U.S. Department of Education
COVER SHEET
|
1. Performance Reporting Period
________________ - ________________ Start Date End Date
|
|
2. PR/Award No. P342A-000048 P342B-______________
|
|
3. Type of Grant X Implementation o Catalyst |
|
4. Lead Organization Information
Name:_______________________________
Address:_____________________________
____________________________________
City:________________ State:___________
Zip + 4:______________________________
|
|
5a. Contact Information for Individual Completing this Report Name:_______________________________
Title:________________________________
Tel.#:______________ Fax #:____________
E-mail Address:_______________________
Name: ______________________________ If the project director on record has changed since the last performance report, check this box ˆ o
|
|
6. Budget for Full Grant
Total Federal Amount Awarded: $______________________
Total Federal Amount Spent: $_______________________
Total Non-Federal Amount Spent: $_______________________
|
|
7. Authorized Representative Information (This should not be the same person who is completing this report, i.e., the person listed in 5a)
I verify that the information submitted in this report is based on the best available data.
____________________________________ ____________________________________ Name (Typed or printed) Title ______________________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number Fax Number Email
____________________________________ ____________________________________ Signature Date |
Version 2: 11-25-02
Building A Model Technology-Rich Pre-service Teacher Education Program With An Emphasis on Selecting, Developing, and Using Online
Standards-Based 21st Century Content
(PR/Award No. P342A000048)
June 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002
Technology and Information Educational Services (TIES) - Augsburg College
B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Augsburg College "Millennium Teachers Technology Project" (MT2), Minneapolis, MN, now in its second year of implementation, is directed at: 1) transforming the teacher preparation program into a model high-tech program through faculty and student technology-centered development activities; 2) stimulating by example, and through role modeling and mentoring, college-wide infusion of technology; 3) helping to build a state-wide consortium of all teacher preparation colleges/universities in order to share technology-related successes and resources; and 4) providing a series of leadership initiatives in technology for a broad spectrum of Minnesota's educational, business, and community leaders. Major partners are TIES (Technology and Information Educational Services, the fiscal agent); seven Minneapolis schools; Eagan High School, recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a model technology school; a Bloomington School District technology-centered elementary school; JDL Technologies, Inc., a nationally-recognized leader in school technology infrastructures; and a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, "The Career Connection to Teaching With Technology" Project. A special feature of the program immerses students in a rich and demanding range of cutting-edge technology experiences and puts them on a fast track to P-12 leadership and advocacy.
C. REPORT NARRATIVE
1. Project Overview
Provide one paragraph (about 150 words) that will be used in the pt3.org Web site and publications as the post-grant description of your project. Consider who was served, your objectives, your major activities, and outcomes of the project, including important products or artifacts. This succinct description should make clear the unique aspects of your project design and implementation
2. Background and Origins
This information will help decision makers and potential adapters understand the contextual framework for change. Give your readers an understanding of your particular setting and how this affected the projectÕs successes, challenges, and failures.
á What were the key contextual features that were important to your project? Give specifics about your organization (and others involved) -- size, location, etc.
á What was your starting point?
á What was your level of readiness?
á What specific needs was your project designed to address? Defining the needs(s) is essential for anyone trying to understand the approach you took, as well as the potential for adapting this approach in other settings.
3. Conceptual Framework or Models
á What was the conceptual framework guiding the design of your project? (In other words, how were the project activities expected to lead to the project goals?)
o What changes did you intend to effect and where? How would you know if you had been successful?
o How did you expect that you could effect change? Did it work? Why or why not?
á What internal and external factors were critical to the change?
á How did your project relate to standards (institutional, state, national)?
4. Project Description
á Describe the major activities of your project.
á Describe the project management, staffing, and partners, and their roles. Explain who did what and at what level of effort (percentage of time).
á Explain how you operated as a partnership and explain how you evaluated the effectiveness of your partnership? (Please submit a list of staff and partners in Section I.)
5. Evaluation/Project Results
Evaluation is a critical part of your report. What was examined and how?
