Presentation at the DTI research seminar 16 Nov

1. Measuring the Impact of the School-
wide Digital Innovation
Mart Laanpere, senior researcher @ Tallinn University, Estonia :: martl@tlu.ee
Measuring the Impact of the School-wide
Digital Innovation

2. Technology generation shifts
InshopInschool
?

3. Estonian Strategy for Lifelong Learning:
DigitalTurn towards 1:1 computing
 Digital turn in formal education system: digital culture into
curricula, bottom-up innovation, sharing good practice,
educational technologists in schools
 Digital learning resources: digital textbooks, OER, quality
management, recommender systems, Finnish-Estonian EduCloud
 Digital infrastructure for learning : 1:1 computing, BYOD,
interoperable ecosystem of services, mobile clients, school-wide
digital turn (first in 20 pilot schools, then in 100, then 200)
 Digital competences of teachers and students: competence
models, self-assessment tools, mapping with course offerings and
accreditation procedures, updating initial teacher education
curricula

4. Digital infrastructure in Estonian schools
Erasmus+ project Creative Classroom: school survey 2014

5. Technology and fun are not enough
 Successful educational innovation requires combination of
three forces on the school level:
SCHOOL
Technology
Pedagogy
Change management
M.Fullan (2013) Stratosphere:
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy
and Change Knowledge

6. Whole school digital turn
 The training and support is oriented on the level of a teacher
 Diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1992), OECD study (2002)
 Whole school intervention models are needed

7. Old and new pedagogies
Tech use
Pedagogical
capacity
Content knowledge
Master required
content
Outcome:
Content
mastery
OldNew
Outcome:
Deep learning
Teacher Pupil
Discover and master content together
Pedagogical
capacity
Create and use new
knowledge in the world
Ubiquitous technology
(Fullan 2013)

8. How to measure the progress and impact?
 Scientific surveys (SITES, PISA)
 School-level self-assessment tools:
 Hungary: eLEMER http://ikt.ofi.hu/english/
 Finland: OPEKA http://opeka.fi/en/
 UK: NAACE http://www.naace.co.uk/ictmark/
 Ireland: http://www.digitalschools.ie
 Norway: http://www.skolementor.no/index.php/en
 iTEC: EduVista http://eduvista.eun.org/
 Common European framework DigCompOrg due in 2017

9. Digital Mirror: assessing digital maturity
 Digital Mirror: our original online tool for self- and peer-
assessment of school’s digital maturity
 Three dimensions of digital maturity:
 Digital infrastructure (1-1 computing, BYOD, Wifi, support)
 Pedagogical innovation (learning environment & resources, roles)
 Change management (whole school policies, learning organisation)
 5-point assessment scale (from iTEC innovation maturity model):
 Exchange: teaching approach is not changed
 Enrich: technology supports differentiated learning
 Enhance: teaching and learning are re-designed
 Extend: ubiquitous technology, learner takes control
 Empower: beyond institutional boundaries, learner as co-author

10. Digital
Mirror

11. Samsung DigitalTurn project 2014-2015
 Whole-school digital turn: focus on change management
and pedagogical innovation (Fullan)
 Every school found their own focus (8 + 12 schools)
 Learners as creators: Kahoot, Geocaching, Digital storytelling,
learner-created textbooks
 Systemic and sustainable change: formative assessment with e-
portfolios, 3D-modeling
 Leadership: digital language immersion, regional lead
 Self- and peer-assessment of school’s digital maturity
using Digital Mirror, external evaluation by jury
Samsungdigipoore.ee

12. Samsung DigitalTurn pilot schools
www.samsungdigipoore.ee

13. Empirical study inTVET context
 Goal: improving construct validity and ecological validity
 Participatory design-based research, involving 7 VET schools
 We asked to perform 2 phases of self-assessment, followed by
online survey and focus group interview
 Results: Surprisingly positive feedback, high level of perceived
usefulness, varying process (duration from 1,5 to 6 hours),
differences in interpreting key concepts, unfamiliar concepts
pushed to learn, surprising differences in levels (e.g. high level
of infrastructure, low change management and vice versa),
secondary uses of self-assessment results

14. Lessons learned
 Digital Mirror works, although it takes time to adopt it
 Teamwork is the key, school principal must be involved
 Peer coaching and benchmarking was highly appreciated
 Engage parents and local authorities, address also threats
 Learn to make use of the publicity
 Community building and specialised sub-groups need
support

15. DigCompOrg
 EU-level framework for self-assessing school’s digital maturity
 Developed by JRC Seville, validated in 2017 in Estonia, Spain,
Italy, Denmark
 Estonian sample: 6 primary, 6 secondary, 6 vocational schools
 User consultation survey (school leaders, teachers, students)
 Testing the online Self-Assessment Tool
 Our “hidden agenda”: integration with Digital Mirror

16. Conclusions
 Schools are overwhelmed by surveys that only ask for data
without giving anything back
 Digital Mirror is useful as a data collection tool that supports
teachers and school administration in implementing double-loop
learning and becoming a learning organisation
 Meso/school-level innovation model is often overlooked, yet very
powerful in focusing on fundamental rather than spectacular side
of innovation
 Need to integrate Digital Mirror with EU-level framework
DigCompOrg

17. Acknowledgments
 Development of DigitalMirror is supported by
MobilitasPlus programme and ERA Chair project
CEITER in Tallinn University: CEITER.tlu.ee

18. Some Rights Reserved
 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution Share Alike 3.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.
 The photo on the title slide comes from Flickr.com
user Michael Surran
 The photos on the second slide are taken from the
Estonian version of Wikipedia, Koolielu.ee and Flickr