Government Grant Sample #2

Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound (TP&TB)

RFA.1. Need for the Project

Extensive data collection and analysis was conducted in preparation of the TP&TB project. Review of this data indicates:

• There is a great need in our geographically isolated area to implement a high quality field-based teacher preparation program that maximizes available technologies for teaching and learning.

• There is a need to utilize available technologies to provide access to higher education for a diverse population of individuals in rural and economically disadvantaged Northeast Oregon and to increase and improve the teacher workforce.

• There is a need to build the capacity of university faculty to use technology to model good teaching practices, to prepare future teachers to use technology, and to develop and demonstrate innovative learning resources.

• Many times the person who is required to change will be the most resistant to change. There is a need to utilize the knowledge we have on systemic change to help faculty accept the new role of technology in college teaching.

• There is a need on our campus to upgrade faculty computers, to provide more access for students to use computers, to provide better connectivity and to address obsolescence in technology planning and acquisition. (The applicant is providing $100,000 as matching commitment to address this need.)

• There is a need for Oregon A&M University to assume a leadership role for public schools in utilizing technology for student achievement, and to open the door to the 21st century for the educational community in this rural area.

• There is a need to maximize existing partnerships in Northeast Oregon created to acquire, utilize and sustain the use of technologies in public education, to collaborate with others in the University and throughout the state and nation to support technology-proficient future teachers and to form expanded learning communities that demonstrate improved teaching and learning.

• There is a need to continuously evaluate the program to assure high-quality services, achievement of intended outcomes, and to maintain our aim on the fast moving target of technology.

• For technology integration to occur in our preservice program, there is a need to address four issues identified during the needs assessment for this proposal:

  1. Faculty must have access to technology hardware, software and other necessary peripheral devices

  2. Technology support must be readily available for faculty on both hardware, software and curriculum integration;

  3. Faculty must participate in Professional Development related to technology integration; and,

  4. Incentives such as release time, computers, or stipends must be offered to faculty to enable them to invest the time to revise their courses and pedagogy to integrate technology into teacher preparation courses and field work.

The Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound (TP&TB) project has been designed to address these needs. The narrative provides background information, substantiation of applicant needs, a description of the program design, information on existing resources and detailed plans for evaluation of this project. The appendices include information on our partnership, the Northeast Oregon Regional Telecommunications Network (NTxRETN). This consortia, formed in 1996, has provided leadership in our rural area for the acquisition of technology infrastructure, equipment and training for the education service center, 46 public schools, three community colleges and our university.

Millions of dollars in federal, state, and local funds have been expended to provide access to technology for Oregon teachers and students. With the grant opportunities provided through Technology In Education (TIE) and Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF), approximately 70% of all Oregon public school districts have connectivity at one or more campuses. How are these new resources and capabilities being used? Are teachers receiving appropriate training that enables them to use these new technology tools? Are universities and colleges communicating with public schools and the state education agencies to assure the infusion of technology into preservice programs? These are some of the questions that were explored during the preparation of this proposal in order to develop a cost-effective capacity building project to prepare new teachers to use technology.

In 1991 the Oregon Legislature passed legislation which authorized funding for the development of Centers for Professional Development and Technology (CPDT). The CPDTs were designed on the model of Professional Development Schools (PDSs) to foster collaboration among public schools, universities, regional education service centers, and other organizations to improve teacher preparation and professional development. Six principles and goals were formulated to drive this venture. The one pertinent to this present project is: “To integrate technology into teacher preparation and to support its enhanced use in PreK-12 schools.” Oregon A&M University began its CPDT program in 1994 and has provided a field-based preservice teacher preparation model since time. Specific numbers of preservice students served in the OAMU CPDT are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Data on Preservice Student Enrollment in University and Field Based Program

* Anticipated enrollment as of May 1999 Pre-registration for CPDT

In preparation of the Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound proposal, needs assessments at the national, state, and regional level were conducted to identify the best uses of technology to meet the goal of integrating technology into preservice teacher preparation. Additional research examined the extent that technology has been implemented in PreK-12 schools with students and at regional education service centers for inservice to school personnel to contribute to the development of a model that will prepare preservice teachers to use technology. A brief summary of these needs assessment activities are provided below with additional information on the OAMU program.

