PT3
Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology
March 9, 2005
Tobye Rae Nelson
2
Background…
“Technology is not central to the teacher preparation experience in most colleges of education”
“Most new teachers graduate from teacher preparation institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology can be used in their professional practice”
Office of Technology Assessment, Teaching and Technology: Making the Connection,1995, p. 165
3
Created to Address Challenge….
In 1999, 98% of schools and 85% of classrooms have Internet access
Only 1 in 3 teachers feel well-prepared to teach with technology
New teachers are still graduating with limited computer integration skills
70% of teachers are not using the equipment they currently have
4
SYSTEMIC CHANGESYSTEMIC CHANGE
Needed in teacher preparation if schools are to meet the needs of 21st century learners
PT3’s Solution: Transform Teacher Education
5
To improve the capacity of institutions of higher education (IHE) to implement high quality, technology-centered teacher preparation programs
PT3’s Program Goal…
6
PT3 Program History: 1999-2002
$M
• 441 Grants - $337 M• >35 HBCU’s• >25 HSI’s
• 52 of the largest 100 teacher preparation programs
$75 $75
$125
$62.5
$0$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
7
PT3 Program History: 1999-2002• Average annual grant size:
• Capacity 138• 1 yr. $120,000
• Implementation 253• 3 yrs. $335,000
• Catalyst 50• 3 yrs. $586,000
8
Types of Grants…
Capacity BuildingOne-year grants awarded in the first year of the program to enable consortium partners to take initial step toward comprehensive teacher preparation program improvement with technology.
9
Types of Grants…
ImplementationThree-year grants to support colleges, schools, state agencies, and others that are ready to initiate and sustain long-term program improvements to prepare technology-proficient educators.
10
Types of Grants…
CatalystThree-year grants to support national, regional, or state consortia with the expertise to provide leadership for large-scale teacher preparation improvements and systemic reforms.
11
PTPT33 Scope and Size… Scope and Size…
1999 2000 2001
# of Grants Ave. Grant Size Per Yr. # of Grants Ave. Grant
Size Per Yr. # of Grants Ave. Grant Size Per Yr.
Capacity Building* 138 $120,000 N/A N/A
Implementation 64 $390,000 115 $320,000 74 $337,000
Catalyst 23 $644,000 12 $570,000 15 $613,000
12
How Does PTHow Does PT33 Work… Work…
Creates a dialogue on the needs of teacher preparation programs between and among key stakeholders
Meets a real need and fills a void Raises the bar Leverages resources Creates the opportunity and the mechanism to
innovate, adapt and disseminate
13
PT3 Grant Strategies…
Faculty development Course restructuring Certification policy
changes Online teacher
preparation Enriched-
Networked-Virtual
Texas Woman’s University: Student
Mentoring
14
PT3 Grant Strategies…
Video case studies Electronic portfolios Mentoring triads Embedded assessments Handheld computer applications
University of Virginia’s Handheld Computers
Project
15
Diffusion of Innovations*
* Everett Rogers
16
Stages of Concern
Awareness Knowledge (Concern)
Relevancy (Attitude) Readiness Trial
BehaviorSustained Behavior
Awareness Attitudes Belief Behavior
“If They Don’t Know… They DON’T KNOW”
17
Attitudes Technology Integration
Lack of tech support, incentives, still biggest obstacles
Skepticism – where’s the proof? Rank & file don’t understand true meaning of
“technology integration” Technology integration leads to technology
proficiency
18
“Change will only happen once skeptics and laggards RETIRE.”
“Technology is being pushed down faculty throats.”
“Why has all this money been spent on technology and not on faculty salaries?”
“University professors are not socialized to SHARE, they’re socialized to KEEP.”
Faculty and Deans Say…
19
“Some of my colleagues use PowerPoint but also make overheads as a back-up, so it’s just adding time.”
“If one link is broken, if the server is down, or you can’t turn on the projector--you’re dead. Go through that once and it’ll be a long time before you dare try it again.”
Faculty and Deans Say…
20
“I used to get to class 10 minutes early, now I have to go 30 minutes earlier just to make sure the technology is working…”
“The bottom line: what DIFFERENCE does this make in learning?”
