a report on the findings of the biennial state educational ... · a report on the findings of the...

A Report on the Findings of the Biennial

State Educational Technology Needs

Assessment - SETNA 2018

Prepared for the Nevada Commission on Educational Technology & the Nevada Department of Education

Jacque Ewing-Taylor, Ph.D., Research Faculty Shanelle Davis, Project Coordinator University of Nevada, Reno June 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figures........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4

Section 1: Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Organization.................................................................................................................................................. 6

District Categories ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Section 2: Needs Assessment Design and Methods ..................................................................................... 8

Development of the Surveys ......................................................................................................................... 8

Technology Coordinator Survey ............................................................................................................ 8

Teacher Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Parent Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Distribution ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations and Constraints ........................................................................................................................ 10

Section 3: State & District Technology Plans .............................................................................................. 11

State Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 11

District Technology Plans ............................................................................................................................ 11

Technology Coordinator Views on Technology Planning ........................................................................... 12

Nevada Ready 21 Update ........................................................................................................................... 12

Computer‐Based Testing in Nevada ........................................................................................................... 14

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium ........................................................................................ 14

Overall Progress on Assessment Testing and SBAC Update ............................................................... 14

Educational Technologies: Instructional Development & Delivery ............................................................15

Expanded Use of Laptop Computers and Other Technology Devices ................................................ 15

One‐to‐one Effects on Student Achievement and Proficiency ........................................................... 16

Digital Textbooks ................................................................................................................................. 16

Section 4: Current Capacity of Nevada’s Schools ....................................................................................... 17

Technology Coordinator Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 17

Teacher Survey Results ............................................................................................................................... 25

Page 1 of 98

Demographics ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Devices in Classroom........................................................................................................................... 30

Internet Access .................................................................................................................................... 31

Internet Filter ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Section 5: Teachers’ Preparedness for Technology Integration ................................................................. 33

Teacher Survey Results ............................................................................................................................... 33

Teacher Readiness: Educational Technology Tools ............................................................................ 33

Teacher Readiness: 21st Century Teaching Practices .......................................................................... 37

Summary Teacher Preparedness: Tools & 21st Century Practices .............................................................. 38

Professional Development .......................................................................................................................... 38

Quality of Professional Development ................................................................................................. 42

Summary Professional Development: Perceptions & Quality .................................................................... 44

Section 6: Parent Survey Results................................................................................................................. 45

Section 7: Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................... 52

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 52

Technology Coordinator Survey Findings ........................................................................................... 52

Teacher Survey .................................................................................................................................... 52

Parent Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Recommendations from SETNA 2018 Findings .......................................................................................... 53

References .................................................................................................................................................. 56

Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix A.................................................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 63

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 88

Appendix D.................................................................................................................................................. 92

Appendix E .................................................................................................................................................. 96

Superintendent Letter......................................................................................................................... 96

Technology Coordinator & PTA Letter ................................................................................................ 97

Weekly Follow‐up Email...................................................................................................................... 98

Page 2 of 98

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: District size definitions .................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: 2018 Nevada Ready 21 grant awarded schools with amounts awarded per school and district . 13 Table 3: Descriptions of three relatively common classrooms that can be found in each district ............17 Table 4: Teacher Survey submission/total teachers per district ................................................................ 26 Table 5: Comparison of teachers who feel well prepared to very well prepared for the following 21st

Century teaching practices. (2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010) ..................................................................... 37 Table 6: Parent Survey submission totals ................................................................................................... 45

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Technology coordinators' estimates: Percentages of low, middle, and high‐end classrooms ....25 Figure 2: How long responding teachers have been teaching.................................................................... 27 Figure 3: Job classification of respondents ................................................................................................. 28 Figure 4: Types of schools represented ...................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5: Subjects taught by responding teachers...................................................................................... 29 Figure 6: Perceived technology experience levels ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 7: Age of administrative devices ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 8: Age of instructional devices ......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 9: Teachers’ ratings of the speed a typical online video will begin to play on classroom devices ..31 Figure 10: Teacher preparedness to use listed technologies ..................................................................... 35 Figure 11: Teacher preparedness by district size........................................................................................ 36 Figure 12: Types of professional development available ........................................................................... 41 Figure 13: Teachers' perceptions of professional development activities .................................................42 Figure 14: Quality of PD by provider ........................................................................................................... 43 Figure 15: Student grade level distribution ................................................................................................ 46 Figure 16: Students’ technology use to complete homework.................................................................... 47 Figure 17: Students’ technology use in the classroom. (Parent Survey) ....................................................47 Figure 18: Parents’ expectations regarding educational technology use in schools. .................................48 Figure 19: Are parents’ expectations being met?....................................................................................... 49 Figure 20: Spanish‐speaking parents’ expectations regarding educational technology use in schools .....50 Figure 21: Parents who are concerned with their student's use of educational technology in school ......51

Page 3 of 98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Educational Technology Needs Assessment (SETNA) report for 2018 is a summary of data

collected through research and surveys distributed to the teachers, technology coordinators, and

parents throughout Nevada’s school districts and the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA). This

report addresses Nevada’s state and district integration of educational technology for achievement and

proficiency of students, the current capacity of schools to positively impact students, and the overall

preparedness of teachers to integrate educational technology into the classroom. The report is divided

into seven sections: Overview, Needs Assessment Design and Methods, State and District Technology

Plans, Current Capacity of Nevada’s Schools, Teachers’ Preparedness for Technology Integration, Parent

Survey Results, and Summary of Findings and Recommendations.

Findings indicate that while bandwidth, access to technology and hardware infrastructure have

increased in the schools, the professional development needs of Nevada’s teachers continue to be

significant. Nevada’s schools are better prepared for 21st Century learning than in 2016, but teachers’

perceptions of their readiness to use the technology has not kept pace with infrastructure

improvements. Most Technology Coordinators cited inadequate funding for purchase and maintenance,

lack of bandwidth, and ongoing subscription costs for textbooks and software as their biggest

challenges. This challenge is of significant concern going forward. The costs of maintaining

infrastructure, hardware and software in appropriate and updated condition are significant and must be

continually sought. These funds should be enhanced and embedded in school funding for Nevada to

reach its 21st Century potential.

