Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NEXT
STEPS
FINAL
REPORT
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
CEIBAL.............................................................................................................................................. 1
The
whole
system
challenge............................................................................................................. 1
2.
Our
mandate ................................................................................................................... 2
Conceptual
framework
or
questions
guiding
our
work: .................................................................... 2
3.
Uruguay
and
the
Uruguayan
education
system................................................................ 4
The
country...................................................................................................................................... 4
The
Uruguayan
school
system .......................................................................................................... 4
Description
of
system .......................................................................................................................... 4
Noteworthy
features
of
system........................................................................................................... 5
4.
CEIBAL
First
phase
(2006-2009):
A
matter
of
access.......................................................... 7
Launch
and
early
development ........................................................................................................ 7
5.
CEIBAL
Second
phase
(2010-present):
Adding
support
elements. ..................................... 9
Plan
CEIBAL
in
transition .................................................................................................................. 9
Teacher
and
student
use
of
XOs
in
classrooms ................................................................................. 9
Early
CEIBAL
supports..................................................................................................................... 11
More
powerful
supports ................................................................................................................ 12
Direct
human
resource
support
to
schools ....................................................................................... 12
Adaptive
mathematics
program ........................................................................................................ 13
Digital
textbooks................................................................................................................................ 13
Online
Student
Assessment
System. ................................................................................................. 13
Plataforma
CREA................................................................................................................................ 14
Other
initiatives
and
supports ........................................................................................................... 14
Courses .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Remote
teaching
of
English........................................................................................................................... 14
Increased
support
for
servers
in
schools....................................................................................................... 15
Robotics......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Dissemination
of
innovative
practice.............................................................................................. 15
Challenges
accompanying
rich
resources ........................................................................................ 15
Strengthening
and
expanding
connections
with
the
school
system ................................................ 16
Transitioning
from
Phase
2 ............................................................................................................. 16
6.
Next
Phase
2013
onwardfocus
on
quality
implementation ......................................... 16
1.
Focus
on
a
small
number
of
ambitious
goals
as
core
priorities. ............................................... 17
2.
CEIBAL
and
the
Education
Authorities
to
jointly
develop
the
infrastructure
to
support
implementation
of
the
core
priorities
in
a
clear,
specific,
ongoing
way........................................... 17
3. Develop the roles of Inspectors and school principals to support implementation in and across schools........................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Develop the professional capacity of teachers, and related working conditions (e.g., small amounts of time) that would increase the capacity of teachers, individually and collectively to implement the core priorities......................................................................................................... 21
foster intrinsic motivation of teachers and students; engage educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning; inspire collective or team work; and affect all teachers and students.
External authorities, usually governmental, have an important role in guiding and supporting schools, but broad based long term improvement also has to be sustained by educators themselves. Assessment provides valuable information for making decisions about instruction, but without collective capacity building and teacher ownership, assessment and accountability can only provide extrinsic motivation Most recently, adding technology to the whole system reform mix, Fullan, in his book Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge (2013) argues for the power of bringing together advances in pedagogy (how we learn), in technology (especially around engagement), and in change knowledge (especially around making change easier and more widespread). Although he acknowledges that the big educational advances in integrating technology and pedagogy are still to be developed he makes a case for exploring how technology, well used, can help us race rapidly to a future that humankind wants and will find fulfilling (p. 14). What kind of teaching produces the deeper learning outcomes that are now required? Can we be more explicit about the teaching practices required? And, crucially, what does it take to support sustained implementation of such improved practices? Recent research in a variety of settings has gone some way to illuminate such questions. We will draw on recent work by ITL (Innovative Teaching and Learning) Research (Shear, Gallagher & Patel, 2011), since that research is particularly relevant to the technology- rich classrooms and schools in Uruguay. The ITL research sees teaching in an ecosystem of change with student skills for life and work at the core. Support is provided by three sets of factors innovative teaching practices (which we can characterize, for present purposes, as teaching for deeper learning), school leadership and culture, and education system supports. Innovative or deeper learning teaching has three elements: student centered pedagogies (knowledge building, self assessment, collaboration, communication); extending learning beyond the classroom (problem solving and real world innovation); and ICT use, in the service of specific and concrete learning goals.
2.
Our mandate
1. First, exploring and articulating the change model/strategies used by Plan CEIBAL to date, from 2007 to 2012, noting how these may have evolved over the five years. We will review goals, actors/agencies, roles, types of support, challenges and how such challenges have been addressed. 2. Second, working out the extent to which principles of whole system reform (as summarized by Fullan and others; see immediately below) might apply to the challenge of next steps for Plan CEIBAL moving to a greater focus on teaching and learning through access to and innovative use of technology, and over time, improved learning across all/most schools. 3. Third, using these principles of whole system reform, suggesting specific directions for next steps for CEIBAL and the Uruguay school system, taking account of relevant features of the situation that may require particular adaptations of the principles. In carrying out these tasks, we kept in mind the following principles of whole system reform, principles gleaned from reviewing more and less successful efforts in a range of educational jurisdictions: Small number of ambitious priorities: focus on these and reduce/avoid distractions; Cohesive policies so infrastructure is focused on key priorities; Coordinated leadership at all levels, with an emphasis on the leadership role of principals/directors; Development of entire teaching profession, including support for implementation at classroom, school, department ; Link between instruction and assessment (aligned and balanced); Learn as you go; in other words, learn from implementation during implementation; try, assess, modify or refine; Development of a focused intervention strategy, targeted as appropriate; and Money used mainly in the service of the previous principles, that is, to support system-wide change.
In our explorations of CEIBAL, we combined review of reports and online material with a ten-day site visit to Uruguay in late October 2012. Two members of the team (Anderson and Watson) conducted interviews and met with spokespersons from within CEIBAL and from a variety of other organizations in the Uruguayan education system. The site visit included observation and interviews with education personnel in several schools in Montevideo and the departments. Throughout our work, we used the following general questions to guide our information gathering and processing: 1. What is changing...technology (access, use), pedagogy (curriculum, teacher and student roles and learning process)...relation between the two...and evidence of change? 2. What is the support system (infrastructure, delivery of support/assistance) for identified changes at different levels of the system? 3. What are the links (vision, actions, evidence) between technology and pedagogy? 4. Who are leaders/change agents: what are they doing to build capacity of others to implement changes? What about building the capacity of leaders?
