# data[].attributes.headline
How to use STEER as a ground sensing tool.

# data[].attributes.subject
How to use STEER as a ground sensing tool.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Which indicators do you and your partner have differences in your choice of developmental levels?

2. What might be the reasons for the differences in the developmental level?

3. How could the both of you come to a consensus on the developmental level?

# data[].attributes.body
In the Section for your Zone:

(1) upload a screenshot of the part of the STEER tool your cluster ETOs were looking at.

(2) List out the questions that you would like to ask the school next to understand the school better.

(3) List out some ways (actions) where you can help the school to progress to the next developmental level.

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 3.1.1

Role play

How pervasive must the practice be to in Level 3? For eg. if only 3 depts are in Level 3 will the school be in Level 3? Teachers design learning experiences for active learning with technology to meet students' diverse learning needs, in order to deliver customised and differentiated learning (e.g., by adjusting the learning pace or learning content to different student needs)

3.1.2 Core questions:

1. In what ways are teachers currently applying basic KAT in their lesson designs?

Question - what does it mean by applying basic KAT?

# data[].attributes.body
If a school says e.g. some depts use ICT for Self-Directed Learning but some don't... for purposes for rating only, can we tell the school to choose the rating based on the majority practice?

And then take the opportunity to reassue the school that it's not the rating that matters per se.

-Brandon

# data[].attributes.body
Do include your name so that we can address your queries directly if need to. Thank you!

# data[].attributes.body
Schools asked if each dept can do a STEER doc each.

How do we encourage schools that looking at STEER holistically as a school will be of more value?

# data[].attributes.body
can we state that the use-case for STEER would be up till 2030. Becasue some schools might get kancheong and think that they MUST hit level 3 or 4 after they onboard the EdTEch Masterplan.

-Brandon

# data[].attributes.body
In Domain 2, (e.g. 2.1.1) the indicators are easier for secondary and JC/CI schools to make sense.

Could you give examples of how the indicators level in 2.1.1 would look like at Primary school level?

# data[].attributes.body
When schools choose developmental levels together with ETOs, what kind of open-ended questions/conversation starters can we use? What are potential data sources?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Would schools inflate their rating or be wary of sharing the rating with ETOs as ETOs DO have conversations with Supts. Actually, do schools even need to share with us their rating if it's for self-reflection?

2. Should ETOs be sharing our rating with the school? Will it cause backlash as we may not be aware of all the school processes. ETO may only visit the school max 7 times.

3. What is the clear role of ETO in this process? To guide and provide clarity on the indicators OR to "assess" the school practices separately from the school?

# data[].attributes.body
Can we say that all indicators in STEER are aligned to EdTech MP?

# data[].attributes.body
Primary school is asking how do students at primary school levels use ICT tools to keep track of their learning process and track their progress towards their learning goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.1.2 Approach to integrate technology into curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
1.1.2 Approach to integrate technology into curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

# data[].attributes.body
School would like to clarify what is the baseline e-pedagogical practices

# data[].attributes.body
School would like to clarify what are some examples of digital prototypes.

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 1.1.1 - Does school need to explicitly document the vision or can it just be a verbal 'declaration'? (ie. The schools shares that that they envision the use of active learning and would want to promote student agency as well. However, this may not be articulated in any department workplan.)

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 1.1.1

Scope of vision - P expressed that the school would like to focus on Maths Dept which will trailblaze the implementation of 'Greater Customisation of Learning' and share their success stories before getting the rest of the staff onboard. (Level 2/3?)

Concern - how about the teachers in the other departments? How are they doing?

Whose perception is that the some dept are more ready than others, the SLs or the HODs?

Ownership of Vision - Vision is not owned by the entire school yet. (Level 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Level 4 does not mention delivering customised and differentiated learning while Level 3 does. Will it be clearer to include it in Level 4 as well so that it doesn't seem that Level 3 could be more challenging than Level 4 in some aspect? In other words, it can be confusing if a school has a mentorship programme on learning experiences but is not delivering customised and differentiated learning...

# data[].attributes.headline
[N4] Sub-category 2.1.1 self-directed in setting goals and managing their learning using a range of digital tools and resources

# data[].attributes.subject
[N4] Sub-category 2.1.1 self-directed in setting goals and managing their learning using a range of digital tools and resources

# data[].attributes.body
2. Start with open-ended personalised questions that relate directly to the school's vision and goals for PDLP to make a connection with the school to show we know what they are doing, then invite them to share what they have been doing to achieve the PDLP outcomes. Ask clarifying questions if needed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Role Play - Good to ask more questions ...