Statewide, Technology Coordinators shared concerns that

the expanded distribution of laptop computers may have

little impact on student learning if teachers lack proper

professional development opportunities to integrate the

new technology into their curriculum.

All schools should be provided equal resources to ensure all

students have the same opportunities to be successful,

despite their socioeconomic status.

A Parent

Inequities among districts remain evident. Rural districts are less likely to have sufficient infrastructure

to take advantage of educational technology’s promise than are their mid‐to‐large sized brethren.

Page 4 of 98

Overall, teachers, parents and technology professionals agree that great strides have been made in

Nevada and all are grateful for NR21 and its associated funding. That there remain pockets of

inadequate technology and professional development is no surprise, given the vastness of the task the

state tackled in 2008. Nonetheless, it is gratifying to see the positive changes that are being made.

Page 5 of 98

SECTION 1: OVERVIEW

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the 2018 State Educational Technology Needs

Assessment (SETNA) of Nevada school districts. The needs assessment was guided by the requirements

set forth in NRS 388.795(2) & 388.795(6) and by the first needs assessment conducted in 2008. To

address these requirements, the following research questions guided the assessments for 2008, 2010,

2012, 2014, and 2016, and remain the guiding questions in 2018:

1. What is the current status of the state and district educational technology plans?

2. In what ways can educational technologies improve instructional development, delivery, and assessment in Nevada?

3. What is the current capacity of schools in Nevada to influence the achievement of students with educational technologies?

4. How prepared are Nevada teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms?

ORGANIZATION

This report contains results organized by the research questions. This section (Section 1) provides an

overview, purpose, and context for the report. Section 2 illustrates the methods and design of the data

collection undertaken expressly for this assessment. Section 3 addresses Nevada’s state and district

technology plans, the impact of those plans, and the progress of Nevada’s statewide assessment testing.

Section 4 highlights the current capacity of Nevada’s schools. Section 5 addresses the preparation of

teachers in Nevada to engage in judicious technology integration. Section 6 is a review of Nevada’s

parents’ thoughts and perceptions related to educational technology in their district. Each Section 3

through 6 represents the evaluation of multiple data sources and includes trends over time, wherever

possible. Finally, Section 7 addresses the summary of findings for this report, as well as

recommendations from these findings.

DISTRICT CATEGORIES

Assessing the educational technology needs of a state as large and diverse as Nevada is challenging

because of its geography, economics, and the great variations that exist within the State’s districts and

Page 6 of 98

schools. The unique needs of each district, school, and classroom are products of these variations.

Whenever possible, this report leverages available data to describe the unique needs of the districts as

well as the state as a whole. As in previous versions of the SETNA, this report refers to large, medium,

and small school districts using the conditions listed in Table 1.

Table 1: District size definitions

Size Student Enrollment Districts

Small 20,000 Washoe, Clark, State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA)

Page 7 of 98

SECTION 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT DESIGN AND METHODS

The 2018 SETNA was designed to gather data from the technology coordinators, teachers, and parents

in each of the 17 school districts throughout Nevada, as well as the State Public Charter School Authority

(SPCSA). The goal of this report is to present the findings of the needs assessment to the Nevada

Commission on Educational Technology (CET), as required by NRS 388.795(2) & 388.795(6). The primary

sources of the data were web‐based surveys hosted on Survey Monkey (www.SurveyMonkey.Com) and

distributed to the appropriate recipients by the SETNA staff, via email. Approval from the University of

Nevada, Reno Institutional Review Board was secured prior to data collection, to ensure the protection

of human subjects in the conduct of this research.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEYS

In order to gather relevant and comparable data, and because there was insufficient time to do

otherwise, it was determined that the 2018 SETNA survey questions would closely resemble previous

versions of the surveys. In 2014 and 2016, the Teacher Surveys underwent revisions based on evaluation

findings, feedback from teachers and technology coordinators, and a 2014 focus group conducted with

technology leaders and coaches from Clark County School District (CCSD). The surveys remain aligned

with the major themes present in earlier iterations of the SETNA.

TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR SURVEY

The 2018 Technology Coordinator Survey (Appendix A) was revised slightly from the 2016 version, using

feedback from the 2016 participants. The number of questions was reduced from 28 to 23 open‐ended

questions that focused on technology planning, classroom capacity, school resources, teacher

preparation, and professional development. The user interface of the survey included a percentage to

completion display and a page counter to help the participants better allocate their time for the survey.

TEACHER SURVEY

The 2018 Teacher Survey (Appendix B) closely resembled the 2016 survey. The demographic section

took into consideration length of teaching career, grade level, content area, district, job classification,

and a self‐evaluation of technology experience. The body included the sections titled: 1) existing

Page 8 of 98

http:www.SurveyMonkey.Com

technology in the classroom; 2) internet availability; 3) teacher preparation and technology readiness; 4)

professional development availability; 5) classroom technology use; and 6) school‐wide technology use.

Furthermore, the use of Skip Logic* outlined additional sections labeled: designated administrative

device, designated instructional device teacher use, designated instructional device student use, total

devices in class, internet availability, and classroom technology use students.

The extensive length of the Teacher Survey continues to concern the research team. Though redesigned

in 2016, reducing the time needed to complete the survey, the length and time required of teachers

continues to be problematic, resulting in incomplete surveys and a less‐than‐ideal response rate.

PARENT SURVEY

The SETNA 2018 Parent Survey (Appendix C) was comprised of the same nine questions used in 2016. As

in 2016, there were two versions of the Parent Survey, one in English and one in Spanish. As in 2016,

the Spanish version was translated, back‐translated and reviewed by several native Spanish speaking

individuals.

