Remote Teaching in Uruguay: Does it work?

Telepresence Teaching in Uruguay
Is it Delivering Results?

Overview
• Outline of Project
• Subjective Evaluation
Survey of Classroom Teachers
• Objective Evaluation
Results of Achievement Test

Plan Ceibal • Plan Ceibal is a Uruguayan project,
developed by MEC, the Uruguayan
Ministry of Education and Culture; the
National Telecommunications company
ANTEL, (Administración Nacional de
Telecomunicaciones); the Board of Public
Education, ANEP (Administración
Nacional de Educación Pública); and LATU
(Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay).
http://www.ceibal.edu.uy

Plan Ceibal • Started 2007 with distribution of XO-1
laptops (ceibalitas)
• By 2009 Uruguay became first country in
world to have given one laptop to every
primary school student
• By 2009, 350,000 children & 16,000
teachers had received ceibalitas
• No cost wireless Internet connection in all
state schools
• Fiber optic connections progressively
replacing these
• Video conferencing equipment being
installed in all schools
http://www.ceibal.edu.uy

Plan Ceibal
2013 Review • 570,000 laptops distributed by 2012
(to all students & teachers)
• 4-year TCO (Total cost of ownership) $100
per year per child including laptops,
internet costs, administrative costs, fiber
optic costs, robotics, planned VC facilities,
portal and LMS platform as well as digital
resources for many subjects, initial
training for teachers.
• Focus on quality implementation
• Recommended focus on core priorities:
increasing high school graduation rates;
Mathematics; Literacy (Spanish & English)
http://www.ceibal.org.uy/docs/FULLAN-Ceibal-English.pdf

Ceibal English • In 2012 the British Council was selected by Plan
Ceibal to project manage Ceibal en Inglés (Ceibal
English), delivering remote teaching via video
conferencing in Uruguayan primary schools.
• Goal = provide access to English language learning
to primary students (grades 4-6) and their teachers
all over Uruguay.
• Because of a lack of trained/qualified English
teachers, Ceibal English uses remote teachers (RTs)
via video conferencing
• Additionally, classroom teachers (CTs) are taught
English via moderator-supported English course
(LearnEnglish Pathways)
http://uruguay.britishcouncil.org/en/ceibal-en-ingles

Project Plan
• Proof of concept pilot phase 2012 - 20
primary schools; 1,000 Year 4 learners
(aged 10-11)
• March 2013 expansion: 500 classes; 96
schools; Years 4,5 & 6
• July 2013 expansion: 1,000 classes
• March 2014 expansion: 2,100 classes
• By June 2015: Total of 4,000 classes (c.
100,000+ learners)
http://uruguay.britishcouncil.org/en/ceibal-en-ingles

Survey of Class Teachers (CTs)
November 2013
Aims:
Opinion CTs have of project
Perception of tech support
Relationship CTs & RTs
630/942 CTs
responded(67%)

Respondents per RT Institution
154
124
53 48 38 30 26 24 19 18 13 11 11 7 6 5
43
AACI
SME
Internation…
4D
English…
Lenguas…
Eureka
Ceibal
Anglo
Oxbridge
Dickens
BC Mex
Ceibal-…
Ceibal-4D
Ceibal-IH
BC Bog
Otros *

Source of Remote Teachers
630
273
216
117
15 6 3

Evaluation of classes
1 1 3 1
81
62 57
39
15
29
27
53
2 8
13
7
% of teachers
Poor or
very poor
Malo + Muy
malo
Ni bueno ni
malo
Bueno
Neither
good nor
bad
Good
Very good
Muy bueno
Punctuality
of remote
teacher
Rapport with
children
Responsiveness
of teacher
General conduct of
the class

Conduct of class by country of origin of RT
1% 2% 7% 7%1%
41% 39% 33%
53%
39%
49% 54% 62% 27%
67%
53%
8% 6% 3%
13% 33%
Uruguay
(273 casos)
Argentina
(216)
Filipinas
(117)
México
(15)
Colombia
(6)
Total
Malo
Ni bueno ni
malo
Bueno
Muy bueno

