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 - 2003

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.
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
2002   84 68   89 68
2003         89 69


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%).  
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.

 
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.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of faculty members
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  
2002   62     63  
2003         63  


Explanation: Implementation projects are using various methods to assess technology proficiency, including self-assessment, observation, and 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.

 

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
Percentage of students assessed 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
2002   29 19   36 40
2003         36 40


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.  
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.

 

Return to table of contents