DISTRIBUTION

On February 16, 2018, all school district and SPCSA superintendents received a memo, via email, from

the Nevada Department of Education that made them aware of the SETNA process and staff, the

information that would be requested, and which contained a request for their participation. A list of the

Technology Coordinators for each district was supplied to the SETNA team by the NDE and hyperlinks to

all four surveys were distributed via email, to the Technology Coordinators of each district and SPCSA on

February 27, 2018. The emails provided instruction on how to participate and asked that the links be

distributed to teachers and parents in a manner consistent with the districts’ policies. Each email

contained embedded links to the appropriate district‐specific surveys, one each for the teachers and

Technology Coordinators, and two for the parents, one in English and one in Spanish. A copy of the

emails involved in the distribution process can be found in Appendix E. A personalized email was sent to

the President of the Nevada State Parent Teachers Association (PTA), asking for assistance distributing

the Parent Survey links, however, it was never confirmed that the links were distributed by the PTA

* Question Skip Logic lets you skip respondents to a later page, or a specific question on a later page, based on their answer to a previous closed‐ended question.

Page 9 of 98

contact. Weekly follow‐up group emails were sent to the Technology Coordinators, giving them the

number of responses collected to date for each survey (Appendix E), and encouraging them to remind

their teachers to participate.

It was through this weekly update process that the SETNA team discovered a problem with three of the

Teacher Surveys. In creating the 18 unique survey links for the emails, a Google issue caused the Carson

City link to be retained when creating the Clark and Douglas links (e.g. in the email, Google kept the

Carson link address when the links to Clark and Douglas were copied over the Carson link). This allowed

some Clark and Douglas teachers to respond to the Carson City survey. The surveys were identical, so

the responses are valid, but the counts for those three districts are not accurate. Due to privacy

concerns, no IP addresses were collected so there was no way to track from which district an individual

response came.

LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

The Nevada Commission on Educational Technology (CET) awarded the contract in November 2017 for

the 2018 SETNA to Dr. Jacque Ewing‐Taylor of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR executed the

contract and sent it to the NDE in mid‐December, but the contract was not finalized until mid‐February.

While we understand this delay was beyond the control of the NDE, it nevertheless resulted in the

surveys being distributed several months later than deemed ideal. The surveys’ release in late February

to early March occurred during the districts’ heaviest testing times and was in conflict with some spring

breaks. This likely had a negative effect on the response rate, which was a low 13%. Additionally, this

delay caused a compression in the already‐tight timeline, meaning that revisions were minimal, and

analyses rushed.

As in previous SETNA reports, the team decided on a judicious balance between depth and breadth for

the Teacher Survey while preserving the ability to address the research questions in a meaningful way.

Allowing participants to potentially skip irrelevant sections of the survey through the use of Skip Logic

added to the number of questions but decreased the time requirement for many participants. The

Teacher Survey required a lengthy amount of time to complete and we remain concerned that the data

for the final section of the survey may be incomplete due to survey fatigue.

Page 10 of 98

SECTION 3: STATE & DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLANS

STATE PLAN

The State Educational Technology Plan (2009‐2014) was replaced by the Nevada Ready 21 (NR21) plan.

NR21 is a six‐year plan for implementing statewide 1:1 student computing. As with the original plan, the

NR21 Plan is the product of a collaboration, which utilized experts from both outside and inside the

state including the One‐to‐One Institute, Cisco, NWN, Intel, the Nevada Department of Education, and

the Nevada Commission of Educational Technology. The planning process was led by the NDE and the

One‐to‐One Institute provided facilitators to help guide the process. The result was a comprehensive

plan to guide Nevada through six years of focus on optimizing infrastructure and connectivity,

professional development, and instructional technology integration. The mission that drives the NR21

Plan is:

To provide all Nevada students an equitable, technology‐rich education that supports

high standards, an engaging learning environment, and the development of the 21st

century skills students will need to fuel the economic growth of the state. Furthermore,

Nevada Ready 21 will support educators in their efforts to create more engaging and

personalized instruction by providing the essential tools and the ongoing professional

development to guide their transformation.

The plan acknowledges that these goals must be achieved in a culture of collaboration among all

stakeholders to ensure students across the state master 21st Century Learning Skills including the

Nevada Educational Technology Standards for Students. The rationale justifying each of these goals, and

the anticipated learning benefits, are included in the text of the State Plan.

DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLANS

Nevada School Districts are no longer required to have an updated Technology Plan. The State NR21

Plan is now the technology plan for all 17 school districts, though a few districts maintain a plan. District

Educational Technology Coordinators adjust the NR21 plan for their individual district needs.

Page 11 of 98

TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR VIEWS ON TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

Trends regarding planning in the 2018 SETNA largely mirrored the 2016 results. When asked questions

related to technology planning on a district or school‐wide basis most districts acknowledge the NR21

Plan as a guide for their planning activities, and twelve districts have technology committees that

participate in planning, though often not on a regular basis or in a

formal way. Not surprisingly, all stated that their greatest

challenge is lack of funding, and most indicated the lack of

sufficient technology instructional training (teacher professional

development) as a serious issue, jeopardizing technology

integration. Funding concerns continue to be prevalent because

many of the districts still rely on grants for their funding, rendering the funding unpredictable and

inconsistent, and thus difficult to plan around. A coordinator from one of the medium‐sized school

districts stated: “The funding for technology in our district is primarily from three sources. 1. ERate, 2.

Grant Funding, 3. General Fund. The funding is not always consistent and/or predictable which is

unacceptable with something like technology as it must be upgraded and replaced on a consistent basis.

When devices need to be refreshed and fiber expanded due to growth, there needs to be consideration

for funding to manage that.”

In respect to how districts plan for educational technology, 12 of the 18 district coordinators referred to

their use of a technology committee. Out of the remaining six districts, Douglas, Nye and Pershing

counties indicated they promote collaboration among their staff and host group meetings for their

technology planning. Elko has limited technology planning, Esmeralda county has no technology

planning at this time, and Mineral county did not provide information.

“Funding is inconsistent and unpredictable.”

NEVADA READY 21 UPDATE

Nevada Ready 21 (NR21) is a statewide six‐year initiative focused on implementing one‐to‐one student

computing in Nevada schools. NR21 aims to provide 24‐hour access to a portable technology device for

Nevada middle school students in the initial phase. In addition to providing a device for each student,

the program will deliver comprehensive professional development training and support for teachers and

will work towards improving broadband internet access in schools throughout the state.