á Describe the evaluation model, approach, and activities.
á Summarize your major evaluation findings in a table. The table should include goals, major objectives, degree to which the objective was met (fully met, substantially met, partially met, not met), the evidence for these outcomes, and relationship to GPRA indicators where appropriate. Please provide at least three key findings and supporting data.
á Describe any products produced by your project, including how they are used or are expected to be used in the future.
6. Sustainability
What has been done and will be done to sustain your reform effort or to continue some project activities?
á What provisions are in place for sustainability (i.e., policies, staffing, curricular requirements)? Did the project result in changes in program requirements, program assessment or indicators, student assessment or other policy changes related to teaching with technology that will continue beyond PT3 funding?
á Are there products or processes produced with grant resources that will outlive the funding period? How will they do so?
á What major step will you take for the period following the completion of your project, and what evaluation activities will continue?
á Are there other factors that will facilitate the sustainability of your project?
7. Lessons Learned Provide recommendations that will advise other practitioners who are interested in adopting elements of your project or who are engaged in technology-related teacher education reform. Use the following questions to think about key lessons to communicate:
á What lessons did you learn about the preparation of technology-proficient teachers?
á What lessons did you learn about the design and implementation of a PT3 project?
á As you think about the project now, what have you learned about the problems addressed? How have you redefined them?
á How did your ideas change as a result of ÒdoingÓ the project?
á Did you experience any unanticipated consequences?
á What organizational policies had to change for the project to be undertaken? What forms of organizational or outside support did you have at the outset, and how did this change during the time of the grant? Did the context of your project change over time?
á What did you learn about evaluation?
á If you could do one things differently, what would that be?
Project Evaluation
Project evaluation was provided by an external evaluator, Dr. Bill Warner, The Bill Warner Group. Dr. Warner was the evaluator for the Capacity Building grant in 1999. He has worked with the Implementation Grant since the start date, providing evaluation continuity throughout the life of the grant. Dr. Warner also was a member of the grant Technology Leadership Team (TLT) that met weekly to provide overall direction and on-going implementation strategies. The foundation for the evaluation of ÒBuilding a Model Technology-Rich Pre-service Teacher Education Program with an Emphasis on Selecting, Developing, and Using Online Standards-Based 21st Century ContentÓ grant was the logic model developed in the early stages of implementation. The logic model defines the background factors, project services, external services, grant outcomes and data sources. The logic model is found in Appendix A. The logic model was the foundation of the grant evaluation, showing the overall picture of the evaluation process. An Evaluation Worksheet (Appendix B) identifies the data sources used for each of the grant objectives. This worksheet was helpful in ensuring that each objective was addressed in the evaluation plan.
Evaluation/Project Results
Objective 1 |
Weave technology into all education courses at Augsburg - technology will no longer be an "additional" course. (GPRA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1) |
Definition of Success |
All Education Department faculty will integrate technology into the delivery of teacher training courses. Initially each faculty member will integrate the technology tasks defined by the ÒDigital Dozen.Ó (Appendix C). Faculty will utilize technology to present course content as well as require students to utilize technology in completing course requirements. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. All full-time faculty have integrated technology into the delivery of teacher education courses. All syllabi have been reviewed for technology integration. This review process performed by the grant evaluator documented the use of technology by faculty and requirements of students to use technology as part of the courses. Syllabi from the first year of the grant (2000) were compared to syllabi at the end of the grant. All Digital Dozen technology tasks have been integrated. This finding was cross documented through a Course Technology Survey that was administered to a majority of students in the education courses during the spring semester 2003. Survey results indicated that faculty were using technology to deliver courses and students were required to use technology in course assignments and assessments. A summary of the syllabi review and the student Course Technology Survey is in Appendix D and E. In addition, as a result of the survey analysis the education faculty decided not to discontinue the technology orientation course required of all students. Students reported that the course was valuable in understanding the uses of technology in education. The Technology Leadership Team (TLT) and faculty continue to have conversations regarding the integration of technology into education courses, centering on the twelve technology tasks that will be integrated into current courses with existing resources. Focus groups with faculty were held in the fall of 2001 and again in the spring of 2003 (Appendix F). The comments by faculty indicate that they are comfortable with technology integration and they have made significant progress in integrating technology into course requirements. The feedback surveys from the many grant related workshops and events indicated that they were diligent about gaining technology skills. The journal comments from faculty indicated that they were developing their technology skills and were integrating technology into their courses. |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
