U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology

Goal 8: To improve the knowledge and ability of future teachers to use technology in teaching practices and student learning opportunities, and to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.
Objective 1 of 3: STRENGTHEN TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SO THAT THEY PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY TRAINING IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Curriculum redesign: The percentage of funded teacher preparation programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology in teacher education will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of programs
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
78 82  
     
2001
87 66
89 68
Status: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of projects (both implementation and capacity building) that have redesigned curriculum increased.

Explanation: Curriculum redesign is not the purpose of all Catalyst projects. Capacity-building grants were one-year grants given in 1999 so there are data only for 2000.   		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Technology-proficient faculty: The percentage of faculty members in funded teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology in their teaching will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of faculty members in funding teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology in their teaching will increase.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
56 53  
     
2001
61
63
Status: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of technology proficient faculty is increasing.

Explanation: Faculty who participated in professional development to integrate technology were assessed as to their technological proficiency using self-assessment, observation, exam, and portfolio. Capacity building grants were one-year grants given in 1999 so there are data only for 2000.   		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Graduation requirements: The number of funded teacher preparation programs that will require teacher candidates to demonstrate proficiency in the effective use of technology in teaching and learning will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of funded programs
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
16 16  
     
2001
39 23
     
Status: Positive movement toward target. There has been a large increase in the number of programs that require teacher candidates to demonstrate proficiency in effective use of technology.

Explanation: The performance reported reflects the percentage of teacher preparation programs that added or expanded a graduation requirement for preservice students to demonstrate proficiency in the use of technology in teaching or learning. Twenty-three percent (23%) of teacher preparation programs in Catalyst grants added or expanded a graduation requirement for preservice students to demonstrate proficiency in the use of technology in teaching or learning.   		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
Evaluation data will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. Five percent (5 percent) of grantees did not have data available to report on adding or expanding graduation requirements, and they were excluded from the analysis. Within grant type, 1 to 12 percent of grantees did not have data available to report on adding or expanding graduation requirements, and they were excluded from the analysis.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Learning resources: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that use Web-based, multimedia learning resources, course materials, and teaching tools will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of teacher preparation programs
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
84 84
2001
94 73
Status: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of implementation projects where programs used varied technology learning tools increased to a high level.

Explanation: 344 teacher preparation programs in 404 reporting programs funded at all levels (Implementation and Catalyst) had education faculty that integrated technology in their courses in new ways as a grant activity. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Catalyst programs had faculty that integrated technology in their courses in new ways as a grant activity. Capacity building grants were one-year grants given in 1999 so there is data only for 2000.   		Additional Source Information: Annual Performance Report for the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Grant.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national-level baseline data for this indicator.

 

Objective 2 of 3: INCREASE THE TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND PROFICIENCY OF NEW TEACHERS FOR IMPROVED CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Technology-proficient new teachers: The percentage of new teachers who are proficient in using technology and integrating technology into instructional practices will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of students assessed at catalyst projects that demonstrated proficiency in using technology.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
42 32  
     
2001
  34 38
36 40
Status: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of graduating students who are technologically proficient has increased slightly.

Explanation: Only 38% of students assessed at teacher preparation programs participating in catalyst projects demonstrated proficiency in using technology. Many catalyst grants focus on other purposes. The percentages reflect the percentage of graduating students who demonstrated proficiency in using technology in the 97 teacher preparation programs that assessed the level of proficiency prior to graduation. Overall, 59% of programs in implementation grants required proficiency prior to graduation as a grant activity; another 26% assessed proficiency but not as a grant activity. 		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as and survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. Of those grantees that had preservice students demonstrating proficiency, 25 to 33 percent did not have data available to report on the numbers of such students, and they were excluded from the analysis Measurement of technology proficiency in graduating students is a better measurement of program outcomes. (Technology assessment of all students by reporting programs was only 16 percent.)

 

Objective 3 of 3: CREATE INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE PREPARATION OF FUTURE TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Inter-disciplinary partnerships: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that communicate, collaborate and partner together with schools of arts and sciences on a regular and formal basis will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Teacher Preparation programs
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
47 44  
     
2001
50 35
     
Status: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of teacher preparation programs that have inter-disciplinary partnerships with schools of arts and sciences has increased.

Explanation: 186 of 431 programs at all levels (Implementation and Catalyst) partnered with schools of arts and sciences for grant activities. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Catalyst projects partnered with schools of arts and sciences for grant activities. Some examples of such activities include faculty development workshops in technology, development of student assignments reflecting use of technology, integration of web-based multi-media resources in preservice education courses and curriculum.   		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review; and survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national-level baseline data for this indicator.

 
Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: K-16 partnerships: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that communicate, collaborate, and partner together with the K-12 community on a regular and formal basis will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of teacher preparation programs
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
Capacity Building Projects Implementation Projects Catalyst Projects
2000
88 80  
     
2001
78 42
     
Status: Target not met. The percentage of teacher preparation programs that communicate, collaborate, and partner together with the K-12 community has remained about the same.

Explanation: Sixty-one (61%) percent of teacher preparation programs (266 out of 431 program) partnered with K-12 schools for grant activities. Forty-two percent (42%) of teacher preparation programs in Catalyst projects partnered with K-12 schools for grant activities. Some examples of such activities included sharing of software multi-media, and other technology tools; providing clinical opportunities for preservice students and modeling effective use of technology by K-12 teachers. 		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review, as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

Limitations: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

 

Return to table of contents