# data[].attributes.subject
Role Play - Good to ask more questions ...

# data[].attributes.body
Asking more questions so that can elicit responses from school to know the school is at which level of the indicators. E.g., asking questions on practice (as evidences).

# data[].attributes.body
Apart from the PLTs and year end learning festival that the school organizes, what other platforms do the teachers use to share professionally?

# data[].attributes.body
domain 1.1.2

at pri school, must the integration of tech into SOW be done for every level or would it suffice for p4 onwards given that the guideline for pri is to focus on tech adoption for p4-6?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Besides the ICT dept, whose opinions were consulted in the crafting of the tech plan?

2. We understand that the ICT dept has been actively engaging the teachers at school-wide PD sessions to help them understand the school's direction in EdTech. What is your sensing of teachers' buy-in across all departments?

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 3.1.1

Ask further probing questions to elicit evidences

Ask questions to probe towards the next level of development to reinforce that the school is at current level of practice.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Questions within conversation start are very helpful. Some struggle that we had in the role-play is finding the appropriate juncture to bring up this questions.

2. Noted that these are just conversation starters, schools may still have the sensing that they are being evaluated.

# data[].attributes.body
ETOs are armed with conversational starters, potential data points, and school practices from road-testing results to illustrate how the four levels of the indicators may look like. It’s worth noting that schools lack these same resources. This could potentially lead to a disparity in understanding between what schools perceive they are attaining at different levels in STEER and how ETOs rate the different indicators based on our own understanding. Are we equipped to bridge this gap effectively, especially when schools do not engage ETOs and use solely for self-reflection?

# data[].attributes.body
The STEER instrument can be further differentiated for Pri / Sec / JC rather than a one size fit all

# data[].attributes.body
3. Support IP KPs in designing learning experiences for greater customisation in learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 4 - 4.2.1

(2) Questions:

How do they begin to address the challenges of physical limitations?

How have learning spaces been enhanced with digital connectivity to seamlessly integrate technology and ensure that physical limitations do not hinder the learning experience?

What basic digital connectivity solutions are in place in learning spaces? (not asking this as they are a PDLP school so basic set-up and considerations should already be in place)

(3) They might rank themselves as L4 (there is use of augmented/virtual reality for immersive learning with the outside world, e.g., virtual field trips and learning journeys.) but based on what was shared, it was only done by one teacher for a class of about 15 students.

we might probe further about plans to replicate the success with other teachers+class and/or in other subjects (so that it is not teacher-dependent)

to clarify about tech tool(s) and plans to support this process and if more support is needed from ETOs

# data[].attributes.body
Co-shaping could indicate that the inputs were taken into account, and the vision had iterations to it. Could give examples like how inputs could be gathered (poll during staff meetings etc) Sch could also leverage on such opportunities, to also create buy-in from staff, since they took part in visioning.. (more birds with one stone)

# data[].attributes.body
Domain 1, Indicator 1.1.2

2. Start with the suggested open-ended questions to invite IP Head to share the e-Pedagogy practices. Use Affirm-Clarify-Probe-Affirm approach to clarify school's understanding of what they interpret as "baseline e-Pedagogical practices"

3. Share examples of how e-Pedagogical practices can look like in a subject area based on EdTech PS to facilitate conversation if helpful. E.g. design and enact lesson w ALP in mind, application of KATs, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
To achieve Level 4, is it understood that schools have to first achieve Levels 1 to 3? Because a school may have teachers mentoring others in designing lessons for active learning with technology but may not have all teachers designing for customised and differentiated learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Get school to share the structure and focus of PLC in school (i.e. TTT??/ how leaders are selected?)

2) Probe for evidence of sharing

3) Check if they are keen to share on other learning communities and provide guidance to other teachers

# data[].attributes.body
We used the conversation starters, but we also feel it is important to ask more questions to clarify. e.g., here are the qns we asked during role-play 1)Are teachers familiar with the 7 KAT? 2)Has the school conducted any discussions on applying KAT in lesson design, especially on how to select and apply KAT? 3)Do the teachers have the habit of indicating in their lesson plans which KAT/LE they have applied in their lesson design?

If the POC or SLs attending the meeting do not have information on all depts cause different depts may have different practices, and teachers may vary in their competency levels. If that's the case, we can encourage them to further this discussion on domain 3 within their SMC.

# data[].attributes.body
If purpose of ETOs' rating of STEER is to sense-make how schools are and their progress, it might still be important for ETOs to have some parity of our level ratings (sharing across clusters/zones) and how we note our evidence to triangulate against the perceived levels. Otherwise, ETOs' level rating might not seem like a reliable tool to make broad-based decisions/mitigation measures, when the effort is high for the ETOs.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some example(s) of Digital Prototypes?