $8 $16
Table 4 Teacher Salary Increases Along the eLearning Certification Path: As teachers traverse the levels of eLearning proficiency as certified by Arizona Department of Education they will be eligible for salary increases of a total of 20% over ten years. The cost will be low during the eSATS bridge phase but then grow as K-12 eLearning becomes operational statewide.
Teacher 20% Salary Increase 250 200 M illio n 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ye ar 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 11
Teacher Salary Average Increase Yr. Early Graduation Legacy Teachers eLearning Teachers Legacy Cost eLearning Cost eLearning w/Increase Net Increase Cost $M $M $M $M Yr 1 Yr 2 2.0% 1.2% 52849 52215 $2,892 $2,857 $2,914 $22 Yr 3 4.0% 2.4% 54434 53128 $2,979 $2,907 $3,023 $45 Yr 4 6.0% 3.6% 56067 54049 $3,068 $2,958 $3,135 $67 Yr 5 8.0% 4.8% 57749 54977 $3,160 $3,008 $3,249 $89 Yr 6 10.0% 6.0% 59482 55913 $3,255 $3,060 $3,366 $111 Yr 7 12.0% 7.2% 61266 56855 $3,352 $3,111 $3,484 $132 Yr 8 14.0% 8.4% 63104 57803 $3,453 $3,163 $3,606 $153 Yr 9 16.0% 9.6% 64997 58758 $3,557 $3,215 $3,730 $173 Yr 10 18.0% 10.8% 66947 59717 $3,663 $3,268 $3,856 $193
Table 5
Section 3.3 Digital Curriculum
eLearning Digital Curriculum as Innovation Driver: Curriculum has several levels of definition. Globally it is everything and everyone in the student learning environment that supports learning. It can also be the scope, sequence, process and content delivered to the learning experience. Used as the result curriculum is the skills, information and knowledge learned by the student. eSATS focuses on digital curriculum design that uses the Internet, software-based systems and content that supports learning. Real time formative and summative assessments are a critical part of digital curriculum. Other aspects of the holistic view of curriculum (teacher, student's human ecosystem, computers, connectivity, and summative assessment to standards) are addressed in the other sections. About 7,000 years ago writing transformed curriculum. Paper emerged in the first millennium current era. The printing press followed in the 1400s, reducing the cost of books by a factor of 400. Various analog inventions such as the lead pencil, blackboard, movies, television, overhead display equipment, and programmed learning machines enhanced legacy K-12 curriculum but did not produce transformation. Digital curriculum was invented in the mid 1970's and emerged as software on networked personal computers in the early 1980s. After 25 years, digital curriculum is finally on the upswing part of its 50-year innovation cycle. These time estimates are based on a large body of innovation life-cycle research for other technologies. Significant advances are expected in the next ten years. These digital curriculum advances will be based on research that integrates advances in information technologies with behavioral and cognitive science into eLearning theory. Biotech neurological research is also emerging as a source of eLearning theory. K-12 eLearning will benefit from cross-industry adoption of digital curricula. The four major eLearning industries are at different positions along the eLearning innovation cycle. The military-simulation industry has received 80+ percent of federally funded eLearning research dollars, creating an accelerating force behind the federal government workforce eLearning training efforts. The other markets-- workforce, higher education and K-12 ? lag in adopting research-based digital curriculum. eSATS educators are expected to use the full range of curriculum, whether digital or analog: CD, DVD, textbooks, Internet, film, worksheets, video, email, computer simulations, databases, audio and streamed discussions. Over the next ten years most the media based curriculum is expected to become digital. Since analog curriculum learning objects are well known the focus of the eSATS design will be on the aspects of the digital curriculum.