5. What is CEIBAL/education system doing to promote/support innovation in technology/pedagogy in the classroom, to identify and refine promising practices, and to enable dissemination across the system?
3.
The
country
Uruguay
is
a
small
South
American
Country
of
three
and
a
half
million
people,
with
Brazil
to
its
north
and
Argentina
to
the
west.
The
country
is
largely
urban,
with
one
third
of
the
population
living
in
the
capital,
Montevideo.
Uruguay
enjoys
one
of
the
least
inequitable
income
distributions
in
Latin
America,
along
with
comparatively
high
levels
of
literacy
and
a
school
system
that
does
well
in
the
international
PISA
results
in
comparison
to
its
Latin
American
neighbors.
The Secondary Education Council (Consejo de EducacinSecundariaCES) is responsible for compulsory basic secondary education, covering the 1st to 3rd years, and upper secondary education, covering the three year program required for the secondary school certificate course. The Professional Technical Education Council (Consejo de Educacin Tcnico ProfesionalCETP) provides compulsory basic education, with the same curriculum and is also responsible for secondary technological education, basic vocational education and advanced vocational education, which prepare young people not only to continue with higher studies, but also to enter the workforce. Teacher Training Council (CFE): is in charge of the primary teacher-training institutes that prepare teachers (departmental beginning teacher education schools, which are now being federated into a university with multiple campuses). It is also responsible for the Artigas Teachers Institute, the only secondary teacher-training school until the mid 1990s, when regional secondary teachers centers (centros regionales de profesores) were set up in different parts of the country.
Uruguay is divided into nineteen departments, operating somewhat like municipal councils. Because of its population size, the capital city of Montevideo is divided into three administrative units for educational governance and services, similar to the departmental organization structures. Each department has a cadre of school inspectors, operating at the zone and department level, with differentiated responsibilities depending on level (primary, secondary), subject area, and type of school. The scope and responsibility of these positions may be clearly defined on paper but it would appear that in practice individual inspectors have considerable latitude to carry out the role in different ways. The existence and operation of the multiple agencies indicates that Uruguay has a loosely coupled system of governance for education, with high degrees of autonomy among different levels and organizations. Beyond policy formulation and guidance, most of the day to day running of system is done through Councils and their departmental inspectorate counterparts. Because we are looking initially only at primary education, we will focus on the work of CEIP and to a lesser extent the teacher training council; these two bodies, particularly CEIP, are the ones most crucial to CEIBALs success in fostering integration of technology in Uruguayan primary schools. Noteworthy features of system Length of school day. The majority of common schools (escuelas comunas) operate with a four hour instructional timetable. Many buildings have two shift schools (8am-noon and 1pm-5:00pm); the main reason is shortage of school buildings with funding not available for new buildings. Schools may have separate principal and teachers for both shifts or employ the same principal and teachers, but are administratively and financially treated as two schools. Rural schools. 50% of schools are designated rural schools, serving fewer than 20 students, although such schools serve only 5% of student population. Rural schools have a five hour day to provide meals to students who come from a distance. Although it is costly to maintain such schools, they enjoy a long history and considerable political support. Some were established long ago as a linguistic buffer along
the
Brazilian
border.
CEIBAL
has
provided
XO
devices
to
all,
and
all
but
70
schools
now
connected
to
internet;
solar
panels
are
provided
for
the
few
schools
that
lack
electricity.
Multiple
types
of
primary
schools
(escuelas
bsicas).
The
more
than
two
thousand
Uruguayan
primary
schools1
are
mostly
common
schools
(4
hour
school
day),
with
approximately
240
complete
or
full
time
schools
(7.5
hour
school
day,
with
2.5
hours
a
week
coordination
time
for
teacher
meetings,
etc.).
The
complete
time
school
is
a
relatively
new
initiative
to
better
meet
the
needs
of
disadvantaged
communities;
more
are
being
added
each
year.
A
few
urban
schools
in
high
poverty
communities
operate
with
extended
time,
with
students
attending
regular
school
in
morning,
and
being
taught
by
specialist
teachers
in
the
afternoon.
Teacher
work
day:
The
teacher
work
day
varies
by
type
of
school
as
indicated
above,
but
in
general,
four
hours
per
day,
all
instructional
time.
There
have
been
recent
moves
by
government
to
extend
the
school
day,
but
the
number
of
schools
affected
is
small,
partly
because
of
the
double
shift
schools.
The
government
(CEIP)
is
also
phasing
in
partial
funding
for
schools
to
open
on
eight
Saturday
mornings
during
the
year
for
paid
teacher
coordination
time.
At
present,
participation
is
voluntary
and
pay
is
low,
providing
only
modest
incentives
for
teachers
to
take
part
in
this
collaborative
work
opportunity.
Double
jobs:
Most
teachers
and
many
other
people
in
the
education
system
work
multiple
jobs,
reportedly
because
of
low
salaries
(although
salaries
have
been
increased
substantially
over
the
past
seven
years).
Teachers
may
teach
in
two
schools
(maybe
mix
public
and
private);
be
the
director
in
one
school
and
teach
in
another;
serve
as
computer
resource
teacher
in
one
school
and
classroom
teacher
in
another.
Dual
employment
applies
to
principals
(referred
to
as
directores
in
Uruguay)
as
well
as
teachers.
The
two
job
phenomenon,
along
with
the
four
hour
instructional
day,
means
that
personnel
have
little
time
for
staff
meetings,
teamwork
or
joint
professional
development.
It
also
means
that
any
plans
for
school
improvement
(e.g.,
more
collaborative
work
focused
on
student
learning
needs
particular
to
a
school)
would
have
to
be
duplicated
in
two
education
settings
for
many
teachers.
Working
multiple
jobs
is
currently
part
of
the
culture
of
teaching
in
Uruguay.
School
directors
(principals)
remain
members
of
the
teachers
union.
There
is
no
separate
professional
association
of
principals,
nor
does
there
appear
to
be
a
distinct
system
of
preparation
and
ongoing
professional
support
for
the
role,
beyond
an
examination
that
prospective
principals
must
pass.
We
did
not
hear
of
any
initiatives
targeting
principals
as
local
leaders
for
the
integration
of
technology
in
the
school.
Teacher
autonomy:
People
in
various
roles
repeatedly
emphasized
that
teachers
are
subject
to
the
national
curriculum
content
expectations
but
have
the
freedom
to
choose
how
to
teach,
what
materials
to
use,
whether
to
seek
professional
development,
etc.
