Operationalizing and Measuring Personalized Learning in K-12 Schools: Development and Implementation of an Innovation Configuration Map

In 2012, the United States Department of Education announced the Race to the Top-District grants. One joint award was made to two large educational cooperatives in the same state that together represented 111 mostly rural schools in 22 districts. One of the grant’s identified four essential projects was the implementation of personalized learning. This article describes how the grant’s external evaluation team worked with grantee leadership and school districts to operationalize personalized learning and then develop and implement Innovation Configuration Maps to measure school-level personalized learning environments. Developmental steps, adoption processes, and preliminary school-level results are reported.

SRI LANKAN TEACHERS’ CONCERNS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM REFORMS IN THE COMPETENCY BASED CURRICULUM REFORMS

This study was carried out in the period of 2010-2015 when the new changes were implemented in the Sri Lankan school curriculum. The purpose of this study was to evaluate teachers’ concerns over the implementation of 5E model under the modernised the competency-based curriculum reforms for geography in Sri Lanka. The Concern based adoption Model (CBAM) was employed as theoretical and conceptual framework underlying the study. The respondents for quantitative approach on Stages of Concern (SoC) consisted of 311 geography teachers from secondary schools in Kalutara district, Sri Lanka. A total of nine (9) geography teachers who has shown their high concerns in the survey was selected for the qualitative methods on Levels of Use (LoU) and Innovation Configuration (IC). The study used adapted instruments such as Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ), basic interview protocol and innovation configuration map from the actual instruments of CBAM. The findings from analysis of SoCQ showed teachers remained at the initial SoC over the implementation of the 5E model. The results from the interviews revealed that geography teachers overall use of the innovation ranged from LoU II-preparation to LoU IVA- routine, whilst many remained at LoU II- preparation. The classroom observations showed that many teachers did not reach acceptable level of teaching in using the 5E model. The study suggested several intervening strategies to take geography teachers to the higher SoC and LoU as well as motivate teachers to practice at the ideal level of teaching using the 5E model. The results of the study are significant at a time when there is a greater attention on introducing new curriculum reforms in the country. In an any curricular reforms, teachers should be given greater attention as they are the main agents of implementation. There should be a continuous evaluation on the teachers’ responses to the implementation of curriculum reforms using a good model like CBAM.

Collaboration in Schools: Let's Define It

Purpose The purpose of this article is to guide professionals, including speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working in schools and those in academe, to operationally define the type of collaboration they are targeting. As professionals collaborate to support students who struggle with the demands of academic reading, writing, listening, and speaking, it is imperative to differentiate the type of working together necessary to meet the needs of the students they serve. The lack of a definition in research literature and practice is problematic for a variety of stakeholders, including practitioners, administrators/supervisors, professional learning facilitators, university instructors, researchers, and authors of professional literature. The authors offer as an example their work in operationally defining a specific kind of collaboration called “shared-creation collaboration.” They situate shared-creation collaboration on one end of a working-together continuum. Then, they detail why and how they used the conceptual framework of an Innovation Configuration (IC) Map, developed by Hall and Hord (2015), to create an IC Map for SLPs and teachers to use for shared-creation collaboration. Additionally, they offer scenarios to illustrate a range of interactions in which SLPs might engage in schools. Conclusions The SLP/Teacher Shared-Creation Collaboration IC Map and working-together continuum are examples of two tools that can guide school professionals to design and implement working-together practices that match specific purposes and students' needs. However, many configurations of working together are possible and worthwhile; stakeholders can advance the work of assisting learners who struggle by defining their practices specifically.

The Use of Differentiated Instruction by Teachers of the Columbia Union Seventh-day Adventists

The Problem Teachers in the Columbia Union of Seventh-day Adventists were provided training in differentiated instruction training during the summers of 2013-2016. However, there were no formal follow-up communications to report or to share their experiences with implementing the newly learned method of instruction. The purposes of this study were (a) to describe the teachers' beliefs and levels of practice of differentiated instruction after completing the training; (b) to determine if there are differences in beliefs and practice; and (c) to describe methods of support for implementation of differentiated instructions. Method This study used a mixed-method design. The quantitative section used an online survey which was emailed to the 93 teachers of the Columbia Union who completed the differentiated instruction training. Fifty-four (54) competed and returned the surveys. The qualitative section involved eight teachers who indicated their willingness to be interviewed regarding their experiences with teaching using differentiated instruction after they had completed the training. Items for the online survey and interview protocol were developed based on the differentiated instruction innovation configuration by Kirner (2009). The quantitative data was. analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests of association and a Z-test. The qualitative data analysis was conducted by identifying shared themes, patterns, characteristics and indicators present on the innovation configuration map and in the interviews. Coding of the transcribed interviews was completed by matching similar themes such as strategies, assessments, time, and collaboration. These codes were used to recognize noteworthy data that matched the categories of the innovation configuration categories of differentiated instruction. Findings Overall, between 84% to 91% of teachers believe in features of differentiated instruction in the areas of content, process and assessment. For the practice of these features, only 46% reported practicing the assessment statements, 69% for content the content statements, and 71% for the process statements. Wilcoxon signed rank tests indicated that there are statistically significant (p<.05) differences between beliefs and frequency of practice. Interviews with the eight teachers indicated that most teachers shared with and received ideas from other teacher concerning differentiated instruction. Most teachers also self-reflect and observe other teachers implement differentiated instruction. Conclusion The results indicate that teachers' level of practice is not consistent with their level of beliefs about differentiated instruction. Fewer teachers practice differentiated instruction, especially in the areas of assessment. There appears to be high levels of interactions among teachers in the implementation of differentiated instruction. Future staff developments should focus on ways to narrow the gap between beliefs and practice as well as include teachers beyond the Columbia Union with and without the training.