Societal Changes and Economic Needs Require Digital Curriculum: For the first time in history a society has demanded that "No Child be Left Behind." Some children come to school from homes with years of experience of 1:1 computing and video games. Immigrant children need to quickly learn English. The competitive global economy demands a workforce that excels by using the tools and practices of the information age. Year by year the family- community-civic life depends more and more upon digital age resources. The new concept of life span learning requires a continuum of eLearning. Processes within a pedagogical framework are the heart of curriculum. Today's K-12 education has finely tuned the lecture-recitation-seat work pedagogy. K-12 eLearning is better adapted to the drill and practice pedagogy of computer based instruction for basic skills and the collaboration, inquiry, and interactivity pedagogy of learning for higher level skills. The constraints of learning time and funding resources foils labor-intensive traditional education attempts to address these needs. If K-12 is to be transformed meet the needs of the societal needs of the information age, then only digital curriculum with an eLearning has the capability to deliver a time and cost effective solution. Transformation with eLearning Digital Curriculum: The mastery of K-12 education by a single student addresses a very complicated set of learning objectives, motivations, abilities and constraints over a typical 12 year period. Appropriate digital curriculum can be used individual student immediate learning objective and for a total course of learning. Digital curriculum delivers with patience, privacy, and economy. Built-in assessment delivers continuous feedback. The student stays on track and engaged. Drill and practice are effective. Progress monitored daily or even hourly supports and motivates students, and delight teachers. With digital curriculum support the teacher is free to engage the student directly, with adequate time to be effective. Artificial intelligent tutoring systems provide individual support. Simulations are reproducible, visible, safe, accessible, and cost-effective compared to real environments. eLearning is also accessible outside of the classroom increasing student time on task. Digital curriculum supports the constructivist mode of higher-level learning in which students manage their learning, collaborate with peers and experts, and engage in project-based and exploratory learning. Digital curriculum provides the means to expand the K-12 teacher-centered pedagogy to one that is truly responsive to the learning needs of the individual student. eLearning delivery of digital curriculum with scope and sequence provides a means to address the attributes of 21st century learning.72 Scope defines the depth and breadth of a specific course of learning. Sequence facilitates learning effectiveness for the student by providing continuity between prior and succeeding courses.
Five Attributes Of Digital Curriculum
In the eSATS environment, the learner is immersed in 21st century learning tools. Student skills are automatically picked up and honed to individual needs throughout the higher level eLearning supported processes. Core subjects are learned from eLearning in the basics areas and with eLearning in the higher level areas. 21st century context is provided
by the Web, which can bring the world into the classroom. Content is accessible from global sources using digital curriculum registries to locate knowledge repositories. Individualized tutoring: The use of simple computer-based instruction in the 1980s decreased the time to learn by 30 percent or increased learning 30 percent in the same time. The effect of this individualization is "C" students performing at "B" levels. Many experimental studies over the past 75 years have compared one-on-one tutors with classroom instruction, finding a two letter-grade advantage to the tutored students. eLearning has the potential to bring the power of human tutoring all students. Adaptation and interactivity: "Branched instruction" adjusts its content and pace for individual learners. In branched instruction, prior subjects or prior years can be made available, aiding mastery of current materials by instant "relearning-refreshing" from prior eLearning exercises. Teacher support can be focused on the needs of the current task. Branched instruction has been compared to strictly linear presentation of the same material using identical delivery devices. Studies found between 1.72 and 3.16 times more learning with branched approaches, indicating the value of adaptation and interactivity in instruction. Intensity of instruction: A student within typical classroom instruction is required to answer an average of about 0.11 questions an hour. In tutored instruction, the number of questions an individual student is required to answer ranges from 117 to 146 questions an hour. Some technology-based instruction averages as many as 120 questions during 12-minute sessions. The intensity eLearning-based instruction can significantly exceed that of classroom instruction. Pace of instruction. The time the fastest K-12 student takes to achieve mastery of a typical subject compared to the time needed by the slowest student averages 5:1. In grade three it is 3:1, increasing by grade six to 6:1. A study with graduate students learning the programming language LISP resulted in a pace ratio of 7:1. With a fixed allotted time, the fast learner wastes time, and the slow learner never has time to master the subject. Learning pace is also subject-specific. A student can be a whiz at math and find it very difficult to learn Spanish. eSATS is designed to reallocate wasted time from rapidly-learned subjects to subjects that require more time. The result is a higher level of mastery to academic standards for students across the board. The bright students are not bored and stay engaged with their education. The less academically able are motivated by success to academic standards and stay in school. Pace is recognized in work force eLearning. Instructional objectives are held constant. The Department of Defense regularly bases its eLearning bids on a 50 percent reduction in time to learn compared to legacy instructional methods. The military has always trained to mastery. Teacher Performance: K-12 eLearning includes three overlapping digital curriculum areas: education, performance enhancement, and information technology (IT) training. As eLearning evolves, teacher and student will be immersed in a mutual learning situation. The student will be using eSATs to achieve mastery learning of the K-12 curriculum. The teacher will be transforming her teaching practice via learn-by-doing 35