Preservice Teacher Preparation
Statewide Survey A survey was designed and distributed to analyze the extent of use of technology by university education faculty in preservice teacher preparation CPDT programs across Oregon. The basic questions and tabulated responses are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2- Results of Statewide CPDT Survey of Technology Use in Preservice Programs*

*Return rate was low (20%). Data is presented as it was decided this information contributed to needs assessment process though not representative of all programs.

The North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium (NCR*TEC), funded by the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, completed a survey to deans of all universities in the five-state region in February 1998. Oregon preservice program responses ranged from small private universities to large state sponsored universities and included both private and public universities. The following information is based on preliminary findings:

• In general, colleges of education in the state of Oregon reported an increased level of support for technology but still felt that support for technology at their institutions was “meager”. In addition, this increased level of support meant many things to different people. For example, one university saw the installation of a computer lab for faculty use as support while another university already with labs saw technical assistance and training given to faculty as increased support. Access to and use of the Internet by both faculty and students, along with administrative support and encouragement for the use of technology were rated as adequate.

• Colleges of Education were asked about technology skills that might be important to teacher education majors and were asked to respond to their (the university) perception of the adequacy of general skills training currently received by preservice teachers. Universities felt that preservice teacher skills were adequate in their ability to operate a computer system to use software and good use tools that were directly related to their own professional use such as productivity tools along with databases, work processing, and spreadsheets. Other skills were reported as being meager.

In response to the queries regarding university faculty members using certain hardware technologies and software technologies, the majority of responses indicated a low level of use by faculty. The exceptions to this were the use of the VCR in instruction, and the use of word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation software.

In addition, the following were completed during the development of the TP&TB project design:

• A review of the literature in professional journals and electronic resources was completed to ascertain best practices, procedures, and strategies for the infusion of technology in preservice teacher preparation programs.

• Personal and “on line” interviews with experts in the field who have major national, regional, and state level responsibility for advancing instructional technology advancement in education (K-12 and higher education). These interviews allowed the investigators to gain the insights of the experts on the extent of infusion of technology in instructional programs (K-12 and higher education).

• A meeting coordinated in Austin for state level representatives of the key agencies involved in teacher professional development to get input from the state level on these issues. Agencies represented included: Oregon Education Agency-Division of Instructional Technology, State Board of Educator Certification, and the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Board.

• A meeting held with staff of the Partnership for Oregon Schools who are responsible for the Council for School Executives as well as members of the subcommittee on technology.

• A phone interview survey designed to collect data from thirty randomly selected rural school districts (according to criteria for rural established by the Oregon Education Agency). The collected data indicated the extent of use of the START materials, connectivity, level of technology support and teacher inservice, that emphasized instructional technology integration needs for university programs supplying schools with certified teachers.

The review of the literature conducted for this project indicates that education, while continuing to advance in the use of technology, lags behind business and industry. Departments of education in higher education institutions are behind public schools in the use of advanced technology (Bosch, et al., 1993, Smith, et al., 1998). Teachers in training may receive a single computer literacy course taught by a technology-oriented instructor who may or may not know much about using technology for instructional purposes (Resta, 1993). Furthermore, university faculty will probably not model advanced technology in their instruction; therefore, not many preservice teachers are (1) taught how to use technology for instructional purposes and (2) do not observe others who do.

Some of the barriers to a higher level of use by university faculty are:

1. Access to technology. Colleges of Education have not had the financial resources provided for continued upgrade of technology. There has been more support for technology in public schools than in institutions of higher education and specifically in colleges of education, which fall behind in allocation compared to colleges of engineering, arts and sciences, and medicine.

2. Opportunities and resources for faculty development. Faculty members are not provided with the time and technical support to learn how to infuse advance technology into their instruction. What faculty needs, they have learned on their own. In larger institutions funded departments may instruct and support faculty in their own technology development and continued infusion into instruction; however, most universities do not have the resources that are afforded public school for development and support.

