The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys
August 2018 Authors Corinne Singleton, Linda Shear, Emi Iwatani, Natalie Nielsen, Ann House, Sara Vasquez, Tallie Wetzel, Sarah Gerard
SRI International is a registered trademark and SRI Education is a trademark of SRI International. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. © 2018 SRI International.
This report was developed by SRI Education, based on research funded by Apple. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Apple.
Suggested Citation Singleton, C., Shear, L., Iwatani, E., Nielsen, N., House, A., Vasquez, S., Wetzel, T., Gerard, S. (2018). The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys. Menlo Park, VA: SRI Education.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: b Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Contents
Executive Summary 1
Full Report 12
Introduction 12
Background 13 About the Initiative 13 About the Research 15 About the Apple and ConnectED Initiative Participants 18 Early Findings From the Survey Research 20 Changes in Technology Use 20 Deeper Learning Opportunities for Students 29 Apple Resources and Support for Change 35 Principal and Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs 40 Outcomes for Schools, Teachers, and Students 44 Conclusions 52
References 55
Appendix 58 The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys
Executive Summary Introduction Launched in 2014, the Apple and ConnectED initiative represents a substantial corporate investment in the goal of improving opportunities, in learning and in life, for students in some of the most underserved communities in the country. While the potential of technology to help prepare students for the future is widely celebrated, persistent gaps in the frequency and character of its use in low-income schools threaten to exacerbate existing academic inequalities. The initiative seeks to address this issue by bringing not just technology but also comprehensive support that includes planning, professional learning, and ongoing guidance to 114 underserved schools across the nation. The goal is to promote more personalized and student-centered educational experiences that support critical thinking and conceptual understanding and, in turn, improve learning outcomes for students.
This report is the first in a series from initiative reached schools serving economically a rigorous evaluation of the Apple and disadvantaged populations; school selection ConnectED initiative conducted by SRI was also based on demonstration of strong International (SRI). The full study combines leadership capacity and a compelling school surveys, case studies, achievement data, vision. Apple sought to leverage insights from and examination of learning opportunities to decades of experience bringing technology offer a well-rounded picture of what it takes to to classrooms to design a suite of offerings leverage technology to dramatically improve that would give the selected schools the learning opportunities, particularly in schools support they needed to reach their goals for and communities that have had limited access the students. This comprehensive initiative to equitable opportunities in the past. The includes devices (including an iPad for every current report summarizes results from surveys student and an iPad and MacBook for every of teachers, school leaders, and students in teacher); infrastructure upgrades; a dedicated the first two years of the initiative. team to provide sustained support for leadership development, teacher professional The Apple and ConnectED initiative offers an learning, technology and project management; unparalleled testbed for such a study. The and access to an ecosystem of apps and initiative required that schools have a minimum other digital learning resources. Recognizing of 96% students who quality for free and the diversity of the participating schools, the reduced lunch in order to apply, ensuring the initiative customized both implementation
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 1 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary timelines and support to meet the unique This report focuses on data from principal, needs of each school setting. teacher, and student surveys. To date, two rounds of principal surveys (spring 2015, Overall, a total of 114 schools are participating spring 2017) and teacher surveys (fall 2015, in the initiative, including 72% elementary, spring 2017) have been conducted in 101 12% middle, 10% high schools, and 6% that participating schools. In addition, 13 schools span these grade ranges. These schools are participated in a student survey (winter of geographically and demographically diverse 2016-17 school year). Because schools and serve a wide range of disadvantaged received their technology according to their communities. Compared with other high-poverty readiness rather than all at once, at the time of schools, these schools experienced roughly the spring 2017 teacher and principal surveys similar rates of principal turnover (approximately participating schools had been using their 41% over two years), but they had higher- Apple resources between 5 and 17 months; at than-average numbers of new teachers the time of the student survey, between 3 and (approximately 22% of teachers had less than 17 months. This variation in time spent with the 4 years of experience). Technology access was devices is important, as the findings reported often limited within the communities served by here are averaged across this range of schools these schools, with 55% of principals estimating and thus reflect different amounts of time and in 2015 that at least 75% of their students lacked maturity for the technology integration. home access to the internet.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 2 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary Early Findings
Survey reports demonstrate increases in Teachers also increased their use of technology use and some initial evidence technology in searching for instructional of more student-centered pedagogies as materials and presenting information to the Apple and ConnectED initiative got students, although these activities were underway. The results summarized below already common at baseline. suggest that the early path of the initiative Students are using technology more is consistent with the typical trajectory of frequently and for varied learning change for technology-related initiatives, activities. Expanding access and in terms of the types of changes that tend increasing student use of technology in the to emerge first. The initiative is thus well context of high-quality learning activities are positioned to realize its intended goals in important first steps toward the larger goal these high-poverty settings. of digital equity. Students indeed increased their use of technology, with the percentage Changes in Technology Use of teachers reporting daily student use Apple provided technology infrastructure in their classroom growing from 31% in upgrades and devices for all principals, 2015 to 75% in 2017. The most common teachers, and students, along with a activities reported by students were finding sustained program of coaching and information (e.g., 70% of student survey consulting. The influx of technology was respondents looked up information at least an important, but by no means singular, weekly) and creating products such as component of the initiative. presentations. Further, 75% of teachers reported that their students used learning Teachers began using technology more games at least weekly, with students at frequently than at baseline, especially elementary grades playing more learning for differentiating instruction. By spring games than older students. 2017, teachers were using technology more frequently, for a greater portion of Teachers whose students tend to class time each day, and in more varied increase technology use have certain ways, than they had been at baseline. The shared characteristics, and in turn report largest increases in teacher technology using technology in more innovative use were for activities related to monitoring ways. Of the teachers whose students students’ learning and adapting instruction used technology infrequently prior to the to individual students’ needs, highlighting initiative, a few striking differences exist the value of technology for offering insight between those whose students’ use grew into student progress and understanding. substantially during the initiative and those who did not. The teachers whose
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 3 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary students became more active users of was a major barrier in 2017 than in 2015 technology tended to use more technology (15% vs 35%), suggesting that when access themselves and had somewhat more becomes smoother, technology use demands positive initial attitudes toward technology. less instructional time than it might otherwise. In contrast, teachers whose students used An important concern that remained constant technology less frequently reported less over time across principals, teachers, and initial confidence and more challenges students was the issue of student behavior managing workflow and finding appropriate associated with using technology, confirming digital content. Teachers whose students that school-wide technology policy and increased their use of technology also classroom management strategies need reported higher rates of using technology attention in order for technology integration to in innovative ways—that is, for activities be productive. that would not have been possible without it. These findings suggest teacher comfort Deeper Learning and confidence with educational technology influences uptake and instructional Opportunities for Students innovation. Varying levels of support are The Apple and ConnectED initiative is required to meet teachers where they are predicated on the belief that instruction and support them in meaningful technology supported by digital resources can help integration. students to develop the skills and mindsets Perceived challenges to using technology needed to learn academic content more in instruction decreased greatly deeply and thrive in the 21st Century. The compared to baseline. Prior to the Apple initiative defines “deeper learning” in five and ConnectED initiative, teachers in these dimensions: teamwork; communication high-poverty schools faced a number of and creation; personalization of learning; barriers to implementing technology in critical thinking; and real-world engagement. the classroom, each of which diminished Of these, the first four were included on drastically as the initiative got underway. both 2015 and 2017 surveys; real-world The initiative appears to have successfully engagement was added to the survey in resolved the issue of adequate and reliable 2017 based on evolving definitions. technology access for students: In 2015, The overall frequency of deeper learning many teachers had major concerns about opportunities increased slightly over internet reliability or malfunctioning devices time. All four deeper learning dimensions (44% and 40%, respectively). By 2017, the that were measured at both baseline number of teachers with similar concerns (2015) and the spring of 2017 increased in dropped precipitously to just 15% and 6% frequency. These changes were relatively respectively. In addition, fewer teachers small in magnitude, but they are nonetheless believed that insufficient instructional time statistically significant. The greatest gains
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 4 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary were seen in personalized learning and by the nature of learning opportunities correlated with technology use: teachers that can support test proficiency at each who used technology more frequently also level. For example, elementary schools reported offering more personalized learning commonly used adaptive learning games opportunities for students. The smallest (which drove the increase in personalized overall gains were in communication and learning across levels). These learning creation. At a basic level, students were games focused on reading and mathematics more often using newly available tools and were regarded as helpful for basic such as iMovie and GarageBand to create skills development and therefore enhanced products that communicated their ideas. test performance. In contrast, at the high However, most of these opportunities for school level, teachers reported struggling to communication and creation did not reflect introduce digital learning activities without advanced requirements such as attending detracting from lessons they believed would to the needs of an audience or applying more directly support test performance. principles of design. In general, first steps toward deeper learning opportunities were Apple Support for evident in classrooms; at the same time, more support may be needed for teachers Technology Integration to craft increasingly strong opportunities Among the members of the dedicated for critical thinking, teamwork, and other support team that came as part of the Apple elements of deeper learning. and ConnectED initiative, each school Elementary school teachers were had an Apple Development Executive responsible for most of the increase in (DE) who worked closely with the school deeper learning opportunities. Elementary principal around strategic planning and teachers increased the frequency of instructional leadership, and a designated deeper learning opportunities for teamwork, Apple Professional Learning Specialist (APL communication and creation, personalization Specialist) who devoted a total of 17 days of learning, and critical thinking in their onsite working with teachers during the first classrooms between 2015 and 2017. High year of implementation. All Apple DEs and school teachers, in contrast, stayed at the APL Specialists have extensive backgrounds same levels across all deeper learning in education, including education training dimensions, and middle school teachers and classroom experience. Survey questions increased opportunities for personalized were designed to help assess how this learning but not for collaboration, critical support aided leadership development and thinking, or communication and creation. teacher professional learning. This variation may be partly explained