within performance aids in the student-classroom context. Information technology train-by-doing is automatically achieved as the teacher and student use all aspects of IT during the years of K-12 eLearning. Two types of eLearning will significantly enhance the practice of teaching. The first is the accessible, effective, equitable and efficient education teachers will receive during professional development using eLearning. The other is teacher performance support. Statistically-based algorithmic procedures, delivered by eLearning, have been found superior to the judgment of individual humans in a practice setting. They will cover the full range of options with descriptive and prescriptive approaches. Modeling capabilities used on intelligent tutors can be used to design these systems for teachers. eLearning-based performance aids have been found cost effective. Teachers must maintain control of student learning decisions. Only a professional teacher can teach and guide a student with intuition and understanding that is based on social roles, identification of alternatives, timing of interventions, etc. These are too elusive to be captured in algorithms. But immediate student performance data to support teacher decisions can be invaluable. A typical successful application in the medical field is the use of personal digital assistant (PDA) technology with heuristics for inclusion-exclusion of patients in clinical trials. This solved a problem for physicians who found that the traditional use of Internet or journals to track clinical trials was an unmanageable solution. The same type of "guide-on-the-side" can be developed to support teachers as they make decisions about individual students.
Types Of Digital Curriculum And How They Work:
Why Does eLearning Work?32, 35 The emerging vision of digital curriculum in K-12 education is led by more than forty years of university, military, aerospace, and medical research. A number of recent studies by the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Science and Technology have provided a rationale for expected results from adopting digital curriculum within eSATS. Education From Computers => Basic Skills: At first, K-12 education focused on computers in isolated computer labs functioning in tutorial mode or running simple productivity applications. Students learned from tutorial computers. These digital curriculum systems evolved under a number of names: computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), Integrated Learning Systems (ILS), or intelligent tutoring systems (ITS). This form of digital curriculum, while effective for basic skills drill and practice, does not address social groupings and is not as helpful for high-level skills. But it remains effective for increasing academic performance in the areas addressed by high stakes testing. The research-based Cognitive Tutor program for algebra has demonstrated a 25 percent increase in student skills and 100 percent increase in problem solving, along with higher student retention and attendance. The West Virginia Basic Skills longitudinal initiative on reading, language arts, and mathematics provides computers-connectivity, teacher training, and instructional software 36
in the classroom. Starting with kindergarten (1990), this cohort eventually reached fifth grade. Testing along the six-year path and the 5th grade SAT-9 verified that even this minimal eLearning adoption produced significant performance gains in basic skills. Over the next ten years. West Virginia's rank in student achievement rose from 33rd to 11th.11 A decade-long similar study from kindergarten to 5th grade demonstrated higher test scores and better discipline. There were positive results in both low- and highachieving schools. The first six years of eLearning success carried over to the traditional middle school, with students taking tougher classes, making better grades, and scoring higher on standardized tests. Meta-analyses of data from 1985 to 2000 over a wide variety of eLearning basic material instruction tutoring showed a range of percentile gains from 9 percent to 22 percent. This equals one letter grade increase in academic performance. The typical C student would be performing at a B level. A state at the 50th percentile on standardized tests would move up to the 64th percentile. This data applies to all major subject areas, preschool through higher education. With Arizona state academic standards focused on standardized achievement in the basic skills, the drill and practice attributes of eLearning would be the primary state ranking benefit.36 Education With Computers => Higher Level Thinking: As the Internet and World Wide Web began their rapid growth in the mid 1990s, a type of digital curriculum different than computer based instruction emerged. Equipped with powerful calculation, word processing, multimedia creation/presentation, visualization, and real world data search applications, the student was freed to create problem-solving strategies and developing deep understanding. These proved most effective when access was in the classroom rather than in the computer lab. The classroom has more opportunity for teamwork and social groupings. A classroom with an engaged teacher is better for ability grouping and age-grade grouping in small collaborative teams. The constructivist aspects of learning higher level skills are defined more by the student than driven by the computer in the basic skills mode. Specialized eLearning programs can analyze the student's work and give immediate coaching. An essay-grading program provides almost instant feedback to the student, who must no longer wait from Tuesday to Friday while her teacher has laborious grades thirty essays. Instruction can be changed by removing scaffolding to allow the student work on a more complete aspect of the concept, or by adding scaffolding to narrow the student's focus to a critical component. The broader learning context (classroom to community) expands the complexity of learning, but benefits are more difficult to measure. A large number of studies since the 1920s supported "time-on-task" as the primary independent variable in education. We now know that there are additional multipliers within eLearning. The student continuously engaged with eLearning packs more learning into a given time span. Interactivity, which continuously engages the student, is also a multiplier.
