Summary of TLD Project Evaluation Outcomes
RMC Research Report Summary (extractions)
Successes:
During both the spring 2006 and 2007 interviews, all of the teachers stated their teaching had changed due to using the project-provided technology. Several explained that the technology had enabled them to easily present material in ways that met the different needs of their students. The technology also caused the students to be more attentive because they perceived the technology as fun. Another positive effect was that incorporating the technology their teaching required teachers to dedicate more time to lesson planning and made them more organized. One teacher believed that she had taught her students more than in prior years because the read aloud function in Texthelp Read&Write GOLD helped students better grasp content. Additionally, all of the teachers explained that the use of the technology had caused instruction to shift from being teacher centered to involving more student interaction. The teachers primarily attributed this shift to the ACTIVboard which encouraged the class to work together as a group and Texthelp Read&Write GOLD which encouraged students to work independently [on laptop or desktop computers]. One teacher described realizing she had shifted to student-centered instruction when a student commented that she talked to her students rather than over them, as was the case with the student's other teachers. (Please see the TLD home page for project hardware and software.)
Writing:
In 2006-2007 a Wilcoxon test determined that [grade 6-12] students' willingness to write significantly (p < .05) improved from fall to spring. In the 2006-2007 writing comparison study, scores for the mean treatment group showed a statistically significant (paired; p < .05) increase from pretest to posttest, and the treatment group scored significantly (independent t test; p < .05) higher on the posttest compared to the comparison group. (See RMC Research Evaluation Brief.)
In spring 2006 half of the interviewed teachers reported that the project's greatest impact had been improving students' attitude toward writing. Nearly all of the teachers credited the assistive technology with helping the students complete their schoolwork, which in turn increased students' confidence, motivation, and achievement.
A year later, the spring 2007 survey asked teachers to report whether the technology had improved the students' attitude toward writing to a great extent, to some extent, not very much, or not at all. They indicated that the technology had improved the students' attitude to a great extent (83%) or to some extent (17%).
In spring 2006 and spring 2007 teachers described Texthelp Read&Write GOLD as valuable because the software helped students [including English Language Learners] improve their reading and writing skills and increased their motivation to write. In spring 2007 most of the teachers (86%) reported that their students were proficient in Texthelp Read&Write GOLD and enjoyed using the software. A third of the teachers reported, however, that some students were not motivated to use Texthelp Read&Write GOLD.
In spring 2007 the teachers explained that students who used Texthelp Read&Write GOLD became more independent writers. When students used the software to read aloud documents they had written, they could hear their mistakes and make corrections. This valuable feature of the software allowed teachers, who in the past often performed this task, to focus on higher order instruction. Teachers (33%) also reported that students used the document scanner to scan books for their classes and used Texthelp Read&Write GOLD to read the text to them. One teacher described how these students became advocates for their own learning by using the hardware and software to complete their schoolwork. Only one teacher commented that some of her students did not like using the document scanner or the read aloud function of Texthelp Read&Write GOLD. Teachers also considered the software's phonetic spell check feature to be valuable and described it as easier for learning disabled students to use than the spell check feature in Microsoft Word or a dictionary.
(Please see Teacher Interviews and Student Interviews for anecdotes and comments.)
Math:
In the math comparison study, the mean treatment group scores increased significantly (paired t test; p < .05) from pretest to posttest, whereas the comparison group scores did not (paired t test; p < .05), but the treatment group's posttest scores were not significantly (independent t test; p < .05) higher than the comparison group's posttest scores. The increase in the treatment groups' posttest scores may be due to students using FASTT Math, participating in Math Trail projects, or using both interventions. (See RMC Research Evaluation Brief.)
The spring 2007 survey asked teachers to report whether the technology had improved the students' attitude toward math to a great extent, to some extent, not very much, or not at all. They indicated that the technology had improved the students' attitude to a great extent (67%) or to some extent (33%). In the spring 2007 interviews the teachers explained that FASTT Math and the Math Trail projects made math enjoyable for the students, which increased their motivation.
The Year 2 student surveys asked the students to indicate, using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), whether they agreed with the statements "I am good at math" and "I like doing math." Exhibit 24 shows that the mean score for "I am good at math" remained relatively stable throughout the year but was highest in April 2007. Students' agreement with the statement "I like math" increased significantly (independent t test, p < .05) from 3.14 in December to 3.88 in February 2007 and then decreased to 3.01 in April 2007 [the month of WASL testing]. Future projects would benefit from comparing treatment and comparison group students' attitudes toward math.
Teacher Change:
All of the teachers stated their teaching had changed due to using the project-provided technology. By spring 2007 all of the teachers reported being very prepared to fully integrate the technology into the classroom and at least 83% of the teachers reported being very prepared to implement all of the project requirements. The fact that the teachers required nearly 2 [of professional development and technology integration] years to feel very prepared to implement the project requirements has important implications for future projects. That is, future projects may need to support the participating teachers for a minimum of 2 years.
(See Teacher Interviews for anecdotes and comments.)
Feedback from Parents and Educators:
During the spring 2006 interviews teachers were asked if parents increased their support of programs that provide assistive technology to classrooms receiving information about the project. The teachers (83%) reported that almost all parents had expressed enthusiasm for the project and the technology it provided, and most teachers believed that the project had increased the parents' support for their child's learning.
In Year 2 a third of the teachers submitted community surveys completed by parents, school administrators, superintendents, or teachers following the year-end presentation in April or May 2007. [The surveys showed educators} were very supportive of providing assistive technology to students and believed that the technology had impacted the students' skills and attitudes. One teacher's school purchased approximately 20 document cameras after learning about the benefits of the technology. The community surveys completed by parents [showed that] 100% of the parents agreed that to a great extent it is important to provide assistive technology to students and 96% agreed that projects such as Technology for Learning Disabilities should be funded in the community.
Challenges:
Some challenges for teachers were; not having enough time to learn how to use the technology or integrate it into their classrooms; worrying that they would not receive technical assistance from their school/districts in a timely fashion; finding a safe place to store the technology; having technology stolen from their classroom; and having technology not work in the middle of a lesson.