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 5 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary Teachers described the support they Principal and Teacher received from Apple Professional Learning Specialists (APL Specialists) as both Attitudes and Beliefs distinct in nature and more impactful Beliefs about pedagogy and educational than other professional development (PD) technology form a spectrum, from a more they had received. In contrast to PD they curriculum-focused orientation to a more had received prior to the initiative, teachers student-centered orientation, and from reported that the professional learning from skepticism about educational technology their APL Specialist (including trainings and to enthusiasm. While a curriculum-focused informal interactions) focused more directly orientation emphasizes the role of the teacher on their needs; was more hands-on and less in delivering established content to students, lecture-based; and had more follow-up than a student-centered orientation focuses on PD from other sources. They indicated that engaging students in critical thinking and support from their APL Specialist was more sense-making in a manner responsive to the impactful than other PD in the degree to which needs and abilities of the students themselves. they used new lessons in their teaching and For teachers to make a transition toward more improved their comfort in allowing students to student-centered pedagogies and deeper take initiative. Over 90% of teachers agreed technology integration, beliefs that support that the professional learning bolstered their these transitions are important. confidence around using technology for teaching and learning and gave them concrete Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs shifted skills for selecting digital content and using slightly toward student-centered pedagogy, technology to support student learning. while principals’ beliefs remained unchanged. Overall, participating teachers Principals were also enthusiastic about the started out with pedagogical beliefs that leadership development they received from trended slightly toward a student-centered Apple. Of the 82 principals responding to the orientation (i.e., emphasizing personalization survey, more than 90% reported that working and students’ sense-making and engagement with their DE was valuable for a range of over more structured content and classroom leadership activities, from clarifying a vision for management), and they moved a bit more in the school that specified what it would mean this direction over the course of the initiative. to integrate technology into learning, to gaining The change was statistically significant, and implementing new ideas for leadership, implying that some teachers are becoming to supporting the practical management more open to the student-centered orientation of implementing a school-wide technology the initiative seeks to promote and that is initiative. Perhaps not surprisingly, existing supported by research (NRC, 2000; Sawyer, practices proved most difficult to change, with 2006). Principals started out with a stronger only 35% of principals stating that the Apple student-centered orientation than teachers leadership support had changed existing and that did not change over this timeframe. leadership practices to a great extent.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 6 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary Teachers’ views of educational technology engagement and technology skills, with remained strongly positive overall, but relatively strong growth in reports of students’ some—especially high school teachers— 21st century skills as well. However, principals expressed new reservations about reported that the initiative had not yet had educational technology. Participating as much impact on teacher pedagogy and teachers had strongly positive views of traditional academic outcomes such as educational technology at the outset: they school accountability metrics. These reports generally believed that educational technology align with the expected change trajectory, could support student learning and had which anticipates that technology use and few drawbacks in terms of added work or confidence emerge first as teachers begin distractions. By 2017, these beliefs remained incorporating technology into their work, and fairly strong, though they dipped somewhat that more traditional measures of academic from the baseline. Consistent with prior success are slower to change. findings about differences across schooling Teachers reported that the initiative levels, these dips in enthusiasm were more supported student engagement and skills. pronounced for high school teachers than for Teachers agreed almost unanimously (98%) elementary or middle school teachers. that the initiative has been valuable for their schools. Specifically, teachers reported that Outcomes for Teachers the initiative benefited students in terms of and Students engagement, learning, and preparation for future success. Regarding engagement, The Apple and ConnectED initiative aims to teacher-reported levels of student engagement meaningfully improve learning experiences grew slightly from 2015 to 2017; the change for some of the nation’s most underserved was statistically significant. In particular, students. Beyond traditional measures of basic aspects of engagement (e.g., paying academic success, the hope is that the attention) started high and remained high, initiative will improve the school experience for while deeper forms of engagement (e.g., going these students, making learning more relevant beyond expectations) increased over baseline to their lives, offering more opportunities for measures. These signs of deeper engagement students to express themselves, and building are important because they suggest that their skills for work and life. students are not merely on task, but that they are becoming more invested in their Principals reported that the Apple and work. Regarding learning, teachers reported ConnectED initiative benefited their small but statistically higher levels of student schools and teachers. By 2017, most proficiency across most deeper-learning- principals agreed that the initiative was related skills (e.g., figuring out something showing strongly positive outcomes in terms new; working collaboratively; creating strong of technology access, teacher confidence products) since the initiative began. The ability around teaching with technology, and student
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 7 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary to solve open-ended problems remained iPads, with elementary students (like their stable over time. These findings also align with teachers) showing even stronger enthusiasm what we know about the technology use and for the initiative than middle and high-school the deeper learning opportunities that students students. Students were also very positive are experiencing: classroom experiences at about how the iPads have changed learning, this early stage in the initiative have typically with majorities reporting the technology helped featured the use of technology to create them to stay engaged, collaborate, and learn. products and collaborate with peers. Learning Many students also believed that iPads helped activities that demand open-ended problem teachers know them better, both because they solving and critical thinking are in evidence in gave students more opportunities to express some classrooms, but these opportunities are themselves and their personal interests and not yet common. because the technology gave teachers more opportunities to see how their students were Students were enthusiastic about their doing academically. These student reports experiences with the Apple and ConnectED mirror those from teachers, who indicated that initiative, with positive reviews about the iPad enables them to personalize their how the iPad impacted their engagement instruction more than they could previously. and learning at school. Students were very positive about their overall experience with
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 8 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary Conclusion
The scale and the comprehensive design of suggest the strength of the initiative’s the Apple and ConnectED initiative, along comprehensive support model and the with its focus on schools serving high- power of personal support for teachers as poverty communities, make it noteworthy they navigate what is often an overwhelming among technology integration efforts. It goes process of change. far beyond many technology initiatives to At the same time, these changes follow a include in-depth strategic planning, ongoing relatively common trajectory for educational technology support, and personalized, initiatives: technology use and deeper professional learning for school leaders and learning have increased first in ways that teachers. Further, it abandons a one-size- take advantage of tools and practices that fits-all approach in favor of supporting each are ripe for implementation right out of school on its own unique journey to improve the gate, laying important groundwork for student experiences and outcomes. These deeper changes to teaching and learning features make the initiative particularly that might emerge. The initiative is now fruitful for research as well, providing an entering a new stage, transitioning to a more opportunity to study the interplay of different explicit focus on the deep integration of design elements and how they influence technology to support critical thinking and implementation paths and ultimate success. conceptual understanding, and evolving new Early findings from the research suggest ways to help schools to sustain their positive that these design features have helped trajectory amidst inevitable turnover of key principals and teachers take important first staff and other unavoidable interruptions. steps toward achieving their goals. For others who may be considering The changes documented thus far, from technology integration initiatives, the Apple broad increases in technology use to deeper and ConnectED initiative offers both lessons student engagement to more frequent and new questions to pursue. The initiative opportunities for certain types of deeper highlights the importance of comprehensive learning, represent significant advances and personalized support for technology toward the types of teaching and learning integration and instructional change. As envisioned by Apple and by participating these implementations mature, on their own schools. While an influx of technology paths and within their own local settings, of this magnitude would be expected to they can continue to instantiate models promote excitement and new opportunities, of what is possible within these diverse immediate widespread use is by no means contexts and to inform important questions guaranteed, and these initial advances
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 9 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary about the most essential forms of support, In this next phase of the initiative, schools the variety of paths to meaningful change, face the challenge of deepening the and mechanisms for promoting sustainability changes they have made thus far: using and scalability beyond initial investments. technology in ways that allow students to visualize complex concepts, connect with the world around them, and build their skills for the future. With these continued advances, schools have the opportunity to make an increasingly profound difference in the education and lives of their students.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 10 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys: Executive Summary The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys
Full Report Introduction
Through its Apple and ConnectED initiative, Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010; Warschauer & Apple has undertaken an ambitious mission Matuchniak, 2010; Reich & Ito, 2017), and to improve learning opportunities for students suggests there is more opportunity to leverage in America’s most underserved communities. technology for 21st-century skill development For the 114 participating schools, Apple’s in better-resourced schools. contribution is much more than the well- publicized iPad for every student and iPad/ Given the initiative’s scale and the variety of MacBook for every teacher. Instead, Apple contexts in which it operates, it creates an is building on its decades of experience with unparalleled testbed for understanding ways technology in schools to provide a full suite to dramatically improve learning opportunities of resources and support that experience using technology, particularly in underserved has shown is key to successful technology- communities. This report is part of a rigorous supported learning. program of research on the initiative, conducted by SRI International, to study Apple is taking this comprehensive approach implementation and outcomes for students, with the recognition that providing technology teachers, classrooms, and communities in underserved schools is not sufficient to across participating schools. This report, the move the needle toward the goals of equitable first in a series, will focus on the results of learning opportunities and preparation for teacher, principal, and student surveys over the future workplace. In fact, due in large the first two years of the initiative. Future part to federal programs such as e-Rate reporting will describe the various strands of and Title I funding, gaps in technology research, triangulate findings, and discuss access between high- and low-poverty themes from the work as a whole. schools have narrowed sharply (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Nevertheless, gaps persist in the frequency and character of technology uses in the classroom. Computers are used more often for drill-and-practice and basic content acquisition in low-income schools, and for tasks like extended writing and analysis in higher-income schools. This trend has endured over time (Becker, 2000;
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 12 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Background
About the Initiative learning” skills (also known as 21st-century skills) and engagement as well as gains The Apple and ConnectED initiative in more traditional academic measures. launched in 2014. Program leaders sought For teachers, the approach is designed to to support schools that (a) serve high-needs encourage student-centered pedagogy, students, and (b) have the capacity and optimism about students’ potential and conditions to benefit from the initiative. In increased commitment to the teaching order to apply, 96% or more of the school’s profession. In addition, the approach is students had to be eligible for free or intended to increase leadership skill and reduced-price lunch. To demonstrate their commitment in administrators and provide capacity for growth, applicant schools were community support for student engagement asked to provide a detailed description and success. of their plans for the initiative, which were evaluated for strong leadership and For each of the schools, the initiative vision. Ultimately, 114 schools from across offers a package of tools, resources, and the country were selected to participate, support informed by early research that representing a range of community types demonstrated “meaningful use of technology from the inner city to rural towns with high in schools… goes far beyond just dropping migrant populations to Native American technology into classrooms” (Dwyer, 1994). 1 communities. Over the first two years of the initiative in each school, Apple’s support included: Apple and SRI worked together to create • a unique approach (see Appendix) that Devices: Schools received an iPad for includes a recognition that successful each student and teacher, a MacBook for technology implementation requires: each teacher, and an Apple TV in every personalized professional support; classroom. encouragement and support for each school to follow its own path and pace Infrastructure: Apple and its partners rather than a one-size-fits-all model for provided Wi-Fi and other infrastructure change; and defined elements of school upgrades, as well as classroom device leadership and infrastructure readiness for management and other management technology integration. Desired outcomes applications. for students are the development of “deeper • A dedicated support team: One of the unique aspects of the Apple and
1 After the first two years, Apple’s support continues but follows a different model to promote increased school-based ownership and sustainability.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 13 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys ConnectED initiative is the intensity of Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Sandholtz, support provided for each school. The Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). While excitement team includes: 1) an Apple DE to support typically accompanies an initial rollout of school leadership in visioning, instructional this magnitude, and teaching and learning leadership, and change management; 2) may take on a different and more engaged an Apple APL Specialist who is onsite at character with the integration of technology, the school for a total of 17 days providing the evolution of teacher beliefs and deeper individualized professional learning changes to teaching and learning may roll out offerings related to technology integration more slowly (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, through a coaching and mentoring model; 1991; Harper & Milman, 2016), and ultimate 3) a Project Manager (PM) to manage outcomes such as improved test scores are and guide the process of implementation likely to take several years to realize (Baker, and coordinate support providers; and Gearhart & Herman, 1990; Drayton et al., 4) a Project Engineer (PE; role described 2010; Suhr et al., 2010; Texas Center for below). The DEs and APL Specialists are Education Research, 2008). all education professionals with experience The initiative recognizes two distinct models as teachers and/or administrators. for adding technology to influence classroom • Tech support: Schools have access to a learning environments, each represented on dedicated PE and to AppleCare hardware a different scale. The first involves the depth and software support as needed. This of technology integration, as defined by the technology support includes ongoing degree to which the technology use changes assistance for any technology-related the learning opportunities offered to students issues, including those associated with (rather than changing only the way the hardware, operating systems, and wireless learning activity is conducted). In this report, infrastructure, as well as coaching for we use the term innovation to represent school IT professionals. fundamentally new learning opportunities that would not be available without the use • Digital learning resources: Teachers of the tools. The second comprises deeper and students have access to a wide learning opportunities that build a particular range of apps and educational resources set of skills (such as critical thinking and available from Apple’s App Store, iBooks teamwork) important to students’ future Store, and iTunes. successes. In this report, we use the term The evolution and improvement of learning advanced (in contrast with basic) to describe opportunities is a process that takes particularly strong opportunities for deeper place gradually over an extended period learning. Together, innovative technology use of time (Apple Computer, Inc., 1995; and advanced deeper learning opportunities Baker, Gearhart & Herman, 1990: Dwyer, include practices and experiences that