Page 12 of 98

Funds for the NR21 program are overseen by the Commission on Educational Technology (CET). The CET

was established in 1997 under NRS 388.790‐805. The 13‐member Commission includes 2 ex officio

members, and 11 voting members who are appointed by the Legislature and the Governor. Middle

schools participating in the second phase of the program were announced in February 2018. Funds were

awarded through a competitive grant process, totaling $18,272,642.44. Table 2 presents the total

amount awarded per district. Students will receive their new devices at the beginning of the 2018‐2019

school year.

Table 2: 2018 Nevada Ready 21 grant awarded schools with amounts awarded per school and district

School District/Other FY18 Award FY19 Award Biennium Total

Cohort One

Carson City School District $868,411.00 $862,738.20 $1,731,149.20

Churchill County School District $311,828.77 $299,968.69 $611,797.46

Clark County School District $3,490,371.00 $3,104,471.00 $6,594,842.00

Elko County School District $768,664.36 $723,934.36 $1,492,598.72

Lander County School District $158,707.40 $120,424.00 $279,131.40

Mater Academy of Nevada $257,012.88 $205,422.88 $462,435.76

Pinecrest Academy of Nevada $759,601.20 $459,601.20 $1,219,202.40

Somerset Academy of Nevada $235,669.60 $219,983.68 $455,653.28

White Pine County School District $287,548.24 $286,999.24 $574,547.48

Cohort One Totals $7,137,814.45 $6,283,543.25 $13,421,357.70

Cohort Two

Clark County School District $1,623,437.89 $2,064,437.89 $3,687,875.78

Humboldt County School District $190,989.02 $348,404.76 $539,393.78

Washoe County School District $427,454.00 $193,561.18 $624,015.18

Cohort Two Totals $2,241,880.91 $2,606,403.83 $4,851,284.74

Grand Totals $9,379,695.36 $8,889,947.08 $18,272,642.44

Page 13 of 98

http:18,272,642.44

In order to support digital learning in all school districts in America, in July 2014 the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) established the connectivity goal of 100 kbps per student today with

one Mbps per student by 2018. Data reported for the 2017 funding year (ESH, 2017) confirm that 88% of

Nevada’s school districts are meeting the minimum 100 kbps per student connectivity goal, 96% of

schools have the fiber connections needed to meet bandwidth targets, 46% of school districts accessed

their E‐rate budget for Wi‐Fi networks, and 24% of school districts are meeting the $3/Mbps internet

access affordability target. Since 2015, an additional

17,080 students in six school districts upgraded to the

minimum recommended bandwidth. Twenty‐three

schools, all in rural and small town communities, remain

without fiber connectivity. Four school districts do not

meet national benchmark prices for broadband services.

These data indicate that 88% of school districts in

Nevada are ready for 1:1 digital learning today. However, rural districts continue to lag behind their

urban counterparts.

“314,653 students in 2 school districts still need to be connected to the

minimum recommended bandwidth goal.”

2017 Education Superhighway

COMPUTER‐BASED TESTING IN NEVADA

SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) is a standardized test consortium. It creates

Common Core State Standards‐aligned tests ("adaptive online exams") to be used in member states.

Nevada is one of 21 governing states, that participate in the state decision‐making process that

regulates the consortium. The assessments are given in grades 3 ‐ 8 and 11, in the content areas of Math

and English Language Arts. Each test called a Summative Assessment, consists of a Performance Task

(PT) and a Computer‐Adaptive Test (CAT). The Smarter Balanced assessments are a key part of preparing

all Nevada students for success in college and careers readiness. The computer adaptive format and on‐

line administration of these new assessments will provide more meaningful feedback that teachers and

parents can use to help students succeed. (NDE 2018)

OVERALL PROGRESS ON ASSESSMENT TESTING AND SBAC UPDATE

Page 14 of 98

The 2017 SBAC assessment was administered in a March 1‐May 31 time frame, 99% were completed via

computer, online. There were no significant problems reported by the Technology Coordinators. After a

rough start on 2010, the technology that enables online testing in Nevada seems to be working well.

This is largely due to the increased emphasis on and funding of infrastructure, hardware and training the

past eight years.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES: INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT & DELIVERY

The goal of educational technology integration into the curriculum at all grade levels has the support of

a variety of local, state, and national stakeholders. For Nevada teachers to provide their students with

the 21st Century technology skills needed to succeed as they advance into college and the workforce, the

state of Nevada must continue to take the necessary steps and make the necessary investment to foster

technology efficacy among its teachers. The purpose of this segment is to consider some of the

technological needs stated in the Technology Coordinators Survey, and the role laptop computers and

other portable devices, as well as web‐based collaborative technologies have in education.

EXPANDED USE OF LAPTOP COMPUTERS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY DEVICES

Technology coordinators were asked about the opportunities and challenges associated with the

expanded use of laptops to supplement, and in some instances, replace textbooks. Most responses

echoed this comment from a Technology Coordinator:

The world is digital. Virtually all our schools would like to move to a 1:1 ratio of students to laptops to enable the use of digital tools, digital content, and student creation. The challenges with expanding the use of laptops for curriculum and digital materials are related to systemization and equity. Without every student having regular access to a device, and without assuring home access for all students, it is difficult to move from print to digital content. Adoption cycles and insufficient funding for wholesale shifts to digital content mean that any transition would need to be hybrid print/digital for the medium term.

One district explained their opinion as to whether the expanded distribution of laptops has had a

positive impact on student outcomes:

I believe that it has. These devices allow the student to become more engaged and involved in the learning process and classroom activities. Speaking with the teachers that have and use these devices daily, say they see a huge difference.

Page 15 of 98

Several respondents indicated that parental involvement has increased as a result of the 1:1 initiative.

This quote aligns with most of the coordinators’ opinions on the potential benefits with the expanded

use of laptop computers. When questioned about the challenges presented by increased laptop use,

most coordinators cited inadequate funding for purchase and maintenance, lack of bandwidth, and

ongoing subscription costs for textbooks and software. Statewide, technology coordinators shared

concerns that the expanded distribution of laptop computers may have little impact on student learning

if teachers lack proper professional development opportunities to integrate the new technology into

their curriculum. It was widely agreed that some schools lack the funds and staff necessary to ensure

that laptops are updated, charged and ready for use on a daily basis, although respondents tend to

agree that Chromebooks present fewer problems in these areas.

