stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/~bholt1/8480_evaluation_report_bhs.docx · Web viewEach...

Running Head: INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Interactive White Board Use in the Self-Contained Special Education Classroom

Bethany Stiefel

Dr. Baylen

April 11, 2011

Executive Summary


Background Information

Calhoun City Schools is located in Calhoun, Georgia, approximately two hours north

of Atlanta and an hour south of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Calhoun City Schools serves over

3,000 students. Of those 3,000 students, approximately one percent are served in a self-

contained special education classroom setting. Students who make up a self-contained

special education class have disabilities that keep them from functioning successfully in a

general classroom setting. Although interactive white boards (IWB) have been progressively

installed in classrooms throughout the system for several years, the installment process has

taken place in self-contained special education classes only within the last year. The

expectation is that IWBs will allow special education teachers to more efficiently teach

technology-based lessons while actively engaging their students.

Purpose of the Evaluation

The special education director for Calhoun City Schools, who will serve as the client

for the purpose of this evaluation, was interested in how interactive white boards are being

used in self-contained classes across the system to better serve students with disabilities.

The client wanted to determine common practices, frequency of use, and comfort level of

self-contained teachers using IWBs for instruction. The client also wanted to identify

professional development needs that might be addressed through future trainings.

Evaluation Questions

Are special education teachers provided adequate training for IWB use?

How often are IWB used in self-contained special education classrooms?

What purpose do IWB serve in self-contained special education classrooms?

How much do self-contained special education students use IWBs?

What are some examples of how IWBs make instruction more effective?

Do teachers collaborate with others for resources and effective instructional uses?


Methods

With such a small collection group for the school system, it was imperative that 100%

participation was achieved from all self-contained teachers. Each self-contained teacher in

the school system was observed teaching a lesson using the interactive white board by the

evaluator. Each teacher also participated in an online survey provided by the evaluator

concerning how they use the IWB in their classroom, how often they use the IWB, whether

they feel they received adequate training, and collaboration for IWB related resources. The

results were graphed and analyzed by the evaluator to provide a clear picture of the

happenings around the IWB use in self-contained classes.

Key Findings

Interactive white boards are being used in to enhance instruction in self-contained

settings across the school system. However, the majority (60% of self-contained teachers)

use IWB for only 30-60 minutes per instructional day. All teachers use interactive white

boards in the self-contained setting for video, review games, and teacher-led interactive

websites. Video is used on the IWB for 40% of self-contained classes. Twenty percent of

teachers use review games most frequently. Another 20% use student-led interactive

websites most, while 40% use IWB for other means. Eighty percent of self-contained

teachers reported feeling adequately trained to use IWBs in their classrooms while only 40%

of those teachers reported being “very comfortable” using it. One hundred percent of

teachers surveyed reported that they think they would benefit from addition professional

development focused in IWBs. Eighty percent of self-contained teachers would like to see

professional development include interactive web resources, while 20% would like to know

more about creating and using flipcharts, and 0% interested in IWB basic skills.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Based on survey and observation results, self-contained teachers seem to be using

IWBs for limited uses. Professional development concerning interactive web resources for


students with disabilities is needed for self-contained teachers to broaden their instructional

uses with the IWB. Teachers are currently using the IWB to replace videos and dry-erase

boards. More emphasis needs to be placed on student-interaction with IWBs. Based on the

observations, self-contained teachers are using IWBs for very low academic instruction.

Teachers would benefit from collaboration sessions and professional development

opportunities to share web resources that include a functional curriculum to derive more

frequent and in-depth use of IWBs.

Interactive White Board Use in the Self-Contained Special Education Classroom

Introduction

The evaluation being conducted will focus on interactive white board (IWB) use in

self-contained special education classes at Calhoun City Schools. Teachers and


administrators alike will agree upon the importance of engaging students in technology-rich

21st century classrooms. As part of 21st century initiatives across the nation, interactive

whiteboards have taken an increasingly prominent role in classrooms across America.