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 14 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys achieve the kind of teaching and learning This report draws on principal, teacher, and optimally envisioned in the initiative. student surveys in the first two years of the initiative. The data come from two rounds of Finally, we use the term student-centered to school leader surveys (spring 2015, spring describe teaching and learning that considers 2017) and teacher surveys (fall 2015, spring students’ needs as a primary driving force 2017) to offer an analysis of change over for instruction, takes the abilities of the time in the first two years of the initiative. In individuals in the class into account, gives addition, 13 schools participated in a student students an active role in learning, and helps survey in winter of 2016-17, adding a glimpse students gain deep conceptual understanding of the student experience early in the rollout. and develop enduring skills. Certainly, there is substantial overlap between student-centered We initially surveyed school leaders in spring instruction and deeper learning. 2015 (before schools had received any devices) and teachers in fall 2015. This is the About the Research baseline, describing schools and classrooms before starting the initiative (Table 1). This report is part of a comprehensive 6-year Because some schools had already received independent research study, conducted devices by the time of the teacher survey (fall by SRI International, to investigate both 2015), all questions that pertained to teaching implementation and outcomes of the Apple and learning (including use of technology) and ConnectED initiative. The study includes were framed to ask about spring 2015, before multiple complementary components: surveys devices were received. The second round of school leaders, teachers, and students; case of the school leader and teacher surveys studies of selected schools, with supplemental provide a follow-up, conducted in spring longitudinal interviews of a subset of teachers; 2017. At that time, all students had their iPad the investigation of learning opportunities devices for at least 5 months (and at most, 17 through the lens of lessons and student work months).2 This variation in time spent with the samples (LOSW); and a study of achievement devices is important, because our findings outcomes. School leader and teacher surveys are averaged across this range of schools are designed for breadth, capturing data from and reflect different amounts of time and 101 of the 114 participating schools, while maturity for the technology integration and case studies, student surveys and LOSW different dosages of professional learning. focus on smaller samples of 11-15 schools The school leader and teacher surveys aimed in order to paint a rich picture of the process to gather information about: characteristics and demonstrate outcomes of technology- of the schools and classrooms; views supported instructional change. regarding teaching and learning, educational technology, and the initiative;
2 Consistent with the initiative design, implementation timelines at the schools were intentionally varied according to the readiness of each school, with students receiving their devices anywhere between May 2015 and December 2016.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 15 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Table 1. Apple and ConnectED Research survey basics
Survey type School Leader Teacher Student
Administration year 2014-15 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17
Survey timing Apr-Jun Mar-Apr Oct-Feb Mar-Apr Nov-Mar
Number of months 0 5-17 0-6.5 5-17 3-17 months, with students had iPads months months** months all but one school at the time of the having it for 14 survey* months or less
Number of 97 90 2610 2432 1828 respondents (96%) (79%) (81%) (76%) (71%/87%)*** (response rate)
Number of schools 97 89 102 101 13 represented
Number of schools N/A N/A 79 71 12 with 75%+ Teacher Survey response rate
Target sample All school All Grades 4, 5, 7, 8, leaders teachers 10, 11
* The number of months was calculated as the time elapsed between student iPad deployment date and the survey date, excluding 2.5 months per summer. ** On many topics (including teaching, learning and educational technology use), teachers were asked to report on spring 2015, before any students had received iPads. *** The student survey was administered in six elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, one K-12 school and one 8-12 school. Excluding one middle school that required active parental consent for students to participate in the survey, the average response rate was 87%.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 16 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys pedagogical practices and technology use experiences and outcomes). For the in the classroom (teacher survey only); and classroom-level factors, we instructed professional development experiences. teachers with multiple classes (typically middle and high school teachers) to select a For student surveys, we purposely selected particular “target class” as the basis for their 13 schools that encompass the differences responses. reflective of the participating schools overall. The surveys were administered to students For teacher survey analysis, we included in elementary school (grades 4, 5), middle some criteria to ensure that (a) teachers school (grades 7, 8), and high school (grades remained anonymous, and (b) a 10, 11) and aimed to gather information minority of teachers at a school did not about students’ learning and engagement disproportionately influence the results. These in school, how they used their devices for criteria were applied to school-level analyses, learning in school and what they thought of that is, analyses in which we averaged about iPad-supported learning experiences, teacher responses at each school, and then their technology use at home, and future analyzed or compared results across schools. plans. Students responded to the survey on For these analyses, we did not include any their iPad, after having used them for 3 to 17 schools with fewer than 75% of teachers months, depending on the school. responding to the survey. Further, we did not include data for any individual survey items The teacher survey captured information from schools with fewer than five teachers about school-level factors (e.g., school responding to that particular item. climate, leadership, etc.) as well as classroom-level factors (e.g., teacher practices, use of technology, student
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 17 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys About the Apple and Additionally, technology access was sometimes limited within the communities ConnectED Initiative served by these schools. At the outset, Participants school leaders estimated that many of their students had no access to the internet, a Given the target populations and working computer or working mobile devices participation criteria, schools participating at home (Figure 1). In contrast, the student in the Apple and ConnectED initiative were survey suggested that over three-quarters of geographically and demographically diverse students had at least some experience with (Table 2). tablets prior to the initiative (Figure 2).
Table 2: Characteristics of participating schools
School Type Elementary: 72% Middle: 12% High: 10% Other: 6%
Urbanicity Urban: 43% Town: 19% Suburb: 9% Rural: 29%
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic: 50% Black: 33% White: 11% Native American: 4% (across all schools)
Economics Title I eligible: 97%
Figure 1. School leader estimates of students’ technology access at home in 2015
Internet Connection Working Computer Working Mobile Device
Almost All Almost All Almost All About 3/4 Not Sure 1% 7% 2% 1% 6% Not Sure Almost none Not Sure 12% About 1/2 8% 13% 16% About 1/2 About 3/4 29% 27% Almost none Almost none 18% 26% Almost 1/4 About 1/4 26% 45% About 1/2 About 1/4 29% 37%
Source: School Leader Survey 2015. n=98.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 18 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Given the emphasis on school leadership Figure 2. Students’ experience with tablets capacity in the selection process, most prior to the Apple and ConnectED initiative participating schools were initially led by None experienced principals. In spring 2015, 6% when the first schools were beginning to A little receive their devices, 88% of school leaders 14% had five or more years of experience in A lot their profession, and 82% had three or 52% Some more years of experience as a principal 28% at their current school. However, by fall 2015, 23% percent of the school leaders who had applied for the initiative had left their positions; by spring 2017 that number Source: Student Survey 2016-17. grew to 41%. This turnover poses a threat to any initiative seeking to impact schools by enhancing school principals’ skills, though Figure 3. Teaching experience of it falls within estimates for the national participating teachers average leadership turnover rate, which 2 years is roughly 15-30% annually, and higher at 1 year 6% high-poverty schools (Goldring & Taie, 2014; 21+ years 10% Béteille, Kalogrides & Loeb, 2012). At the 20% 3 years 6% same time, participating schools tended to 3 years have higher-than-average proportions of 15-20 years 6% new teachers, even when compared with 19% 5-9 years other high-poverty schools (Goldring, Taie, 15% & Riddles, 2014) (Figure 3). 10-14 years 18%
Years of Apple and High Poverty Teaching ConnectED Schools* Experience Schools
<4 22% 14%
4-9 20% 32%
10-14 18% 21%
15+ 39% 34%
Source: Teacher survey 2017; *NCES School and Staffing Survey Teacher Follow-up Survey 2012-13 (Goldring et al, 2014).
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 19 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Early Findings From the Survey Research
Here we summarize findings from the Changes in Technology Use survey research and explore what is really happening in schools and classrooms in The survey responses clearly show changes terms of implications for the initiative and in technology use from the baseline in spring the broader education community. We 2015 to the early stages of the initiative begin by looking at two principle features of in spring 2017, when students had iPad classroom practice: use of technology and devices anywhere between 5 and 17 months. opportunities for deeper learning. For each, The survey data suggest that overall, two we examine patterns of practice and how years into the initiative, more students had they have changed over the course of the access to technology in their classrooms, initiative thus far. Next, we take a step back and participating teachers and students to examine the resources and other support used technology more frequently, for longer Apple has provided to teachers and leaders periods of time, and—at least for some to support those changes in the classroom. teachers—in more innovative ways. While this Since participation in professional learning is not a surprising outcome for an initiative (and participation in the initiative itself) can that provided a strong influx of technology, influence beliefs and attitudes, we consider it is also not automatic. New technology has participants’ beliefs about educational gone unused or been under-utilized in other technology and pedagogical approaches programs (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Cuban, 2001; in education, and discuss how those have Ertmer & Ottenbriet-Leftwich, 2013; Shapley changed since the initiative began. Finally, et al., 2010). Importantly, teacher and leader we look at reported outcomes to date for concerns about 1:1 technology adoption schools, teachers, and especially students. decreased drastically between the two When describing student outcomes, we focus surveys, suggesting that once the initiative primarily on outcomes such as engagement, was underway and teachers began using the 21st-century skills, and preparation for future technology in their classrooms, some of the success. barriers they faced prior to the initiative were alleviated.
Teachers are using technology more frequently, especially for differentiating instruction
After implementation got underway, teachers began using technology in their classrooms more frequently and in a greater variety of
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 20 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys ways than they had before. Figure 4 (below) during class at least weekly increased from shows that in 2017 teachers used technology 46% to 76%, while weekly-or-more-frequent themselves for a greater portion of class time use of technology to adapt activities to than they had previously. individual students’ needs increased from 59% to 80%. While it is certainly possible to In terms of how teachers were using monitor students and adapt instruction without technology, the two most noticeable increases technology, technology can make it easier for had to do with differentiating instruction teachers to gain insight into student progress (Figure 5). The proportion of teachers who in near real time and to analyze student used technology to monitor students’ activity
Figure 4. Proportion of time teachers used technology in their target class, in a typical week
In a typical week in your target class this semester, on average, what proportion of class time are YOU using technology for instruction?
Spring 2015 Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Not used Once or twice 1-3x/month 1-3x/week Daily
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=1153. Figure only includes responses from teachers who participated in both surveys. The distribution of responses that include all responses from each survey looks similar.
Figure 5. Teachers’ use of technology, spring 2015 vs. spring 2017
Adapt activities to Spring 2015 the needs of individual students Spring 2017
Monitor students’ thinking and Spring 2015 understanding Spring 2017 during class time 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of teachers responding
Didn t happen 1-2x/semester 1-3x/month 1-3x/week Daily this semester
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017. n=1126-1130.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 21 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys performance to identify particular areas learning activities. To date, students have of difficulty. Separate from differentiating indeed increased both their frequency of use instruction, teachers also increased their use and the portion of class time spent using of technology in searching for instructional technology. The figures below illustrate these materials and presenting information to trends, showing the percentage of teachers students, though most teachers were already who reported certain types of use in 2015 (on doing these activities at baseline. top) and how that shifted in 2017 (on bottom). Daily student use of technology increased Students are using technology more from 31% in 2015 to 75% in 2017. Similarly, the frequently and for varied learning activities portion of teachers reporting students used The Apple and ConnectED initiative seeks to technology for three-quarters of class time or promote digital equity, a goal predicated on more increased from 18% in 2015 to 44% in expanding access and increasing student use 2017. Not surprisingly, this trend was driven by of technology in the context of high-quality teachers whose within-classroom access was
Figure 6. Frequency of student technology use in class
Thinking about your target class in spring 2015, how often did your students use technology for learning…?