It
seems
to
be
generally
accepted
that
this
autonomy
is
not
to
be
violated
or
that
there
is
no
point
in
trying
to
do
so.
We
will
take
up
this
point
later
when
we
talk
about
the
difference
between
individual
autonomy
and
a
more
collective
autonomy.
Tensions
may
emerge
if
government
agencies
attempt
to
use
policy
to
shape
education
where
a
conception
of
teacher
autonomy
views
such
efforts
as
subject
to
voluntary
buy
in.
Balancing
hierarchy
and
autonomy
is
always
difficult.
1
There are approximately 300 secondary schools, plus approximately 75 technical schools.
Inspectorate and role of inspectors: We noted some lack of clarity around the role of inspectors, particularly around the extent to which inspectors are expected to provide assistance and guidance, as well as evaluate. Formally, the duties of inspectors center on the communication of education policies to school personnel, and on annual evaluations of classroom teachers and principals. Whatever the individual variations in inspector actions, teacher evaluations are high stakes; the report and ratings from an inspector can determine teacher options for placement, as well as possible promotions to school director, or to various teacher leadership positions at the school and/or department levels. Teachers, we were told, view their evaluations as a right. The evaluations, however, are not linked to evidence of student learning at the classroom or school levels. Teacher union membership is not compulsory; approximately 70% of teachers are members. Principals retain union membership although no longer in the classroom. The union leaders that we interviewed were generally supportive of the CEIBAL ICT initiatives, while affirming the emphasis on teacher autonomy, the need for support, and the challenges of teachers current working conditions. System leadership: With the existence of the four autonomous councils, along with ANEP, CEIBAL and a newly established independent evaluation institute, Uruguay effectively operates with several parallel systems, resulting in some duplications and a perception among some stakeholders of little coherence when it comes to directions, priorities and support. Attempts at greater coordination often involve representatives from one organization or agency attending meetings of another, in efforts to further communication and mutual awareness. Again we note the tensions in trying to foster coherence in a bureaucratic system that also has such a heavy emphasis on autonomy in its constituent agencies.
4.
Early in the development of CEIBAL, several supporting volunteer initiatives emerged, connecting to Plan CEIBAL in various ways. These include an association of volunteers to promote the development of free educational software, a loose network of over 1000 volunteers recruited through CEIBAL to provide technical support, and the Uruguayan network of community infocenters. In the early phases, few education experts were involved. The support activities mainly addressed technical problems, although the volunteer networks served as channels of information about implementation progress and challenges and perhaps strengthened the connections between schools and communities. Plan CEIBAL has widespread political and public support, with a 92% approval rating in public polls. Everyone we met in Uruguay was aware of and apparently supportive of CEIBAL, including those who had no connection with the education system. By 2012 570,000 laptops had been distributed, covering all students and teachers. Virtually all schools (and thus all students and teachers) have internet access in the school. Technology resources were also distributed to faculty and students in teacher training centers. While internet connections had been reported as unreliable in some schools, initial connections are being replaced by fiber optics, with a commitment to upgrade all urban schools by the end of 2013. Alternatives such as solar panels are provided for small isolated schools. Access points in several hundred community centers or other gathering spots also provide free internet connections. The cost of the CEIBAL program has been modest: the 4-year TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is approximately $400 for four years, $100 per year per child. This figure includes the laptops, replacement of laptops after 4 years of use, repairs, internet costs, administrative costs, fiber optic costs, robotics, planned video conference facilities, the portal and platforms (plataforma) for LMS (Learning Management System) as well as digital resources for mathematics, reading and other subjects. The cost figures also include initial training provided for teachers to familiarize them with the technology and how to use it. Training has been available for all teachers, at first using a cascade model in which a few people were trained and then trained others, now supplemented by ipersonal or online support in schools. Although the expectation seems to have been that teaching and learning would eventually change through widespread access to use of technology, there was no overt pressure initially on schools or teachers to actually put the tools and applications into practice. All teachers have access to new resources and technical training in their use, but they have been able to choose whether and when to use XOs and how they might integrate such use into teaching and learning activities on a routine basis. CEIBAL has a culture very oriented to action, along with leaders who are creative and determined problem solvers; these characteristics help explain success. CEIBALs independence has also been important; the rapid introduction and distribution of XOs and internet would have been difficult through established bureaucracies. During the first phase of Plan CEIBAL there was clarity about the desired and intended outcomes distribution of XOs to all students and teachers, provision of internet connections to schools and community centers and, as a result of such actions, reducing the digital divide and promoting social 8
inclusion. In short, the purpose of the first phase was access. Although the task was far from easy, problems were identified and addressed as they arose. When strategies proved unsuccessful, new strategies were developed. For example, the original plan had been for families to use the postal service to return damaged XOs for repair. For a number of reasons, the plan did not work; CEIBAL quickly moved to a fleet of repair vans that would go to schools to repair XOs and handle other technical issues. During this initial phase there were few education experts involved in Plan CEIBAL and support for users was geared almost entirely to solving technical problems. As we will outline in the next section, in CEIBALs second phase the emphasis has shifted to encouraging a greater focus on use of technology in teaching and learning, thereby evolving from a focus on ensuring equitable access to the technologies to equitable access to improvements in student learning supported and enhanced by technology use.
5.