Although many schools have taken the steps to get this technology and professional

development to use it in place, very little research has been conducted on the effects of

IWBs in special education classrooms. This evaluation will be used to gather data concerning

the effective uses of IWBs in self-contained special education classrooms, teacher resources,

and professional development needs. The client for this evaluation is Bob Orfield, special

education director of Calhoun City Schools with stakeholders including special education

teachers, students provided with special education services, and parents of such students.

In preparation for this evaluation, information was gathered from several articles

concerning similar evaluations of the effects of interactive whiteboards in the classroom. In

comparing these studies, I discovered that most of the results rendered interactive

whiteboards useful tools in the classroom. The reasons behind the success in each of these

studies, while somewhat varied from study to study, seemed to be very basic and based on

common sense. Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) conclude that,

“interactive whiteboards can be effective tools for initiating and facilitating

the learning process, especially where pupil participation and use of the board

is utilized. The way in which information is presented, through color and

movement in particular, is seen by the pupils to be motivating and reinforces

concentration and attention.”

In Engagement with Electronic Screen Media among Students with Autism Spectrum

Disorders, the results stated that all types of electronic screen media (ESM) proved to help

hold students’ attention, but viewing oneself on the screen rendered greater gaze time and

potentially greater chance of information retention (Mechling, Ziegler, Gill & Salkin, 2009).

Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, and associates discovered that teachers implementing IWB

technology into their instruction will require ongoing training and support for their selection


of appropriate instructional software (2005). They also stated that support would need to be

in place for teachers to deepen and enhance their lesson reflections to provide students with

the most beneficial learning experiences. In the study concerning the use of interactive

whiteboards for literacy in primary schools in England, Shenton and Pagett (2007) concluded

that interactive whiteboards were used in various ways, according to teachers’ technical

expertise and experience. Two studies were conducted to determine the effective uses of

IWB technology among students with disabilities in a small group arrangement. The first

study determined using IWBs was effective in teaching letter sounds, and students acquired

some letter sounds targeted for other students and incidental information (letter names)

presented in the instructive feedback statements for their own and other group members’

target stimuli (Campbell & Mechling, 2009). The second study established that “the large

screen [was effective] for delivering target information and learning of other students’

information by making images more visible and increasing attention to the task,” (Mechling,

Gast, & Krupa, 2007). In The Features of Interactive Whiteboards and Their Influence on

Learning, the authors decided that IWBs have an “important influence on teaching and

learning” and “can provide potential and structure for action in the classroom,” (Kennewell

& Beauchamp, 2007).

Based on the results found in each study, I have solid ground on which to conduct my

own study. Not only did each study find IWBs to be effective for instruction in some way or

another, but the collection also proved IWBs to be effective in general education classrooms

as well as special education settings. Since the findings in these articles support the use of

IWBs in multiple educational settings, I should be able to use my evaluation to easily

pinpoint the effective uses of interactive whiteboards for students with moderate intellectual

disabilities in my school system. Evaluation of whether or not the teachers in my school

system have had adequate training, how often IWBs are used, the purposes for the use,

examples of how IWBs make instruction more effective, how often students use IWBs, and

how teachers collaborate with others for resources and effective instructional uses will

enable me to show data to support effectiveness of using IWBs. With this information, I will


also be able to make specific recommendations of how the system can improve the IWB use

for students with disabilities.

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the implementation and usage of

interactive white boards (IWB) in self-contained special education classrooms. Although

many studies have been found that concentrate on 21st century technology in the classroom,

few address it in the special education setting. Of the few I came across, Mineo, Ziegler, Gill,

& Salkin (2009) completed a study that focused on students with autism and how electronic

screen media affected student engagement. Another article focused on how IWB technology

affected how students with mild learning disabilities learn literacy skills (Campbell &

Mechling, 2009). A third study discussed the effective uses of IWBs with literacy skills,

specifically grocery related sight words and images (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). All

three of these articles supported the use of IWBs in small groups or one-on-one for students

with disabilities. Two of the articles results found that IWBs helped students focus on the

task due to the large screen size and other students were able to acquire non-target literacy

skills by being present while other students participate in their target literacy instruction

(Campbell & Mechling, 2009) (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). The article that focused on

electronic screen media for students with autism found that the IWB increased gaze time for

students with autism, which in turn, would increase the likelihood of information retention

(Mineo, Ziegler, Gill, & Salkin, 2009).

