PT 3 Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology March 9, 2005 Tobye Rae Nelson

1. PT3 Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology March 9, 2005 Tobye Rae Nelson tnelson@unt.edu 940.300.8920

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. PT3’s Solution: Transform Teacher Education SYSTEMIC CHANGE Needed in teacher preparation if schools are to meet the needs of 21st century learners

5. PT3’s Program Goal… To improve the capacity of institutions of higher education (IHE) to implement high quality, technology-centered teacher preparation programs

6. PT3 Program History: 1999-2002 • 441 Grants - $337 M • >35 HBCU’s • >25 HSI’s • 52 of the largest 100 teacher preparation programs $M

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 Building One-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… Implementation Three-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… Catalyst Three-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. PT3 Scope and Size…

12. How Does PT3 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 “If They Don’t Know… They DON’T KNOW” Awareness Knowledge (Concern) Relevancy (Attitude) Readiness Trial Behavior Sustained Behavior Awareness Attitudes Belief Behavior

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. Faculty and Deans Say… • “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.”

19. Faculty and Deans Say… • “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.”

20. Faculty and Deans Say… • “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?”

21. Observations and Generalizations… • Over-reliance on soft money is dangerous • Uncertainty  paralysis or inspiration • Who owns the rights? Clarify this early! • Need different grant types

22. Observations & Generalizations • Standards are just a starting point • Stronger evaluation needed • Higher ed is resistant to change • Understanding of system reform lacking • Top-down leadership necessary

23. Observations & Generalizations • Model technology institution-wide • Dissemination lacking • Internal and external PR skills lacking • Too much re-inventing the wheel

24. PT3 Resources… www.pt3.org

25. PT3 Resources: ELC Intranet The “ELC”

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