3. Faculty incentives. Few faculty have the extra time and resources required to obtain the equipment and refine the skills and materials necessary to use advanced technology in the instruction. Time is understandably given to requirements that provide the greatest return in merit pay, promotion, and tenure (Resta, 1993). Therefore, critical barriers must be addressed before faculty in preservice teacher preparation programs are up to the same functional level as their colleagues in other colleges of higher education and even up to the level of many middle schools (Topp, et al., 1995).

Baron and Goldman (1995) have identified obstacles to infusing advanced technology into preservice teacher preparation instruction:

1. Limited availability of equipment;

2. Lack of faculty training;

3. No clear expectation that faculty will incorporate technology in academic activities;

4. Lack of funds;

5. Lack of time to develop facility in using equipment and software;

6. Doubt about the pedagogical validity of using some of the newer technologies since the appearance of literature about these tools is recent;

7. Lack of technical support;

8. Lack of appropriate materials, particularly integrated media materials suitable for teacher education instruction;

9. and Absence of clear programmatic goals for the teacher education program as a whole.

Reports (OTA, 1995b, Resta, 1995) of schools, colleges and department of education which effectively use advanced technology are characterized by the following factors:

• access to resources for faculty and students;

• technical and organizational support for faculty;

• faculty and student incentives;

• and exposure to modeling the use of advanced technology.

This proposal was designed based on extensive examination of our needs and is in direct response to the Oregon Education’s plan for technology. Two of the four major components of this plan are Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation. These apply directly to the USDOE’s initiative for the improvement of technology use in preservice programs.

RFA.2. QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN (This criterion is addressed in narrative and chart format.)

Oregon A&M University-T (OAMU) requests funding to implement a year of capacity building activities that will enable us to prepare for full-scale teacher preparation program improvements through university faculty development and effective and innovative partnerships. This project will enable OAMU to address important state recommendations for institutions of higher education to better prepare new teachers to use technology. Matching commitments exceeding the required amount have been secured. The Lead Applicant, OAMU will provide over $100,000 in new computers for faculty offices and increased number of computers available for student use. A fully equipped lab that is open for student use at all times will be added to provide more access to technology for our students, many of whom do not have computers or connectivity at home. The narrative provides details on the needs of our rural area, the work that we have done so far toward this aim, the resources available, and the design and evaluation proposed to be successful with our efforts toward Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound future teachers.

Our proposal addresses Quantity, Quality, and Equity as required in the application. Each of these issues is seen as critical to our program and will require innovative responses based on identified institutional and regional needs.

Quantity: We need two million well-prepared, technology-proficient teachers in less than a decade. (RFA, p.2)
Extensive needs assessments indicate this demand is critical for Oregon and our rural area specifically. Review of state education data for our region revealed that over the last three years there has been a 74% increase in the number of teachers hired to teach subjects for which they are NOT certified. Interviews with local superintendents provided the alarming fact that many times there is only one applicant for a teaching position in special education, math, and science. Despite Herculean recruiting efforts by our rural districts there are NO applicants for bilingual education positions.

Region VIII Education Service Center is the agency responsible for professional development of teachers for 46 rural districts. The Center has an excellent technology department and offers basic workshops in the use of technology tools, Internet, and other relevant topics. With a staff of only two trainers, these workshops have waiting lists each time they are offered. Many teachers cannot be released to travel to the service center and have not received technology training. Most of our rural districts are too small to have a technology specialist on staff. Innovative planning is underway to provide technology training through distance learning. Unfortunately, university faculty has not participated in this technology training and therefore preservice teachers must wait until they are hired and trained by the school districts to become technology-proficient. The service center and public schools in our region report the majority of new teachers are unprepared to use new technologies.

Quality: Future teachers must know how to use the power of new technologies to improve the teaching and learning process. (RFA, p.2)
Technology is a fast-moving target. Programs must be in a constant state of “upgrading”, not only the computers, hardware, and software but also human “capital” through training and education. Teachers who graduate from preservice programs should enter public schools with full knowledge and confidence to infuse technology into their teaching and the willingness to keep their skills upgraded as the technology changes. Through the aggressive leadership of our education service center in partnership with community colleges, OAMU , and for-profit vendors, our region has received over five million dollars of state aid in the last two years to create the necessary infrastructure, purchase equipment, provide training, and develop technology programs for K-12 schools. The pieces are in place in the public schools, with the university linked for two-way video conferencing. We must now assist the university faculty involved in teacher preparation to access the technologies the public school teachers are now mastering, then move forward into a leadership role in preparing future teachers to use this technology. Our program design for the capacity building year presents our strategies to make this a reality.

