Name of Case: TINA SEARS: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF A K-12 LAPTOP PROGRAM

Team 1 Group Members: Jima Jenkins, Jonathan Weston, Sherrie Reece, Melissa Fruechte

Roles and Responsibilities

Name Job Title Role Primary Concerns

Mr. Bradley Cook CEO, Hillendale Benefactor, Sponsor, -Recognition as a generous community
Textiles Co-Client leader
-Promote Business
1. His primary reasons for funding the
program were to improve student
learning and to increase employee
loyalty by supporting a program that
benefited their children.
2. great tax write-off
(top p. 64)

Members of - Sponsor of Program lackluster results

Hillendale Textiles (p. 69)
Foundation Board

Mr. Darren Chaude Employee of Toh, Ancillary financial - vying for market share of
Inc. Stakeholder lucrative K-12 laptop program
Business Associate (bottom p. 63)
of
Mr. Cook

Ms. Tina Sears District Technology Designer she used the computers to create a
Coordinator & K-12 learning environment where more
Laptop Project students wanted to learn (bottom p.
Director, Anderson 66)
County School Notice the conflict in purpose between
District Tina and Mr. Cook along with
difference in understanding of
programs success.

Students, Teachers, Anderson County Audience see figure 6-4, p. 70

Parents, School District
Principals,
School Board,
PTA,
Community Members
(pg. 70)

Dr. Tammy Burns Superintendent, Co-Client Keep Mr. Cook satisfied

Anderson County
School District

1 | Page
 What are the key (1- There are five stages within the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development,
2) ID design challenges? implementation and evaluation) and the key ID challenge faced, is evaluation of
(Hint: Label these as the program. Tina is faced with the administration of an evaluation of the laptop
Analysis, Design, program based on the stakeholders goals for the program. The initial
Development, consultation for possible program implementation did not contain any of the
Implementation or Andersen County School District groups who would be involved in the pilot test
Evaluation.)
Dr. Mark Waters Toh,and evaluation
Inc.s teacher to determine:
SME -every student would use computer to

trainer, What are the expectations of the stakeholders?
support and enhance classroom
Which
Professor questions to ask in the evaluation activities.
at a large
What evaluation methodologies can/should
mid-Atlantic (topbep.used?
65)
university;
How to organize and share evaluation data -not teach software but to match
results.
recognized
What expert in pilot program success?
defines application with learning objectives
field of K-12 (mid p. 65)
What case-specific technology
Communication and Vision: The Shahron Williams van Rooji article indicated
constraints impact the integration
that instructional designers must be able to effectively apply communication
designers ability to (p. 65)
skills when managing an instructional design project. It was clear that there was
address design a miscommunication in expectations by both Mr. Cook and Tina. Mr. Cook had
Dr.challenges?
Lisa Colm nationally
an interest in providingSUPER SME to the classrooms,
computers Is this inbutthe best interest
wanted to make ofcertain
children?
recognized and well-
that it would impact student learning and increase (top p.his70)
recognition in the
respected leader With
community. in Tinas inclusion into the program, she failed to meet with Mr.
the field
Cookoftoschool
have a clear vision of his expectations for the project. Her entire focus
evaluation
was on the positive effect technology had in the classroom, yet she did not have
(bottom p. 69)
the data to back it up. Instead, she assumed a role focused on her biased opinion
that computers should be in all classrooms. Due to the negative data from state
ITBS test scores (constraint), the challenges were increased for Tina. How could
she convince Mr. Cook that other evaluation methods can be employed to
measure students learning? Were videos and testimonials the answer? Tina
should have had a discussion with the key stakeholder, Mr. Cook, as it was clear
Option results
that he was affected by the evaluation 1: and his needs should have been
addressed. Mr. Cook may be skeptical of theofvalidity
At the center this evaluation
of futureconundrum are
evaluation results
because of this initial experience. Tina will now have to consider how to Mr.
the differing perspectives of the benefactor,
effectively communicate and justifyCook and the designer,
her chosen Tina methodology
evaluation Sears, due to afor lack
the
second year of the program. of clear communication. As stated in the text,
Mr. Cook seeks to improve student learning
How would st
1 priority and why: Evaluation: and Stakeholders
increase employee loyalty.
inclusion in the (Ertmer,
evaluation Quinn,
you prioritize these process & Glazewski, 2014, p. 64) On the other hand,
design challenges and the enthusiastic
There are many factors to be considered for anDistrict
effective Technology
program evaluation.
case-specific Coordinator, Tina Sears,
Often instructional designers will overlook what is considered is driven to use industry
a current
constraints? Why this computers to create a learning environment
trend and exclude stakeholders in the evaluation planning process. For example,
order? where
in this case, Tinas role as District more students
Technology want to may
Coordinator learn. have (Ertmer
causedether
al., 2014,
to underestimate the need to include Mr.p. 66)inNeither
Cole perspective
the planning process. is wrong,
Discussions should be held with Mr. Cook and Dr. Lisa Cohm to understand to
only different. It is Tinas role as the designer his
expectations for the program. The communicate
success ofand build consensus
an evaluation depends as to what on
largely
the inclusion of the programs factors define Having
stakeholders. the programs
a solid success
understandingand then of
gather measurable data.
their goals and expectations will be key in the evaluation process. As an example, for Mr.
Cook, How is learning measured...How is
2nd priority and why: Analysisemployee loyalty measured? For Tina, How are
of the program
Conduct an analysis of the learning environment,measured?
students attitudes its context, Ifcontent
ITBS data and is
audience. This analysis will assist in the development of learning objectives Is
used, is it an accurate reflection of learning? and
evaluation method that will be comparative
used, and point ITBS datanecessary
to the being used data appropriately
that needs to
be collected. from previous and current years? Do ITBS
scores really reflect student learning? These are
Lesser priority challenges and just a few
why lessofimportant:
the challenges The faced
lesserby the
priorities in the
stakeholders to define a meaningful
case study will be design, development and implementation of the evaluation. evaluation
The first step in any design of of the K-12 laptop program.
a program/instruction It does
is Analysis to not even
determine
include the perspectives of other stakeholders
what kind of learning is expected of the learners, the goals and objectives of the
learning event, any operational components that are required to effect the
learning environment, instructional activities etc., and perform 2 | Page
assessments/evaluations. The case study is grounded in evaluation and analysis
to mitigate any concerns for the next year continuation of the program.