ONE‐TO‐ONE EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFICIENCY

The topic of 1:1 computing and its effects on student achievement and proficiency is not part of the

scope of the SETNA. However, a review of the literature in 2012 returned mixed findings, largely due to

the lack of research supporting 1:1 initiatives at that time. Within the six‐year timespan between the

2012 and the 2018 reports, NR21 was introduced and grants awarded to implement 1:1 in Nevada

schools. Evaluation of those grants by the NDE’s evaluator should provide evidence of the efficacy of

1:1, it is therefore not addressed in this report.

DIGITAL TEXTBOOKS

As in the 2016 report, and again due to a lack of available research, the 2018 SETNA can make no

concrete assertions on the topic of digital textbooks and their potential cost savings for K‐12 schools.

Anecdotally, however, digital textbooks may be more costly due to the nature of the business model. A

digital textbook requires an annual subscription to keep the content up‐to‐date. Many of the

Technology Coordinators expressed concern about these annual costs when queried about digital

textbooks.

Page 16 of 98

SECTION 4: CURRENT CAPACITY OF NEVADA’S SCHOOLS

The sources of data for this section are the responses from the Technology Coordinator Survey and

Teacher Survey. The purpose of this section is to address the guiding question:

1. What is the current capacity of schools in Nevada to influence the achievement of students

with educational technologies?

TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR SURVEY RESULTS

Coordinators were asked a series of questions regarding the software and technical support provided to

teachers, and the technological capabilities of the classrooms within their district. One of the questions

asked the coordinators to describe the technological capabilities of a typical low‐end, middle‐end, and

high‐end classroom in their district. The question addressed issues such as computer and projector

availability, internet capability, and any other types of technology currently available for teacher and

student use in their district. In addition, the survey asked for an approximate percentage of the

classrooms in their district that closely fit the classroom descriptions they provided. The following table

(Table 3) displays the data gathered from the technology coordinators’ responses to the above question.

Table 3: Descriptions of three relatively common classrooms that can be found in each district County Common Low‐End Common Middle‐End

Classroom Classroom Common High‐End

Classroom Carson Computer: Computer: City 1 Teacher Computer 1 Teacher Computer or

Laptop Projector: Projector: Yes Yes Internet Capabilities: Internet Capabilities: 5 Mbps/device 5 Mbps/device Other Technologies: Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Interactive Whiteboard Document Camera Audio Enhancement

Document Camera

Computer: 2‐in‐1 Laptop

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 5Mbps per Device Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Wireless Display Transmitter Audio Enhancement Document Camera

Page 17 of 98

County Common Low‐End Classroom

Common Middle‐End Classroom

Common High‐End Classroom

Churchill Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1:1 Chromebooks Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1:1 Chromebooks Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Printer ELMO

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1:1 Student Chromebooks Projector: No Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard ELMO Printer

Clark Computer: 1 Teacher Computer, 4‐5 years old 1‐2 Student computers 6‐7 years old

Projector: Yes‐ Shared Internet Capabilities: 100 MB Ethernet Ltd. Wifi

Other Technologies: Document Camera Shared mobile device cart

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer, 1‐3 YO 2 Student Computers 3‐4 YO 3‐4 Mobile Devices (some classrooms) Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 5‐6 100 MB Ethernet Wi‐Fi for up to 15 devices per classroom Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Document Camera Multiple Mobile Device Carts for Checkout Audio Enhancement

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer (1YO) 1:1 Device to Student

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 1:1 Internet

Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Audio Enhancement Smart Projector w/Apple TV, Chromecast or similar

Douglas Computer: 2 Computers

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: Wi‐Fi for 30 devices

Other Technologies: Did Not Specify

Computer: 2 Computers 25‐32 Chromebooks Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: Wi‐Fi for all devices in classroom Other Technologies: Document Camera Audio Enhancement

Computer: 2 Computers 25‐32 Chromebooks Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Wi‐Fi for all devices in classroom Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Document Camera Audio Enhancement

Page 18 of 98




Elko Computer: Did Not Specify

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: 2Mb satellite internet Other Technologies: Did Not Specify

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1 Student Computer

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Yes Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1 Student Computer Chromebook Set Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Yes Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard

Esmeralda Computer: 1 Teacher Computer

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer iPads Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Printer ELMO

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer Some Student Computers Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard ELMO IPads/Chromebooks 3D Printer

Eureka Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 5 YO Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 1 gigabit ethernet 54 Mb wireless access point Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard 10 years old

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer (5 YO) 2 Student Computers (5 YO) Projector: Yes (10+ YO) Internet Capabilities: 1Gb ethernet; 54 Mb wireless access point

Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard (10+ YO)

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: 1 Gb Ethernet

Other Technologies: Mobile Tablet Cart Interactive Whiteboard

Page 19 of 98




Humboldt Computer: 1 i5 core Teacher Computer




Lyon Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1‐2 student computers

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 1 Gb wired network; Wifi Other Technologies: Audio enhancement

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer 1:1 Student Chromebooks

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: High Speed Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer,




Pershing Computer: 1 Teacher Computer (4 YO) 1 Student Computer (6‐7 YO) Some with Win XP

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 200 Mbps Other Technologies: Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer & Laptop 2 Student Computers

Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 200 Mb Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Document Camera Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer & Laptop 10+ Student Computers/Laptops or Set of iPads Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: 200 Mb Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Document Camera Printer

Storey Computer: 1 Teacher Computer

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard ELMO Printer

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer Laptop Cart Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard ELMO Printer

Washoe Computer: 1 Teacher Computer (5‐8 YO) 1‐2 Student Computers

Projector: Yes, some Internet Capabilities: Yes, Wi‐Fi 1:1 Compatible Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Shared cart of mobile devices (some schools)

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer or Laptop (5‐8 YO) 4‐6 iPads/tablets or Tablet Cart Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: Wi‐Fi for up to 1 device PP Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard

Computer: 1 Teacher Computer, 5 YO Laptop or iPad Cart

Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Yes, Wi‐Fi 1:1 Compatible Other Technologies: Interactive Whiteboard Audio Enhancement