This objective was accomplished through a long term plan to provide faculty with the technology skills needed to integrate technology into their courses. The plan included group training sessions, special interest training sessions, technology conferences, off campus classes and one-on-one coaching. A full-time technology mentor provided Òjust-in-timeÓ technology support to faculty and students during the three years of the grant. The technology coach had an office in the education department, providing easy access to faculty. Stipend incentives were critical to the accomplishment of this objective. However, few adjunct faculty were involved. Since adjunct faculty teach primary in the weekend college, it was difficult to schedule sessions that did not conflict with their teaching and other work schedules. Even though special efforts were made to involve adjuncts, results were minimal. |
|
Products Produced |
All Education Department syllabi have identified technology content and student requirements. All technology tasks identified in the Digital Dozen were integrated into course delivery and course requirements. |
|
|
|
Objective 2 |
Have faculty serve as role models for prospective teachers, for each other, and for faculty throughout the College. Faculty will, in the eyes of cooperating K-12 schools, be well-versed in K-12 technology. (GPRA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3.2) |
Definition of Success |
All Education Department faculty will use a variety of technologies when teaching courses. Faculty will demonstrate how to effectively use technology support resources (on-line, mentors, help lines, other faculty and staff). Faculty will use technology when presenting to faculty at college-wide or departmental meetings. Faculty will work collaboratively with K-12 personnel to have preserve teachers integrate technology into teaching and learning. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. A foundation was developed established that enabled faculty to serve as role models in technology infusion. All faculty increased their technology expertise and are using technology in their teaching and office settings as evidenced from focus group discussions (Appendix F) and the student Course Technology Survey (Appendix E). Students reported that faculty were integrating technology into education department courses. Advocate focus groups (Appendix G) reported that faculty were giving more emphasis to technology. While all are not ready to be recognized as role models, significant progress has been made. Collaboration with partner schools proved a challenge and there was little opportunity for most faculty to provide support to K-12 teachers. Supervising teachers provided the best opportunity for faculty to serve as role models when working with student teachers. |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
Faculty are at various technology skill levels and need time to continue to learn, understand, and integrate technology into their courses. Gender differences were found among the faculty in the acceptance and ease with which technology is embraced! Of the 12 education department faculty members, the two male faculty members are well-versed in the use of technology, while most of the nine women faculty members have struggled to become tech-savvy. However, all made tremendous progress and are peer-tutoring each other.
Work with partner schools proved to be a difficult process. With the exception of collaboration with Eagan High School, the partner schools were not active participants in the grant. Eagan High School was a significant participant and allowed Augsburg faculty and opportunity to collaborate with secondary faculty. |
|
Products Produced |
All Education Department syllabi have identified technology content and student requirements. The project produced four technology monographs that have been made available to Augsburg faculty, students and K-12 partners. |
|
|
|
Objective 3 |
Establish a cohort of prospective teachers who will work in partnership with faculty and in-service K-12 teachers to support the implementation of technology-based and content-rich instruction in K-12 classrooms. (GPRA: 2.1, 3.2) |
Definition of Success |
A cohort of current education students will be recruited each school year to participate in the Student Technology Advocates Program. Weekly meetings were scheduled to provide Technology Advocates with the needed skills to support the implementation of technology-based and content-rich instruction in their schools and classrooms, and to serve as technology assistants to college faculty. A work plan was developed for each Technology Advocate regarding knowledge, skill and leadership development activities. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. The cohort of prospective teachers, the Student Technology Advocates, was established and successfully operated since January 30, 2001. During the 2000-01 school year there were 20 students who participated as advocates. During the second year (2001-02) there are 18 student advocates. The third year (2002-03) generated 8 students who participated. The advocates met once a week each semester for two hours. The advocates formed an Advocates Leadership Team that recruited advocates, planned meetings and become the liaison link with the Grant Leadership Team. While fewer students participated each year, the students who participated became key technology supporters. As the participants moved into student teaching assignments they were able to demonstrate their technology skills to the students in their classes, their supervising teacher and the education faculty. The advocates reported in focus groups (Appendix G) that technology is a key component in being an effective teacher and they must constantly improve their technology skills. Advocates were provided access to e-Portfolios. All advocates were provided the opportunity to identify their technology skills by taking a Technology Skills Survey (Appendix H). The survey provided the advocates with feedback on their technology skills and an opportunity to develop their skills in the advocate meets.