use in a sample of schools. That report has sparked considerable interest and some controversy in the primary education world. Although the sample was relatively small and the data were collected before recent pedagogical support initiatives from CEIBAL would have had impact, the report provides a useful if incomplete independent snapshot of technology use in early Phase 2. The teacher and student survey data collected by CEIBAL researchers confirm equity in access to the XO laptop computers and the internet in primary schools. The surveys also asked teachers and students about the frequency and nature of ICT use in school and at home. While we need not review all the findings here, the following highlights illustrate the breadth and nature of XO supported educational use of ICT by students and teachers. The overall percentage of students and teachers reporting use of the XO in class at least one or two times a week in 2010 and 2011 was about 80%. Both students and teachers, however, indicated a slight decline in the proportion reporting XO use three or more times per week, a finding the researchers suggest could reflect that the novelty of the technology from when first introduced was wearing off. Teachers reported the average number of hours per week allocated to XO use was 4 hours in 2010 and 3.5 hours in 2011 (fairly substantial for common schools with 20 hours classroom contact time). Among students, the XOs are used mainly for school work in class (80% in 2011), followed by entertainment (71%) and homework (49%). Several survey questions asked about the kinds of XO supported activities students use. Overall, the major classroom uses reported were to look for information on the internet (83%), programming (49%)2, and word processing/writing (44%). About 50% of students also reported that they read books on their computers several times a week. In the 2011 survey, teachers reported the greatest subject integration of XOs into teaching and learning in language arts (39% of respondents) followed by social studies (26%), science (15%), mathematics (9%), and arts (4%). The low use of the XOs in mathematics likely contributed to the recent CEIBAL initiative to develop and introduce an adaptive math program application in 2013 and 2014. A majority of teachers (8 of 10) surveyed in 2011 reported that they had modified their classroom instructional practices in various ways such as developing new strategies (72%--the practical meaning of new strategies is undefined), promoting collaborative work among students (70%), diversifying learning materials (67%), using virtual resources (49%), and using new tools for student evaluation (22%). Half (50%) the teachers reported that their personal knowledge (presumably of subject content) had also grown as a result. The CEIBAL surveys of teachers and surveys in a representative sample of schools in Montevideo and in the interior of the country clearly indicate that XO supported technology use is happening on a wide scale in Uruguayan primary schools. This is a positive accomplishment that goes beyond mere access to the technology. At the same time, however, the surveys do not provide much information and insight into the quality of use and its actual effects on the quality of student learning in different subject areas, or in terms of higher order learning goals such as complex problem solving, critical thinking, and inquiry 2 *The XOs come loaded with some basic arts and animation programming software applications (Scratch, Tortugarte, Pippy, and Etoys).
10
and self-directed learning. The expectation and goal that technology use might move beyond the use of technology as an information gathering tool, word processing, and graphics applications on a wide scale remains a challenging goal for the future of CEIBAL to support, demonstrate, and document. Teacher perceptions about CEIBAL, as independently reported by Ravela and colleagues in their research study, are generally consistent with the CEIBAL evaluation reports, particularly with regard to social inclusion. In terms of educational benefits, teachers and principals saw XOs as another tool to use in teaching, but may not have integrated XOs and the internet extensively into their daily practice. Although a substantial proportion of teachers made use of the XOs on a regular basis, the researchers concluded that many were not yet using teaching methods that took full advantage of the technological resources. Their surveys and classroom observations indicated that teachers generally planned classes on their own; the researchers concluded that lack of teacher-teacher collaboration was limiting the potential impact of XO in the classroom. Such a conclusion is consistent with research on school improvement and teacher change (Fullan, 2011). In summary, the Ravela research team saw the XO and the internet as potentially powerful tools to facilitate learning. At the time of their data gathering, however, they concluded these powerful tools were still underutilized. Recent CEIBAL inputs, as described further on, may be stimulating greater and pedagogically deeper use in student learning. In the next sections, we outline how CEIBAL, often in collaboration with CEIP or ANEP, has encouraged and supported greater use of these potentially powerful educational resources.
11
challenges has led CEIBAL, along with educational partners CEIP and ANEP, to introduce a range of more focused and more powerful supports for technology integration.
12
teacher positions preceded the MAC positions. The best ways to strategically coordinate teacher support for ICT integration between these two new positions are still being worked out. The creation of these and other support positions is highly significant; active steps were taken by the education system and CEIBAL to give teachers on-site support focused on integrating technology in classroom practice. It will be crucial for the roles to continue to focus on the pedagogical use of XOs and related technological resources. Occupants of such positions will need continuing professional learning support, preferably working collaboratively with their MAC and Dinamizador colleagues, as well as others in positions intended to support integration of technology in innovative ways. Adaptive mathematics program Plan CEIBAL has taken the lead in the development of adaptive platforms for mathematics that can be implemented across the primary school system; the initiatives are new but have the potential for changing teaching practice and improving student learning through more personalized pedagogical processes. The power of these programs is that differentiated learning activities will be built into the learning process for students using their XOs. Teachers will be able to plan the teaching progressions based on feedback about progress of individual students. Primary teachers are often uncertain about their mathematics expertise; a well designed and easy to use adaptive mathematics program could help solve a common classroom problem for such teachers. Digital textbooks Plan CEIBAL has been a key agent in negotiating agreements with publishers of nationally endorsed textbooks for elementary schools to make the required textbooks available in digital format; the textbooks will be available on school servers, avoiding the need for students to use the internet to access the appropriate text, and reducing the problem of insufficient textbooks for all students Online Student Assessment System. The online assessment system represents a fortuitous combination of ideas, resources and opportunities, with collaboration between key staff at ANEP and CEIBAL. A comprehensive student assessment process, formative and not summative, covers Grades 3 to 6 in literacy, mathematics and science. Questions are both multiple choice and open-ended. CEIBAL provided the opportunity to put this system online, avoiding the problems and costs of paper tests. By 2012 the majority of teachers were voluntarily using the online system, and in future the process will be entirely online. Teachers have student results as soon as the testing is completed; the results are available to the teacher and principal, but not to inspectors unless they visit and ask the teacher. In other words, teacher autonomy is respected, and aggregate results are only made public at the district, not the school level The test items have been developed to connect to the curriculum, ensuring that over time, teachers are likely to teach the material that is assessed, and may take action on identified gaps in student learning. According to teacher surveys administered by ANEP, reactions from teachers have been highly positive, with more than half agreeing that online evaluation contributes to learning improvement and 64% agreeing that online evaluation contributes to teaching practice improvement. Comments suggest that the assessment process helped teachers to rethink commonly used teaching strategies and
13
encouraged innovation as well as promoting the integration of technology (XO) with learning. The adaptive mathematics program would contribute to capacity building in a similar fashion. Teachers are interested in understanding student results and are thus motivated to respond appropriately with teaching content and teaching strategies. This is an improvement strategy that can be owned by teachers. Plataforma CREA Plataforma CREA (Contents and Resources for Teaching and Learning) is a recently developed full service technology supported Learning Management System. Plataforma CREA provides a wealth of virtual teaching and learning resources (e.g., lesson planning template, access to teaching and learning materials available through the CEIBAL and Ministry portals). Plataforma CREA was initially introduced as a pilot project in about 45 schools, but was almost immediately made available across the school system. CEIBAL trainers have provided inservice training to introduce the Plataforma to CEIBAL support teachers and classroom teachers. The Plataforma has great potential for changing teaching practice. This potential will be more fully realized by ensuring that links to digital teaching and learning resources through the CEIBAL and other portals are linked to the curriculum expectations so that teachers can easily find material that they can use with or without individual adaptation for specific student learning needs. Other initiatives and supports Courses Courses, courses, courses: During our site visit, when we asked about ongoing support and capacity building for ICT use for educators, the initial response was framed in terms of courses that were offered, available, taken and so on. Well over a hundred CEIBAL related courses have been delivered nationally by Centro CEIBAL and through departmental level sources in 2012. Useful as such courses are there are several ongoing challenges. First, teacher participation is voluntary; teachers have to be motivated to take the courses. Second, there is a lack of coordination among the courses. Finally, there is insufficient follow-up to the initial courses back in the schools and classrooms, notwithstanding the CEIBAL resource/support roles at the department and school levels. Teachers are unlikely to make any changes to their practice based simply on course attendance; follow up support makes the difference. On the other hand, courses do develop awareness and some knowledge, as well as offering the possibility of networking with other participants. As we recommend later it is important that teachers be supported in the use of new ideas in their classroom practice, working individually and together, informed by evidence and supported by their school principals and MACs. Remote teaching of English In response to the shortage of English teachers, CEIBAL, together with key ANEP staff, started a program in which a class teacher works with students with the laptops and software for English learning, supported by a remote native English teacher connected to the class via video conference. CEIBAL has contracted with the British Council to provide all necessary organizational support for the program. A side effect of this initiative is that it has created the technical capacity and possibility for video sharing between schools.