The evaluation will determine how often IWBs are used by teachers and students,

what IWBs are used for, whether teachers received adequate training, whether teachers

collaborate for resources and effective instructional strategies, and examples of effective

instructional strategies (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005). The evaluation will be formative

(Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005) and the data collected

will be used to improve the usage of interactive white boards in the self-contained special

education classroom to better meet the needs of the students.


Evaluation Questions

In order to provide meaningful information to the stakeholders of this evaluation, the

following questions will be addressed:



What purpose do IWB serve in self-contained special education classrooms?




Methods

Participants

Calhoun City Schools currently serves over 3,000 students from Pre-K to grade 12.

One percent of these students receive special education services in a self-contained

classroom.

The participants will include self-contained special education teachers at Calhoun

City Schools. The system currently supports five self-contained special education

classrooms: two at the primary school, one at the elementary school, one at the middle

school, and one at the high school.

Design and Procedures

The evaluation procedures consist of the following methods:

Observations will be collected from each classroom. The observation will be

completed by the use of a checklist created by the evaluator. The checklist will

enable the researcher to determine how and for what purpose IWBs are being used in

self-contained special education classes.


An electronic survey will be provided for participants to complete after observations

have been made by the evaluator. The survey will consist of a combination of open-

ended and closed questions.

Instruments

Materials needed to complete this evaluation were created by the evaluator: Instruments

include:

Observation Checklist- This instrument will provide the evaluator a list of areas to

look for during the observation of each classroom.

Teacher Survey- The survey will provide teachers with a list a comprehensive

questions that will enable them to evaluate how much time they spend using IWBs

for instruction, how much time students spend using the IWB, the types of activities

they use most on the IWB, their comfort levels, and professional development needs.

Data Analysis

Surveys

The survey will be created and analyzed using GoogleDocs. Teachers will be provided

a link to the survey with the intention for it to be completed on the computer so results can

be directly sent to the evaluator upon completion. Each question on the survey will be

analyzed to determine response patterns among participants by putting the information into

a graph and a percentage. Those questions answered using a rating scale will be averaged

to determine the average answer among participants. Grade level taught and will be taken

into consideration when determining relevance of rating scale answers to determine

appropriate uses of IWB software at different grade levels. Open-ended questions will be

grouped based on similarities.


Observations

The observation checklist will be used to determine whether interactive white boards

are being used in classrooms and the activities that students are engaged in during IWB use.

The data collected during the observations will be put into a table to determine common

uses. The data will also be quantified by grouping similar answers into percentages. The

observations will provide the evaluator with first-hand data as opposed to second-hand

responses.

Summary of Key Findings


As reported by all teachers surveyed, 80% feel that they received adequate training

on using the interactive white board to enhance instruction. On a scale of one to five with

one being very comfortable and five being not comfortable at all, 40% of teachers surveyed

reported being very comfortable (1) using the interactive white board, followed by another

40% being pretty comfortable (2) , while 20% were just comfortable (3). Although the

teachers reported being comfortable with using IWB technology, 100% of these teachers feel

that they would benefit from additional professional development concerning IWB use. The

most frequent (80%) type of professional development suggested was interactive web

resources, 20% of teachers were interested in flipchart use, while 0% were interested in

basic skills.


Interactive white boards yield potentially greater chance of information retention

(Mineo, Ziegler, Gill, & Salkin, 2009). They are being used in each self-contained class in the

school system. Teachers most frequently reported using the IWB 30-60 minutes/day with

60% of teachers selecting this time frame. Twenty percent of teachers reported using the

IWB less than that time, selecting “0-30 minutes/day” as how often the IWB is used for


instruction in their classroom, while 20% reported using IWBs 60-90 minutes/day. No teacher

reported using IWBs more than 90 minutes/day.

