Schoology Proposal 1

Schoology Proposal

Johnny Morse

University of Houston

Dr. White

January 2017
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 2

Schoology Proposal

The district has had the full enterprise version of Schoology over the course of the three

years I have been working here. While the district itself uses the platform for some professional

development (Mental Health, CPS) it is not commonly seen in the classroom. With quoted prices

being $10 per student this is a huge investment going to waste. While I do not have the exact

terms and financial figures on the investment I would like to see the district get a better return on

investment. I would use the 4 training sessions to teach the leadership and Tech staff how to

integrate Schoology into all our middle school and high school classes. The district has an

initiative in place to be 2:1 so the availability of technology is available and growing. All middle

and High school campuses also just went through a full WIFI upgrade, so every class has full

wireless capability.

The Audience

The audience would be the campus tech, skills specialists and assistant principals for the

middle and high school students (6-12). The goal would be to give them a working knowledge of

the program, and resources available. Research from the Texas Immersion Program showed the

campuses with the greatest level of integration had the staff that was committed to using

technology (Sharpe 2008). The goal is to get them to establish and assess their teams use of

Schoology to develop course and provide resources available to students 24/7. This group will be

able to provide the training and work these elements into the established PLCs at their individual

campuses.

Literature Review
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 3

There have been quantitative studies of the overall effectiveness of students using laptops

vs students without laptops. Kposowa and Valdez specifically studied student laptop use and

standardized test scores (2013). Their research was conducted in a Cielo Vista Elementary school

consisting of almost six hundred 4th and 5th-grade students with 44% identified as ELL

(Kposowa and Valdez, pg. 13). There were multiple variables analyzed in their research from

parent’s education level to hours using the computer for games. While the study did find 37.73%

of the students used the laptop to browse the internet vs. 24.45% which used it to write papers

(Kposowa and Valdez 2013). Their final results did show a significant increase in scores on their

standardized tests vs the control group. Another study showing growth was conducted by Suhr

(2010). His research involved 1:1 classroom and reducing the decline many students have from

4th grade to 5th grade in accountability testing. His research revealed the growth of over 2%

compared to non 1:1 students that declined 16% over the same period (Suhr, pg. 64). Both Suhr

and Kposowa had other variables indicating a majority of student use of the computers involved

playing games and using the internet for non-academic reasons. Regardless both studies also

revealed academic growth over control groups.

There were two separate articles that really clarify the conflicting evidence and

information presented throughout the literature. There is sufficient evidence to validate

beginning or denying 1:1 programs. Articles by Goodwin and O’Donovan analyze both benefits

and obstacles of the 1:1 programs. O’Donovan (2009) states “in my experience laptops do not

have a direct bearing on standardized test scores.” He identifies the need for leadership in

implementing and continuing laptop programs determine their effectiveness and overall success.

He further identifies the need for stakeholders to be invested in the new culture. This is created
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 4

through professional development and (O’Donovan, 2009) “building a baseline of proficiency,”

and “helping teachers use laptops as instructional tools.” These ideas coincide with Goodwin’s

evaluation of how to implement them. Goodwin states “one-to-one laptop programs are only as

effective or ineffective as the schools that adopt them.” In Texas, Michigan, and Maine there

were mixed results across campuses In Maine, there was no significant result except for an

increase in writing. In Michigan, there was a higher achievement in 4 schools, lower

achievement in 3 schools and no difference in one. In Texas, there was a slight growth in

mathematics and writing was lower (Goodwin, 2009).

The ability to self-track with learning goals objectives and standards. Combine the

technology integration is also the district initiative to improve student self-tracking which we

will learn to do in the professional development sessions. Marzano has shown that student

perform better when they track and assess themselves. This initiative is about integrating all the

classes onto one platform to make it easier for students. They would have all their data in one

place available for them to see. Fuchs and Fuchs found that providing teachers with graphic

displays of students' scores on formative assessments was associated with a 26-percentile point

gain in achievement (Marzano pg. 86. 2010). Schoology has the tools to graphically represent

data for students and staff

Sessions

Session 1- The first session will be an introduction to the platform. All district personnel

and students are already loaded. There would be a quick log in lesson. An overview of

current research and other initiatives really driving the move for technology. An

overview of the benefits including student and teacher data tracking, staff resource
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 5

sharing, posting assignments and resources for students that are out, Closing would

conclude with finding peer tutors for the next session and gather ideas /areas of interest

for the next class designing lessons.

Session 2-The second lesson would be another hands-on portion, Staff that have been

preselected after the first class will be peer tutors assisting others in the session with

product development. This session would revolve around how to create a course,

including creating resources and developing a lesson with links and video. In the end

every student would be expected to have a create class with one lesson and a resource

section started to pull items to use in future lessons.

Session 3-The third session is about creating assessments, gathering, assessing and using

data within Schoology. In the PD we will develop assessments. The data can be pulled

from resources provide and we will go over how to create new assessments and assign

individual. Besides summative assessment we will learn how to attach TEKs to

instruction and any lesson, so we can track metrics. Then we will also look at where to

find and develop mastery goals to align with TEKs and STAAR. To close will go over

user stats so staff can see how their student are using Schoology. It includes page hits,

user time, links and discussion posts.