14
Increased support for servers in schools Provision of curriculum resources on school servers reduces dependence on internet connections, providing more flexibility, along with instant access to a range of material to enhance lessons. Robotics CEIBAL has introduced a robotics program in all secondary schools, technical schools, and full time primary schools, as well as some middle schools. One robotics kit is provided for every four students; a CEIBAL trainer provides an introductory workshop to teachers, who are then mostly on their own for implementation. Classroom teachers may have access to technology resource teachers (MACs, Dinamizadores), who will need to develop expertise in the pedagogical use of the robotics program if they are to provide effective support.
15
6.
We have characterized the first phase as A Matter of Access and the second as Adding Support Elements. These have been appropriate startup actions to set the stage for further development. The next phase is the hardest one because it involves quality Implementation. We recommend that the system focus on four interrelated areas that will systematically support quality implementation and its spread across the whole system. These recommendations represent major changes in the roles and culture of the entire system. In this sense it will be a huge challenge to accomplish them. On the other hand we found a great deal of support for the direction and substance of the changes we recommend in this section. With clear leadership, and a responsive system much progress can be made in the next three years. It wont be easy but it could be enormously rewarding to be engaged in such a transformation of the system that will benefit the whole country.
16
The four recommendations are: 1. Focus on a small number (3) of ambitious goals as core priorities. 2. CEIBAL and education authorities at all levels to jointly develop the infrastructure to support implementation of the core priorities in a clear, specific, ongoing way. 3. Develop the roles of Inspectors, MACs, Dinamizadors, and school principals to support implementation in and across schools. 4. Develop the professional capacity of teachers, and related working conditions (e.g. small amounts of time) that would increase the capacity of teachers, individually and collectively to implement the core priorities.
It will be necessary to sort out CEIBALs role in each of these priorities. In the first two CEIBAL could be a lead partner, while in the third goalreducing repetition-- they may play more of a support role to authorities. Focusing on the three priorities does not mean that there are no other educational goals that are valued just that these three are elevated as core priorities. These particular three are valuable because they are turnkeys to educational success in other domains of schooling. The other three recommendations below are all in the service of the three goals. Another key feature of guiding this agenda is the establishment of what we have come to call the guiding coalition. This is a group of top leaders from the main groupsEducation Authorities, CEIBAL, etc who meet regularly and in subgroups in between meetings in order to oversee the implementation of the priorities and to take decisions to strengthen implementation when necessary. This group must have clarity on two things: the main goals and the strategies that are being used to fulfill the goals.
2. CEIBAL
and
the
Education
Authorities
to
jointly
develop
the
infrastructure
to
support
implementation
of
the
core
priorities
in
a
clear,
specific,
ongoing
way.
Elements
of
the
necessary
infrastructure
have
already
been
out
in
place
in
phase
two.
It
is
time
to
make
these
systematic
in
the
service
implementation.
Two
components
in
particular
are
essential:
the
online
student
assessment
system,
and
Platforma
CREA.
CEIBAL
should
work
with
the
education
authorities
to
establish
a
user-friendly
digital
data
system
that
provides
to
schools
and
teachers
ongoing,
timely
assessment
of
student
learning
according
to
the
priorities.
It
is
equally
important
that
curriculum
and
17
instruction resources linked to curriculum expectations be developed and made available digitally though the CEIBAL and government portals. Other critical aspects of this will require identifying and accessing good examples of effective practices that combine good data and related practices that produce results. It is also crucial that the whole enterprise be positioned as non-judgmental, i.e. the primary purpose of the infrastructure is as a strategy for improvement not as a means of accountability. When this is done it turns out that the needs of public accountability are served. There is already a very good basis established in this priority, but it will require careful detailed work to produce on an ongoing basis usable data and examples. It will require leadership as well as increased capacity of teachers (recommendations 3 and 4). In reviewing all the initiatives and resources developed over the past few years, we believe that the online student assessment system has the greatest potential for a credible and compelling reason for teachers to work together, ideally with principals, to make sense of the immediate feedback on student learning progress and outcomes linked to the national curriculum when their students have completed the online assessments. Our impression from discussions with leaders is that the potential of the online assessment process to provide a compelling reason to use and integrate technology into teaching practice is just now being contemplated. Up to this point expectations for teachers have focused more on access to various teaching tools and activities, on the assumption that knowledge about these will lead teachers to adopt them. We recommend that CEIBAL and the ANEP staff who know most about the potential of the online assessment process explore more fully how this could help provide a focus for teachers that can be linked to ICT integration in the service of improving evidence-based gaps in student learning with respect to literacy, math and retention of students (reduction of grade repetition).
3. Develop
the
roles
of
Inspectors
and
school
principals
to
support
implementation
in
and
across
schools.
CEIBAL
leaders,
along
with
senior
personnel
in
other
agencies,
talk
about
the
integration
of
ICT
into
teaching
and
learning
leading
to
a
change
in
mind
set
among
teachers
and
students.
Roles
will
change,
with
teachers
no
longer
being
Wikipedia
teachers,
just
giving
out
information.
