Redesign all professional development and technology training programs offered through the Office of Educational Technology (OET) and the Professional Development Academy (PDA) to include engaged learning precepts, constructivist theory, and the principles of project-based teaching and learning to incite district-wide adaptation, through replication, from the bottom up. That is, the teachers choose to apply engaged learning theory to their curriculum, in their classrooms and in the best interest of students.
To demonstrate the benefits of engaged learning theory as applied to existing programs, such that instructional technologies are seamlessly meshed with teacher training and professional development programs. To introduce classroom teachers to and directly model engaged learning theory to those teachers who endeavor to seek out professional development opportunities through OET and PDA. To produce change in the affective domain of classroom teachers, i.e., it is a conscious choice to use engaged learning theory.
The Detroit Public Schools District (DPS) is the largest public school district in the state of Michigan. It has nearly 10,000 employees serving in more than 500 schools. DPS has two, separately housed, technology training sites. Each is furnished with hardware and software for use by DPS employees. These sites are: the Office of Educational Technology and the Professional Development Academy. Both offer an array of inservice training programs. A booklet listing the descriptions of the programs offered at the two sites is distributed to each school, and is published to the DPS Web page. In addition, the OET and PDA will often add sessions not listed in the booklet. These add-on offerings are disseminated throughout the district via a document that is shared with all school principals. Add-ons, too, are published to the District Web page. Inservice programs are offered during the day and after working hours; some include Continuing Education Units as an option.
The Office of Educational Technology is also a Buy-In for some DPS schools. This option is available to schools where the chief administrator has decided to dedicate the necessary funds to "buy into" the services of the OET. The Buy-In consists of one-on-one technology assistance from OET staff. A Buy-In school is assisted with its specific technology needs.
The Buy-In is inherently exclusive. For those schools where funds are limited and, or where administrative staff is not cognizant of its staff's technological needs, the Buy-In fails. OET does not have nearly the number staff needed to provide inservice training sessions to 10,000 DPS employees. An understaffed substitute teacher pool negatively affects teacher attendance at OET and PDA programs. This situation often causes those who do register for during-school sessions to cancel. Often, registrants for after school programs do not attend, due to sheer exhaustion. OET staff are told, on many occasions, by individuals who wanted to attend a particular sessions did not know about the programs offered until after they had been held. Although the DPS tries to disseminate timely information regarding the many OET and PDA inservice training programs, communication is still one of our greatest challenges.
The DPS has unequivocally expressed its commitment to, and emphasized the importance of technology integration district-wide. However, training for those responsible for integrating technology with the curriculum has not been given equal support. Principals in the DPS make many of the decisions as to how school funds are to be spent. They often feel that training in the use of technology is not necessary or is regarded low on their list of budgetary priorities. The focus is on obtaining hardware, placing it into classrooms, and making sure it is connected properly. The teachers, and in some instances ed-technicians, are expected to miraculously use and integrate the technology successfully. This, in turn, creates frustration for those lacking the basic understanding of hardware and software, or curriculum.
The following list of administrators, teaching staff, and community members will be crucial to success in implementing the Pilot Engaged Learning Program Redesign Effort:
- Directors of the OET and the PDA
- CEO of Detroit Public Schools District (formerly, Superintendent)
- Director of the Office of Grant Procurement
- Prinicipals of schools from which Pilot Program attendees come
- Teachers and ed-technicians responsible for technology integration in schools
- Parents of students enrolled at the respective schools of Pilot Program attendees.
| Implementation Task | Date |
| Write "Proposal to Initiate Pilot Redesign Program Effort" | July 1999 - August 1999 |
| Present a "Proposal to Initiate Pilot Redesign Program Effort" to the Directors of OET and PDA | September |
| The OET and PDA redesign one popular OET and PDA inservice program to incorporate engaged learning theory. | September - November |
| Conduct Pilot Redesign Program | December 1, - April 2000 |
| Measure learner technological proficiency and perceived program effectiveness | |
| Compare before and after measures and publish the results |
The training will use the Linc format whenever possible. Participants will evaluate their technology skills and their knowledge of engaged learning. These evaluations will be repeated at the conclusion of the class.
Participants will be assessed based on their projects, homework assignments, technical skills, staff development plans, and class participation. Participants projects will be assessed based on their incorporation of engaged learning and high technology performance indicators. The objectives listed previously describe some of these indicators.
| Tasks |
|
| Project Rubric |
|
| Scenario Rubric |
|
| Presentation Rubric |
|
| Participation |
|
| Page Design |
|
| Staff Development Plan |
|
A (4 quality points per course unit) Excellent. Denotes work that is consistently at the highest level of achievement in a graduate college or university course.
B (3 quality points per course unit) Good. Denotes work that consistently meets the high level of college or university standards for academic performance in a graduate college or university course.
C (2 quality points per course unit) The lowest passing grade. Denotes work that does not meet in all respects college or university standards for academic performance in a graduate college or university course.
F (0 quality points per course unit) Denotes work that fails to meet graduate college or university standards for academic performance in a graduate college or university course.
Cr (Quality points are not calculated in grade point average.) Pass. Denotes pass with credit at least at the level of B work, in graduate courses that are graded Cr/NCr.
NCr (0 quality points per course unit) No Credit. Denotes work that fails to meet graduate college or university standards for academic performance at least at the level of C work.