Spring 2015 Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of teachers responding
Not used Once or twice 1-3x/month 1-3x/week Daily
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017.
Figure 7. Portion of class time students used technology
In a typical week in your target class this semester, on average, what proportion of class time are ALL STUDENTS using technology for instruction?
Spring 2015 Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Almost none About 1/4 About 1/2 About 3/4 Almost All
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017; n=1051.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 22 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys less than 1:1 prior to the initiative, as there were elementary schools than in middle and high more opportunities for use when all students in schools. From spring 2015 to spring 2017, daily the class had access to the same tools. use of technology in elementary school math classes rose from 27% to 72%, while in middle There were some small but noteworthy and high schools it increased from 26% to just differences across grade levels with respect 48%. This more frequent use of technology for to how much students used technology for math in elementary school likely reflects use of learning. For example, elementary school math learning games. students used technology most frequently with 81% of teachers reporting daily use, compared Of course, what matters for learning is with 58% of middle and high-school teachers not simply how much students are using reporting daily use. With respect to changes technology, but also in what ways they are using in technology use over time, usage increased technology. The survey results showed students fairly consistently across all schooling levels. used technology for varied activities, from However, the frequency of student technology practicing core subject skills to creating visual use in mathematics increased more in representations (Figure 8). According to both
Figure 8. How students used technology in 2015 and 2017
Practice core Spring 2015 sub ect skills Spring 2017
Complete adaptive Spring 2015 assignments Spring 2017
Create visual Spring 2015 representations Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of teachers responding
Didn t happen 1-2x/semester 1-3x/month 1-3x/week Daily this semester
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017. n=1019-41.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 23 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys teachers and students, technology was most elementary school students reporting they often used for activities related to research (i.e., played at least a few times a week compared finding information) and content creation. to just 30% of middle and high school students. Other frequently used tools included The technology tools that students used productivity tools, content delivery tools, most frequently aligned with these reported and assessment tools. For each of these activities. Across all grades, the most categories, 54-68% of teachers reported their commonly used technology tool was learning students used these types of tool at least games (often used for practicing core weekly (Figure 9). skills), with 75% of teachers reporting their students used such games at least weekly. Student experiences of the technology are also The student survey responses revealed that important, as learning is most productive when younger students played more learning games students are happy and engaged. The student than older students, with 61% of surveyed surveys reveal that learning games were by far
Figure 9. Technology tools used at least weekly by students in 2015 and 2017
40% Productivity tools 2015 68% 40% 2017 Content delivery tools 63% 8% Content creation tools 31% 33% Assessment tools 54%
Voice recording or recognition tools 9% 29%
Subject-matter exploration tools 21% 30%
Learning management tools 15% 25%
Data collection tools 12% 20%
Communication and collaboration tools 12% 22%
Learning games* 75%
Tools that facilitate interactive lessons* 37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017. *2015 data not available.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 24 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys the favorite iPad activity for elementary school Based on teacher reports, the surveys students, with over 1 in 3 students mentioning suggest that in classrooms where students them as the “most exciting or interesting thing” used technology more, students were also they had done with their iPad in school. Among more likely to use technology in innovative middle and high school students, presentations ways. Among teachers whose students used and iMovie were the most frequently mentioned technology for three-quarters of class time as being “interesting or exciting,” followed or more, 18% used technology to do tasks or by learning apps. In general, these results learning activities “that would not be feasible suggest that students are finding classroom without the technology” at least once in spring uses of technology engaging, an important first 2017, compared with just 9% of teachers step toward learning. whose students used technology for one- quarter of class time or less. Increases in classroom technology use were sometimes accompanied by increases Teachers also provided descriptions of student in innovative uses of technology activities they considered innovative. In some cases, these activities were new in that Beyond increasing technology access they involved technology, but the underlying and use in high-poverty classrooms, the learning activity inherent in the task was not initiative also aimed to close income-related particularly new. For example, many teachers gaps in technology use in the classroom by described their students creating digital encouraging more innovative and student- recordings of their work (e.g., audio recordings centered activities. This research distinguishes and videos). In essence, these activities often between innovative uses of technology (in constituted technology-enhanced versions of which students are using technology in new traditional presentations or projects (in which ways and for new purposes) and innovative students synthesized their understanding and learning opportunities (in which students are presented it to their peers and/or parents). learning in new ways). Sometimes the two go hand-in-hand, for example when new uses of In other cases, teachers described activities technology facilitate new types of learning; that were innovative not just because and sometimes the two are decoupled. of inclusion of a technology component While the research considers these factors but also because the learning task was separately, teachers do not always make substantially different than it would be these same distinctions. From the teachers’ otherwise. For example, some students perspective, when talking about technology- used the slow-motion features of videos to based activities they did with their students, analyze phenomena in science, engineering, teachers overwhelmingly expressed the belief or dance that happen too quickly to see that their students were more engaged and clearly with the naked eye. Other students learned more with their iPads than they did conducted virtual hip resurfacing surgery from engaging in traditional non-technology to learn about the skeletal system and learning activities. anatomy. Students also went on virtual
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 25 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys field trips, or contributed to crowd-sourced remained virtually unchanged.3 What factors research through Zooniverse. In tasks such are associated with these differences in as these, the technology helped students uptake? Background factors, like years access technology-dependent opportunities of teaching experience and grade level for critical thinking and other aspects of or subject area taught, did not influence deeper learning. patterns of uptake. Teachers who increased the use of technology in their classrooms Teachers who increase classroom tended to use technology more themselves technology use share certain before the initiative began and had slightly characteristics that may support uptake more positive attitudes toward educational Looking at patterns of technology use, we technology at the outset. The figure below find about 69% of participating teachers (Figure 10) illustrates these differences started out with relatively low classroom between teachers who started out with low use of technology; of those, some (38%) student use of technology and stayed there, increased their classroom use of technology as compared with teachers who started drastically, while others (another 38%) use out with low student use of technology
Figure 10. Differences between teachers whose students’ classroom technology use remained low vs. increased during the Apple and ConnectED initiative
2015 2017 Technology use & beliefs Challenges
Daily use of technology to 47% Challenges with 49% present information to students workflow of 1:1 33% 63% classroom 42% Lack of 29% Strongly agree that students 36% confidence often become more engaged 51% 48% Difficulty finding in academics when 36% using technology appropriate digital 0% 50% 100% content 0% 50% 100% Percent of teachers Percent of teachers responding responding
Teachers whose students’ classroom technology use remained low from Spring 2015 to 2017 (n=259)
Teachers who increased students’ classroom technology use from Spring 2015 to 2017 (n=269)
Source: Teacher survey 2015, 2017.
3 Teachers with “low student use of technology” are those who reported that students spent one-fourth of class time or less using technology. Teachers who “remained low” stayed at this same level; teachers who “increased their classroom use of technology drastically” are those who jumped from one-fourth of class time or less to three-fourths of class time or more.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 26 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys but moved to greater use. These profiles Perceived challenges to using highlight findings from previous research technology in instruction decreased that teachers’ varying levels of comfort with greatly from baseline educational technology often do influence Prior to the initiative, teachers in these their uptake, and that varying levels of high-poverty schools faced a number of support are required to meet teachers where barriers associated with implementing they are and support them in productive technology in the classroom. Each of these technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- barriers diminished drastically as the initiative Leftwich, 2013; Harper & Milman, 2016). got underway (Figure 11). In spring 2015, teachers’ concerns about using technology at their schools centered primarily around
Figure 11. Obstacles to using technology in the classroom perceived as “major”
54% Spring 2015 Students’ lack of home technology access 17% 44% Spring 2017 Slow or unreliable Internet 15% Malfunctioning or broken devices or apps 40% 6% Lack of instructional time 35% 20% Principal 2 concern (19 ) Lack of reliable technical support 31% 6% Lack of preparation and practice time 28% 13% Lack of professional development 25% 6% Lack of support from parents & community 24% 8% Communication and collaboration tools 18% 5% Challenge to address wide range of S abilities 16% 5% Difficulty finding and selecting digital content 15% Principal 1 concern (20 ) Problems with student behavior 14% 15% Lack of leadership support 3% 15% Concern about damage to devices 6% Principal 2 concern (19 ) 13% Teacher lack of confidence 6% 11% Incompatible with accountability goals 5% 10% Concern about device theft 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of teachers responding
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017, School leader survey 2017. n=996-1099 teachers, 83 principals.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 27 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys issues of access and reliability, with the over time; the portion of teachers reporting top five concerns being students’ lack of “problems with student behavior” remained home technology access; slow or unreliable constant at about 15% from baseline to internet; malfunctioning or broken devices or follow-up. apps; lack of instructional time; and lack of We also asked principals about this same reliable technical support. While 31% or more set of challenges, and student behavior of teachers cited these concerns as major was the top concern (with 20% citing it as a challenges in 2015, that number decreased major challenge in 2017). These findings may to 20% or less in 2017. These findings indicate school-wide technology policies and demonstrate the initiative largely met its goals classroom management need attention in order around reducing impediments so that teachers for technology integration to be productive. could count on reliable access to working For example, some participating schools computers and the internet, supporting the implemented tools that allowed teachers possibility of efficient and effective use of to take over control of students’ devices at technology in the classroom. certain times to minimize distractions. Teachers Concerns about not having enough instructional need to adjust their classroom management time to allow for technology integration also strategies to fit a new environment in which decreased notably (from 35% to 20% of students use devices. Schools looking to teachers citing this as a major concern). This implement technology integration initiatives change suggests that if access is smooth, should not overlook these factors. technology use takes less time away from Students had predominantly positive things to instruction than it might otherwise. This finding is say about using iPads for school. The survey important, given that the risk of detracting from for middle and high school students also focused instructional time is a common concern asked directly about concerns related to using about technology integration, particularly in iPads at school.4 Among the 46% of middle/ schools where the pressures of accountability high school students who reported anything mandates are strongly felt (Warschauer & negative about using iPads, two concerns Matuchniak, 2010). The initiative appears to emerged. First, students were concerned have alleviated other concerns teachers had about increased distraction from learning. at baseline, too; for example, the need for According to these students, the distraction professional development and support for was typically due to the misuse of the devices finding relevant resources and ways to align the by other students rather than their own use of technology with existing accountability activities. However, students also complained requirements. There was one exception to the about restrictions that prevented their use of idea that concerns about challenges decreased many websites and applications.