However,
apart
from
using
XOs
and
associated
resources
as
tools
(new
materials,
new
media/text
sources
of
information
and
new
means
of
production)
it
is
unclear
what
this
change
in
mind
set
would
look
like
in
practice.
We
found
no
clear
consistent
idea
of
what
teachers
pedagogical
role
should
be
in
leading,
guiding
the
use
of
ICT
in
teaching
and
learning
process.
Developing
such
clarity
will
require
new
leadership
roles
from
inspectors
and
school
principals.
Incidentally,
one
the
new
developments
in
the
area
of
instruction
is
the
clarification
of
the
roles
of
the
teacher
and
student
in
relation
to
deeper
learning
goals
including
the
role
of
technology
in
accelerating
learning.
What
is
becoming
clear
is
that
the
new
role
of
teacher
is
teacher
as
activator,
not
teacher
as
facilitatora
finding
that
surfaced
in
John
Hatties
meta-analysis
research.
More
work
needs
to
be
done
in
developing
this
new
role
relationship
between
teachers
and
students.
Thus,
in
this
third
phase
it
will
be
essential
that
the
relationship
between
pedagogy/instruction
and
technology
for
learning
be
a
key
aspect
of
the
new
developments
that
will
be
required.
18
What is needed is a strategy that identifies and spreads specific good teaching practices that uses technology and increases student engagement and learning. In keeping with CEIBAL and government philosophy, and indeed in keeping with good change theory, these developments should occur in a non- prescriptive manner. They should focus on ease of use; they should be specific and clear; there should be a system for teachers to easily find out about them; and teachers should be encouraged and supported to use them. The challenge is that the new role of teacher using technology for greater learning is not yet well defined in ways that can be practically communicated, demonstrated, and replicated by classroom teachers; it is thus not surprising that teachers, unsure of their own role, might hesitate. To ease that concern, CEIBAL and others, particularly CEIP, need to continue work on developing concrete and precise descriptions of the kind of teaching that is the goal. Such descriptions need to be backed up by examples, covering various topics and age levels, of lessons and units that exemplify such teaching. Our admittedly limited observations in schools suggest the new resources are being used to plan and deliver quite traditional teacher-directed lessons, with teachers continuing to guide students step-by-step and exercising control over the selection of supplementary learning resources accessible through ICT use. Our main recommendation for supporting and directing implementation will require clarifying, developing and coordinating the leadership roles that are close to schools, namely re-positioning and strengthening the roles of inspectors, principals, MACS and Dinamizadors. The new leadership roles we are recommending will require a major overhaul of the roles of inspectors and principals. This represents a huge change in the culture of the system. Currently the system is not organized for improvement but rather for maintenance. Inspectors evaluate individual teachers which is useful and certainly serves the deployment of teachers requirement, but does not serve the school improvement function. Similarly school principals currently do not play much of a role in school and system improvement. MACs and Dinamizadors have not been systematically developed and positioned. We recommend that the role of MACS/Dinamizadors be reviewed with the goal of clarifying their roles, increasing their numbers, and training and supporting them in their work. The shift we are talking about will not be easy, but we did encounter a good deal of interest at all levels in the system about moving in this direction. We do not detail this change here because it will require careful deliberation, consultation and action on the part of system leaders and members. This will require a double change: altering the current system, and introducing a new one. We offer preliminary thoughts here but stress once again that system leaders will need to establish the new requirements through a process of consultation and development. We offer a few observations here, with the aim of stimulating discussion of alternatives: (i) Retain the personnel appraisal and teacher allocation system, but perhaps reduce the frequency of teacher evaluation depending on prior evaluations and "tenure" (years of experience). This could open up more inspector time for something like school reviews.
19
(ii) Inspector led school reviews linked to their school "institutional project" plans (which should include more explicit targets for improvement in student learning in priority areas, and related actions), that would only occur every other year or every third year....There are a large number of zone inspectors in the primary system (over 200) serving around 2500 schools, which suggests that on average they are responsible for about 12 schools each. In the kind of school review system envisioned each zone inspector might lead four to six school reviews a year. The school review process could be led by multi-role teams that include, for example, inspectors, departmental technology specialists, and a couple of principals from other schools. A school review team might include two zone inspectors (the one who normally supervises the school and one other) to help build collegial capacity and coherence across the inspectors. We would imagine school reviews to be improvement and support focused, not judgment focused. However, some criteria/standards would need to be built in to create group incentives for the school...which could include a group financial incentive left to discretion of principals and teachers how to use. We think that by separating "school reviews" from individual personnel appraisal (teachers and principals) , organizing the reviews by teams, and by including school self study as a part at the school level, this could help separate the teacher appraisal/allocation function from the collective monitoring and support function. During a 'school review' year maybe the government could "fund" some additional "teacher coordination" time for teachers and principals to collaborate in self study and preparing for review and their school plan.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Of course, this would require a capacity development effort nationally to guide and support inspectors into taking on this new role and responsibilities... including development of a school review framework and process...and support for learning how to do it. In summary, there will need to be a significant cultural shift in the roles of inspectors and school principals. This will require formal redefinition of the roles, new criteria for promotion to the roles, mentoring and appraisal feedback to those inhabiting the roles, plenty of professional development, and the identification and spread of new practices that represent the best examples of the new role in practice. All of these need to be linked to progress relative to the three priorities. This recommendation is at the heart of the reform we are recommending.
20
4. Develop
the
professional
capacity
of
teachers,
and
related
working
conditions
(e.g.,
small
amounts
of
time)
that
would
increase
the
capacity
of
teachers,
individually
and
collectively
to
implement
the
core
priorities.
The
previous
three
recommendations
are
all
designed
to
feed
into
and
support
this
fourth
recommendation.
Without
increases
in
the
individual
and
collective
capacity
of
teachers
it
will
not
possible
to
accomplish
the
priorities
that
we
set
out.
There
are
four
aspects
to
the
new
capacities
of
teachers:
i)
focus,
ii)
individual
learning
of
teachers,
iii)
team
or
collective
learning,
and
iv)
working
conditions
of
teachers.
We
touch
on
these
briefly.
Focus
means
concentrating
on
the
three
core
priorities
of
literacy,
math
and
school
engagement
for
continuation
to
graduation.
Individual
learning
means
developing
the
instructional
capacities
of
teachers,
starting
with
teacher
pre-service
preparation,
and
continuing
into
teaching
and
the
career.
