1 / 99

TTAC GROUP 2

T/TAC 2 Local Improvement Plan Project. TTAC GROUP 2. Education for a Lifetime. Presented by T/TAC Group 2 December 11, 2003 Project lead: Dr Michael Behrmann. Introduction As a result of a grant from the Virginia Department of Education, we are working on

aleenk
Download Presentation

TTAC GROUP 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. T/TAC 2 Local Improvement Plan Project TTAC GROUP 2 Education for a Lifetime Presented by T/TAC Group 2 December 11, 2003 Project lead: Dr Michael Behrmann

  2. Introduction • As a result of a grant from the Virginia Department of Education, we are working on automating the Local Improvement plan process. • LIP process will be incorporated into the T/TAC online site under “School Improvement”. • The main goal of this online process is to disseminate success stories and to function as a performance tool for the Technical Assistants and the Local Education Administrators. TTAC GROUP 2

  3. Project Outline Background to the LIP process Conclusions: Findings and Recommendations TTAC GROUP 2 • Analysis: • Performance Analysis • Development: • Wire Frames • Prototype • Design: • Personas • Use cases • Interface Content Modeling • Site Diagrams / Databases

  4. Background • Community Forum • ‘No Child Left Behind’ • LIP Grants  Proposals and Reports TTAC GROUP 2

  5. T/TAC Online: As Is TTAC GROUP 2

  6. No Child Left Behind • Three targets: • School Personnel • Service Providers • Administrators • January 8th, 2002 • Goal: every child meet state standards by the • 2013-2014 school years • SOL’s (Standards of Learning) • AYP: ‘adequate yearly process’ TTAC GROUP 2

  7. LIP Grants • LIP (Local Improvement Plan) Grants • “Sliver” • Federal flow through money • $3.5 million • Fairfax receives the largest amount of any division: $285,088 since it has the most students in the state • LIP is comprised of Proposals and Reports • Seven section document • Focused on one or more of the five goals that are related to ‘No Child Left Behind’ program • Relates to 3 strategic directions and goals of • the VDOE TTAC GROUP 2

  8. LIP Plan Map TTAC GROUP 2 http://immersion.gmu.edu/ttac/fall2003/group2/work/LIP/lipprocess.htm

  9. Instructional Design Model we used TTAC GROUP 2 - Analysis - Design ADDIE - Development - Implementation - Evaluation

  10. TTAC GROUP 2 ADDIE(Analysis)

  11. Performance Analysis “Partnering with clients and customers to help them define and achieve their goals. Performance analysis involves reaching out for several perspectives on a problem or opportunity, determining any and all drivers toward barriers to successful performance, and proposing a solution system based on what is learned, not on what is typically done.” TTAC GROUP 2 Allison Rossett (1999)

  12. Why Performance Analysis? • Preliminary study • Prior to a needs assessment • Task related: • Optimals • Actuals TTAC GROUP 2

  13. Our Clients and Stakeholders • Clients • Dr. Pat Abrams: Associate Director, Special Education, VDOE • Dr. Michael Behrmann: Professor, Director Helen A. Kellar Center • Mr. Ken Olsen – Federal Technical Specialist - Mid-Atlantic region • Stakeholders • Dr. Pat Abrams • Dr. Michael Behrmann • Mr. Ken Olsen • Ms. Lucinda Zimmerman - T/TAC Online Administrator • VDOE Technical Assistance Staff (TAs) • Local Education Agencies (LEAs) • Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer TTAC GROUP 2

  14. Information Sources • Information Sources • Dr. Pat Abrams- Associate Director, Special Education, VDOE • Dr. Michael Behrmann - Professor, Director of the Helen A. Kellar Center • Ms. Lucinda Zimmerman - T/TAC Online Administrator • Ms. Mary Wilds - Old Dominion University T/TAC (Region 2) • Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer • Ms. Lisa Carson (College of William & Mary) • Ms. Carol David (McLaughlin & Associates) • Mr. Jeff Schuyler (McLaughlin & Associates) • Educational professionals involved with grants proposal/reporting: • ·  School District Administrators • ·  Special Education Specialists • ·  Virginia Department of Education Technical Assistants TTAC GROUP 2

  15. Our Research Strategy • “Triangulation” – getting input/feedback on the • same material from different points of view • Research methods • Internal discovery • Contextual Inquiry/Task Analysis • Focus groups, Interviews, Surveys TTAC GROUP 2 Allison Rossett (1999)