4 The student survey for elementary school students was kept short, given the age of the respondents, and thus did not include this question.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 28 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Discussion of Changes in Deeper Learning Opportunities Technology Use for Students The survey data show that teachers and students increased their use of technology The Apple and ConnectED initiative’s theory during the Apple and ConnectED initiative. of change suggests that as teachers use This finding is not surprising, given that a key technology more, their instruction will include feature of the initiative was the introduction more opportunities for students to develop of 1:1 computing into schools—but affirms the skills and dispositions needed to learn that some foundations for success have been academic content more deeply and to thrive established. Further, the patterns of technology in the 21st century. This “deeper learning” is a use are instructive: teachers whose students key goal of the initiative, and a commensurately used technology more frequently also reported important focus of this research. students were using technology in what they The 2017 survey examined five dimensions perceived as innovative ways, and to engage in of deeper learning that might be supported learning activities that might not have been as through technology (four of the five convenient, or perhaps even possible, without dimensions were also included on the 2015 the technology. The findings also suggest baseline survey). These constructs are some teachers may be better positioned to based on a long history of learning sciences integrate technology into teaching and learning research (see, for example, National Research than others—namely, teachers who have more Council, 2000). The survey measured a experience and more personal confidence finite set of hallmarks of each dimension, as with technology, and those who believe more summarized below. strongly in the power of technology to support learning. Understanding the importance of Teamwork can give students the opportunity these tendencies and dispositions is informative to help each other learn the content of their not only for this initiative but also to support work more deeply. It includes: teachers with integrating technology into • group work, in which students interact in instruction. Finally, the survey findings are pairs or small groups on their learning encouraging as they demonstrate that once activities, and the initiative got underway, teachers had fewer concerns about integrating technology • giving students collective responsibility into instruction. The initiative appears to have for a shared product they must develop successfully resolved the problem of adequate together. and reliable technology access for students, such that teachers no longer cited these issues as major impediments to using technology in their instruction.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 29 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Communication and creation is an integral Real world engagement5 helps students part of the shift from passive exercises to connect academic learning with issues and active learning experiences. These activities applications in real-life settings. It includes: can deepen learning when students are • immersion of students’ work in the world asked to: using physical or virtual real-world • create products that express what they environments, and know or think, • asking students to take on a realistic task • attend to an audience, considering others’ that professionals or adults might do. levels of understanding when crafting a Both conceptually and in practice, communication, and considerable overlap exists among these • attend to principles of design in fields dimensions. Indeed, the 2017 survey results appropriate to their creation, such as video confirmed the deeper learning constructs production or newspaper editing. are interrelated, showing that teachers who provided more opportunities along one Personalized learning can inspire students dimension of deeper learning also tended to to go deeper in their learning and develop provide more opportunities along the others.6 a sense of ownership by making learning experiences meaningful and appropriately The teacher surveys measured each challenging for each student. It can be dimension of deeper learning using a scale accomplished by that included the key hallmarks described above. Teachers were asked to report on the • varying learning tasks to match learning frequency with which they provided activities needs, and that involved deeper learning in the spring • offering students the opportunity for semester of 2015 (baseline) and the spring significant choices in pursuing their semester of 2017 (follow-up). The analyses interests. primarily examined change over time, and compared average scale scores and average Critical thinking engages students in scores on sub-items of each scale across analysis, interpretation, synthesis, evaluation, the two years.7 As such, they included only or solution generation for a significant teachers who responded to both the 2015 and proportion of the lesson. 2017 surveys.8
5 The 2015 baseline survey did not include questions about real-world engagement, so this construct is not included in the analyses of change over time for deeper learning. 6 The effect size of these statistically significant correlations among the deeper learning topics ranged from 0.32 (medium) to 0.61 (strong). 7 Each of the deeper learning scales combines more basic with more advanced levels of the construct. Changes in scale scores provide a sense of overall gains on each construct. However, they do not tell us the extent to which the changes took place at the more basic or more advanced levels. 8 Sample sizes for questions related to deeper learning ranged from 1,168 to 1,301.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 30 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys The overall frequency of deeper learning part because the baseline frequencies were opportunities increased slightly over time higher than expected, but they are statistically significant.10, 11 At the same time, the theory The theory of change for the Apple and bears out when we look more intensely at ConnectED initiative posits that deeper the types of deeper learning that are being learning opportunities will increase later in implemented: in many cases teachers are the initiative, after technology becomes more starting out with more basic forms of deeper integrated into instruction and teachers begin learning, while more advanced forms of changing their practices more substantially deeper learning are not yet commonplace. (see Appendix).9 And yet, an important and promising finding from the surveys was that As the figure illustrates, the largest gains all four measured dimensions of deeper were in personalized learning opportunities. learning showed increases from the 2015 Specifically, during the 2016-17 school baseline to 2017 (Figure 12). These changes year, students were more frequently allowed are relatively small in magnitude, at least in to choose the topics they would explore
Figure 12. Frequency of opportunities for deeper learning in spring 2015 and spring 2017
Spring 2015 4.1% 4.2% 4.0% Spring 2017 Daily 4 3.8% 3.7% 3.4%
1-3x/wk 3 2.6% 2.6% 2.5%
1-3x/mo 2
1-2x/sem 1
0x/sem 0 Communication Collaboration Critical Personalized Real-world & creation thinking learning engagement
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. *p < .01, ***p <.001. From left to right, number of respondents were 1168, 1271, 1241, and 1220, while Cohen’s d were .09, .15, .19 and .31.
9 This framework is consistent with findings from decades of technology integration efforts (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Ertmer & Ottenbright-Leftwich, 2013). 10 T he increases ranged from .09 standard deviation units (communication and creation) to .31 units (personalized learning). 11 T eacher self-reports of their practices are often more optimistic than observers’ judgments (Mayer, 1999; Camburn & Han, 2006). The baseline responses about deeper learning opportunities could reflect this bias toward a desirable response.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 31 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys for a project or assignment and to decide also reported that their students had more how to accomplish an assignment or task. opportunities for personalized learning during The ongoing case study research has also that time. In contrast, personalized learning revealed similar patterns, with widespread opportunities remained approximately the reports of projects or products involving same for students of teachers who used student choice, and of students having technology during less than 25 percent of newfound opportunities to look up information class time in 2017 (n=259). Together, these themselves in real time based on their own findings suggest that across the initiative, interests or learning needs. some teachers capitalized on the fact that each student had a device, and that some Importantly, we see a relationship between of the more commonly used apps lent technology use and personalized learning themselves to greater personalization by opportunities: increases in personalized allowing students to work at their own pace learning were specifically reported by (e.g., adaptive reading and math programs teachers who increased the use of technology or games) or to choose how to express their in their classrooms (Figure 13). Teachers knowledge (e.g., Keynote and iMovie). who reported increasing students’ classroom technology use from baseline to 2017 (n=269)
Figure 13. Changes in personalized learning opportunities associated with technology use in the classroom
100%
75% Students select topics or Teachers ho increased questions to explore at least students' classroom weekly technology use (n = 269) Students select how they will 50% accomplish a task at least weekly
Students select how they will demonstrate their 25% knowledge at least weekly
Percent of teachers responding Teachers hose students classroom technology use remained low (n = 259) 0%
Spring 2015 Spring 2017
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 32 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Opportunities for students to develop stages of implementation. As technology communication and creation competencies integration deepens over time, teachers and were the least common of the deeper learning students may turn to more complex activities dimensions at baseline, and the overall that focus on more advanced aspects gains in 2017 were small. Analysis of the of communication and creation, such as sub-items of this construct revealed that in attending to the needs of their audience or 2016-17 students were creating products applying principles of design. to communicate their ideas more frequently Elementary school teachers were than they were before (Figure 14), which is responsible for most of the increase in consistent with the unique affordances of deeper learning opportunities iPads for creating a variety of products, for example, through the variety of applications Important differences emerge between that all students had on their devices for elementary teachers and middle and high creative expression, such as Keynote, iMovie, school teachers with respect to shifting and GarageBand. However, responses to the practices to incorporate deeper learning sub-items also reveal that while students were opportunities for students. Elementary creating more products, the complexity and teachers increased the frequency of deeper substantive quality of those products had not learning opportunities in their classrooms increased at the same rate. This lag between in all four dimensions between 2015 and frequency and quality might reflect the fact 2017. High school teachers, in contrast, that many schools are in the relatively early
Figure 14. Changes in opportunities for communication and creation over time
Spring 2015 Communicates informationor a Spring 2017 point of view
Spring 2015 Is designed for an authentic audience Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Didn t happen 1-2x/semester 1-3x/month 1-3x/week Daily this semester
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=1194-1281.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 33 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys stayed at the same levels across all deeper learning dimensions, and middle Teacher Descriptions of Increased school teachers increased opportunities Deeper Learning Opportunities for personalized learning but showed no increase in collaboration, critical thinking, or “ More critical thinking, more hands communication and creation. on…independent learning project with student choice.” This variation may be partly explained by - Elementary school teacher the nature of learning opportunities that can support test proficiency at each level. For “ We are now able to do more in depth example, results from the student survey research. We also “create” more suggest that adaptive learning games likely now. We create movies, stop motion, drove much of the increase in personalized presentations, etc.” learning across levels. According to teacher - Middle school teacher survey data, these personalized learning “ [We use] interactive applications on games were used much more widely in student iPads to foster collaboration elementary schools than in middle and high and facilitate the connection making schools. At the elementary school level, process between historical concepts and these learning games focused on reading implications for their own lives.” and mathematics and were regarded as - Middle school teacher supporting basic skills development and therefore enhanced test performance. In contrast, at the high school level, teachers reported struggling to introduce digital Further, the timing of the reported gains is learning activities without feeling they were also consistent with the expected progress of detracting from lessons that would more change over time: the particular components of directly support test performance. deeper learning that have increased the most so far represent the “low-hanging fruit,” while Discussion of Deeper Learning the components that have increased less or not Opportunities for Students at all tend to reflect more complex instantiations The survey data show small but statistically of deeper learning. With time, teachers may significant increases in teacher-reported expand their use of deeper learning strategies deeper learning opportunities across all to incorporate more elements of deeper dimensions of deeper learning, but these learning. At this point in time, there is still gains are generally limited to the elementary room for growth in terms of how often teachers school level. These gains are notable because provide opportunities for some of the more they demonstrate that students are indeed advanced aspects of deeper learning, such as beginning to encounter opportunities to designing for authentic audiences or having develop important 21st-century skills and more intellectual responsibility for problem- deep conceptual understanding of content. solving and analysis.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 34 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Apple Resources and Support principals and teachers appreciated and valued these professional learning offerings. for Change Teachers reported that support from their The Apple and ConnectED initiative included APL Specialist was notably different from a comprehensive set of services intended their other professional development to provide schools the support they needed experiences to get started with technology-supported, Teachers saw the support they received from student-centered instruction. In addition APL Specialists as distinct in nature from other to infrastructure upgrades and technology PD they had received. In 2015, teachers were management, the initiative included ongoing asked to describe the characteristics of their professional learning for school leaders and typical professional development sessions teachers as they integrated technology into prior to the initiative. Using the same features, their schools and classrooms. This support the 2017 survey then asked teachers to included much more time spent with school characterize the PD they had received from leaders and teachers than is typical for most APL Specialists as part of the initiative. The educational initiatives (Drayton et al., 2010; characteristics the surveys asked about were Shapley et al., 2010). Specifically, each of the taken from the literature on teacher professional 114 participating schools was assigned: a) a development (e.g., Desimone, 2009; Garet et member of Apple’s team of DEs, who worked al., 2001; Penuel et al., 2007). This literature closely with school leadership on strategic points to many features of PD that matter for planning and instructional leadership, and b) a teacher learning, such as whether the PD was dedicated Apple APL Specialist, who devoted a one-time event or provided ongoing support a total of 17 days onsite working with teachers for teachers; whether the PD was lecture in the school’s first year of implementation format or provided hands-on opportunities for and integration.12 The APL Specialist teachers to practice new skills; and whether provided onsite professional learning that was the PD was generic or tailored to the specific individualized for each school—i.e., designed needs and circumstances of the participating to be responsive to the needs, interests, and teachers, etc. capacity of the individual school. The APL Specialists engaged teachers in activities In contrast to PD they had received prior such as: instructional coaching around to the initiative, teachers characterized the productive technology integration; workshops professional learning they received from on educational use of apps and other digital APL Specialists as involving more hands- resources; support for lesson design; and on activities and less lecturing (Figure guidance for navigating the extensive range 15). Teachers also commented that the of available digital content. Overall, both support from the APL Specialists was more