The technology advocates represented a diverse range of students and skill levels: full-time and weekend college; high technology skills to low technology skills; elementary and secondary majors; males and females; and traditional age to non-traditional age. Incentives to participate included campus-wide recognition as technology advocates, opportunities to interact with local, state, and national tech-savvy leaders, attend technology conferences, and work on technology projects. |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
The Student Technology Advocates program made a significant contribution to the grant, in that education students became involved in technology. The Advocates Program attracted a small group each year, but provided an opportunity to work with students to develop their technology skills. Focus group results indicate that the Advocates have benefited greatly from the opportunity to become well-versed in the use of technology in their teaching, and have indeed recognized that they cannot be a millennium teacher without knowledge and skills in technology. One of the barriers was scheduling meetings, events, and activities at a time when a larger group of students could participate. |
|
Products Produced |
The Advocate Program produced a group of technology leaders at the college, who have applied their technology skills in education courses, student teaching and teaching positions. The Advocate Program developed technology leaders in the education department. The advocates produced e-portfolios, monograph articles and course projects. |
|
|
|
Objective 4 |
Select, develop and use online technology- and standards-based content. (GPRA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1) |
Definition of Success |
All Education Department faculty will integrate online technology and standards-based content into the delivery of teacher training courses. Each faculty member will integrate the technology tasked defined by the ÒDigital Dozen.Ó The integration of technology will include faculty using the collegesÕ online system, AugNet, and Blackboard, an online course management system. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. The full-time faculty have integrated technology into all the courses in the education department and all courses use the on-line format of Blackboard. There has been an excellent foundation established to use online technology and standards-based content. The use of online technology and standards-based content has grown significantly as a result of this sound foundation. The Augsburg faculty have been using a standards-based approach for many years. The education departmentÕs curriculum is designed to incorporate licensure standards and Minnesota graduation standards into the delivery of their courses. The Standards of Effective Practice for Beginning Teachers provide a framework for the teacher preparation program at Augsburg. Preservice teachers use the Minnesota Graduation Standards as a framework for planning lessons for K-12 students. All lessons written are aligned with these standards. The syllabi review documented standards for each course.
Faculty were introduced to the ISTE standards for technology and use the standards and others as guides for developing preservice teachersÕ technology skills. The faculty and technology advocates participated in the ISTE-based Technology Skills Survey - TAGLIT (Appendix H) for the second time this year. The results of this yearÕs survey were compared with the survey completed during the first year. With this comparative knowledge faculty and preservice teachers are better able to develop and monitor their own technology skill development. Some general conclusions from the comparison showed: á Both faculty and advocates had increased their technology skills. á There continues to be a wide variance in knowledge and skill levels within the faculty. á There continues to be a wide variance in knowledge and skill levels between students. á Faculty and students are increasing their breath and depth of technology skills. á Faculty and student opinions are similar regarding technology and the way the classroom works in the areas of cooperative learning, high level thinking, real world relevance, teacher as coach, and assessment.