  16. Research Phase – 1 • Gathered background data • Previous TTAC websites (Phases 1 through 6) • Presentations related to GMU T/TAC & T/TAC Online • Web-based community technologies such as Webinars, • chat groups, Discussion forums, Online communities • VDOE website • Grant Process - Developed Concept Map • LIP Process – Developed Concept Map TTAC GROUP 2

  17. Research Phase – 2 • Interviewed and gathered information from the • following sources: • Dr. Michael Behrmann- Professor, Director Helen A. Kellar Center • Dr. Lynn Wiley - Project Coordinator T/TAC Region 4 • Dr. Shuangbao Wang – T/TAC Online programmer • LEAs and VDOE TAs • VDOE Project Coordinator • ‘No Child Left Behind’ Background • Past Grant proposals/reports • LIP program • Rubric for proposal/reporting • Goals TTAC GROUP 2

  18. Research Phase – 3 • VDOE meeting in Richmond • September 24, 2003, interviewed Dr. Michael Behrmann and began • questionnaire. • Attended VDOE meeting in Richmond On September 29, 2003. • Questionnaire distributed to participants at the Richmond meeting. • Asked for responses by Friday, October 2, 2003. • Sent thank you notes to primary participants. • Conducted face-to-face interviews. • Attended focus groups. • Reviewed LIP evaluation report from McLaughlin group • (McLaughlin group performed preliminary survey of the LIP • grant process). TTAC GROUP 2

  19. Questionnaire to participants at Richmond TTAC GROUP 2

  20. Findings – Drivers for LEAs / TAs • VDOE personnel could use a systematic compilation of • data across projects. • Realization of geographical constraints. • Need to share best practices in a timely manner. • Frequent staff turnover, an organized system online • would require little or no training for the new hires. • A repository that would enable users to access old data • easily and in a timely manner. • Access to quantifiable data. • The ability to submit or access interim reports. TTAC GROUP 2

  21. Findings – Barriers for LEAs / TAs • Operating systems vary. • Internet connection speed low in some counties. • No face-to-face interaction. • Due to time constraints, unable to complete a • proposal / report in one go. • Comfortable in using Microsoft Word / Excel • for LIP proposal and reporting purposes. TTAC GROUP 2

  22. Findings – LEA Needs / Requirements • Keep the LIP process simple. • Make the LIP process sustainable. • Additional staff. • Local school administration/school board • support to promote the LIP project to the • individual schools. TTAC GROUP 2

  23. Findings – TA Needs / Requirements • Reporting process should be part of grant • application. • Need interim reports. • Formally track problems. • TAs need training/support. • Want the ability to create and evaluate long- • term plans. • Want to quantify knowledge learned from LIP • grant process to apply to state goals/priority • projects. TTAC GROUP 2

  24. Recommendations • Stakeholders see value in an online process for Local Improvement Plans. • Any process needs to be carefully designed to ensure it meets user needs. • Considerations are: limitations on time, connectivity, and user • knowledge. • Simple and well supported with help functions • Effectively use with minimal learning time. • Flexible to enable users to adapt easily • Enable users to receive and retrieve data using programs • that they are familiar with and have readily available. • Word and Excel templates to streamline data • reception. TTAC GROUP 2

  25. TTAC GROUP 2 ADDIE (Design)

  26. Personas “A user role is an abstract collection of (common) needs, interests, (shared) expectations, (common) behaviors, and responsibilities characterizing a relationship between a class or kind of users and a system”. TTAC GROUP 2 Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

  27. Persona – Public • Characteristic/Background • Parent of special needs child • Married • Loundon County • Literate • 39 years-old • Work Environment • Accesses internet via dial up from home or work • Special needs volunteer TTAC GROUP 2 Michelle Gallager

  28. Persona – Public • Responsibilities • Raising their child to the best of her ability • - Wants most information possible • Goals / Wants / Needs • Desire to select best school for child • Develop child’s abilities • Wants to know how schools are doing • - District • - States TTAC GROUP 2 Michelle Gallager

  29. Persona – Public • Avoid • LEA jargon & technical terms • Frequency of Use of • “School Improvement” site • Infrequent : every 6 months • Quote • “My child deserves the best.” TTAC GROUP 2 Michelle Gallager