12 Following the first year of implementation, Apple is continuing to support schools toward sustainability, although the data collection reflected in this report primarily represents the initial stage of supports for each school.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 35 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure 15. Characteristics of the support from APL Specialists as compared with other PD
94% Included concrete examples of how to use technology in the classroom. 46%
94% Were mostly hands-on. 47%
Included enough time to think carefully about, 83% try out, and evaluate new ideas or practices. 65%
Have included opportunities to observe another 53% teacher’s classroom, either to provide feedback 34% or get ideas for my own instruction. 88% Have generally been ongoing rather than one-time. 77% 88% Have been relevant to my students’ needs. 80%
Mostly involved listening to lectures. 25% 52%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of teachers reporting “strongly agree” or “agree”
Characteristics of support from APL Specialists, SY 2016-17
Characteristics of Other PD (not from Apple), SY 2015-16
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=790-832. Sample includes only those who had not yet began the Apple and ConnectED initiative at the time of the 2015 teacher survey. personalized, more one-on-one, more teachers were neutral about the support directly addressed their needs, and included they received and still fewer found the more follow-up than PD they had received support did not meet their specific needs from other sources. One teacher wrote, “It (e.g., indicating the support did not include was much more tailored to the needs of my any information about Special Education classroom, content and students.” Another students, or that it focused too much on said, “It was more interactive and led us some subject areas and not enough on to create things that we could actually use others). in the classroom.” Only a small portion of
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 36 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Teachers found the support from their teaching) are not surprising, given that the APL Specialist to be highly valuable and prior PD they were describing may or may not reported it had a strong, positive impact have addressed technology at all. However, on their work differences also emerged for impacts not related to technology. Compared with Perhaps because of these differences in traditional PD, more teachers reported that the the character of the professional supports, APL Specialists had a strong impact on their teachers were more likely to rate Apple’s comfort in letting students take initiative for professional learning as having strong their learning; using new lessons or strategies benefits for their practice than other PD they in teaching; and understanding students’ had received (Figure 16). The categories needs and skill levels. These results speak to with the largest differences (all related to the value of Apple’s professional learning for comfort and skills with using technology for
Figure 16. Perceived impact of the support from APL Specialists as compared with other PD
I am better able to select the applications 91% and digital content that I need. 56%
I am better at using educational technology 92% to deepen students’ content knowledge. 60%
I am more comfortable having students 95% use technology in the classroom. 70%
I am more comfortable allowing students 88% to take initiative in their learning. 68%
I am using new lessons or strategies in 94% my teaching. 81%
I better understand my students’ needs 87% and skill levels. 79%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of teachers reporting “strongly agree” or “agree”
Impact of APL Specialists, SY 2016-17
Impact of Other PD (not from Apple), SY 2015-16
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=762-798. Sample includes only those who had not yet begun the Apple and ConnectED initiative at the time of the 2015 teacher survey.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 37 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys helping teachers to personalize or differentiate Principals valued the leadership support learning and to give students some autonomy they received for their own learning. Finally, comparing For principals, Apple’s ConnectED leadership teachers who reported the strongest outcomes development covered topics such as overall from the support from their APL Specialists school vision and instructional leadership, and those who reported less benefit, the daily management of a 1:1 program, and former reported strong outcomes also strong uses of technology in teaching/learning. changed their practices more by increasing Principals responded positively to this support. student technology use and deeper learning Of the 82 principals responding to the survey, opportunities, and they reported stronger 90-96% said their work with the DE was student outcomes. These relationships suggest valuable across the topic areas, and 49-70% connections between support from the APL of principals described it as highly valuable. Specialists, changes in teaching practice, and (Figure 17). ultimately student outcomes are plausible.
Figure 17. Extent to which school leaders found Apple’s leadership development activities to be valuable on various topics
Strong uses of technology in teaching/learning School vision and improvement planning
Daily management of a 1:1 program
Instructional leadership
Data-driven decision-making
Availability/selection of curricular resources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Highly valuable Somewhat valuable Not valuable I did not participate inleadership development on this topic
Source: School leader survey 2017. n=82.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 38 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Principals also reported that the professional research-based practices that emphasize the learning they received impacted specific importance of tailored, hands-on, and ongoing leadership capacities (Figure 18). More than support for teachers. Teacher reports show 90% reported the interactions were valuable that Apple was generally successful with this for building knowledge of school leadership, design: most teachers reported the support clarifying a vision for their school, gaining they received from their APL Specialists was new ideas for leadership, changing existing notably different from other PD they had leadership practices and using new practices, received, in precisely these ways. Moreover, gaining management resources, and sharing teachers reported that working with their APL practices with their staff or faculty. Perhaps not Specialist was more impactful than other PD surprisingly, existing practices proved most they had received. Teachers who found the difficult to change, with only 35% of principals APL Specialists most impactful, also reported stating the professional learning had changed greater technology use in the classroom, more existing leadership practices to a great extent. deeper learning opportunities for students, and stronger student outcomes, as compared with Discussion of Apple’s professional teachers who found the professional learning learning offerings less impactful. Further investigation is needed The survey findings show that on average, to understand why some teachers find this principals and teachers greatly valued the type of professional learning more valuable professional learning experiences associated than others do. Are there differences in the with the Apple and ConnectED initiative. offerings that different teachers experienced, Apple was intentional in the design of the or are some teachers simply better positioned professional learning they provided, following to take advantage of the available support?
Figure 18. Extent to which Apple leadership support benefited school leaders’ work
New ideas for leadership
Clarify vision for school
Acquired new management resources
Shared practices with staff/faculty
Implemented new practices
Increased knowledge of school leadership
Changed existing leadership practices
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
To a great extent To some extent Not at all Source: School leader survey 2017. n=80.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 39 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Principal and Teacher Principals and teachers have maintained their positive outlook on many aspects of Attitudes and Beliefs their school climate
Because attitudes and beliefs often drive A variety of factors comprise what people behavior, examining teachers’ views about understand to be the “climate” of a school. teaching and technology can help us These factors are important because they understand and contextualize findings reflect how principals, teachers, and students about changes in their practice (Ertmer & feel about the direction in which the school is Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). In 2015 and 2017, moving and their own place within that milieu. the principal and teacher surveys included a series of questions to gauge attitudes When the Apple and ConnectED initiative and beliefs about topics relevant to the began in 2015, principals and teachers at Apple and ConnectED initiative’s theory of participating schools expressed strongly change, such as philosophies of teaching and positive views about their school climate, learning, beliefs about the role and value of and these views have remained strong educational technology, perceptions of the as implementation has progressed. For school environment and leadership, sense example, at baseline, more than 80% of of professional agency or influence, and job teachers agreed or strongly agreed that: satisfaction. The analysis of these questions • teachers at their school are regularly focused primarily on change over time, with involved in discussions of school some comparisons of principal and teacher improvement; beliefs. The sample included responses from principals and teachers who took the survey • they are encouraged to stretch, grow, and in 2015 and again in 2017. In comparisons of experiment with new ideas to improve beliefs, it is important to remember that the teaching; and baseline survey was given after schools knew • principals, teachers, and staff are willing to they had been selected to participate in the take risks to make their school better. initiative, so baseline measures could already reflect some degree of excitement about the In spring 2017, teachers’ views on most promise of technology. aspects of school climate remained similar to baseline. Teachers did report slightly more positive views about the consistency of programs and curricula at their schools than they had at the beginning of the initiative; the change was small but statistically significant. It is possible that the initiative’s breadth and scope within each school contributed to this view of improved coherence. That is, this is a whole-school initiative that attempts to
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 40 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys promote elements of a coherent vision and Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs shifted to coordinate practices across teachers. slightly toward student-centered Qualitative data from ongoing school case pedagogy, while principals’ beliefs studies are consistent with this hypothesis; remained unchanged they illustrate how the initiative has become The evolution of teaching practices toward a significant focus of attention and effort in more student-centered approaches and those schools. learning environments is a desired outcome Principals were even more positive at of the Apple and ConnectED initiative. Such baseline than teachers. For example, in the changes cannot occur unless teachers’ 2015 survey more than 90% of principals attitudes and beliefs evolve toward a agreed or strongly agreed that: more student-centered stance (Ertmer & Ottenbright-Leftwich, 2013). To measure • research and best practices are attitudes and beliefs about instruction, the discussed frequently at the school; surveys asked principals and teachers to • their school climate encourages place themselves on a 5-point continuum experimentation with new ideas to for a series of choices between different improve teaching and learning; and pedagogical perspectives. The choices at one end of the continuum emphasized the • there is strong collegiality among faculty importance of curricular content and having and staff, and regular collaboration structured classrooms. At the other end of within and among grade levels and the continuum, the choices emphasized departments. personalization and students’ sense-making Given that principals started out with such and engagement. The survey items were positive views, and thus had little room for written to avoid making one end of the “growth” in these areas, it is not surprising continuum sound better than the other. these attitudes did not get more positive Figure 19 places the average scores for as implementation progressed. However, teachers and principals at baseline and in the continued positive results from both 2017 on this continuum. The data show a teachers and principals suggest the initiative shift in teachers’ beliefs over time in the has been a good fit and well-integrated into direction of an emphasis on sense-making, the context of most schools. engagement, and personalization, moving from an average score of 2.15 in 2015 to 2.43 in 2017 (n=1,556). This change is statistically significant and represents a medium-sized effect.13 This finding suggests
13 The effect size was 0.43 standard deviation units.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 41 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure 19. Change over time in principals’ and teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
Teachers 2015
Emphasis on: 2017 Emphasis on: urricu ar ense a ing content engage ent structured persona i ation c assroo s
rincip as 2015
2017
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017; School leader survey 2015 & 2017. nteacher= 556, nleader=76. Blue dots represent means, while error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
that the initiative is beginning to have the attitudes toward technology in spring 2017 desired effects. Principals’ pedagogical remained high overall, but dipped slightly beliefs started out with a stronger student- from baseline levels. These dips are slight centered orientation than those of teachers, yet fairly consistent across most categories and did not change over this timeframe. measured. Importantly, these dips were more pronounced for high school teachers than for Teachers’ views of educational elementary or middle school teachers. technology remained strongly positive overall, though some reservations One possible explanation for these grade- about educational technology emerged, level differences, supported by the case especially among high school teachers study data, is that the initiative interacts differently with school improvement and Teachers were asked about how they believe accountability mandates in high school than technology might influence classroom in the earlier grades. In one case study, a teaching and learning, including both high school facing strong accountability positive effects (e.g., improvements for pressures, for example, teachers viewed English learners or greater independence in the initiative as detracting from the goal of the learning process) and negative effects improving test scores. By contrast, at one (e.g., greater distraction or weakened elementary school in a similar situation, critical thinking). Figure 20 shows that increased access to engaging learning teachers’ baseline views of technology were games was seen as supportive of the highly positive. Across most categories, mandate to elevate test scores. As noted
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 42 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure 20. Changes in views of educational technology, by school level
Elementary School & iddle School High School
ore Collaboration Spring 2015 Spring 2017
ore Independent Spring 2015 Spring 2017
Improve ELL Language/Literacy Spring 2015 Spring 2017 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% eaker Critical Thinking Spring 2015 Spring 2017
Distracts Students Spring 2015 Spring 2017 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding Percent of teachers responding
Strongly Agree Agree
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. nES/MS=1339-1378, nHS=128-133.
previously, the student survey revealed The small shifts in teachers’ stances toward that games were used extensively at the more student-centered pedagogy and their elementary level to support basic learning views of coherence within their schools are (and, theoretically, test score improvement) nonetheless important because they suggest in math and reading, but were uncommon in positive movement in terms of some of the high schools. underlying conditions required to positively impact teaching and learning. The slightly more Discussion of Principal and Teacher skeptical views about educational technology Attitudes and Beliefs expressed in 2017 relative to baseline likely Baseline views of school climate, pedagogical reflect the realities of putting technology into the beliefs, and attitudes about the role and hands of students while also addressing various potential of educational technology to enhance mandates associated with school improvement student learning were remarkably high, making and accountability, the consequences of which it difficult to discern positive effects of the Apple can be greater in schools such as those served and ConnectED initiative on these parameters. by the initiative (Dee & Jacob, 2010).