What purpose do IWBs serve in self-contained special education classrooms?

Interactive white boards “can provide potential and structure for action in the

classroom,” (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007). They were reported being most frequently

used for video in the self-contained classrooms in the Calhoun City School system. Although

100% of teachers reported using the IWB for video, review games, and teacher-led

interactive websites, 40% reported video being the most frequent practice of IWB use in

their classroom. Other activities complete using the IWB included dry-erase, presentation of

documents, and student-led interactive websites with 40% of teachers reporting using IWBs

for dry-erase activities, 40% of teachers using it for presentation of documents, and 60%

using IWBs for student-led interactive websites. The second most frequent uses were review

games and student-led interactive websites, both with 20% of teachers reporting use of

these activities in their classrooms most frequently.


According to a recent study, interactive white boards help make images more visible

and increase student attention to the task, (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). Based on the

survey results, self-contained students use IWBs at all grade-levels. Forty percent of special

education teachers stated that students use IWBs for 0-30 minutes/day in their classrooms.

Another 40% reported students using IWBs for 30-60 minutes/day, while 20% reported

students using IWBs 60-90 minutes/day. No teacher reported student IWB use to exceed 90

minutes/day.


Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) concluded that interactive white boards can be

effective tools for initiating and facilitating the learning process. To go along with this, all


teachers surveyed think that IWBs make instruction more effective. One teacher stated, “It

gets the students’ attention.” Another teacher reported, “Use of the interactive white board

helps students with severe attending difficulties maintain attention to tasks. It also gives

those with fine motor difficulties an opportunity to practice their skills and work on

coordination.” One teacher reported that, “[using the IWB] gives children the opportunity to

be hands on while we are able to access so many more engaging activities that capture

student attention and maintain attention,” while another stated, “Interactive white boards

allow teachers to complete technology-rich lessons and students to engage in technology-

based instruction that would not be feasible using a computer alone. Students can interact

with the boards while receiving feedback from the teacher in real-time during a class

discussion type setting.”


Teachers need to collaborate for selection of appropriate instructional software

(Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005). Eighty percent of

teachers reported collaborating with others for web resources and effective instructional

uses. Although the majority of teachers claim to collaborate with others, 80% also reported

wanting professional development concerning interactive web resources. When teachers

described how they collaborate they stated that they “ask for websites others use.” They

also said, “I have shared and exchanged websites with ability-appropriate content for

students with teachers in this and other schools in our system.” One teacher reported, “We

keep many lists of interactive sites on our school shared drive; I also plan with other

teachers in the self-contained setting as well as homeroom teacher at the elementary

school.”

Recommendations and Conclusions

Purchasing expensive technology for classrooms does not mean that the technology

will be used to its fullest potential without specific professional development opportunities.


Based on the observations and survey results, self-contained teachers are making an effort

to use IWBs to benefit instruction on a daily basis because they recognize that IWBs have

“important influence on teaching and learning” (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007). The needs

of self-contained classes differ from the needs of the general education setting. Although

self-contained teachers are using IWBs, the uses are limited and so are the resources.

Armstrong et al. (2005) agrees that these teachers will require ongoing training and support

in the form of professional development opportunities and collaboration sessions concerning

interactive web resources. The teachers seem to have a firm grasp on basic skills concerning

the IWB, but they want to know more about how they can use it more frequently and more

efficiently to benefit their students. According to a study completed in England, interactive

whiteboards were used in various ways, according to teachers’ technical expertise and

experience (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). Web resources containing functional curriculum skills

would be most beneficial in helping aid students with disabilities that are served in these

classrooms.

The evaluation process overall was a success. In retrospect, scheduling announced

and unannounced observations would prove to show a clearer picture of the regular

technology-based happenings in a self-contained classroom. Interviews might have also

helped the evaluator determine more specific teacher needs. The conclusion of the

evaluation will be presented to the client for discussion and professional development

outcomes.


References

Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005).

Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use

of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 457-469.

Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with

SMART board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of

nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, (1), 47-57.

Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their

influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 227-241.

Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of smart board technology: An

investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 1869-1882.

Mineo, B. A., Ziegler, W., Gill, S., & Salkin, D. (2009). Engagement with electronic screen

media among students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 172-187.


Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From "bored" to screen: The use of the interactive

whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 129-136.

Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). "The visual helps me understand the complicated

things": Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 851-867.

Appendix A

Checklist for Classroom Observations

Date___________________________

Grade Level_____________________

Subject_________________________

Skill Being Taught___________________________________________________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_____ IWB is being used during the observation

______ IWB is NOT being used during the observation

------------------------------------------IWB Use---------------------------------------------------

______ Teacher is interacting with the IWB (using teacher-centered approach where content

on IWB is main focus)

______ Students are interacting with the IWB (using student-centered approach where

content on IWB is main focus)

______ As a presentation board for documents or forms

Appendix A (continued)

______ For video

______ For flip chart

______ For website

______ For dry erase


Appendix B

Surveys for Self-Contained Special Education Teachers at Calhoun City Schools

Grade Level_____________________

Years of Teaching Experience ________________

Gender

Male

Female

1. How often do you use interactive white boards as a part of your instruction?

a. 0-30 minutes each day

b. 30-60 minutes each day

c. 60-90 minutes each day

d. 90+ minutes each day


2. How much time do students spend using the interactive white board in a typical

school day?

a. 0-30 minutes each day

b. 30-60 minutes each day

c. 60-90 minutes each day

d. 90+ minutes each day

3. What types of activities do you engage in most using the interactive white board?

Rate from 1 to 7. 1 being most frequent- 7 being least frequent.

_____ Dry-erase

_____ Presentation of documents

Appendix B (continued)

_____ Video

_____ Review games

_____ Teacher-led interactive websites

_____ Student-led interactive websites

_____ Other______________________

4. How comfortable are you in using your interactive white board?

a. Very comfortable

b. Comfortable

c. Not as comfortable as I would like

d. Not comfortable at all

5. Do you feel like you received adequate training for using your interactive white

board?

a. Yes


b. No

6. Do you feel like you would benefit from additional professional development? Check

all that apply.

____Yes:

____ Interactive web resources

____ Basic skills

____ Using and making flipcharts

____ Other:_________________________________________

Appendix B (continued)

____No

7. Do you feel like using interactive white boards makes instruction more effective?

____Yes, provide examples:

______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____No

8. Do you collaborate with other teachers for resources and effective instructional uses

for interactive white boards?

____Yes, provide examples:

______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____No

Additional Comments

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________

Appendix C

Survey Results

Grade Level:

K-2: 2 40%

3-5: 1 20%

6-8: 1 20%

9-12: 1 20%

Gender:

Male: 1 20%

Female: 4 80%

How many years of teaching experience do you have?


20; 10; 8; 7; 4

How often do you use interactive white boards as part of your instruction?

0-30 min/day: 1 20%

30-60 min/day: 3 60%

60-90 min/day: 1 20%

90+ min/day: 0 0%

Appendix C (continued)

How much time do students spend using the interactive white board in a typical school day?

0-30 minutes/day: 2 40%



90+ minutes/day:0 0%

What type of activities do you engage in using the interactive white board?

Dry-erase: 2 40%

Presentation of documents: 2 40%

Video: 5

100%

Review games: 5 100%

Teacher-led interactive websites: 5

100%

Student-led interactive websites: 3 60%

Other: 0 0%


Which of the above activities do you use most with the interactive white board?

Dry-erase: 0 0%

Presentation of documents: 0 0%

Video: 2 40%

Review games: 1 20%

Teacher-led interactive websites: 0 0%

Student-led interactive websites: 1 20%

Other: 2 40%


How comfortable are you in using your interactive white board?

1-Very comfortable 2 40%

2- 2 40%

3- 1 20%

4- 0 0%

5- Not comfortable at all 0 0%

Do you feel like you received adequate training for using your interactive white board?

Yes4 80%

No 1 20%


Do you feel like you would benefit from additional professional development?

