Technology Annotated Plan Excerpts
Return
to Annotated Plan Excerpts: Design, Excerpt 1.
| EVALUATION QUESTION |
SOURCE AND METHOD |
DATA |
| 1. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT |
|
1.1 What are the characteristics of the participating
schools, faculty and communities?
|
Review district records, reports
Educator self-report
Collect relevant local media/reports
Interview key participants (selected)
|
Educator demographics (grade levels, years experience, content area,
gender)
School demographics (rural/urban, size, percent disadvantaged/poverty,
public/private, special populations)
|
|
1.2 What types of technology are available for teaching and learning
in schools?
(refer to indicators 5.1 and 5.2)
|
Review existing technology plans, school surveys (QED)
Teacher self-report (as necessary)
|
Level of technology (capabilities, reliability, support)
Educator training
Technology density (quantity)
|
|
1.3 What access do participating educators and their students have to
instructional technology?
(refer to indicators 4.1, 4.2,and 4.3)
|
Teacher/administrator self-report |
Types of users (equity)
Settings (classroom, laboratory, media center)
Extent of access (frequency, duration)
|
|
1.4 How is the technology being used?
(refer to indicator 6.1)
|
Teacher/administrator self-report (profile tool) |
Use (e.g., word processing, computer literacy, problem solving, access
resources, data analysis, simulation/application, games, demonstration,
drill and practice)
Content areas (language arts, math, science, cross-disciplinary,
etc.)
|
| EVALUATION QUESTION |
SOURCE AND METHOD |
DATA |
| 2. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION |
|
2.1 Is the project successful in establishing and maintaining the TWT
partnership?
|
Interview key participants (partner organizations) |
Organizational roles and contributions
Nature of inter-organizational relationships
Factors influencing project success
Barriers to project success
|
|
2.2 What is the nature of the training provided?
(refer to indicator 3.2)
|
Review course outline and curriculum
Pilot test feedback
|
Topics, duration, formats/strategies |
|
2.3 Does the training align with national, state and/or local
technology standards?
(refer to indicator 3.1)
|
Review course development process |
Alignment with NCATE and ISTE technology standards
Alignment with Milken developmental stages
Relationship to certification
|
|
2.4 What are the quality and perceived utility of the training
provided?
(refer to indicator 7.1)
|
Initial participant feedback
Participant follow-up survey
|
Ratings of quality, utility
Suggested improvements
Participation at advanced levels of training
|
|
2.5 Who is involved in the project professional development
activities?
|
Document training activities (RTEs)
Milken workspace (profile tool)
|
Number of participants by type (teacher, administrator, other)
Number of participants by level of training
Training locations/settings
|
|
2.6 What ongoing technical and pedagogical support is provided to
participants?
(refer to indicator 3.2)
|
Participant follow-up survey
Project records
Milken workspace activity
|
Frequency and timeliness
Quality and utility
Technical assistance needs
|
| EVALUATION QUESTION |
SOURCE AND METHOD |
DATA |
| 3. EDUCATOR OUTCOMES |
| 3.1 What effect does the project have on educator attitudes? |
Educator self-assessment (profile tool) |
Importance, role and value of technology integration |
|
3.2 What effect does the project have on educator knowledge and skills
regarding instructional technology?
|
Educator self-assessment (profile tool) |
Entry, adaptation, transformation
Instructional strategies
|
|
3.3 Are educator-participants successful in designing and implementing
technology-based instructional activities?
|
Educator self-report (profile tool)
Review lesson plans
Sample classroom observations
|
Instructional development and activities (nature, frequency,
duration)
Entry, adaptation, transformation
Assessment methods
|
|
3.4 Is the project effective in fostering communication and
collaboration among teachers, administrators, students, and
parents?
|
Milken workspace data
Educator self-report
Interviews key participants (selected)
|
Frequency of communication
Entry, adaptation, transformation
|
|
3.5 Does the project enhance the effectiveness of teachers as
facilitators of student learning?
|
Educator self-assessment
Review lesson plans
Observe selected classrooms/video (sample)
Descriptive narratives of teacher use
|
Educator certification
Percent of staff involved in project
Administrative support
|
| EVALUATION QUESTION |
SOURCE AND METHOD |
DATA |
| 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES |
|
4.1 Has student participation in technology-supported learning changed
as a result of the project?
|
Teacher/administrator self-report
Descriptive narratives of student use
|
Availability, types of users, settings, extent of access, uses, content
areas
|
|
4.2 What evidence is there that student learning is improved?
(refer to indicators 1.1 and 2.1)
|
Teacher self-report
Teacher-developed assessment
Review district/school reports
Student narratives
|
Local information/computer literacy standards
Content area learning
Longitudinal student performance data
|
|
 |