Page 22 of 98




White Pine

Computer: 1 Teacher Laptop (5 YO) 1:1 Chromebook cart Projector: Yes (shared) Internet Capabilities: Yes, Wi‐Fi Other Technologies: Did Not Specify

Computer: 1 Teacher Laptop (New) Shard Chromebook Cart Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: Wireless Other Technologies: ELMO Interactive Whiteboard

Computer: 1 Teacher Laptop‐New Shared Chromebook Cart Projector: Yes Internet Capabilities: Yes, Wi‐Fi Other Technologies: Document Camera

State Public Charter School Authority

Computer: Did Not Specify Projector: Did Not Specify Internet Capabilities: Did Not Specify Other Technologies: Did Not Specify



The information presented in Table 3 demonstrates that classroom technology availability varies among

districts in Nevada as well as between classrooms within the same district. Below are summarized

descriptions of the data presented, as well coordinators’ estimates of the approximate percentage of

the classrooms in their district that closely fit the classroom descriptions they provided.

Low‐end Classroom:

A typical low‐end classroom in Nevada contains one to two computers for administrative tasks that are

generally fewer than five years old. Five of the districts stated that their low‐end classrooms included

one to two student computers, and two stated that their classrooms include Chromebook carts. Eleven

stated that they had access to a projector; with eleven also having internet access. Seven reported that

a low‐end classroom might include an interactive whiteboard and three indicated they have a document

camera. After taking an average of the percentages of low‐end classrooms within each district, as

estimated by the technology coordinators, approximately 26% of Nevada classrooms fall into the low‐

end classroom category. This is a minor increase from the 24% reported in the SETNA 2016. The 2014

report did not include this information.

Page 23 of 98

Middle‐level Classroom:

A typical middle‐end classroom in Nevada contains at least one administrative device for teacher use

and 2‐5 devices for student use. Three districts reported one‐to‐one device to student ratios, and six

others indicated that classrooms include a Chromebook or iPad cart with multiple items for student use.

For the internet capabilities of middle‐end classrooms, six districts did not specify if they had a

connection, six have Wi‐Fi (with 4 of those being one‐to‐one compatible), and six simply stated that they

had internet access without connection details.

Ten districts indicated that they had projectors in their middle‐end classrooms, and seven other districts

stated that they had interactive whiteboards or ELMO. Therefore, it can be concluded that all of the

middle‐end classrooms in Nevada have some form of digital projection device for instruction purposes.

The State Public Charter authority did not provide data on this question. Other technologies available

are interactive whiteboards, cameras, printers, audio enhancement, and the checkout availability of

other technology (e.g. a mobile cart of tablets or computers). Mean percentages reported by the

coordinators surveyed, approximately 54% of Nevada classrooms fall into the middle‐end classroom

category. This is an increase from 48% reported in 2016.

High‐end Classroom:

A typical high‐end classroom in Nevada contains at least one computer for teacher use and

administrative tasks, with access to multiple computers for student use. Seven districts specifically

stated that they had one‐to‐one device to student ratios, three indicated they had dedicated classroom

Chromebook sets, and the remaining have multiple designated devices for student use such as sets of

laptops or iPads/ other tablets. In all of the high‐end classrooms, internet access is available as well as

access to a projector and an Interactive Whiteboard. Other available technologies included printers,

document cameras (ELMO), Apple TV, and a STEAM Lab.

The common technology scenario for a high‐end classroom in Nevada is a one‐to‐one device learning

environment. Some districts also have access to specialty technologies, including 3D printers, Genee

TVs, and Z Spaces. After taking an average of the percentages reported by the coordinators,

approximately 20% of Nevada classrooms fall into the high‐end classroom category; a slight decrease

from 21% in 2016. The pie charts presented in Figure 1 provide a representation of the classroom

distribution estimates given by the technology coordinators. Please note, the sum of these percentages

Page 24 of 98

does not equal 100% due to rounding and variation in reporting; however, the percentages are a

representative estimation of the frequencies of each type of classroom statewide.

Figure 1: Technology coordinators' estimates: Percentages of low, middle, and high‐end classrooms

TEACHER SURVEY RESULTS

Links to the Teacher Surveys were distributed to the Technology Coordinators and administrators in all

17 districts and State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA). All teachers in Nevada had the

opportunity to participate in the Teacher Survey. In total, the survey had 3,328 submissions which

included 16 districts and the SPCSA. Sixty‐seven percent of the Teacher Surveys were substantially but

not fully completed. It was decided to therefore use the data available from all responses. This resulted

in a sample size of 3,328 for the Teacher Survey.

As discussed previously, a problem with the manner in which Google Chrome handles copy‐and‐paste

items resulted in Clark and Douglas County teachers initially getting and responding to the Carson City

survey. The resulting effect is that we cannot with any degree of accuracy determine the exact numbers

of respondents from those districts. However, the total response rate is accurate for the whole state

thus the state‐wide results are valid. The overall response rate was a low 13%, the same as in 2016. If we

look at the three districts that had some combined responses, we see that their combined response rate

was 9%, whereas the rest of the state’s response is 21%. We attribute this significant difference to the

low response rate from Clark County. Even if all Carson, Douglas and Clark responses are attributed to

Clark County, that response rate would be 10% at the most. If we use the state‐wide response rate of

21% for Carson and Douglas Counties (176 responses out of 838 possible), that would leave Clark with

Page 25 of 98

1,565 responses out of 17,576 teachers, or a 9% response rate. This is, however, an improvement over

the 2016 response rate of 7% from Clark County. The 2016 Teacher Survey had three districts with zero

responses from teachers: Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lander. All of these districts had participation from

teachers on the 2018 survey.

Table 4 shows the number of teacher submissions per district and the percentage of teachers who

participated out of each district, with a comparison to 2016 percentages. White Pine County did not

have any submissions for the 2018 SETNA Teacher Survey.