Yes5 100%

No 0 0%


If you answered yes above, please indicate the type of professional development you would

like.

Interactive Web Resources: 4 80%

Basic Skills: 0 0%

Using/Making Flipcharts: 1 20%

Do you feel like using interactive white boards makes instruction more effective?

Yes5 100%

No 0 0%


If you answered yes above, please provide a brief explanation.

Response 1: “it gets the students attention”

Response 2: “Use of the interactive white board helps students with severe attending

difficulties maintain attention to task. It also gives those with fine motor difficulties an

opportunity to practice their skills and work on coordination.”

Response 3: No response

Response 4: “It gives children the opportunity to be hands on while we are able to access

so many more engaging activities that capture student attention and maintain attention.”

Response 5: “Interactive white boards allow teachers to complete technology-rich lessons

and students to engage in technology-based instruction that would not be feasible using a


computer alone. Students can interact with the boards while receiving feedback from the

teacher in real-time during a class discussion type setting.”

Do you collaborate with other teachers for resources and effective instructional uses for

interactive white boards?

Yes 4 80%

No 1 20%

If you answered yes above, please provide examples below.

Response 1: “asking for websites others use”

Response 2: “I have shared & exchanged websites with ability-appropriate content for


students with teachers in this and other schools in our system.”

Response 3: No response

Response 4: “We keep many lists of interactive sites on our school shared drive; I also plan

with other teachers in the self-contained setting as well as homeroom teacher at the

elementary school.”

Appendix D

Observation Checklist Results

Grade Level

Subject IWB Use

Student Interaction

Teacher Interaction

Document/Forms

Video Flipchart Website Dry Erase

K-2 ELA/Reading

Yes X X

K-2 Calendar/ Circle Time

Yes X X X

3-5 Math Yes X X X6-8 Calendar/

Circle TimeYes X X

9-12 Math Yes X X X X


Data Collection Organization Matrix

Questions Related Results

Levels (Mega, Macro, Micro)

Required Data/ Measurable Indicators

Data Source

Data Collection Tools/ Procedures

Data Collected By (Date)

Primary Responsibility

Have special education teachers with IWBs been provided with adequate training?

Students are able to gain a better understanding of academic standards and functional life skills by engaging in productive and motivating activities involving interactive white boards.

Macro Data will be gathered by evaluator through surveys

Teachers Surveys 3/11/11 Evaluation

How often are IWBs

Students served with Special

Mega Data will be gathered

Teachers and observatio

Surveys and observatio

3/11/11 Evaluation


used in self-contained special education classrooms?

Education services are a part of a positive, productive, 21st century learning environment due to the use of interactive white board technology. Students become functional, active citizens in 21st century society.

by evaluator through surveys and observations

ns ns

For what purpose are IWBs being used?

Students are able to gain a better understanding of academic standards and functional life skills by engaging in productive and motivating activities involving interactive white boards.

Students are able to use interactive white boards to learn and review skills being practiced. Students are able to participate in student-centered, technology rich

Macro

Micro

Data will be gathered by evaluator through surveys and observations

Teachers and observations

Surveys and observations

3/11/11 Evaluation


instructional activities.


Students are able to use interactive white boards to learn and review skills being practiced. Students are able to participate in student-centered, technology rich instructional activities.

Micro Data will be gathered by evaluator through surveys


How much time do students use IWBs?

Students served with Special Education services are a part of a positive, productive, 21st century learning environment due to the use of interactive white board technology. Students become functional, active citizens in 21st century society.

Mega Data will be gathered by evaluator through surveys


How do teachers collaborate with others for resources and effective instructional uses?

Students served with Special Education services are a part of a positive, productive, 21st century learning environment due to the use of

Mega Data will be gathered by evaluator through surveys



interactive white board technology. Students become functional, active citizens in 21st century society.

stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/~bholt1/8480_evaluation_report_bhs.docx · Web viewEach...

Documents

Transcript of stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/~bholt1/8480_evaluation_report_bhs.docx · Web viewEach...