As reported in Objective 1, the faculty identified a list of twelve technology tasks (Digital Dozen) that were integrated into current courses with existing resources. Many of these tasks provide an on-line feature to the presentation of teacher education courses. The student Course Technology Survey (Appendix E) results show that faculty are using technology to teach courses and require students to use technology to complete course requirements. |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
All full-time faculty have integrated technology and standards-based content into education courses. This is documented in by an analysis of education department syllabi for the start of the project to the most recent semester. In addition, students indicated in a survey that faculty are using technology to teach courses and they are required to use technology in course assignments. There was not as much success in achieving this objective with adjunct faculty teaching evenings and weekends. The grant was not able to connect to many of the adjunct faculty due to their work and teaching schedules. |
|
Products Produced |
All Education Department syllabi have identified technology content and student requirements. All technology tasks identified in the Digital Dozen were integrated into course delivery and course requirements. |
|
|
|
Objective 5 |
Design, implement and demonstrate an online approach to sharing experiences and lessons learned in building a technology-based preservice teacher education program. (GPRA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3.1) |
Definition of Success |
All Education Department faculty will provide periodic electronic updates related to the achievement of their assigned project goals. Faculty will use electronic portfolios to keep track of the project related activities/events and skill development. The Technology Advocates will use electronic portfolios to maintain a record of their skill development and examples of projects completed. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. The Augsburg education department website has a MT2 site that provides information about the Augsburg/TIES grant and the national PT3 projects. The address is: www .augsburg.edu/education/MT2.
Faculty provided periodic updates to the Technology Leadership Team (TLT) using e-mail. The updates highlighted the use of technology in their classes, use of technology by their students, and skill and knowledge upgrading activities. In addition, the TLT communicates with the Technology Advocates using e-mail. All faculty participated in the projectÕs documentation effort and have filled out several project-developed and ÒexternalÓ questionnaires and surveys online, to provide pertinent information about their opinions on project activities and happenings.
Most Augsburg faculty and technology advocates developed an electronic portfolio. The portfolio contains technology products that have been developed through participation in the MT2 Project. Examples of products include: PowerPoint presentations, video presentations, syllabi, digital pictures, and other technology projects. The portfolios have been utilized with varying degrees of success. Some faculty use this approach regularly, while others have found it did not meet their needs.
The Education Department is working to institutionalize the use of technology and online approaches. As a result of the MT2 Project, the Education Department has developed an even stronger relationship with the collegesÕ Information Technology department. IT is a key resource for online services and has welcomed input from the Education Department in technology planning for the College.
|
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
All Education Department faculty provided periodic electronic updates related to the achievement of their assigned project goals. Faculty used electronic portfolios to keep track of the project related activities/events and skill development. The Technology Advocates used electronic portfolios to maintain a record of their skill development and examples of projects completed. |
Products Produced |
Portfolios developed by faculty and student advocates. |
|
|
|
Objective 6 |
Team Augsburg faculty members and prospective teachers with knowledgeable technology leaders in technology-rich schools both in Minnesota and around the nation, who can serve as technology and 21st Century content mentors. (GPRA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1) |
Definition of Success |
Each faculty member will have identified a knowledgeable technology mentor and use the mentor to enhance his/her technology skills. Each Technology Advocate will participate in technology skill building sessions with knowledgeable technology leaders. Faculty and technology advocates will participate in professional meetings where technology is the primary objective. |
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. Much of the progress on this objective has been through faculty and student advocate meetings, and through attendance at local, state, and national meetings and conferences which have provided opportunities to develop a significant resource network of people, organizations, colleges and K-12 schools. Some of the meetings and conferences attended* include:
*Attendees are required to report on conference session highlights and their implications for their teaching and learning.