Team
learning
or
what
we
call
social
capital
involves
collaboration
among
teachers
focused
on
the
ongoing
learning
of
teachers.
And
working
conditions
means
pay
and
other
forms
of
compensation,
time
to
work
together,
and
being
well
led
and
supported
by
school
leaders
and
by
those
in
the
infrastructure
such
as
inspectors.
Among
other
matters
the
fact
that
many
teachers
continue
to
teach
two
shifts
in
one
day
will
have
to
be
addressed
so
that
teachers
have
some
time
to
collaborate
on
identifying
and
responding
to
needs
for
improvement
in
student
learning.
One
question
about
instructional
capacity
is
what
is
meant
by
the
new
forms
of
teaching
and
technology
use.
ICT
use
is
often
spoken
of
as
an
undifferentiated
practice,
though
everyone
knows
that
it
is
not.
There
is
basic
use
of
technology
tools
for
conventional
but
enhanced
teaching
and
learning
(expanded
source
of
information
through
internet,
digital
libraries;
word
processing).
There
is
the
use
of
specific
software
programs.
There
is
the
potential
use
for
more
collaborative
learning
via
remote
media.
Then
there
is
wide
variation
presently
in
the
frequency
of
use
for
teaching
and
learning
in
schools.
Technology
resources
could
be
integrated
throughout
the
school
day
in
all
subject
areas.
Or,
in
many
schools
and
classrooms,
technology
is
only
used
at
certain
times
and
certain
subjects.
It
might
be
useful
for
Plan
CEIBAL
to
work
with
professionals
in
the
education
system
on
clarifying
images
of
alternative
models
of
XO
and
related
internet
use
(perhaps
do
some
more
research
on
actual
uses
in
classrooms;
the
Ravela
study
was
early),
and
perhaps
conceptualize
them
in
a
kind
of
developmental
framework
which
recognizes
different
levels
of
expertise
as
legitimate
uses,
but
some
more
advanced/ideal
than
others.
Presently,
there
is
little
clear
direction
for
teachers
for
what
is
expected
in
the
short
and
long
term
in
the
classroom,
nor
for
leaders
from
a
system
perspective.
People
are
free
to
do
what
they
want
and
have
no
sense
of
a
journey
toward
any
particular
goal
individually
or
collectively.
The
gist
of
our
recommendations
is
to
give
focus
to
what
teachers
do.
Thus,
the
system
should
strengthen
both
individual
teacher
capacity,
and
team
or
school
capacity
to
use
ICT
in
relation
to
the
core
recommendations
we
have
made.
Thus
our
recommendation
four
is
to
concentrate
on
individual
capacity
building
relative
to
the
three
core
priorities
and
the
instructional
and
leadership
capacities
that
will
be
required
to
increase
learning.
21
Although several developmental models might be appropriate, we suggest that CEIBAL consider something like the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2012, p.2), which indicates levels of use, starting at substitution, moving through augmentation to modification and finally redefinition. Applying this model to the integration of technology into teaching can have profound results; the task and possible outcomes become clearer, the technology becomes invisible and the learning at hand takes priority. Furthermore, the model respects the incremental reality of teacher development and change. Figure 1 shows a stripped down version of the model. Figure 1: SAMR: Thoughts for Design model:
Fullan and others have stressed the importance of capacity building whenever large -scale change is introduced, stressing that capacity building trumps judgmentalism and clarifying that capacity building concerns the knowledge, skills, and disposition of people individually but especially collectively. It is the group with shared purpose and skills that gets things done (Fullan, 2011). CEIBAL has wisely avoided judgmentalism, in making technology and associated resources freely available but without any consequences or sanctions for educators who have not made use of XOs and associated programs. However, rather than a strong emphasis on capacity building, CEIBALs strategies (following introductory training) have been to provide more and more resources, giving teachers a plethora of options. Until recently, the capacity building focus has been on creating and delivering training courses to teachers in use of XOs, internet and associated tools/resources. As teacher familiarity with the technology has increased, so has the emphasis on the integration of such tools and resources into the classroom teaching on a regular basis. More recently, the creation of support positions, particularly MACS and Dinamizador teachers, is intended to build capacity in teachers and others. But there does not appear to be any systematic coordination of this work aligned to school and regional plans. The latter coordination is the new work of inspectors and school leaders that we addressed in recommendation 3. As we indicated earlier, focusing at the school level on understanding data from the online student assessment, and then working out how best to address student needsfor example, using data from the online assessments embedded in the new Adaptive Mathematics program could be a powerful strategy for collective
22
capacity building. Teachers could also access resources to do this either through the repository of lessons and items being developed by ANEP or through CEIBALs Plataforma CREA and Portal. We would also note that MACS and Dinamizador teachers will need ongoing professional development to enact their ICT leadership and support roles. This could be done collectively; CEIBAL and CEIP leaders acknowledge the value of collaborative work in building collective capacity across the system. Future strategies to encourage/support innovative XO use should put more emphasis on communication and sharing, through teacher interaction within and across schools. The argument is that teachers themselves will be more credible to their peers, and will generate more interest among peers, than hearing about ICT and its uses from external experts. We would agree but continued and systematic support is needed if such networks are to go beyond the already converted. As we said working conditions will have to be addressed. The Ravela report and many of the education personnel we interviewed emphasize that without changes in primary school working conditions it will remain difficult for teachers to develop sufficient competence and confidence to use technological resources in ways that involve new and more powerful teaching strategies. Teachers are with students for the four-hour school day; with such a short school day, all of it has to be instructional time. The problem is that teachers are usually working in another school for another four hours, leaving no time for teachers to explore ICT possibilities, plan use, analyze and reflect on applications, and doubling expectations for their engagement in school improvement work from one to two schools. We recognize that CEIP has acknowledged the need for teachers to have time designated for collective work; all schools will progressively be funded for eight Saturday morning sessions throughout the year, with teacher attendance voluntary but paid. In sum, capacity buildingdeveloping the knowledge, skills and commitmentof teachers and support leaders (principals and support leaders) should be a priority in this third phase and should be carried out to push and support the other recommendations in this section. These capacity building efforts should support individual teacher development, as well as team work or what we called collective capacity building.
7.