Reasons for prioritization

Describe how each solution addresses the design such as parents, teachers, etc, which is why a
challenges and case-specific constraints listed more thorough communication and evaluation
above. plan are necessary before designing an
evaluation.

Option 2:
The development of a clear communication plan
and schedule will help assist in building
community and support between all
stakeholders. Tina should partner with her boss,
Dr. Burns, and financier of the program, Mr.
Cook, to lead and implement a plan that is
acceptable to all. Dr. Burns because she
represents the interest of the school district and
Mr. Cook because he represents the financial
and local support.

Discuss the pros for Option 1:

each solution. In the case study, Mr. Cook a key stakeholder and his support of the school
district and program could be a very influential asset for future funding if the
pilot program is impactful on student learning. He can be affected by the
outcome of the program as his intention is to be seen in a positive force in the
community and among his employees. When stakeholders are included in action
planning, it can be perceived that the program will explicitly meet their needs.

Option 2:
Create a clear communication plan and communication schedule to build
community between all stakeholders. Tina should partner with her boss, Dr.
Burns, and financier of the program, Mr. Cook to lead and implement a plan that
is acceptable to all. Dr. Burns because she represents the interest of the school
district and Mr. Cook because he represents the financial and local support.

Discuss the cons for Option 1:

each solution. The major concern is Tinas limited experience in conducting evaluations, as
evident by her connecting with a friend who had received computers for her
library from a local literacy council and had experience in evaluating
technology in schools. She appears dependent on Dr. Colms team for their
experience and evaluation solution.

Expert instructional designers are problem-solvers and can act as a mediator or

facilitator. Tina, in reviewing the response from Mr. Cook should have been able
to mediate the situation before reaching out to an outsider. What was needed
was a clearer vision of his expectations for the program and not the assumptions
that he would have been satisfied with reactions of the students and other
stakeholders involved. If these skills are lacking as an instructional designer (Dr.
Cohm facilitated the stakeholders meeting) what determines that the evaluation
solution recommended will produce the expected outcomes?

Option 2:
If there is no communication or collaboration between Tina, stakeholders and
Dr. Cohms team, similar issues will arise. If we take a look at the newly

3 | Page
designed evaluation questions, some of the questions asked by Tina were
included in the evaluation. Communication will address the additional methods
that can be used to measure both learning and ITBS scores. It appears that by
sitting quietly in the back of the town hall meeting to discuss the program Tina
has removed herself from the evaluation process. The benefits and detriments of
stakeholder participation are mentioned, which includes Tina. Valuable insights
can be gained from participative discussions and she is a contributor to the
programs success as well.

4 | Page