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%). Capacity Building Projects show no targets or actuals because they were terminated in school year 1999-2000.   		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. Catalyst grants do not involve faculty members in their activities. Capacity Building Projects were terminated in 1999-2000.   		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.

 

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: Implementation grants address teacher preparation program implementation. 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. Catalyst grants assist, disseminate, and facilitate other activities for technology-centered teacher preparation. Capacity Building Projects were terminated in 1999-2000.   		Additional Source Information: Project Performance Reports

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003
Data Available: December 2004
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review.

Limitations: Performance report data are self-reported from program grantees.

 

Return to table of contents