Researchers focused on eLearning found that the improvement in higher level skills was significant. Students gather, organize, and analyze information and solve problems. Teachers and students control the digital curriculum and instruction. Browsing the Internet and email collaboration greatly expand content and motivation of the student. The greatest benefit is the ability to tailor eLearning to the individual student need, from handicapped to gifted.36 Assessment of higher level skills is more difficult and less quantitative than basic skills. One longitudinal study addressed project-based eLearning based on multimedia production. Teachers became facilitators, and the students formed collaborative groups to address complex projects. The study's students learned the basic skills at the same level, but outperformed the other students in all production aspects. A study of 300+ research reviews by the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) found that eLearning also had a significant effect on student attitudes toward learning, self-confidence, and self-esteem. eLearning students went beyond assignments and also used more of their free time on school work. Dropout rates, attendance, and feelings for responsibility all improved. Union City, New Jersey schools implemented Project Explore, which used digital curriculum adoption as the center for transformation of the classroom, school, and district. Simultaneous changes were made in digital curriculum, professional development to change teaching process, scheduling and assessment, and parent-community support. The transformation, which included Web sites, email, individual student and staff portals, access to online professional development anytime-anywhere, and linking of home computers increased middle school state-mandated test scores from 30 to 50 percentile. The IBM Reinventing Education program showed that integrated eLearning with reorganized teachers and digital curriculum produced better results than eLearning standing alone in a conventional classroom setting. Changes such as longer class periods and project-based learning work when there is a clear plan for improving student learning and articulation of this plan by all stakeholders. The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT)19 ten-year study showed that students flourished as teachers learned when and when not to engage eLearning. Continuous teacher collaboration was very effective. As the students were engaged in their collaborative teams and on the computer, there was much more time for individual student engagement and assessment by the teacher. The individual interests and abilities were exploited. Interaction, motivation, and engagement time (time-on-task) were up. ACOT found that the graduates from five of their schools throughout the United States routinely employed investigative, collaborative, technological, and problem-solving skills uncommon to graduates of legacy high school programs. These "workplace" skills were similar to the 1990s SCANS criteria from the U.S. Department of Labor. A rich mixture of commercial and free available digital multimedia instructional products is available. Applications existing or under development support collaboration, correspondence, Internet access, online courses and subjects, presentations, inquiry, analysis, content production, tutoring, learning management, and assessment--both formative and summative. 38
Learning Systems:
LMS, and LCMS: Learning Management/Content Systems provide a means to automate the management of eLearning. LMS/LCMS deliver a wide range of services to support: student learning time management and recording, individual interfaces to digital curriculum, group interaction, Shareable Curriculum Object delivery, producing and recording assessments, continuously updating the student profile and proficiency, and automatic record creation and submission for the teacher. There are a several standards that attempt to assure compatibility. SIMS is the most common in K-12 education where SCROM leads in the university and workforce markets.