Table 4: Teacher Survey submission/total teachers per district

District Size District

Teacher Survey

Submissions

Total Teachers Per District (K‐12)1

2016 Teacher Participation Per

District

2018 Teacher Participation Per

District Small Lincoln 43 99 68% 23% Small Eureka 12 32 23% 38% Small Churchill 79 186 62% 43% Small Storey 13 33 30% 39% Small White Pine 0 80 1% 0% Small Mineral 20 43 0% 47% Small Esmeralda 5 8 0% 63% Small Lander 34 69 0% 49% Small Pershing 39 64 90% 61%

Medium Elko 165 575 43% 29% Medium Nye 111 312 55% 36% Medium Carson City 1,3042 460 28% Unable to Calculate Medium Douglas 422 378 27% Unable to Calculate Medium Lyon 150 493 46% 30% Medium Humboldt 92 203 40% 45% Large Clark 3952 17,576 7% Unable to Calculate Large Washoe 170 3,952 12% 54% Large SPCSA 654 1,276 53% 51%

Total 3,328 25,839 13% 13%

1 Data were retrieved from the Nevada Report Card, SY 2016‐2017 http://www.nevadareportcard.com 2 Due to a glitch related to copying URLs in Google, an unknown number of Clark and Douglas teachers responded to the Carson Survey. The combined response rate for those three districts is 1,741 out of 18,414 total teachers or 9%.

Page 26 of 98

http:http://www.nevadareportcard.com

DEMOGRAPHICS

The demographic data from the Teacher Survey indicated that most teachers in Nevada are female

(72%), with the remaining male or electing not to answer (25% and 3% respectively). Next, the survey

asked teachers to report how long they have been teaching (Figure 2). It is interesting to note that a

strong majority of respondents have taught for more than ten years.

Figure 2: How long responding teachers have been teaching

The Teacher Survey also asked respondents to indicate their job classification and type of school in which they work. Figure 3 shows the job classification of respondents. The vast majority were certified teachers. The types of schools represented are shown in Figure 5

Figure 4. The “Other” category included responses from teachers in special education departments,

correctional facilities, other grade combinations (1‐6, 5‐6, 7‐12, K‐4, K‐12, etc.), early childhood, and

many more placements that are atypical.

Page 27 of 98

77%

1%

10%

2%

10%Other

Technology teacher/integration specialist Special education teacher

Media specialist

Certified teacher

Figure 3: Job classification of respondents

Figure 4: Types of schools represented

32%

27%

28%

5% 8%

Elementary School (K‐5 or K‐6)

Middle School (6‐8, 6‐9, 7‐8, or 7‐9)

High School (9‐12 or 10‐12)

Elementary/Middle School (K‐8)

Other

Teachers who responded that they teach in middle or high schools were asked to state what subject(s)

they teach. Their responses are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The “Other” category i

ncluded counselors, music, special education, art, ESL, GATE, theater, and those who teach a

combination of subjects.

Page 28 of 98

Figure 5: Subjects taught by responding teachers

When asked about their experience with technology (Figure 6), most of the teachers considered

themselves about average or experienced (37% and 45% respectively). Few respondents described

themselves as very experienced (14%). These numbers are largely unchanged from the findings in 2014

and 2016. When interpreting the results, it is important to consider that the majority of teachers in

Nevada continue to feel that they have average or above average experience with educational

technology.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Very inexperienced Inexperienced About average Experienced Very experienced

2014 2016 2018

Figure 6: Perceived technology experience levels

Page 29 of 98

DEVICES IN CLASSROOM

With respect to the number and age of devices in Nevada classrooms, the Teacher Survey asked a series

of questions about designated devices for administrative tasks (e.g. grading, attendance), instructional

tasks, and student use. Teachers reported that 98% of their classrooms had a device for administrative

tasks (unchanged from 2016). Teachers estimated that 71% of those devices are fewer than five years

old, and a total of 90% of teachers agree to strongly agree that their designated administrative device is

easy to use (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Age of administrative devices

In response to whether or not teachers had a designated device for instructional purposes and student

use in their classroom, 91% said that they had a device for instructional purposes, 83% said that they

agree to strongly agree that the instructional device is easy to use. Again, these numbers are unchanged

from 2016. A total of 71% confirmed that they had designated devices for students to use in their

classroom, up from 67% in 2016. A total of 69% agree to strongly agree that these student devices are

easy to use. The age of these devices is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Age of instructional devices

Page 30 of 98

INTERNET ACCESS

With regard to the internet access for Nevada schools, 90% of Nevada teachers agreed that their

classroom had an internet connection (98% agreed in 2016). Fifty four percent stated that they had a

wired (Ethernet) connection and 82% stated that they had a wireless connection for their classroom

internet, up from 71% in 2016. In terms of reliability, 68% agree to strongly agree that their wired

connection is dependable with 56% stating that they agree to strongly agree that their wireless

connection is dependable. In 2016, 66% of teachers reported that they agree to strongly agree that their

wired connection was dependable, and 41% agreed to strongly agreed that their wireless connection

was dependable, demonstrating some improvement in connectivity.

When asked to rate the speed that a typical online video will begin playing on the classroom devices, an

upward trend can clearly be seen from 2012‐2018 in the quickly to very quickly responses, and a

decrease in the slowly to very slowly (Figure 9) responses. While this suggests that the classroom

internet speed continues to vary greatly across the state, and it has greatly improved since 2012. Since a

widely available and dependable internet connection is necessary for the one‐to‐one initiative, as well

as successful teaching with technology, it is gratifying to see the improvements indicated by these data.

Nonetheless, is clear that the dependability and speed of classroom internet connections in Nevada

schools can still be improved.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Very quickly Quickly Neither quickly nor slowly

Slowly Very slowly

2012 2016 2018

Figure 9: Teachers’ ratings of the speed a typical online video will begin to play on classroom devices

Page 31 of 98

INTERNET FILTER

All Nevada school districts have policies and practices in place to vet websites for student and staff use.

Internet filtering is a constant struggle for administrators and teachers. Administrators must contend

with student safety and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). From a classroom

perspective, a teacher may submit a site as acceptable one week, while another teacher in the same

district may submit the same site as being inappropriate the following week.

When asked about their opinions on the internet filter at their school, data show some changes from

2016. In 2018, 65% of teachers reported that they feel their school’s internet filter is about right

whereas 51% of teachers reported in 2016 that they felt their school’s internet filter was about right.

