lpadding=10 cellspacing=0 width=100%>Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.

PES</span><span class="Normal--Char" style=" font-size: 24pt;
font-variant: small-caps;">Planning and Evaluation Service

     

Archived Information

evaluating the technology proficiency of teacher preparation programs
graduates: assessment instruments and design issues
Preparing
Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology

Final Report

Prepared for:

U. S. Department of Education

P</span><span class="Normal--Char" style=" font-size: 14pt;
">lanning and Evaluation Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc.

Washington, DC

2000

U.S. Department of Education ~ Office of
the Under Secretary

 

 

evaluating the technology proficiency of teacher preparation programs
graduates: assessment instruments and design issues
Preparing
Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology

Final Report

Prepared for:

U. S.
Department of Education

Planning and Evaluation
Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared
by:

Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc.

Washington, DC

2000

 

This report was
prepared for the U. S. Department of Education under Contract No. 282-98-0021. 
The views expressed herein are those of the contractor.  No official
endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education is intended or should
be inferred.  

U. S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Judith A. Winston

Under
Secretary (A)

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

Director

Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division

David Goodwin

Director

August 2000

This report is
in the public domain.  Authorization to reproduce it in whole or
in part is granted.  While permission to reprint this publication
is not necessary, the citation should be:  U. S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service,
Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division, Evaluating the Technology Proficiency of Teacher
Preparation Programs Graduates: Assessment Instruments and Design Issues,
Washington, D.C., 2000. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is one component of the evaluation of the U.S. Department
of Educations (EDs) Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology
(PT3) grant program.  This report identifies various instruments
used to measure teachers technology proficiency, assesses the strengths
and limitations of those instruments, and also describes specific design
issues for a study using those instruments.

We would like to express our appreciation to the
institutions, organizations, and individuals that contributed their
time, information, and resources to this report.  Specifically,
we would like to thank Dr. Allen Glenn, Dr. Victoria Risko, Dr. Margaret
Honey, and Dr. Linda Barron for their time and expert feedback concerning
this report.  We would also like to thank the numerous staff from
ED that provided guidance and feedback regarding the development of
this report.  Specifically, we would like to acknowledge the contributions
from the Program Office staff including Tom Carroll, Kelly Green, and
Susana Bonis; the Planning and Evaluation Service staff including Ricky
Takai, Elizabeth Eisner, and Stacy Kotzin.

At MPR,
the PT3 project director, Wendy Mansfield, was responsible for overseeing
the development of this report and discussing the design issues. 
Research analysts Justin Humphrey and Melissa Thomas were responsible
for analyzing the assessment instruments identified in this report. 
Special mention goes to August Parker who helped prepare the report
for publication.

 

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

APPENDIX A: ISTE STANDARDS

APPENDIX B: ONLINE EXAMS

APPENDIX C: PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX D: SELF-ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

APPENDIX F: CEO FORUM STAR
CHART

APPENDIX G: CONTACT INFORMATION

 

TABLES

Table Page

1 ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
BY TYPE AND SOURCE 9

2 Administrative Features of Online Exams 11

3 Evaluation of Online Exams 11

4 Online Exam Competencies 12

5 Administrative Features of Portfolio Assessments 22

6 Portfolio Assessment Competencies 23

7 Evaluation of Portfolio Assessments 24

8 Administrative Features of Performance Assessments 36

9 Performance Assessment Competencies 37

10 Evaluation of Performance Assessments 37

11 Administrative Features of Self-Assessments 48

12 Self-Assessment Competencies 49

13 Evaluation of Self-Assessments 50

14 MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCES FOR ALTERNATIVE     
SAMPLE SIZES, USING COMPARISON GROUPS 81

15 Half-Length Confidence Interval for Various Sample
Sizes, Given Design Effects of 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5 83

 

I.  INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND

Preparing future teachers to effectively use technology
to improve student learning is a major challenge that our nations schools,
colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) face. To help educators
meet this challenge, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) established
the Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant program. 
The PT3 prog