Digital curriculum Sources:
K-12 has a global set of vendors who deliver digital curriculum-based software products and Internet-Web-based media and resources including online learning. This industry is growing over 20 percent a year. There are a number of Arizona companies in this field (Appendix C) including the world's largest K-12 digital curriculum provider. An array of digital curriculum is also available from the public sector and no/low cost Web sources such as www.Beyondbooks.com. Some is open source and some proprietary. Ultimately teachers will be able to assemble digital curriculum to meet the immediate needs of individual students. But initially digital curriculum will be course length courseware or support materials. As the industry matures teacher eLearning expertise will grow and the digital curriculum metadata registry system will become operational. Teachers will be able to assemble digital curriculum over individualized student scope and sequence using Sharable Curriculum Objects. eSATS uses the Shareable Curriculum Object to mean Sharable (Digital) Curriculum Objects. These digital objects may go well beyond content to include scope and sequence, formative assessment, scaffolding, Internet communication, coaching and teacher development attributes. US DoE maintains the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) which is the world's largest educational database with one billion bibliographic records.60 A $34.6 million five year contract was recently awarded in 2003 to develop and operate a new database system to provide educational materials directly through the Internet. This information on education will be accessible, either free or through commercial firms depending on who owns the material. Research on curriculum and educational processes will be represented in journal articles, abstracts and full text.
Arizona K-12 Digital Curriculum:
Over the past twenty-five years digital curriculum adoption in Arizona has paralleled that of most other states. Each district has adopted digital curriculum of a wide variety of types and sources. Without detailed data, the eSATS design team does not know how or what digital curriculum is being used. Arizona is probably in the middle of the pack, with a number of notable school or district implementations. Some districts stand out as well ahead of the curve, but other states also have leading pilot and adoption programs. The following Arizona examples are representative, but many districts have had similar success with digital curriculum.
Wilson Elementary: Wilson Elementary K-8 district, with 1400 highly transient students, is located just north of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. In the early 1990's it installed 1:1 computing for all students and used the Jostens Integrated Learning System (ILS) digital curriculum. Prior to implementation the district was dead last in academic performance among 125 Arizona elementary districts. But after implementation its eight grade graduating classes tested in the top half of the twelve schools matriculating freshmen to Phoenix Union High School District. State Wide Cox Education Network: In the early 2000's Arizona achieved temporary national leadership in provisioning digital curriculum through the School Facilities Board's Application Service Provider initiative. This Application Service Provider portal--the largest of its time ? provides email accounts, portal interfaces and digital portfolio storage for up to 1,000,000 students and educators. LearningStation delivered productivity and instructional applications over the Cox Education Network. More than 250 educational titles from 15 educational vendors were included in the base package of resources. Examples include INNOVA Multimedia, Learning Odyssey, and Alfy Web applications in language arts. Math has INNOVA Multimedia. Others include Graph Club, Kidspiration, Brainium, and AIMS Elementary 100 Video Library. Premium services could be purchased by the school districts for delivery through the Application Service Provider. Ten thousand additional titles from 75 vendors, five student information systems, three student tracking and assessment systems, and teacher resource management tools were available. The Application Service Provider model delivered programs to schools on a subscription basis. Instructional applications, content, and digital curriculum on outside database file servers are integrated with the school/districts' software to support classroom learning. Digital curriculum selection focused on academic performance within the umbrella of Arizona academic standards. Bundles were available for a variety of subject areas in K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade levels. All applications were delivered with security over a Web browser on any Internet-enabled service. Titles are aligned to Arizona Performance Standards. FERPA and Child Internet Protection Act requirements were met: including firewalls, filtering, and virus control. LearningStation continued to upgrade its instructional desktop with additional functionality including an enhanced digital curriculum alignment tool to assist teachers in locating content aligned to state standards. Schools using the LearningStation Desktop have the AppTrax accountability tool call, which provides administrators with tracking data on computer usage by schools, by applications, and by student. Virtual (On-Line ? Cyber ? Distance Learning) Schools: Arizona legislature authorized several pilot virtual schools and then upped the number to fourteen. These schools have specialized software programs that run within online courses or on a Web browser. Traditional school districts with virtual schools include: Lake Havasu Unified School District No. 1; Marana Unified School District; Peoria Unified School District; Tucson Unified School District; Tempe Union High School District; Deer Valley Unified School District; Mesa Unified School District. Charter virtual schools are Arizona Virtual Academy; Sequoia Choice School Arizona Distance Learning School; Chancellor Charter School at Sierra Vista; Pinnacle Education; Primavera Technical Learning Center; 40
Phoenix Special Programs dba Kids at Hope Online Academy; Humanities & Sciences of the United States, Inc. Charter Schools: Since 1995 numerous charter schools such as PPEP TEC, IntelliSchool and K12 Charter have used digital curriculum as the heart of their educational offerings. Kyrene Teaches with Technology Project: Kyrene Elementary School District has provide to each classroom a system of one projector and five wireless notebooks. This allows flexibility to group students around collaborative digital curriculum tools with integrated lessons and assessments. Grade-level teams and peer leaders are supported by mentors. Microsoft Class Server is the learning management platform (LMP) that delivers online content and formative assessments. Typical of the remaining 319 Arizona school districts: Paradise Valley District has acquired notebooks, an essential software suite and projectors for all teachers. Snowflake District has an exemplary rural adoption. The 2005 opening of a new Vail High School will incorporate 1:1 computing using the Apple Corporation system with a wide array of digital curriculum accessed from a range of sources. A similar Apple system is being adopted by a Navaho nation school.
