Top Banner
Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation
18
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, MasaStanford University ED 391

EPGY Final Presentation

Page 2: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

2

Presentation Overview

• Review Background

• Critical Evaluation

• ABCD Framework

• Demo of EPGY Software

• Demo of Proposed Changes

• Recommendations

Page 3: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

3

EPGY Background

• EPGY: Educational Program for Gifted Youth• Started in late 1980s by Stanford Philosophy

Professor Patrick Suppes• Enrolls ~ 3000 students/year, growing• Provides courses to “gifted” children, mostly in

high school math and sciences• Most students take the courses at home• Pros and cons of Stanford affiliation

– Pros• excellent, researched-based core approach• Stanford brand recognition is golden

– Cons• difficult to raise money to polish courses• academic environment leads to inefficiencies everywhere

Page 4: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

4

Project Background

• EPGY would like to address the school market more aggressively

• Interested in Title 1 funds for low-income schools => less motivated kids

• Project focus– software’s and program’s appropriateness for:

• less motivated kids• group setting

Page 5: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

5

Critical Evaluation:Marin Country Day School• Principal was actively opposed to

students taking EPGY courses• Instituted fifth grade math club to combat

trend of students taking EPGY courses• Eighth grade algebra teacher said

students memorized algorithms without learning deeply– she had to deconstruct kids’ ideas of what

being good at math means

• . . . but when she saw a specific student’s experience, interaction w/ a tutor, she liked it

Page 6: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

6

ABCD Framework

• Audience

• Behavior

• Conditions

• Degree

Page 7: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

7

Audience

• Focus on who the learners are– K-7 students

(Top 15% percent)

– Five local schools(Title 1 and Affluent)

– 10 to 20 students per classroom– After school program/supplemental– Heterogeneous– courses through computer-based

software

Page 8: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

8

Behavior

• The new capability the learner will have after the instruction– Mastery of skill and knowledge– Engagement in the learning process– Capable of working with CD Rom

software– Self motivated

Page 9: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

9

Conditions

• After listening to the lecture online the student will be able to calculate and find the solution for each of the problems for that section.

• 1 to 1 ratio for computers

• 10 to 1 ratio for students to tutor

• Lectures, drills, quizzes, and homework

Page 10: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

10

Degree

• Complete and pass all quizzes

• Assessed at 80% to 85%

Page 11: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

11

EPGY demo

• Lecture

• Sample questions

• Features

• Redesign

Page 12: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

12

Page 13: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

13Redesign

Page 14: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

14

Recommendations

• Program Strengths

• Program Challenges

• Suggested Software Improvements

• Suggested Program Improvements

Page 15: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

15

Program Strengths

• Students are clearly engaged and learning• Students are motivated, for various reasons

– Learning and improving skills– Peer interactions and “community” feel– Desire to stand out and feel special

• Adaptive technology based on mathematical algorithm keeps pace with students

• Students are able to work with moderate level of independence

• Follows all State standards, and goes beyond

Page 16: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

16

Program Challenges

• Tension in promoting individual self-paced progress within a group setting

• Scalability is difficult to achieve; at least 1:10 tutor-to-students ratio required

• Possibility that students may forge past school’s course offerings

• Principal buy-in and/or parent support is required for success of program

• Reduced perception of importance of program because it’s after school

Page 17: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

17

Suggested Software ImprovementsDemonstrated software improvements• Better course management system, so users can

navigate more easily • Progress indicator • Use more appealing multimedia tools (animation,

etc.) to reach broader audience• Utilize virtual conference software for assistance• Student monitoring system

Additional software improvements• Present concepts in multiple ways to appeal to

differing learning styles• Improve software adaptability to hone in on

particular areas of student weakness• Test for true understanding, not pattern recognition

Page 18: Mike, Ruhi, Monisha, Masa Stanford University ED 391 EPGY Final Presentation.

18

Suggested Program Improvements

• Improve coordination with what’s happening during the school day in math

• Create virtual or physical “clusters” of students at same level so that common issues can be addressed efficiently

• Offer live lecturettes to supplement students’ understanding

• Opportunities to “walk thru thinking process,” possibly through class participation

• Integrate reflections and celebrations on what students are learning

• Better ergonomics to allow pencil-paper work