Nineteen percent of responding teachers in 2018 consider their school’s internet filter to be too

restrictive, a significant decrease from the 40% in 2016 who felt it too restrictive. Ten percent in 2018

suggest that additional restrictions are necessary, up from 5% in 2016. Five percent responded, “I don’t

know”.

Page 32 of 98

SECTION 5: TEACHERS’ PREPAREDNESS FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

The sources of data for this section are the responses from the Teacher Survey.

This section addresses the guiding question:

2. How prepared are Nevada teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms?

TEACHER SURVEY RESULTS

The 2018 SETNA Teacher Survey closely resembled the 2014 and 2016 questions that assessed teachers’

readiness to engage in a 21st Century teaching environment. This report includes a number of different

educational technology tools and incorporates specific examples of 21st Century teaching practices.

These practices include: the use of data to make instructional decisions, the ability to leverage content

management systems to hybridize instruction, and the use of teaching material that is delivered solely

from a digital device. In addition to tools and practices, this section includes aspects of teachers’

professional development with respect to educational technology.

TEACHER READINESS: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS

The Teacher Survey asked participants to rate how prepared they felt to use certain educational tools

for instructional purposes. Available responses included: N/A, not at all prepared, not prepared,

prepared, well prepared, and very well prepared. To better present the data, it has been segregated to

show the percentage of teachers who felt not prepared to not at all prepared, and well prepared to very

well prepared. “N/A” answers were minimal and therefore are excluded from the graphs. Figure 10

summarizes the statewide responses to the prompt: “Please indicate the degree to which you are

currently prepared to use the following tools for instructional purposes.” Figure 11 divides this data into

district size categories.

Overall, the data in Figure 10 show that Nevada teachers feel well prepared to use many of the

mentioned educational tools for instructional purposes. The highest percentages are in the utilization of

tools geared towards simplifying the task of displaying information; for example, presentation software,

internet resources, and LCD projectors are the tools the teachers feel the best prepared to use. In

contrast, over half of Nevada teachers feel not prepared to not at all prepared to use learning enhancing

tools like integrated learning systems, probes and/or probe‐ware, video production, and simulations.

Page 33 of 98

These findings are consistent with 2016 results and we can again confirm that teachers would benefit

from increased professional development efforts to learn instruction‐enhancing tools.

Another finding consistent with 2016 is that teachers appear better prepared to use tools that have

been in the classroom setting for several years, and are generally unprepared to make use of newer,

emerging technologies, many of which are currently available in schools throughout the state. Although

these biennial reports indicate that progress is being made, the issues with teacher preparedness

continue to point to the significant need for teacher professional development.

Figure 11 shows the same results, but broken down by the size of the district. Though the individual

technologies’ labels cannot be fully displayed, the comparison shows that the districts do not vary

significantly in their teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to use specified technologies. The trends for

individual technologies are similar, indicating that the emphasis on those technologies is similar across

the state. Larger districts do seem to have teachers who feel somewhat better prepared than smaller

districts to teach with specified technologies. The tools that teachers in the large districts feel largely not

prepared to use, the teachers in the medium and small districts feel even less prepared to use. We

speculate this may be due to more resources available in larger districts, especially professional

development resources.

Page 34 of 98

58% 35%

48% 59%

58% 70%

57% 68%

62% 68% 61%

82% 81%

56% 36%

63% 93%

81% 55%

65% 86%

17% 67%

33% 68% 66%

48% 67% 65% 66% 68%

54% 86%

52% 76%

50%

36% 57%

41% 30%

35% 22%

34% 22%

27% 24% 23%

11% 13%

35% 51%

29% 6%

13% 32%

25% 11%

64% 26%

52% 27% 26%

43% 27% 27% 26% 25%

38% 10%

38% 20%

39%

Audio or video podcasts (access or create) Audio/Video production/editing (Audacity, GarageBand, iMovie, Movie maker, etc.)

Classroom response systems (clickers, etc.) Classroom voice amplification systems

Content management systems/websites (Moodle, Canvas,Blackboard, etc.) Content specific applications (math, science, music, etc.)

Database software Digital camera

Digital video camera Document camera Drill and practice E‐mail (student)

Handheld or mobile device Image/photo editing

Integrated learning systems (CompassLearningOdessy,Plato Learning, etc.) Interactive whiteboard software (Promethean, SMARTNotebook, etc.)

Internet resources LCD projector

Library catalogs Online research databases available through the school media center/library

Presentation software (PowerPoint, Prezi) Probes and/or probeware

Document scanner (uploading electronic copies of paper textbook pages, etc.) Simulations

Spreadsheets Tutorials

Videoconferencing Video streaming (Discovery, Learn 360, TeacherTube, etc.)

Teach in a classroom where every student has their own device (1:1). Access and use state assessment data (e.g. CRT scores) to support instructional decisions.

Access and use district assessment data to support instructional decisions. Teach in a classroom where all of the instructional materials are delivered via the device.

Find effective instructional materials on the Internet. Blended learning, hybrid 1:1, BYOD, Project BasedLearning (PBL).

Integrate educational technology into your classroom. Incorporate library databases into student research projects.

Very Well/Well Prepared Not Prepared/Not At All Prepared

Figure 10: Teacher preparedness to use listed technologies

Page 35 of 98

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE AUD IO OR V I D EO PODCAS T S 53% 47% 59% 41%

AUD IO /V I D EO P RODUCT ION / ED I T I NG 26% 74% 37% 63% C LA S SROOM RE S PONSE S Y S T EMS … 33% 67% 52% 48%

C LA S SROOM VO I C E AMPL I F I CA T ION … 44% 56% 71% 29% CONTENT MANAGEMENT … 51% 49% 61% 39%

CONTENT S P E C I F I C A P P L I CA T IONS 71% 29% 74% 26% DATABAS E SO F TWARE 53% 47% 61% 39%

D IG I TA L CAMERA 72% 28% 74% 26% D IG I TA L V I D EO CAMERA 62% 38% 68% 32%

DOCUMENT CAMERA 59% 41% 73% 27% DR I L L AND P RACT

a report on the findings of the biennial state educational ... · a report on the findings of the...

Documents