  30. Persona – Local Education Administrator • Characteristic/Background • Busy • Overworked • Understaffed • Not interested in becoming technological experts • 45 years-old • Work Environment • Access to computer at work operating on Window 98 • Access to internet via dial up • Dose not have access to latest software/browsers • Only special education administrator in her work location TTAC GROUP 2 Katherine Cox

  31. Persona – Local Education Administrator • Responsibilities • LIP Proposal • LIP report - Final and Interim data for reports • Gathering baseline data for LIP proposal • Evaluate project against their goals • Goals / Wants / Needs • Need to get administrative buy in • - Accountability • Exchange best practices with other LEA’s • Store data as it is collected for LIP reports • Simplify the whole process • - Avoid the ‘tax return’ syndrome • Utilize past report-do not start from scratch TTAC GROUP 2 Katherine Cox

  32. Persona – Local Education Administrator • Avoid • Creating more work due to the process being online • Last minute reporting • Frequency of Use of • “School Improvement” site • Infrequent: • Write proposal once every year • Entering in data for the report • Write final report once every year • Quote • “K.I.S.S.”-driving design • (keep It Sweet & Simple) TTAC GROUP 2 Katherine Cox

  33. Persona – Technical Assistant • Characteristic/Background • Married with children • Busy • Not interested in becoming technological experts • 47 years-old • Work Environment • Centrally located with other TA’s • Less than one year on the job • High speed internet access TTAC GROUP 2 Justine Braxfield

  34. Persona – Technical Assistant • Responsibilities • Helping LEA’s with LIP proposals • Evaluating LIP proposals using checklist/rubric • Keep the LEA’s on schedule with LIP • Responsible for 1 of 8 T/TAC regions • Issue status of LIP proposal-approval or not • Review and disseminate reports • Goals / Wants / Needs • Want ‘how to’ on the site for LEA’s • Ability to track progress of LIP project • Exchange best practices with other TA’s and their LEA’s • Rubric for evaluating proposals online • Easily disseminate the LIP reports • - Quantify the data and produce reports from that data TTAC GROUP 2 Justine Braxfield

  35. Persona – Technical Assistant • Avoid • Last minute reporting • Complexity • More work because of an online process • Frequency of Use of • “School Improvement” site • Intermittent Frequent Use: • - Monitoring of LIP process: • Verifying that proposals/reports are submitted on time-for • 1 month-4hrs./day • Sending reports to Pat Abrams • Quote • “ I just started working here, I don’t know what • has been done in the past.” TTAC GROUP 2 Justine Braxfield

  36. TTAC GROUP 2 We then created Use Cases…

  37. Essential Use Case • Describes an interaction that is complete, meaningful and well–defined to a particular user. • Based on purposes or intentions of users rather than concrete steps or mechanisms. TTAC GROUP 2 Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

  38. Purpose of Use Cases • We Want to know… • What System users • Are trying to accomplish (goals). • Need from the system to accomplish their goals. • How the system can provide what they need? TTAC GROUP 2

  39. Use Case Process • Described the Tasks that needed to be performed. • Included Extension Use Cases as well. • Mapped relationships amongst use cases. TTAC GROUP 2

  40. Essential Tasks • Read • Communicate • Write • Save • Edit • Review • Track TTAC GROUP 2

  41. Use Case Mapping TTAC GROUP 2 Use system Write Communication connected to All Save Review Read connected to All Edit Track

  42. Use Cases TTAC GROUP 2

  43. Use Case: TA Review TTAC GROUP 2

  44. Which leads to… • Interface content models • Site diagrams / Database TTAC GROUP 2

  45. TTAC GROUP 2 Interface Content Models

  46. Interface Content Models An abstract representation of the contents of the various interaction spaces for a system and their interconnections. TTAC GROUP 2 Some of the simplest modeling technology - paper and Post-it notes-works best. Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

  47. Purpose of Interface Content Models • In implementation, each interaction space becomes a recognizable collection comprising part of the user interface. • Denotes specific interface components, such as toolbars, command buttons or selection lists. TTAC GROUP 2 Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

  48. Interface Content Models TTAC GROUP 2 • Some of the simplest modeling technology • paper and Post-it notes-works best. Constantine & Lockwood (1999)

  49. TTAC GROUP 2

  50. TTAC GROUP 2 Database Set – Up

More Related