Faculty and Deans Say…
21
Over-reliance on soft money is dangerous Uncertainty paralysis or inspiration Who owns the rights? Clarify this early! Need different grant types
Observations and Generalizations…
22
Standards are just a starting point Stronger evaluation needed Higher ed is resistant to change Understanding of system reform lacking Top-down leadership necessary
Observations & Generalizations
23
Model technology institution-wide Dissemination lacking Internal and external PR skills lacking Too much re-inventing the wheel
Observations & Generalizations
24
PT3 Resources…www.pt3.org
25
The “ELC”
PT3 Resources: ELC Intranet
26
PT3 Resources: Grantee Tools
Online Database– Grantee Resources– Strategies– Other Useful Tools
27
PT3 & Bush Administration…
“No Child Left Behind Act” 2002
New emphasis on results accountability State & local flexibility Focuses resources on proven educational
methods Consolidates technology programs
28
Case Study…TWU
Three-year Implementation grant $575,028 1999-2002 Learning and Integrating New
Knowledge and Skills (LINKS) www7.twu.edu/~f_snider/links
29
Case Study…TWU
IHE & Other Impact– Education Faculty 75– Humanities Faculty 2– Math & Science Faculty 5– Pre-service Teachers 300– Pre K-12 Teachers 125
30
Case Study…TWU
Content Focus– Online Delivery or Distance Learning for
Pre-service Teachers– Teacher Technology Standards or
Assessments– Faculty Professional Development
31
Case Study…TWU
Products– Standards Based Materials– Courses– Workshops– Research
32
Collaborative Exchange…
Site Visits--participate in three, host one
Partners within same strand
33
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Hire students and in-service teachers to provide technology support to faculty on an individual basis– University of North Carolina– Texas A&M
34
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Conduct a needs assessment to ensure all faculty development activities will meet real needs of the faculty (problems-based approach)– University of Houston
35
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Offer incentives to faculty such as mini-grants, free or loaned technology equipment, and stipends – even let faculty choose among them
Specify all expected deliverables– Sonoma State University– University of Nevada, Las Vegas– University of Missouri, St. Louis
36
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Involve faculty in project planning and implementation– Maryland State Dept. of Education– Mississippi Dept. of Education– University of North Carolina
37
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Communicate the availability of training opportunities frequently and in varied formats– Virginia Educational Technology Alliance– Maryland Dept. of Education– Texas Woman’s University
38
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Provide a continuum of professional development opportunities, such as credits, individual assistance, group training sessions, mentoring, online resources, and just-in-time support– Texas Woman’s University– Mississippi Dept. of Education
39
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Commission material and tool development that meet faculty specifications so that faculty can move to the use of technology without being slowed down by a lack of technical expertise in developing it– University of North Carolina
40
Lessons Learned…Faculty
Set up technology methods summits for faculty– College of William & Mary
41
Lessons Learned…Students
Require students to create products using technology– Texas Woman’s University
42
Lessons Learned…Students
Have faculty model technology integration in their courses on a regular basis– University of North Carolina
43
Lessons Learned…Students
Embed technology workshops within existing teacher education courses; design curricula with technology in mind, rather than shoehorning technology into existing courses– University of Alaska-Anchorage– University of California-Irvine
44
Lessons Learned…Students
Provide workshops and one-on-one assistance in addition to online instructions for setting up e-portfolios– Maryland Dept. of Education– Eastern Kentucky University
45
Lessons Learned…Students
Provide (or loan) hardware to students for use in their field placements– College of William and Mary– Texas A&M University
46
Lessons Learned…Students
Conduct a needs assessment to establish a starting point among student’s skills; don’t assume that students are all technology savvy– University of Alaska-Anchorage
47
Lessons Learned…Students
Extend technology into tools for online study and review, at the student’s pace and timing– University of California-Irvine
48
Lessons Learned…Students
Facilitate technology internships for pre-service teachers– College of William and Mary
49
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Align courses with ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards (NETS)– Maryland State Dept. of Education– University of North Carolina– Virginia Educational Technology Alliance
50
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Link courses to the NCATE accreditation process– Maryland State Dept. of Education
51
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Establish a technology requirement for tenure, teaching credentials, and other professional accomplishments– Sonoma State University
52
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Incorporate technology usage into annual reviews
Have faculty create personal, measurable technology plans– Sonoma State University
53
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Align project strategies with the university’s strategic plan
Keep evolving and providing training for participants who are ready to advance– Texas Woman’s University– California State University-Bakersfield
54
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Create model school programs as demonstration projects for others– California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing
55
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Develop partnerships to expand resources, sustain commitment– University of North Carolina– Miami Museum of Science
56
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Involve local faculty and inservice teachers upfront to solicit ideas and create buy-in– University of North Carolina
57
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Demonstrate that university leadership really means it: open up to all departments and seek “unusual bedfellows”– Texas Woman’s University– San Francisco State University
58
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Develop database of projects and products for the benefit of future participants– University of Houston– University of Northern Iowa
59
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Help develop a full “learning community” by assisting schools where pre-service teachers have met resistance simply because the technology is not up to date– St. Bonaventure University
60
Lessons Learned…Sustainment
Promote digital equity– Mississippi State Dept. of Education
61
For More Information Visit…
www.pt3.org
www.ed.gov/teachtech