Conclusion
As part of the continuing evolution of education reform in Uruguay it will be necessary to identify, document and share effective and innovative use of ICT with respect to the three core priorities and other goals. There are multiple things being done, and possibilities being discussed. The CEIBAL Ferias at national and departmental level (at initiative of department Inspectors and their technology teams) are one kind of event that draws attention to interesting uses of technology. The CEIBAL Portal and Plataforma CREA allow for creation and electronic access to a bank of lessons aligned with the curriculum (subject, grade, objectives, etc) that are accessible through the XO and internet tools and perhaps school servers. These will be a valuable resource/tool if teachers feel a need to use it. We are told that there are over a 23
thousand lessons on the system available to interested teachers (individually). There is talk about and some examples (Ravela study) of documenting innovative and effective practices with video and making them accessible via the Portal, etc., to supplement actual lessons and so on. But no one really knows what to video tape--the teacher walking around the room fixing technical problems? Teachers coaching students about their learning? The products? Furthermore, there are interesting but unresolved debates about the potential purpose and use of videos as sources of information about exemplary practices, or more modestly as stimuli for teacher reflection on their pedagogy and ICT use. We hope in this report that we have provided a more systematic framework in relation to our four sets of recommendations to guide this work across the system, CEIBAL, as an autonomous agency enjoying wide public approval along with presidential support, is able to initiate and implement initiatives that would be much more problematic if they originated within the education system. In our interviews during the October site visit, the Uruguayan system was often described as rigid or resistant to change. We would agree that educational bureaucracies in most jurisdictions are by definition bureaucratic, and thus constrained by policies, organizational traditions and uncertainty about who might take responsibility for initiatives that do not fit neatly into the existing administrative structures. In this next phase what we have called focused implementation it is clear that CEIBAL and education authorities must partner to accomplish the agenda we have laid out within our four recommendations. In our interviews and observation we observed very strong rapport across these agencies. So the conditions for strong partnership with a more focused and systematic agenda are already favorable. With the establishment of the Centro CEIBAL and the inclusion of CEIBAL in the ANEP recent five year plan (ANEP, 2010, p. 61-62), CEIBAL and its position are secure for the foreseeable future. The question is how best to leverage the influence of CEIBAL as an autonomous agency with the need for greater changes in teaching and learning, and how CEIBAL can strengthen its support for internal capacity building for ICT integration into teaching and learning to improve student learning within the education system? As we close we would like to reiterate that the overall focus needs to be on the integration of technology, pedagogy and change knowledge as we discussed page 5. New more effective instructional practices in the areas of literacy and mathematics for example are needed, and we would say their impact can be stronger if technology if used to accelerate access to ideas and data. This degree of coordination will require the partnership of CEIBAL and government authorities at all levels. CEIBAL should continue to be a catalyst for change---seeding innovation, helping to provide focus for improvement across the system, generating collaboration and energy for system stakeholders to take action. And the system itself should increase its role, as we have recommended, as a strong partner in leading system improvement. Leaders in CEIBAL and in the Uruguayan school system are to be congratulated on taking the lead in providing all students in the country with access to technology. They are now taking on the challenge of trying to figure out how to accomplish widespread implementation across the whole system. They are
24
entering the most crucial phase of all because it will determine if they are to progress relative to other systems in South America and beyond in terms of the performance of students as measured by PISA and other international comparisons.
25
8.
Delgado, Y. (2012). Aspectos generales del sistema educativo Uruguayo y su vinculacion con Ceibal (PowerPoint slides). Montevideo, Uruguay: Plan Ceibal. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2011). Segundo informe nacional de monitoreo y evaluacin de impacto social del Plan Ceibal, 2010. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2011). Encuesta a docentes de educacin media pblica sobre acceso, dominio y uso de herramientas TIC. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012). El impacto de Ceibal en el acceso. [PowerPoint slides] Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012).Evaluacin anual en primaria 2009-2011. [PowerPoint slides] Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012).Resultados del monitoreo del estado del parque de XO en primaria. [PowerPoint slides] Gerencia de Desarrollo Social Plan Ceibal (2012). Informe de avance de implementacin programa Aprender Tod@s. Grupo Radar (2011). Informe de investigacin cuantitativa satisfaccin con el call center y servicio tcnico del Plan Ceibal.[PowerPoint slides] Grupo Radar (2012). Perfil del internauta uruguayo (9na ed.) [PowerPoint slides] Grupo Radar (2012). Evaluacin de Plan Ceibal estudio cuantitativo nacional. [PowerPoint slides]. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Canada, Inc. Fullan, M. (May 2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Seminar Series Paper No. 204. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. Fullan, M. (2010a). All systems go. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press; Toronto: Ontario Principals Council. Fullan, M. (2010b). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Levin, B. (2011). System wide change in education. Education Policy Series, # 13. Paris: UNESCO, International Academy of Education. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Martinez, A.L., Diaz, D. & Alonso, S. (2009). Primer informe nacional de monitoreo y evaluacin de impacto social del Plan Ceibal, 2009.
26
Mourshed, M., Chinezi, C. and Barber, M. (2010) How the Worlds Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better, McKinsey and Company, London. Plan Ceibal. (2012). Informe: Aspectos generales del sistema educativo Uruguayo y su vinculacion con Ceibal. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author. Plan Ceibal (n.d.). Impacto de Plan Ceibal en el acceso y uso de las tecnologas de la informacin y la comunicacin. Plan Ceibal. (2009). First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal social impact, 2009: Executive summary. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author. Puentedura (2012). Levels of technology integration. https://sites.google.com/a/wvde.k12.wv.us/eett/Home/podcasting-resources/levels-of- technology-integration accessed January 2013. Ravela, P, Perez Gomar, G., Valverde, G., & Filardo, N. (2012). Impactos del plan ceibal en las prcticas de enseanza en las aulas de primaria. Instituto de Evaluacin Educativa, Universidad Catolica, Montevideo. Sistema de Evaluacin de Aprendizaje. (September 2012) Ya se han realizado ms de 450 mil evaluaciones en Lnea en escuelas pblicas y privadas. Retrieved from: http://www.anep.edu.uy/sea/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18:ya-se-han- realizado-mas-de-450-mil-evaluaciones-en-linea-en-escuelas-publicas-y- privadas&catid=7:novedades&Itemid=1 Shear, L., Gallagher, L. & Patel, D. (2011). Innovative Teaching and Learning Research: 2011 Findings and Interpretations. Redmond, WA: SRI International and Microsoft Corporation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization & International Bureau of Education (UNESCO). (2010) World data on Education. (7 ed.) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011). Plan CEIBAL in Uruguay: From pedagogical reality to an ICT road map for the future. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author.
27