Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology: Crossing the Realities Divide Status of Evaluation Donna M. Mertens Gallaudet University February 2001

The Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 zRequires all federal programs to manage their activities with attention to the consequences of those activities zPrograms must state goals and report to Congress on their progress zPurpose: increase accountability and improve decision making

Use of Evaluation Results zFederal Use: zPT3 Staff monitor grants and make continuation decision zReport to Congress re: accomplishments and fiscal accountability z Project Use: z Monitor progress toward goals z Provide for data- based modifications, as necessary z Document successes and failures

Reporting Schedule for PT3 zFirst report zCovers Jun Mar (9 months) zDue: April 30 zCovers Part I of PT3 report form zFocuses on goal, performance, assessment of performance, and targets for next year z Second report z Covers Oct Sept (12 months) (skips 1st 4 mo.s of project) z Due Nov. 30 z Covers Part II of PT3 form z Focuses on how many...

PT3 Goal zTo improve the knowledge and ability of future teachers to use technology in improved teaching practices and student learning opportunities, and to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.

PT3 Objectives zStrengthen teacher preparation programs so that they provide high quality training in the use of technology for instructional purposes zIncrease the technology skills and proficiency of new teachers for improved classroom instruction zCreate institutional change in the preparation of future teachers to use technology (sustainability) zCreate statewide change in the preparation of future teachers to use technology (certification standards)

Each objective is associated with: zSub-objectives zPerformance indicators (e.g., % of teacher prep programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology will increase) zTargets (continuous increase) zSources of data (on-site monitoring and survey)

Crossing Realities: 3 Goals zEstablish local, regional and national networks (partnerships) zBridge the realities gap (technology skills and proficiency) zRestructure U.S. deaf education teacher preparation (certification standards)

Over arching issue: diversity zIn every goal/task/objective, there is a need to document our inclusiveness in terms of: yrural areas ylow income yethnicity ydisability yEvidence: ?

Crossing Realities Goal 2 Evaluation Plan

Indicators 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and Goal 2 z1.1 Curriculum redesign z1.2 Technology proficient faculty z1.3 Increase use zGoal 2: redesign, enhance skills, increase use (100 fac. First year) z Evidence (2/15/01): z 57 faculty involved z Choices: syllabi (28); preservice teachers involved (choice 4) (31); fac dev (12); on-line courses (8); other (13)

Indicator 2.1 and Goal 2 z2.1 Technology proficient new teachers zGoal 2 year 1: preservice teachers z Evidence: z Choice 4s relate to preservice teachers (31) z Is there additional evidence that preservice teachers are becoming more technologically prof?

Crossing Realities PT3 Evaluation Plan for Goal 1

Indicators 3.1, 3.3 and Goal 1 z3.1 Sustained programs activities (funding) z3.2 K-16 partnerships zGoal 1: Local: Field teachers 200; cyber mentors 225; regional: fac matches 100; national: share info z Evidence (3.1): contacts with corporate sponsors z Evidence (3.2): field teachers involved? Cyber mentors? (~70) Faculty matches? Listserv by region? Web site?

Crossing Realities Goal 3 Evaluation Plan

ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETST) 23 indicators organized into the following six categories: Technology Operations and Concepts Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Assessment and Evaluation Productivity and Professional Practice Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues

Indicators 1.3, 4.1 and Goal 3 z1.3 Graduation requirements z4.1 state teacher certification standards zGoal: include ISTE standards in the CEC/CED standards z Evidence: z Which programs have technology standards for graduation? z Which states have technology standards for certification? z Do these apply to all deaf/hh teacher grads? z Which states use CEC/CED?

Mechanisms for Evaluation Data Collection zSurveys: Standard form created with Survey Solutions completed as , web-based, or paper, if necessary zObservations: In conjunction with regional events zInterviews: In conjunction with regional events or by telephone or zPre/post choice data zWeb demographics

Evaluation Needs zClear understanding of importance of evaluation data collection and reporting by all involved in the project zSupport from regional directors and consortium members for evaluation activities zFeedback to the evaluator on needed modifications in evaluation processes