Equity: To close the digital divide, schools in low-income communities and rural areas must be staffed with technology-proficient teachers. (RFA, p.2)
Traditionally, rural schools have lagged behind their urban counterparts in innovation and access to modern technology. In part this is due to the resistance to change that characterizes most rural communities. The primary reasons for this inequity have been poverty, low tax bases, and the high cost of technology. Oregon has taken a leadership role in the nation in making competitive funding available to districts. Our regional service center has received funding for infrastructure, equipment, training, and most recently a grant to provide distance learning capabilities through two-way audio and video conferencing. The Northeast Oregon Regional Telecommunications Network (NTxRETN), of which OAMU is a founding member, was created in 1996 to organize the 46 schools in this rural area into a purchasing cooperative as well as a strategic planning group. This has been very successful. Teams of superintendents have traveled to other schools in the state and to Mexico City to see technology at work in education and to view the possibilities of distance learning. The education service center initiated a master teacher model that allows one or two teachers from each campus in our region to receive extensive training on technology and then assist others on their campus. The inservice needs of our isolated public schools are being met.

Unfortunately, schools must train new teachers to use technology. Our goal as the only university in the region and therefore the only teacher preparation program is to improve our program so that our graduating teachers start out as leaders not only in knowing how to use technology tools but also how to infuse technologies into their teaching. The majority of these teachers will be working in poor rural communities where families have had little hope for the future. The innovative use of technology can bring the hope of the world into the communities, letting public school students see how bright their futures can be. We believe this will not necessarily mean that students will have to leave their communities to be successful. Technology will allow them to develop opportunities in rural, economically disadvantaged communities and improve the future for their children.
(NOTE: Complete historical and demographic data on the districts served by OAMU is provided in Appendix 3- Partner support.)

OAMU received a Commissioner’s Research Initiative grant in 1998 upon which the proposed Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound project is based. This research project was focused on “best uses” of technology in professional development training. The methodology was descriptive and included an extensive review of the literature, statewide surveys and interviews, and meetings with key personnel from state agencies, other universities, public schools, Education Service Centers and technology advocates.

Review of the information collected during our research emphasized four Key Points that must be addressed for successful technology integration into preservice programs:

• Faculty must have access to technology hardware, software and other necessary peripheral devices;

• Technology support must be readily available for faculty on both hardware, software and curriculum integration;

• Faculty must participate in Professional Development related to technology integration; and,

• Incentives such as release time, computers, or stipends must be offered to faculty to enable them to invest the time to revise their courses and pedagogy to infuse technology into their pedagogy and curriculum.

RFA.3. Adequacy of resources
Extensive resources have been coordinated to support the Technology-Proficient & Teacher Bound (TP&ATB) project. These resources include facilities, equipment and human “capital”. These resources include OAMU, which is the applicant university, the Oregon A&M University System, three community colleges, a regional education service center, 46 K-12 schools and the Oregon Center for Educational Partnerships. In addition, several non-profit organizations and state agency partners are committed to this project.

Facilities include a new academic building in Tonka a new environmental center in Jefferson, Oregon, (an outreach site for OAMU and Perrier Community College); and Distance Learning classrooms at all outlying community colleges and K-12 schools. Telecommunications Infrastructure for K-12 schools will be in place in September 1999, for video conferencing. This infrastructure is being coordinated with TP&TB through the Region VIII Education Service Center.

TP&TB is a “value-added” project that will have support throughout the university. The Division Head for Education is also head of the Art and Sciences department. This provides continuity between departments for our preservice program and the opportunity for cross-disciplinary partnerships. The Director for the Department of Technology and Distance Learning is also the person responsible for having new courses and course revisions approved by the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Board. Being a small university has its advantages in terms of coordination of internal resources and procedures and interdepartmental communication.