Both faculty and student advocates had numerous opportunities to Òrub elbowsÓ with many of the stateÕs top technology leaders who have been invited to present at the project-sponsored statewide conferences, faculty retreats, and meetings of the student advocates. |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
The grant included a staff position for a knowledgeable technology leader to work one-on-one with faculty and to serve as their technology mentor. This position, filled by Bill Bierden, was invaluable in fostering an understanding and use of technology on a daily basis. Focus groups and journal entries identified the availability of one-on-one coaching to be significant in accomplishing the objectives of the grant. In addition, our partners, JDL Technologies, Inc. and TIES, afforded opportunities for mentoring by tech-savvy trainers and professional contacts. The principal and staff of Eagan High School were especially helpful in both individual mentoring to project staff, faculty and students, and in co-sponsoring events and conferences. Planning and providing opportunities such as conferences, visits and retreats, is ongoing and an effective way to continue to present the Òbig picture.Ó |
Use of Evaluation Findings Products Produced |
Since this objective centered on a mentoring relationship and attendance at conference/workshops there were no specific products produces. Achieving this objective provided information and skills to achieve other objectives and to produce products in other areas of the grant. |
|
|
|
Objective 7 |
Disseminate and systematically share with Minnesota policy makers and teacher preparation institutions the results of the project, both during the implementation phases and after project outcomes have been validated, refined and ready for dissemination. (GPRA: 3.1, 3.2 ) |
Definition of Success |
A dissemination plan was developed to disseminate and systematically share the results of the project. The plan will include the use of a website, presentations, publications, conferences, and other dissemination media.
|
|
Progress Evidence |
Accomplished. The most significant dissemination activity was the development of four technology monographs: Nowhere in Technology - All Children Left Behind, TalkinÕ Tall: Voices for ÒMillenniumÓ Teachers, XXXX and XXXX. These monographs provide a prospective about technology from a variety of views. The monographs are designed to stimulate discussion about technology and the role of technology in schools. The monographs were edited by Project Director, Sonja Schmieder and printed by JDL Technology, corporate partner. The monographs will be available from the Augsburg Education Department and distributed at the 2003 NECC.
While the dissemination of the results of this project will occur over time and after the project officially is finished, the project has disseminated information as part of an ongoing process. Augsburg faculty and grant personnel have made numerous presentations at a variety of events. Some include: PT3 Grantees Conference, CCTT Institutes, TIES conference, American Psychological Association conference, MN Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, SITE conference, and others.
In addition, the grant has developed and disseminated at project brochure and website (www .augsburg.edu/education/MT2). |
|
Analysis - Key Findings & Supporting Data |
Dissemination has been in process through this past year with the publication of the first monograph. Once the grant is completed, dissemination will be through the website and the Augsburg Education Department. The website will be maintained by Augsburg and the monograph will be available upon request. In addition, JDL Technologies will distribute the monograph upon completion of the project. |
Products Produced |
Grant Brochure, website, monographs. Monographs include: Nowhere in Technology - All Children Left Behind, TalkinÕ Tall: Voices for ÒMillenniumÓ Teachers, XXXX and XXXX |
F Faculty Focus Group Results 2001 & 2003
G Advocates Focus Group Results 2002
H TAGLIT - Technology Skills Survey
|
|
Member Institution/Organization |
Type of Partner |
Date Added |
Date Dropped |
|
1. |
Augsburg College - Minneapolis, MN |
IHE |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
2. |
Benjamin Bannecker Elementary - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
3. |
Cedar Riverside Community School - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
4. |
Dakota State University - Madison, SD |
IHE |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
5. |
Eagan HS - Eagan, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
6. |
JDL Technologies - Edina, MN |
For-profit firm |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
7. |
North HS - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
8. |
Poplar Bridge Elementary - Bloomington, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
9. |
Richard Green Central Park School - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
10. |
Seward Elementary - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
11. |
South HS - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
12. |
TIES - Roseville, MN |
Fiscal Agent |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
|
13. |
Washburn HS - Minneapolis, MN |
LEA |
June 2000 |
Continuing |
D. QUALITATIVE EXAMPLE
Please provide one vignette (approximately one page) on one of the following topics:
¥ Describe what a new teacher exiting your program now looks likeÑin comparison to the pre-grant period. Give evidence of the impact of improved preparation on your preservice teachers.
¥ Give an example of how technology was integrated into instruction by either a faculty member or preservice teacher and resulted in a change in the type and quality of the work.