Digital Curriculum Institute:
Most of the digital curriculum to be used within eSATS will be acquired in the future. As the level of digital curriculum acquisition of digital curriculum increases ten fold the system for acquisition and delivery becomes an important issue. At the State level, there will be a institute staffed by digital curriculum experts and eLearning instructional technologists. The Digital Curriculum Institute will manage the digital curriculum adoption process and recommend which digital curriculum products or online services will best serve the classroom teacher and student. Over the first several years of eSATS the Digital Curriculum Institute will be under developed by building its database and knowledge of all available digital curriculum and testing its extension services into the classroom. By year four it will be operational, providing and/or recommending appropriate digital curriculum for all K-12 learning situations. The Education and Professional Development Institute for teachers will be directly linked to Digital Curriculum Institute. Digital Curriculum District Experts:34 The curriculum experts and instructional technologist extension agents from the Digital Curriculum Institute must have their linkage counterparts in each school district. The deployment of high-speed computer networks will be completed by 2007 to serve every Arizona classroom. This ubiquitous resource opens the door for digital curriculum access; provided staff is available that knows how to vector the digital curriculum into the classroom. Information technology experts are required for installation and maintenance of computers, network infrastructure, and peripheral systems. Digital curriculum specialists are required for installation and maintenance of digital curriculum, media, content, software, and application and assessment programs. The expertise of eLearning instructional technologists is needed to support the integration of digital curriculum into the student-teacher relationship. Together these three types of 41
district experts are responsible for supporting the teachers and their master-mentor teacher in transforming to an eLearning classroom. School district leadership is charged to build local staff expertise in these three areas.
Information Technology Role:
"Everything we said about the Internet is happening now." Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel 23 The mental task of learning might be considered as the ultimate challenge for information technology. But information technology is no longer the lead technology for learning. That role is now taken by digital curriculum, where information technology plays a vital but supporting role. The task ahead is to concentrate on developing and adopting digital curriculum that fully exploits the power of emerging information technology. For decades educators and all other information workers used information technology to automate manual tasks such as typing, calculating, drawing, communicating, and filing and retrieval of information. In the 1980's the personal computer initiated the eLearning transformation. The Internet-PC convergence was the 1990's transformative technology for eLearning access to content, information and communication. Many information technologies are going mainstream during the implementation period of eSATS. Currently high-speed connectivity channels (DSL, cable, Ethernet, wireless and satellite) are main stream. The Web is the same age as color TV was when it turned profitable. The 64 bit chip that can produce cinematic displays rivaling the most sophisticated science-fiction movies, accurate speech recognition and artificial intelligence is being introduced in 2004 by Intel and AMD. 2006 video games will have 520 megs of RAM with central processing units having either three power PC's on a chip, or a single cell chip with one central and eight peripheral processing units. The graphical user interface can now be replaced by a natural user interface. In a few years, flat displays will cover a wall for $500 and desktop displays will be the size and thickness of a poster board. By 2010 online books and other printed matter will be mainstream. Reliable speech recognition, which will provide direct student interaction with the virtual avatars (simulated people) will populate the Internet by 2010. Smart computers that can make adaptive changes and infer intent, analyze problems, make decisions and present an intelligent responses are also due by 2010. By 2014 virtual universities will deliver thirty per cent of courses. By 2016 virtual reality will be used for student education and teacher professional development. UCLA Cultural Virtual Reality Laboratory has a virtual 3-D ancient Rome on its web site, ready for a stroll through temples, monuments and plazas.24 Moore's law will continue to double computational power each 18-month period. By 2023, a $1,000 unit of computing will exceed the computing power of the human brain. This "unit" may not be an intelligent, self-aware cyber-human, but it will be able to provide profound levels of support to human cognitive learning. A novel system theory of the brain-mind is presented in "On Intelligence", Jeff Hawkin, 2005. Jeff has invested his fortune from inventing and programming the Palm Pilot interface into brain-mine research.