Rapport with pupils by country of origin of RT
63% 59% 65% 60%
50%
62%
28% 31%
30%
20%
33%
29%
8% 9% 5%
7%
17% 8%
1%
13%
1%
Uruguay
(273 casos)
Argentina
(216)
Filipinas
(117)
México (15) Colombia
(6)
Total
Malo
Ni
bueno
ni malo
Bueno

Level of Spanish of RT
63
23
9
2
1
Muy Bueno
Bueno
Regular
Malo
Muy Malo

Level of Spanish of RT
10% 13% 9% 1% 4% 2% 1%
74% 80%
14%
27% 33%
63%
21%
18%
35%
47%
67%
23%
4%
1%
37%
13%
Uruguay
(273
casos)
Argentina
(216)
Filipinas
(117)
México
(15)
Colombia
(6)
Total
Muy Malo
Malo
Regular
Bueno
Muy
Bueno

Is the Level of Spanish of the
remote teacher a problem for
coordination
% of teachers who were poor or
very poor in Spanish – 23
instances/ 3 %)
No
30%
Si
70%
Is the poor or very poor Level of
Spanish of the remote teacher a
problem for the dynamics of the
class?
% of teachers who were poor or very
poor in Spanish – 23 instances/ 3 %)

Who corrects the pupils?
52
4
6
45
34
2
55
Nobody
Nadie
The Class
teacher
Usted (maestro de
clase)
Both remote teacher
and class teacher
Los dos (el profesor
remoto y el maestro de
clase)
El The profesor remote remoto
teacher

Frequency of coordination with the RT

Reasons for lack of coordination with the RT
33
24
21
9
4
9
Por problemas del docente remoto
Problem with the remote
Falta de tiempo
Lack of time
Coordinan muy poco vía mail
Minimal coordination by email
Suplencias y cambios de…
Changes of remote teacher
Not necessary
No fue necesario
Other (failure of internet,
Otros(falta de…
problems with Skype)

Do you teach practice lessons B and C each week?
Yes but in another
format - 48%
No - 1%
Yes, following the format
Prescribed of 2 weekly
45-minute classes - 51%

Do you use lesson plans for lessons B and C?
Never or almost never
Sometimes
33%
Always
65%

How do you obtain the lesson plans for lessons B and C?

Evaluation of digital materials of the programme
(songs, videos, games, images)
45
47
8
1
Very good
Muy buenos
Buenos
Good
Neither
good
nor bad
Ni buenos ni malos
Malos
Poor

Achievement Testing August 2013 (baseline)
and
December 2013
Aims:
Evaluate differences:-
Pilot groups
March 2013 groups
July 2013 groups
Groups not studying English
grammar/vocab test only
Excluded children studying
English outside school

Number of pupils tested by grade in November 2013

Number of pupils tested by social background

Average scores by social background and time of test

Average scores by grade and time of test

Number of students tested in August by month of
entry into project

Number of students by grade at time of entry into
project

Number of students by grade and social background
at time of entry into project

Distribution of students according to score (in
quintiles) by time of entry into project

Distribution of students according to score (in
quintiles) social background and level of difficulty

Average score by grade and time of entry to
programme

Percentage of correct responses by question, time of entry to
the programme and level of difficulty – easy questions

Percentage of correct responses by question, time of entry to the
programme and level of difficulty – medium difficulty questions

Percentage of correct responses by question, time of entry to the
programme and level of difficulty – hard questions

Conclusions
“The data is consistent and very robust.
There are differences between children who
started the programme in March 2013 and
July 2013 on both versions of the tests in all
grades and in all social contexts. There are
also marked differences in the test results in
July and December, for the groups which
began in July. All analyses were carried out
excluding children who claim to study
English outside of school. All differences are
statistically significant”.
Claudia Brovetto, Plan Ceibal

Thank you!
graham.stanley@britishcouncil.org

Remote Teaching in Uruguay: Does it work?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (11)

Similar a Remote Teaching in Uruguay: Does it work?

Similar a Remote Teaching in Uruguay: Does it work? (20)

Más de Graham Stanley

Más de Graham Stanley (20)

Último

Último (20)

Remote Teaching in Uruguay: Does it work?