nh pnt2 evaluation year three findings and next steps
TRANSCRIPT
NH PNT2 Evaluation
Year Three Findings and Next Steps
PNT2 Evaluation Work
Started 3 years ago, with start of PNT2Annual “GPRA” forms
Quantitative measures of activity at IHE levelQualitative assessment of progress
Interviews Focus groups Surveys Session evaluations
Leading to measurement of PNT2’s progress in meetings its program goals
Surveys and Session Evaluations
Still collecting information on faculty and student surveys 52 students (4 IHEs) and 23 faculty (5 IHEs)
have responded www.sun-associates.com/pnt/pdsurv.html
Good background info on what individual faculty find useful in terms of PD models
Surveys
Faculty (n=23) PD Desirable OptionsTraditional Delivery = Advanced DegreeIndependent Delivery = 1-1 TutorialInnovative Delivery = Partnerships (e.g., K-12)Collaborative Delivery = Mentor/Master Teacher
Students (n=54) Incentives Factors Attracting Students to Teaching
Desire to work with students (79%)Desire to improve education (60%)High variability -- 4 - 79%
Incentives for Choosing This ProgramLocation (36%)Reputation (30%)Low variability -- 9 - 36%
Incentives to Stay in NH Supportive community and parents (43%) Availability of competitive salary (38%) Low variability -- 15 - 43%
Session evaluations Positive feelings about PNT2 professional
development Each year, PD has come closer to meeting
identified needs… Or, needs/expectations have become more
aligned with PD offerings “At-IHE” sessions (Cyndy) have been very
well received
Focus on Exhibits
During Year Three (this year), PNT2 activity has become increasingly focused on NHLI exhibit building
Exhibit building has become the project for most participating IHEs and faculty
For most participants, this represents a strong shift -- or focusing of activity -- from previous years
Exhibit creation -- DV creation in particular -- has become the professional development focus for participants
For those who have seen PNT2 as a professional development project, this has been a positive feature
Working on the exhibit has been helpful in “raising the level of awareness of the faculty to this kind of tool…It is causing them to ask questions about how they can use the video camera” and other technologies “in their own teaching.”
“I think they are learning some invaluable skills, not just technology skills. Lesson plans are required that have forced them to look at New Hampshire state standards and create new benchmarks for the entire district. They are looking at assessment in a different way.”
Focus Groups
Seek information on the broad array of PNT2 goals and indicators
In General…
Definition of “technology integration” Embedded in instruction Not technology for technology’s sake
Availability of technology resources More each year
Common technologies Online instruction -- BB, WebCT, First Class -- is
becoming quite common Plus all of the expected stuff
Students are entering somewhat more proficient and are increasing proficiency while in programs
Experience in the field varies, but in general, pre-service students rate their cooperating teachers/schools very low in terms of technologies available and technologies used.
Students are mixed as to their assessment of how well technology is used/integrated in their preservice programs. Most can credit some faculty with encouraging
technology use PowerPoint, BB, WWW, SPED applications are the
most common applications Trend still seems to be that technology is used and
encouraged in “some courses” but not all.
What Faculty Want
Varies widely by IHEMore “support and recognition” from their
IHEs for the work that they are doingMore time for professional developmentProfessional development that is more
tuned to specific faculty needs
Scoring the Rubrics
Goal 2
Facilitate the development of rigorous curricula infused with technology especially in academicareas that prepare teachers, using state certification and national standards for guidance.
Level 4Curricula in pre-service teacher programs for the Partner institutions areeffectively and seamlessly infused with technology in all subject areas.
Level 3Curricula in pre-service teacher programs for the Partner institutions areeffectively infused with technology in select subject areas.
Level 2Curricula in pre-service teacher programs for Partner institutions arebeginning to include technology as a tool for enhancing teaching and learningin some subject areas.
Level 1No change is detected in the pre-service teacher program curricula.Technology remains an “extra” and is not integrated in the courses offered.
Goal 3
Provide professional development opportunities that include continuous professional learningoptions, adequate resources, and clear incentives and rewards for NH faculty engaged inpreparing technology-proficient teachers.
Level 4
All Project professional development activities effectively met the needs ofparticipating pre-service teaching faculty. Almost all pre-service teachingfaculty have increased their understanding and ability to apply enhancedstrategies for integrating technology in schools.
Level 3
Most of the Project professional development activities effectively met theneeds of participating pre-service teaching faculty. Their understanding oftechnology integration has been bolstered, and they have notably increasedfacility in applying integration strategies in their teaching.
Level 2
Some of the Project professional development activities have met the needsof participating pre-service teaching faculty. Their understanding oftechnology integration has increased, but their application of integrationstrategies has been inconsistent.
Level 1
The professional development activities have not met the needs ofparticipating pre-service teaching faculty. Their understanding of technologyintegration remains basic, and little effort has been made at better integratingtechnology in their teaching.
Goal 5
Expand collaborative partnerships to enable higher education to emulate technology richstrategies used in schools, which improve teaching and learning.
Level 4
All IHE Partner institutions have identified and developed a strong workingpartnership with at least one other K-12 partner where pre-service teacherscan observe and experience good models of teaching with technology. Theyroutinely exchange ideas, resources, and strategies for integrating technologyin schools to improve teaching and learning.
Level 3
Most Partner IHE institutions have developed a working partnership with atleast one other K-12 school where pre-service teachers can observe andexperience good models of teaching with technology. There is somescheduled time for exchanging ideas, resources, and strategies for integratingtechnology in schools to improve teaching and learning.
Level 2
Partner IHE institutions are in the process of identifying a possible workingpartnership with at least one other K-12 partner where pre-service teacherscan observe and experience good models of teaching with technology. Thereis no present exchange of ideas, resources, and strategies for integratingtechnology in schools to improve teaching and learning.
Level 1No effort has been made by the IHE to identify or establish a workingrelationship with a K-12 partner.
What We’ve Learned
…or been reminded of!Each IHE is differentChange is slowThe process and products of change are
impacted by individual context
So while each IHE has grown, that growth is measured by looking at where each has come from
Overall, faculty are more technically literate and more technologies are being used within the instructional environment (some like BB are quite prevalent)
Some IHEs have gone far in the “curriculum mapping” task while others have just started the journey after establishing their knowledge base
So What Happens Next?
If PNT2 were to continue, what would you want to see offered next?
What would be the primary goal?What services offered?What structures at the IHE level?