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 43 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Outcomes for Schools, technology access and teacher confidence about teaching with technology. Some of Teachers, and Students the strongest reported benefits for students The surveys measured principal and teacher (and those that came closest to meeting high perspectives on the outcomes of the Apple expectations) were student engagement and and ConnectED initiative for schools, teachers, technology skills, with relatively strong reported and students. In the absence of achievement outcomes related to the development of students’ data in this early phase of the study, principal 21st-century skills as well. In contrast, a smaller and teacher perception of changes in student portion of principals believed the initiative had engagement and learning over time give impacted teacher pedagogy and more traditional us some insights about how the initiative academic outcomes (e.g., the academic influenced students. standing of the school and student test scores). These reports align with the change trajectory Principals reported that the initiative benefits described in the theory of change, which their schools, teachers, and students anticipates that technology use and confidence appear first as teachers begin incorporating In both 2015 and 2017, the SRI surveys technology into their work, and that more explored what principals thought about the traditional measures of academic success will impact of the Apple and ConnectED initiative be slower to change (Baker, Gearhart & Herman, on their schools, teachers, and students. 1990; Drayton et al., 2010; Suhr et al., 2010; The 2015 survey asked principals about their Texas Center for Education Research, 2008). expectations for the initiative, and the 2017 survey followed up with questions about what Teachers report that the initiative principals believed had occurred after two supports student engagement and skills years.14 These analyses look at responses from the 44 principals who answered these items Teachers reported the Apple and on both surveys, allowing for insights into how ConnectED initiative greatly benefited their views evolved over time (Figure 21). students, particularly in the areas of student engagement, learning, and preparation At the outset, a majority of these principals for future success (Figure 22).15 The surveys agreed they expected a large impact in many uncovered this information in two ways: first areas, including school-wide climate and we asked teachers the same questions about capacity, teacher practices, and certain student student engagement, student learning, and outcomes. Two years later, most principals student knowledge and skills at two different agreed the initiative did have large impacts on points in time (once at the baseline in 2015
14 The 2015 item read: Please indicate the extent to which you expect the ConnectED initiative will support your school’s goals in each of the following areas. The percent shown here is the percent of principals reporting “large impact”. Other options were: moderate, small, or no impact. The 2017 item read: Please indicate the extent to which ConnectED has supported your school’s goals in each of the following areas. The percent shown is the percent of principals indicating “large positive impact”. Other options were: small positive, none, small negative, or large negative impact. 15 The survey asked teachers to place themselves on a 5-point continuum between the statements shown in the figure and their direct opposites (e.g., “Makes learning less fun for students in my classroom” for the first one).
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 44 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure 21. Principals’ expected and experienced impacts of the Apple and ConnectED initiative
Student ability to use tech for learning 95% 89% Student tech skills 98% 86% Closing the digital divide 98% 84% Student engagement 96% 84% Teacher confidence w/using tech in class 96% 77% Student 21C skills 95% 72% School culture / shared purpose 84% 64% Teacher use of S-centered pedagogy 86% 39% School academic standing 80% 36% School academic progress monitoring 72% 30% Connections w/ parents/community 77% 23% Student retention 72% 21% Test scores 63% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Expected large impact towards school goals (2015)
Large positive impact experienced (2017)
Source: School leader survey 2015 & 2017 (n2015=97; n2017=79-82).
Figure 22. Teacher reports of the impact of the Apple and ConnectED initiative on students
Overall I believe the ConnectED initiative....
Has helped me to improve Strongly agree my instruction Has fostered greater teacher Agree collaboration at the school Has enabled me to get to know my students better as individuals Has rekindled my passion for teaching Takes too much of my time
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Source: Teacher survey 2017. n=2270-2321.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 45 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys and once in 2017), allowing comparisons significant.16 Within this overall increase in between their responses over time. Second, engagement, we find more basic aspects of on the follow-up survey in 2017, we also asked engagement (e.g., paying attention) started teachers to tell us directly about how they high and remained high, while deeper thought the initiative had influenced students. forms of engagement (e.g., going beyond expectations) increased during this 2-year Regarding engagement, teachers reported period (Figure 23). These deeper signs of slightly higher levels of student engagement engagement are important because they in 2017 compared to 2015. Though small suggest students are not merely “having in size, the change was statistically
Figure 23. Change in student engagement
Went above and beyond Spring 2015 assignments because they enjoyed learning Spring 2017
Created products they were Spring 2015 proud of Spring 2017
Appeared to believe they Spring 2015 could succeed Spring 2017
Worked towards their long Spring 2015 term goals Spring 2017
Spring 2015 Paid attention in class Spring 2017
Spring 2015 Completed class assignments Spring 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Almost all About 3/4 About 1/2
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=1235-1282.
16 The student engagement scale comprised nine items that asked about the portion of students in class who appeared to be cognitively, behaviorally, or emotionally engaged. Each item was measured on the 5-point scale from “almost all students” to “almost none of the students.” The analysis sample included 1182 teachers who responded to both the 2015 and 2017 surveys. Average values across teachers were compared using a paired sample t-test with Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment, and the difference was statistically significant at p<.05. The difference was about one-fourth of a standard deviation, which is a small effect.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 46 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys fun” with technology (as traditional “on-task” products and collaborate with peers; learning measures of engagement might suggest), tasks involving open-ended problem solving but that they are becoming more invested in and critical thinking are not yet common. their learning. Students were enthusiastic about Regarding skills related to deeper learning, their experiences with the Apple and teachers reported slightly higher levels of ConnectED initiative, with positive student proficiency across almost all skills reviews about how iPads impact their since the initiative began (Figure 24). The one engagement and learning at school exception was solving open-ended problems, Complementing the results from principal for which teacher reports of student and teacher surveys, data from SRI’s proficiency remained stable over time. These student surveys offer insight into students’ findings align with what we know about the own thoughts about using an iPad, their types of technology use and the deeper experiences at school, and their learning. learning opportunities that students are Overall, students were quite positive about experiencing: Thus far, experiences provided their experiences with the iPads. However, in participating classrooms have typically the student survey results corroborated focused on using technology to create
Figure 24. Teacher-reported student skill proficiencies 2015 and 2017
Spring 2015 Highly skilled Creating coherent products Skilled Spring 2017
Spring 2015 Working productively in groups Spring 2017
Spring 2015 Solving open-ended problems Spring 2017
Applying knowledge to figure Spring 2015 out something new Spring 2017
Planning and monitoring Spring 2015 their work Spring 2017 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Source: Teacher survey 2015 & 2017. n=1275-1286.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 47 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys the teacher survey results, with elementary using their iPad (Figure 26). Students school students showing greater enthusiasm believed that the iPad provided substantial than middle and high school students. benefits for them at school, with everything from engagement to collaboration to A large majority of students used positive learning. One enthusiastic student reported, words to describe the experience of for example, “I never liked reading until the learning with an iPad (Figure 25). Students iPads came.” Here, too, elementary school were asked to choose one or two words students were consistently more positive to describe iPad use from a list of 15 about the impacts of using iPads than their adjectives. The most frequently chosen word middle and high-school counterparts. was “helpful.” At the same time, about a fifth of the students selected a more neutral term Reflecting teacher reports that the iPads such as ‘”okay” or “so-so” to describe the enable them to personalize their instruction experience, indicating somewhat tempered more than they could previously, students enthusiasm about technology relative to also reported the iPads helped teachers get elementary school students. to know them better as a person. Specifically, about two-thirds of the surveyed elementary The student surveys also asked students school students and one-third of high school about how their school experiences and students reported that their teachers know learning had changed since they started
Figure 25. Proportion of students who selected at least one positive, neutral, or negative word to describe.learning with an iPad
100% 90% Elementary School 77% Middle School 80% 69% High School
60% 46% 45%
40%
22% 20% 17% 8% 8%
0% Positive Neutral Negative
Source: Student survey 2016-17. nES=841; nMS=509; nHS=429.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 48 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure 26. Students’ perception of how things have changed since starting to use an iPad at school
I learn a LOT LESS I learn a LOT ORE
I am distracted in class I am distracted in class UCH ORE often UCH LESS often
I pay UCH LESS I pay UCH ORE attention in my classes attention in my classes
y classes are y classes are UCH LESS interesting UCH ORE interesting
I work with classmates I work with classmates UCH LESS OFTE UCH ORE OFTE
The work I do in school The work I do in school is UCH ORSE quality is UCH BETTER quality Elementary School Middle School High School
Source: Student survey 2016-17. nES=826-847; nMS=504-507; nHS=429-436. them better now than before. Students gave working harder and/or learning more with two main explanations for how these closer the iPad, or because the iPad enabled the relationships with their teachers emerged: teacher to witness the student’s knowledge, skills, and motivation. For example, one • The iPad provided new opportunities elementary school student said, “Now [the to express themselves, and their likes, teachers] can see me trying to work harder dislikes, interests and concerns, to on an important assignment.” A high school teachers. One eleventh grader reported student reported that iPads show teachers that some teachers know students better “how much I have accomplished in learning because “the work we do is more creative, certain subjects.” which shows more of our personality.” It is worth noting these are students’ views of • The iPad allowed teachers to better changes in how well their teachers know them. understand their achievements and It is possible that teachers already knew their challenges as students. In some cases, students quite well and that iPad use changed students reported the iPad helped teachers student perceptions rather than teacher know where they struggled. About equally knowledge and understanding. In either case, as often, students believed their iPad the fact that students in these classrooms feel helped the teachers to see they are a as if they are being better recognized as an good student—because the student was
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 49 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys individual could have important implications At the same time, the initiative supported for their developing sense of capabilities and positive changes for teachers: 81% of identity (Erikson, 1950, 1968). Whether, to teachers agreed the initiative helped them what extent, and in what ways different uses improve their instruction. While this finding of iPads and other digital learning devices comes from teachers’ own reports of their foster teacher-student connections and student practices, it is nonetheless important to know identity formation would be a productive area that teachers believed they improved their for future research. practice. Teachers also reported the initiative helped bring about increased collaboration Teachers report that the Apple and among staff at their school. Somewhat fewer ConnectED initiative helped them teachers, though still a majority, agreed the improve their instruction and fostered initiative helped them know their students professional collaboration better and rekindled their passion for For teachers, the 2017 survey asked how teaching. Decades of education reform, with much they believed the initiative contributed and without technology, have shown us these to a variety of teaching and learning outcomes can be difficult to accomplish, so outcomes. Overwhelmingly, teachers the fact that substantial numbers of teachers reported positive outcomes from the initiative believe the initiative is supporting these (Figure 27). Notably, few teachers found outcomes is important. the initiative took up too much of their time, and 62% reported it freed up time for them to focus on important aspects of their job.
