| CFDA Number: | 84.342 - 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 8.1 of 2: Strengthen teacher preparation programs so that they provide high-quality training in the use of technology for instructional purposes. |
| Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target not met
Progress: The percentage of projects that redesigned curriculum during this reporting period has decreased. Explanation: Curriculum design is a priority for many Implementation projects, and some had completed redesign before this reporting period. The cumulative percent of Implementation projects that have redesigned curriculum as a grant activity since the beginning of the program is ninety-one percent (91%). Curriculum redesign is not the purpose of all Catalyst projects, many of which are not located at an institution of higher education. |
Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2003 Data Available: December 2004 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. Capacity-building grants were one-year grants given in 1999 so there are data only for 2000. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target not met
Progress: Positive movement toward target. The percentage of technology proficient faculty is increasing. Explanation: Implementation projects are using various methods to assess technology proficiency. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of faculty were rated to be proficient using self-assessment, fifteen percent (15%) using observation, and thirty-three percent (33%) using other methods such as exams and portfolios. |
Source: Performance Report Contractor Performance Report Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2002 Data Available: December 2003 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. Capacity building grants were one-year grants given in 1999 so there are data only for 2000. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 8.2 of 2: 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target not met
Progress: The percentage of graduating students who are rated as technology proficient out of all those assessed has decreased. Explanation: Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Implementation projects required preservice teachers to demonstrate technology as a grant activity during the reporting period and an additional thirty-one percent (31%) required proficiency but not as a grant activity. Implementation grantees are assessing a growing number of graduating students for technology proficiency. Many Catalyst projects are not located at institutions of higher education and therefore do not assess the technology proficiency of preservice teachers. |
Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2002 Data Available: December 2003 Validated By: No Formal Verification. 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