A strength of the TP&TB model may lie in the external partnerships that have been coordinated to support leveraging of resources, alignment of purposes, and mentorship. USDOE funds are needed for faculty development and the development of internal resources to improve the teacher preparation program.

OAMU received a Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Grant in May, 1999 which will support our TP&TB project. These state funds ($150,000) will be used to:

1. Increase the capacity of the library local area network from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps connected to the campus backbone and the Internet.

2. Increase capacity of "inside-the-walls connectivity" for student and/or public access to a local area network of 100 Mbps that is connected to the campus backbone and the Internet.

3. Upgrade workstations to TIF standards in at least one open computer Lab to increase student and public access.

4. Maximize access to equipment and appropriate interfaces for distance learning so students may take courses for credit in a location distant from where the courses originate. For the purposes of this grant initiative, distance learning is defined as computer-based video, data, and voice technologies integrated into the curriculum and distributed by telecommunications technologies including the Internet. This increased access will build upon the regional telecommunications infrastructure.

5. Add voice to the existing video and data capabilities to provide greater access for students at remote sites.

6. Connects all departments of the library together in one database. (OAMU was the last library in the TAMU System to install an integrated system.) Make our card catalog online and make it available to faculty and students in academic building.

TIF funds will be used during the one-year term of the project, beginning July 1, 1999, and ending on June 30, 2000. These funds are shown as matching commitment of the applicant organization.

A particularly innovative aspect of the proposed project lies in the partnerships we represent OAMU has identified creative and energetic stakeholders willing to work together and aggressively advocate for technology innovation as a vital asset for rural communities. We recently received a special appropriation by the Oregon legislature to expand our university programs and to develop innovative models to help at-risk individuals. The resources available through the partnerships will directly impact TP&TB by leveraging additional support for technology acquisition and training. The following information is provided as a sketch of the partners that are aligned with OAMU.

Appendix 3
Partner Support provides a complete description of the cost-sharing and matching commitments, as well as the relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project.

Project Personnel: Complete resumes are included in Appendix 4.
“Institutions do not “partner”, people do.” This has been the mantra or theme of our consortium efforts from its inception in 1996. The project personnel are key to the success of this capacity building project. Dr. Deborah Porter, Assistant Professor, will serve as the Project Director. She is uniquely qualified to serve in this role. Dr. Porter has been a part of the educational community in Northeast Oregon for almost 20 years. She was an educational consultant for 6 years for Region VIII Educational Service Center. For three years she worked as a resource development specialist for Northeast Oregon Community College. From 1995-98, Dr. Porter was a central office administrator for Pittsburg ISD, serving as the director of special education, federal programs, and developing the instructional technology program for that district. During that time she implemented an innovative technology planning grant project that provided college training on computers to 23 classroom aides. For the past three years Dr. Porter has been the lead grant writer for the regional technology consortium and is responsible for over five million dollars in state funding for infrastructure, equipment, and training. Dr. Porter is now a professor at OAMU where she teaches graduate courses in special education, educational administration and the advanced technologies course for the CPDT program. She is also the Coordinator of Project Teacher Bound, a state funded project to recruit and support classroom aides in becoming certified teachers. She has been recognized by the state education agency for her work in technology planning for our rural area schools.

RFA.4. Quality of the Project Evaluation (OAMU will contract with the Oregon Center for Educational Technology (OCET) as the 3rd party evaluator for this project. Detailed Evaluation Plan is Provided in Appendix 6.)
In all TP&TB activities, participants will interact with national and state standards. The project will use the American Institutes for Research’s General Model for Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools and Its Impact, the North Central Regional Education Laboratory’s Engaged Learning, Planning and Evaluation Model, and the CEO STAR Model to study the implementation of project goals.

OCET will provide outside evaluation services, designed to document project implementation and assess the extent to which the project outcomes are achieved. A three member team of research and evaluation experts will convene for the purpose of employing common strategies of outcome pathway analysis and attribution modeling aligned to the AIR, NCREL and STAR models mentioned above.

The TP&TB Project Advisory Committee will collectively review evaluation techniques of results reporting. Formative and summative reports and products developed by the evaluation team will be balanced quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of information sharing for a variety of audiences.

return to government grants