Figure 27. Impact of the Apple and ConnectED initiative on teachers
Overall I believe the ConnectED initiative....
Has helped me to improve Strongly agree my instruction Has fostered greater teacher Agree collaboration at the school Has enabled me to get to know my students better as individuals Has rekindled my passion for teaching Takes too much of my time
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of teachers responding
Source: Teacher survey 2017. n=2210-2308.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 50 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Discussion of Outcomes for Schools, outcomes unfold as well. In the initial year Teachers and Students of implementation, student engagement has become deeper, moving beyond paying The survey results demonstrate that attention in class toward students being participants were enormously supportive of invested in their own learning. Teachers report the Apple and ConnectED initiative. Further, that students have expanded their skills in the outcomes reported by principals and areas like communication and collaboration, teachers followed the projected change which are directly linked to some of the most process, with proximal outcomes (like common uses of the technology at this time. technology access, student engagement, Broadly, these results suggest the initiative and certain 21st century skills) emerging has already begun to make a difference for first, while more distal outcomes (like deeper students at school, and they portend further changes in pedagogy and more traditional advances as the initiative continues to mature. measures of student achievement) have yet to emerge. Looking more deeply at engagement and learning, we see patterns in how these
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 51 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Conclusions
The Apple and ConnectED initiative different from other professional represents a substantial corporate investment development they had received in the in the goals of improving opportunities, in past. Further, those teachers who reported learning and in life, for students in some gaining the most from Apple’s professional of the most underserved areas of the learning also appeared to have made the country. The initiative is premised on the most substantial changes to their teaching belief that technology can support access practice, incorporating more innovative to deeper learning opportunities and, in uses of technology and more opportunities turn, improved educational experiences and for students to engage in deeper learning. outcomes for students. At the same time, Although all of these measures rely on the initiative holds true to an understanding teacher self-reports, the relationship that technology alone cannot create between perceived value of the professional these desired changes. The hallmarks learning and observed change in teaching of the initiative design—a deliberately practice over time suggests the professional customized vision and implementation learning likely had measurable impacts on plan for each school and personalized teaching and learning for at least some support for leadership, teaching, learning, teachers. These findings lend credence to and technology—reflect these core beliefs the initiative’s evidence-based approach to and all support success at each of the professional development. participating schools. With this comprehensive constellation of Apple’s professional learning support support in place, the Apple and ConnectED for school leaders and teachers formed initiative aims to effect changes to teaching an integral component of the initiative and learning that will benefit students. The and provides a model for other school theory of change describes an anticipated improvement initiatives. Apple drew heavily trajectory for this process of change in from their own extensive experience to educational settings that has been largely design the professional learning offerings borne out over the first two years of the these schools received, with the goal of initiative. To begin, survey data makes clear providing professional learning that was that the initiative has met its first goal of ongoing, hands-on, embedded, and relevant supporting infrastructural improvements and to the specific needs of the school and its providing access that would substantially teachers. These features were not lost on lower important barriers to technology use. participants, who greatly valued the APL Indeed, equity of access is an important Specialists and reported these professional first step toward achieving equity of learning experiences were demonstrably opportunity in these high-poverty schools.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 52 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Teacher reports of barriers associated with positive about the experience of learning access and reliability have been reduced with technology, elementary school students drastically since the baseline survey, and were more strongly positive than their across participating schools, teachers and middle and high school counterparts. students are using technology regularly in The different learning environments in the classroom. elementary schools vs. secondary schools likely contribute to this observed variation Further, the nature of this technology use, in attitudes and practices. While all schools combined with reports of the extent to which face accountability requirements, pressures teachers are providing deeper learning that tend to be particularly strong in opportunities for their students, suggest underserved schools, case studies showed that some teachers are beginning to make that teachers at different school levels use of the technology to change teaching had different perspectives on how certain and learning practices. The survey results types of technology could align with the show teachers are providing students with accountability requirements at the school. slightly more frequent learning opportunities Student attitudes toward school at different in all four of the areas of deeper learning stages of their lives and educational careers in which we can compare changes in may also contribute to some of these practice over time: personalized learning, observed differences in attitudes. These communication and creation, teamwork, emerging differences between elementary and critical thinking. The largest increases schools as compared with middle and high came in the areas of personalized learning schools are important in understanding and the creation of products to demonstrate how technology integration may transpire students’ thinking—areas that current uses in different educational settings, and for of technology support most directly. thinking about the different kinds of support Although statistically significant in the that may be needed at different levels of aggregate, these changes in teacher schooling. practice were concentrated in elementary The advances that have taken place so schools. Middle and high schools tended far throughout the initiative provide an to report fewer changes in practice. Other essential foundation on which schools differences emerged across schooling can build deeper changes to teaching levels as well. For example, elementary and learning. These deeper changes— school teachers tended to maintain their things like instructional shifts that initially positive attitudes toward technology combine innovative uses of technology to a greater extent than middle and high and advanced opportunities for deeper school teachers did, with some hesitations learning—are precisely the ones that the emerging over time for the latter groups. theory of change anticipates will take Similarly, while all students were largely longer to develop. As schools now enter
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 53 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys into a new phase of the initiative with the The Apple and ConnectED initiative bears goal of realizing these deeper changes, out the well-known tenet that change is both the schools themselves and Apple’s hard but possible. At the 114 schools professional learning offerings will need to participating in the initiative, 114 unique focus explicitly on the deep integration of experiences are taking shape and evolving technology to support critical thinking and in different ways over time. And yet, the conceptual understanding. The initiative principal and teacher surveys, with more and individual schools will also need to than three-quarters of principals and find explicit ways to maintain the positive teachers represented, demonstrate that trajectory that has begun, even amidst certain trajectories are common as schools inevitable turnover of key staff and other work to integrate technology into teaching unavoidable interruptions. and learning in meaningful ways. These trajectories are instructive both for the Apple For others who may be considering and ConnectED initiative as it enters its third technology integration initiatives, the Apple year of implementation, and for the field as and ConnectED initiative offers both lessons we continue our collective efforts to support and new questions to pursue. The initiative schools, teachers, and students in their highlights the importance of comprehensive, mission to make the most of what technology customized, and intensive support for offers for supporting greater opportunities, in technology integration and instructional learning and in life, for all of our youth. change. As these implementations mature, on their own paths and within their own local settings, they can continue to instantiate models of what is possible within these diverse contexts and to inform important questions about the types of support that are most essential, the variety of paths to meaningful change, and mechanisms for promoting sustainability and scalability beyond initial investments.
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 54 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys References
Apple Computer, Inc. (1995). Changing the Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: conversation about teaching, learning, Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, and technology: A report on 10 years of MA: Harvard University Press. ACOT research. Cupertino, CA: Author. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The impact Retrieved from http://gse.buffalo.edu/ of No Child Left Behind on students, fas/yerrick/UBScience/ UB_Science_ teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers Education_Goes_to_School/Technology_ on Economic Activity. Washington, DC: Reform_files/10yrs%20of%20ACOT.pdf Brookings Institution. Retrieved from Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/ (1990). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow uploads/2010/09/2010b_bpea_dee.pdf (ACOT) evaluation study first- and Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact second-year findings. ACOT Report studies of teachers’ professional #7. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc. development: Toward better Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ conceptualizations and measures. viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.128.7752&r Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. ep=rep1&type=pdf Drayton, B., Falk, J. K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After computing: A summary of the quantitative installation: Ubiquitous computing and results from the Berkshire Wireless high school science in three experienced, Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, high-technology schools. Journal of Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 5–59. Technology, Learning, and Assessment, Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s 9(3), 1– 57. not: Children’s access to and use of Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms computer technology. Future of Children, of Tomorrow: What we’ve learned. 10(2), 44–75. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4–10. Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. Stepping stones: Principal career paths (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and and school outcomes. Social Science practices in technology-rich classrooms. Research, 41, 904–919. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52. Camburn, E., & Han, S. W. (2006). Factors Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/ affecting the validity of teachers’ environment fit: Developmentally reports of instructional practice on appropriate classrooms for early annual surveys. Working paper of adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames the Consortium for Policy Research (Eds.), Research on motivation in in Education. Research. Madison, WI: education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York, Wisconsin Center for Education. NY: Academic. Eccles
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 55 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to- New York, NY: W. W. Norton. one technology in K–12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and 2014. Journal of Research on Technology crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. in Education, 48(2), 129–142.
Ertmer, P.A. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional Removing obstacles to the pedagogical practices: Can policymakers trust survey changes required by Jonassen’s vision of data? Educational Evaluation and Policy authentic technology-enabled learning. Analysis, 21, 29–45. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182 National Research Council. 2000. How Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (1996). people learn: Brain, mind, experience, Education and technology: Reflections on and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, computing in classrooms. San Francisco, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi. CA: Jossey Bass. org/10.17226/9853
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes makes professional development effective? professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. Strategies that foster curriculum American Educational Research Journal, implementation. American Educational 38(4), 915–945. Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Goldring, R., & Taie, S. (2014). Principal Reich, J., & Ito, M. (2017). From good intentions attrition and mobility: Results from the to real outcomes: Equity by design in learning 2012–13 Principal Follow-up Survey technologies. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and (NCES 2014-064rev). Washington, DC: Learning Research Hub. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., & Marsh, J. (1996). from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch Integrating technology into classroom instruction: An assessment of the impact Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). of the ACOT Teacher Development Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from Center Project. ACOT Report #22. the 2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc. (NCES 2014-077). Washington, DC: U.S. Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/ Department of Education, National Center euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt22.pdf for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Creating student-centered classrooms. Teachers’ use of educational technology New York, NY: Teachers College Press. in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge Center for Education Statistics, Institute of handbook of the learning sciences. New Education Sciences, U.S. Department of York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED509514.pdf
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 56 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 1–69.
Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourth-grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5), 1–46.
Texas Center for Education Research. (2008). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot outcomes for the third year (2006–07). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED536294.pdf
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179.
Yocam, K., & Wilmore, F. (1995). Creating an alternative context for teacher development: ACOT’s two-year pilot project. ACOT Report #17. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/euro/pdfs/ acotlibrary/rpt17.pdf
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 57 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Appendix
Figure A1. The Apple and ConnectED initiative theory of change
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 58 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure A1. The Apple and ConnectED initiative theory of change (continued)
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 59 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys Figure A1. The Apple and ConnectED initiative theory of change (continued)
The Apple and ConnectED Initiative: 60 Baseline and Year 2 Findings from Principal, Teacher, and Student Surveys SRI Education, a division of SRI International, is tackling the most complex issues in education to identify trends, understand outcomes, and guide policy and practice. We work with federal and state agencies, school districts, foundations, nonprofit organizations, and businesses to provide research-based solutions to challenges posed by rapid social, technological and economic change. SRI International is a nonprofit research institute whose innovations have created new industries, extraordinary marketplace value, and lasting benefits to society.
Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. (SRI International headquarters) 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2800 333 Ravenswood Avenue Arlington, VA 22209 Menlo Park, CA 94025 +1.703.524.2053 +1.650.859.2000 [email protected] www.sri.com/education
SRI International is a registered trademark and SRI Education is a trademark of SRI International. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Copyright 2016 SRI International. All rights reserved. 1/15
STAY CONNECTED