Session 4-The final lesson will cover how to extend our students knowledge and

enrichment ideas. I would want to showcase teacher created content and use their APPS
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 6

as resources for the rest of the group. These are good for high end extension and

differentiation and targeted instruction. We will look at a framework for project based

learning. Followed by an in in depth review of how to use google drive and classroom

within schoolboy for both student and staff because we are a Google based District. In

closing we will learn how selected apps can by used and updated within Schoology for all

content areas (Nearpod, Khan Academy…).

Individual Sessions

Session would have to be held on a campus based mentoring sessions. Since there are 16

Schools total in the 6-12 footprint getting 1:1 sessions with everyone in the PD would be to time

consuming and nearly impossible. There are three, major areas I would want to focus on.

1. Getting content online for all classes. Even if teachers are only uploading

presentations after they’ve given them, students can always access material. We have

trouble with attendance and while not every student has online access that doesn’t

mean we don’t make it available.

2. Creating assessments for students that need and are motivated to attempt it and for

students that need interventions but can’t make tutorials. Once student create a test

bank they can pull questions at any time. Teacher can give extra credit quizzes open

over extended time and offer enrichment activities where students can collaborate for

other incentives (Passes, credit…)

COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 7

3. Staff creating and sharing new ways they are using and connecting with student

through the LMS. Ask them for sample of activities to share across the district. Bonus

if they can show how they and their students are using data.

Evaluation Criteria

I would want to pull the usage number for schology in the district the previous year and

look at the numbers for each campus. I would set a district goal and show each campus their part

and growth from the previous year. I would also use test data and compare it to Schoology use

from the previous year. There are metrics for student use down to the minute. With it being the

first year of the program I need to set an expectation inspect what I expect and build a knowledge

base to work from. The best measure of success initially will be usage statistics. While looking at

test data will help in the first year I wouldn’t expect a significant correlation one way or the

other. The biggest growth hopefully would be in usage especially for GT and AP course with

student that are more intrinsically motivated and therefore more likely to interact with the

material if it’s available.

I would also have surveys after each session and a final survey at the end of the year to

get feedback and better develop the product for the following year.

Resources

Here is a list of resources I would include and built into my lesson and classes. These

resources are cross curricular and would have content and capabilities for all content areas and a

variety of grade levels.

COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 8

-Nearpod

-Vocabulary.com

-Schoology dev team

-Brain Pop

-Scholastic

-Khan academy

-edpuzzle

-Codeacademy.code.org

-Quizlet

-Kahoot

-Padlet

-Socrative

Professional Reading

Blended: using disruptive innovation to improve schools. By Michael B. Horn 2015.

There are a lot of great ideas on how to move to a blended classroom. While that isn’t the

districts initiative it provides a lot of guidance for grouping and delivering content to students

through technology. The NCES report is a great guide for district and campus administrators

looking to integrate their own technology and programs. It includes guides for purchasing

infrastructure and software along with guidance for implementation. The TIP report is data from

Texas school that were tasked with fully integrating technology. The TIP report by Shapley was

done by a 3rd party to assess the effectiveness of the program.

NCES Report
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 9

TIP Report

Student Work

Every workshop will have been student/staff led. Depending on the timing will determine if

student products are used in the initial workshops or shared in the following 1:1 session. When

everyone has joined the course example of student work can and will be shared. There will also

be requirements for student products and data during mentoring sessions.

Additional Ideas

Technology and classroom management lessons. There is already district guidance of

digital citizenship. While we have LANSCHOOL I have never seen a professional development

session and Schoology has URL locks that can be put in place during testing. I think teacher need

help not only in using technology but finding ways to manage and use technology. That can be a

source of fear and frustration.

References

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A

metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.

Horn, Michael B., author. (2015). Blended: using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

Kposowa, Augustine J., Valdez, Amanda. (2013) Student Laptop Use and Scores on
Standardized Tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2013. Baywood
COMMUNITY AND PARENTS 10

Publishing Co. http://www.egrps.org/documents/ Tech%20Knowledge% 20Base

/Research/kposowa.pdf
Goodwin, B. (2011). “Research Says One to One Programs Are No Silver Bullet” ASCD
February 2011.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/One-to-
One_Laptop_Programs_Are_No_Silver_Bullet.aspx

Marzano, Robert J. (2010) The Art and Science of Teaching / When Students Track Their
Progress. Educational Leadership Health and Learning. December 2009, January 2010
PG.86-87. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec09/vol67/num04/When-Students-Track-Their-Progress.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics (2003), Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools, and
guidelines for assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education. November
2002. U.S. Department of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2003-313.
Technology in Schools Task Force Carl Schmitt.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/chapter7.asp#

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(5)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1b29/c0dde2aa2bb0f06f35d328eff85497774bb0.pdf