| |
|
|
|
The
WEXFORD PT3*L3: Learning, Linking and Leading |
|
|
Wexford
was the lead agency on the PT3*L3 project funded by the Preparing
Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Program at the
U.S. Department of Education, to support knowledge generation
for the national PT3 Program and support PT3 evaluation.
The PT3*L3 Learning, Linking and Leading Knowledge Development
Catalyst Grant:
|
|
|
• |
Assisted the PT3 community in generating new
knowledge about systemic change of technology-based preservice
programs using the experiences of the 1999 and 2000 grantees; |
| |
• |
Assisted the PT3 community in applying this
new and existing knowledge and evaluation tools as catalysts
for systemic change; |
| |
• |
Created a Community of Practice with participants
from and outside of the PT3 community to implement practices
based on this generated knowledge and on evaluation, and to
create new knowledge about those practices; |
| |
• |
Encouraged the establishment of collegial
working relationships between project staff and project evaluators
for strategic planning and to enable use of "just in time" information
to inform and support their work on systemic reform. |
| |
|
|
| |
The PT3*L3 Consortium was a national
network created by Wexford to support the work of the project
and was comprised of: |
| |
• |
WEXFORD, Inc., a non-profit educational agency,
and the Lead Agency |
| |
• |
Alliance for Distance Education in California
(ADEC) |
| |
• |
The American Evaluation Association (AEA) |
| |
• |
California State University, Long Beach -
Center for Language Minority Education and Research (CLMER) |
| |
• |
Imperial County Office of Education (ICOE),
in El Centro, California |
| |
• |
Los Angeles County Office of Education, Education
Telecommunications and Technologies Division, Distributed Learning
Unit (LACOE/ET&T) |
| |
• |
Texas A&M University (TAMU) |
| |
• |
University of Kansas - Advanced Learning Technologies
Unit (ALTec) |
| top |
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
Paths to Improvement |
| |
During the 2001-2002 funding year,
the L3 Project, involved leaders in this field as contributors
to a conceptual model for the Improvement Process, and to identify
and create frameworks with related tools and resources. The
Conceptual Model for Improvement is comprised of six program
development and evaluation phases and is represented in the
graphic below. This graphic represents a recursive process
that begins with the Initiating
Phase. Tools and instruments
to support the six phases are contained in the other parts
of this section of the website. |
|
| top |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Threshold Conditions |
| |
As we have worked
with administrators, project directors and evaluators around
the country to assist them with projects or agency reforms,
there has been an obvious and voiced need to have a common
conceptual model or framework that integrates NCATE, ISTE
and other recognized standards, with program development
and evaluation phases. This would enable leadership teams
comprised of internal and external evaluators, project staff
and stakeholders to consistently use the same framework for
three functions: planning, implementation and evaluation.
It would also allow for the identification and development
of tools and resources necessary to support these functions.
The framework that expert-practitioners developed was the
Threshold Framework. It is comprised of 3 main areas: Strategic
Planning, Foundation Support & Resources, and Teaching
and Learning. Each of those main areas has three or four
sub-parts, for a total of 10 sub-parts shown below.
|
| |
• |
Strategic Planning |
| |
|
~ |
Shared Vision |
| |
|
~ |
Support Policies |
| |
|
~ |
Diversity |
| |
• |
Foundation Support and Resources |
| |
|
~ |
Access |
| |
|
~ |
Development |
| |
|
~ |
Technical Assistance and Curriculum Support |
| |
• |
Teaching and Learning |
| |
|
~ |
Partnerships and Collaboration |
| |
|
~ |
Coherence, Integration, Alignment |
| |
|
~ |
Technology Proficient Educators |
| |
|
~ |
Improved Student Achievement |
| |
|
|
|
| Using the Threshold
Survey, each of the 10 sub-parts
may be assessed during its planning, implementation or review
phases. |
| |
|
|
|
| top |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Organizational
Change |
| |
Understanding and using organizational
change strategies provides a framework for creating change
at universities and in school districts. Staff and consultants
with the L3 project reviewed educational change literature
to develop change tools to be used for planning and evaluation.
Using the Organizational Change
Tools, leadership teams may
assess their change efforts related to the following areas:
|
| |
• |
Elements of the Current Organizational Climate/Culture |
| |
• |
"Fit" of Proposed Change into Current
Organization |
| |
• |
Elements of Institutionalization of the Innovation
or Change |
| top |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lessons
Learned from PT3s |
| |
During 2002, staff and partners
of the L3 project collected information from the 1999 and 2000
Implementation Grantees about their projects and their evaluation
methods. Very few projects were identified as conducting substantive
evaluations. Findings are contained in: PT3*L3
Review of the Evaluations of the 1999 and 2000 PT3 Implementation
Projects. |
| top |
|
|
| |
|
|
Tools
and Resources |
| |
• |
PT3 Evaluation Process Checklist |
| |
• |
PT3 Evaluation Process
Checklist: Tools & Resources |
| |
• |
PT3 Evaluation Design: Defining Project Success |
| |
• |
Documenting Change in Pre-Service Teacher Technology
Proficiency |
| |
• |
Rubric Example for ISTE NETS-T Standards |
| |
• |
PT3 Evaluation Design: Data Collection Schedule |
| |
• |
Resources for PT3 Evaluators (Word) |
| |
• |
Resources for PT3 Evaluators (Excel) |
