1 / 26


P2V | WP6 Valorisation of the Framework for the Evalution of ICT in Education I nspectorate of Education, The Netherlands, Bert Jaap van Oel. P2V WP6. Partners. Scotland : HMIE. Sweden : Skolverket. Lithuania : National Agency for School Evaluation. France : IGEN.

Download Presentation


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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. P2V | WP6Valorisation of the FrameworkfortheEvalution of ICT in Education Inspectorate of Education, The Netherlands, Bert Jaap van Oel

  2. P2V WP6

  3. Partners Scotland: HMIE. Sweden: Skolverket. Lithuania: National Agency for School Evaluation. France: IGEN. Catalonia: Inspectorate of Education The Netherlands: Inspectorate of Education Members of SICI www.sici-inspectorates.org

  4. The road to P2V • ERNIST: “Let us look at the things we share” (Belgium, Scotland, Austria, NI, England) >> • P2P: Peer learning leading to a shared framework based on existing materials. (France, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, England) >> • P2V: valorising and extending use

  5. P2V WP6 • 2007: Kick off meeting: meet and learn • 2007-2008: School visits in all countries: • 2 primary • 2 secondary • 2008: Evaluation meeting Brussels

  6. P2V WP6 deliverables • School reports with at least a public summary • Evalution report per country: methodology • Evaluation report • Website • Public toolbox for SICI members • Framework available for self- and peer evaluation by schools

  7. P2V WP6 Methodology

  8. P2V WP6 methodology • Two NL inspectors join local team • Four schools per country • One week • Local evaluator coordinates visits • Local evaluator is leading • Local evaluator writes report for school • NL inspector writes report on visit

  9. P2V Evaluation methodology • Preparatory conversation with the school • Send out and analyse self-evaluation questionnaire • Study available materials, plans, vision, reports • School visit: • As separate activity: one day • When integrated: half a day extra for one person • Written report

  10. Methodology: School visit

  11. Methodology: School visit • Meeting with leadership/ICT coordinator: vision, history, what are we going to see? • Lesson observations, school tour • Interviews: Learners; Teachers; Administrators • Feedback session at the end of the day: preliminary conclusions • Draft written report: final conclusions reviewed by school • Final written report (public?)

  12. Methodology: School visit • Gathering evidence from observations, interviews, learning materials and outcomes • Documenting evidence: take copies, pictures, notes • Triangulation: different sources, different observers • Paper policy versus work floor reality • School’s own vision as starting point

  13. The ICT evaluation toolbox

  14. The ICT framework Conditions: • C1. Leadership, • C2. Infrastructure and access, • C3. Curriculum planning, • C4. Quality assurance and improvement Use: • U1. Pupil use, • U2. The teaching process, • U3. Administrative use Outcomes: • O1. Impact on learning and standards

  15. The ICT framework • Quality Indicators: what is it? • Evidence: what to look for? • Sources: where to find it • Scoring per QI: 0=not enough evidence 1=weak2=insufficient, should improve3=sufficient, may be improved4=good • The framework

  16. Materials • Self-evaluation questionnaire • Interview guidance • Lesson observation form • Evaluator guidance • Possibly: online questionnaires

  17. Leadership Score primary schoolA Score secondary school B Score primary school C Score secondary school D C1.1There is a clear vision for the use of ICT 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 C1.2 There is a strategy to realise the vision 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 0|1|2|3|4 Presentation of results

  18. School visits

  19. School visits Primary school A • 450 pupils, 1:34 computers • involved in many projects • small budget, hard to plan ICT development • enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator • Lessons in computer room and in classrooms • ICT is not in the national curriculum, ICT use by children in free time • Parents question ICT use • ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects

  20. School visits Primary school B • 250 pupils, 1:4 • Some interactive whiteboards • Good budget • enthusiastic principal, vice-principal is ICT coordinator • Lessons in classrooms, individual use in hallways and classrooms • ICT and ICT-skills integrated in subjects • More critical thinking about ICT use to be developed

  21. School visits Secondary school • 953 pupils, 74 teachers, 1:9 computers, many resources • clear ICT vision and strategy on ICT and teachers, less on pedagogy • clear use of benchmarks • good lessons observed, strong pedagogy, active learners • responsibilities are clear, ICT coordinator • not enough possibilities for enhancement of learning • no accessibility for marks for teachers, pupils, parents • no Learning Management System yet

  22. Impressions: peer learning

  23. Impressions: peer learning • Who is in the lead? • Fitting the methodology to local circumstances or fitting local circumstances to the methodology? • Presence external evaluators supports objectivity (contextualised scoring vs more objective scoring) • Discussion essential: preparation, briefing sessions, evaluation • Managing expectations: evaluator guidance vs learning?

  24. Impressions: using the toolbox • Framework is very usable in different contexts • Methodical work supports acceptance of evaluation • Need for good preparation of visits • Using the different materials requires getting used to: how do they fit together? • The materials are much-needed to support decision making in one day

  25. Impressions: the visit programme • Short! Quick! Hectic! • Enough time for reflection? • Enough time for evidence gathering? • All elements should be in place • A full day • Some arranged lessons/activities are ok

  26. Achterblad Inspectie van het Onderwijs Kantoor Utrecht Park Voorn 4 Postbus 2730 3500 GS Utrecht The Netherlands T (030) 669 06 00 F (030) 662 20 91 www.onderwijsinspectie.nl b.vanoel@owinsp.nl

More Related