When computer systems emulate this brain-mind system of pattern recognition then we would have true artificial intelligence.
Emerging Digital Curriculum And Systems
There are a number of digital curriculum innovations under development. eSATS is designed to adopt these new products and systems when they become effective for K-12 education. Distributed Simulation Environments will support experiential learn-by-doing. Much learning takes place in the real world through human interaction with the environment and other people. Learn my doing is much more than a buzz word. Human behavior representation is critical to flexible simulations that address individual learning needs. Synthetic characters must respond to verbal and non-verbal communication and actions in an authentic fashion at the appropriate level of fidelity. They may be instructors or team members. Digital curriculum will produce the most appropriate simulated environment filled with the student specific learning objects. Shareable Curriculum Objects: The Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative is driven by a government, industry and academia coalition for effective transformation of legacy training and education to distributed global eLearning http://www.adlnet.org/. The lead sponsor is the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Its distributed eLearning environment will permit the interoperability of learning tools and Shareable Curriculum Object's on a global scale. The functional requirements include: Accessible from multiple remote locations; Adaptable to individual and organizational needs; Affordable by increasing learning efficiency and productivity while reducing time and costs; Durable across revisions of operating systems and software; Interoperable across multiple tools and platforms; Reusable through the design, management and distribution of tools and learning content across multiple applications. A critical element for this digital system is the Shareable Curriculum Object. Each Shareable Curriculum Object has a digital metadata tag whose analog is the library book catalog card. Metadata ranges over K-12 specific hierarchies, categories, academic standards, key words, vocabulary, taxonomy, or tacit knowledge. Formative assessment may be imbedded in the Shareable Curriculum Object or be separate. There has been significant development of the ADL concept and standards.71 Its Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is the interoperable standard for all digital curriculum to be used in their domains. Any SCORM compliant Shareable Curriculum Object can be run on any SCORM-compliant learning and/or content management system (LMS, LCMS). eSATS will accept SCORM compliance as one of its digital curriculum design standards.
Shareable Curriculum Object Metadata Repositories: 35 The IRS is an example of how to implement digital curriculum. All education within the IRS is under the SCORM industry standard that supports design, discovery, and reuse of Shareable Curriculum Object. It provides continuous education to 144,000 IRS employees. Its extensible architecture online is expected to eventually deliver education and training on dealing with income tax issues to millions of accountants and tens of millions of taxpayers. The IRS SCORM Learning Registry Solution uses a metadata semantic registry. SCORM compliant Shareable Curriculum Object can be accessed from any number of registered Web accessible databases from anywhere in the world. After the bridging period, the eSATS metadata semantic registry will be developed by the Digital Curriculum Institute. It will provide access to digital curriculum repositories world wide71. It will be the K-12 digital hub for Shareable Curriculum Object knowledge, sharing, publishing, and standards. By taking any digital Shareable Curriculum Object and encasing it in a meta-data "housing" it becomes accessible and usable in any computer in the eSATS. The metadata repository will handle Shareable Curriculum Object containing text, video/voice, case studies, maps, or even subject matter experts. Low operating cost will be complemented by ease of updating the system and its registry. Quality assurance of academic effectiveness at specific proficiency levels and subjects will be maintained within the eSATS directory. Each eSATS Shareable Curriculum Object will be metatagged with quality ratings to support teacher or digital curriculum developer selection. The high volume Arizona use by 65,000 educators and 1,300,000 students will make the metadata registry cost effective. When operational, it could opened for use by the global K-12 market, providing significant revenues for operation of eSATS. A Dynamic eLearning Management (DeLM) system will supp
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.