CEAP Final Report

Final Report
of the
Computer Education Advisory Panel

Proposed Standards of Program Quality
and Effectiveness
Relative to the Implementation of AB 1023
(Chapter 404, Statutes of 1997)

Adopted by the Commission in December 1998

Effective Use of Computer-Based Technology in the Classroom for
Preliminary Multiple and Single Subject Teaching Credentials

and

Effective Use of Advanced Computer-Based Technology in the Classroom for
Professional Multiple and Single Subject Teaching Credentials



______________

State of California
Adopted
December 1998

California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing

July 1998

Members of the Commission

Table of Contents

Recommendation One (new standard for Multiple and Single Subject Teaching Credentials)
Recommendation Two (resources for all credential programs)
Recommendation Three (admission requirements for all credential programs)
Recommendation Four (school collaboration for all credential programs)
Recommendation Five (subject matter program standards advice)
Recommendation Six (variety of mechanisms advice)
Recommendation Seven (staff development advice) (staff development advice)

Final Recommendations of the
Computer Education Advisory Panel

Recommendation Six:
For both the preliminary and professional credentials the Commission should make available, as appropriate, a variety of mechanisms which enable credential candidates to demonstrate their proficiency in the use of computer-based technology in the classroom, such as:

The widespread reliance of contemporary society upon computer-based technologies reflects the increasing importance of electronic information management and communication tools. Technology, in its many forms, has become a powerful tool to enhance curriculum and instruction. Productivity, communication, research, and learning are dramatically enhanced through the appropriate use of technology thereby allowing educators to accomplish tasks that were not previously possible.

The true power and potential of computer-based technologies lies not in the machine itself but in the prudent and appropriate use of software applications to gather, process, and communicate information. Teachers' integration of these tools into the educational experience of students, including those with special needs, is crucial to preparing them for lives of personal, academic, and professional growth and achievement.

Teachers must become fluent, critical users of technology to provide a relevant education and to prepare students to be life-long learners in an information-based, interactive society. The appropriate and efficient use of software applications and related media to access and evaluate information, analyze and solve problems, and communicate ideas is essential to maximizing the instructional process. Such use of technology supports teaching and learning regardless of individual learning style, socio-economic background, culture, ethnicity, or geographic location.

When an evaluation team judges whether or not a program meets this standard, the Commission expects the team to consider the extent to which:

Prior to issuance of the Preliminary Credential

General Knowledge and Skills

· Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of current basic computer hardware and software terminology.

· Each candidate demonstrates competency in the operation and care of computer related hardware (e.g. cleaning input devices, avoiding proximity to magnets, proper startup and shut down sequences, scanning for viruses, and formatting storage media).

· Each candidate implements basic troubleshooting techniques for computer systems and related peripheral devices (e.g. checking the connections, isolating the problem components, distinguishing between software and hardware problems) before accessing the appropriate avenue of technical support.

· Each candidate demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the legal and ethical issues concerned with the use of computer-based technology.

· Each candidate demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the appropriate use of computer-based technology in teaching and learning.

· Each candidate uses computer applications to manage records (e.g. gradebook, attendance, and assessment records).

· Each candidate uses computers to communicate through printed media (e.g. newsletters incorporating graphics and charts, course descriptions, and student reports).

· Each candidate interacts with others using e-mail.

· Each candidate is familiar with a variety of computer-based collaborative tools (e.g. threaded discussion groups, newsgroups, list servers, online chat, and audio/video conferences).

· Each candidate examines a variety of current educational digital media and uses established selection criteria to evaluate materials, for example, multimedia, Internet resources, telecommunications, computer-assisted instruction, and productivity and presentation tools. (See California State guidelines and evaluations).

· Each candidate chooses software for its relevance, effectiveness, alignment with content standards, and value added to student learning.

· Each candidate demonstrates competence in the use of electronic research tools (e.g. access the Internet to search for and retrieve information).

· Each candidate demonstrates the ability to assess the authenticity, reliability, and bias of the data gathered.

· Each candidate identifies student learning styles and determines appropriate technological resources to improve learning.

· Each candidate considers the content to be taught and selects the best technological resources to support, manage, and enhance learning.

· Each candidate demonstrates an ability to create and maintain effective learning environments using computer-based technology.

· Each candidate analyzes best practices and research findings on the use of technology and designs lessons accordingly.

· Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of copyright issues (e.g. distribution of copyrighted materials and proper citing of sources).

· Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of privacy, security, and safety issues (e.g. appropriate use of chatrooms, confidentiality of records including graded student work, publishing names and pictures of minors, and Acceptable Use Policies).

· The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the program.

· Each candidate uses a computer application to manipulate and analyze data (e.g. create, use, and report from a database; and create charts and reports from a spreadsheet).

· Each candidate communicates through a variety of electronic media (e.g. presentations incorporating images and sound, web pages, and portfolios).

· Each candidate interacts and collaborates with others using computer-based collaborative tools (e.g. threaded discussion groups, newsgroups, electronic list management applications, online chat, and audio/video conferences).

· Each candidate demonstrates competence in evaluating the authenticity, reliability; bias of the data gathered; determines outcomes and evaluates the success or effectiveness of the process used.

· Each candidate optimizes lessons based upon the technological resources available in the classroom, school library media centers, computer labs, district and county facilities, and other locations.

· Each candidate designs, adapts, and uses lessons which address the students' needs to develop information literacy and problem solving skills as tools for lifelong learning.

· Each candidate creates or makes use of learning environments inside the classroom, as well as in library media centers or computer labs, that promote effective use of technology aligned with the curriculum.

· Each candidate uses technology in lessons to increase each student's ability to plan, locate, evaluate, select, and use information to solve problems and draw conclusions.

· Each candidate uses technology as a tool for assessing student learning and for providing feedback to students and their parents.

· Each candidate frequently monitors and reflects upon the results of using technology in instruction and adapts lessons accordingly.

· Each candidate collaborates with other teachers, mentors, librarians, resource specialists, and other experts to support technology-enhanced curriculum. For example, they may collaborate on interdisciplinary lessons or cross grade level projects.

· Each candidate contributes to site-based planning or local decision making regarding the use of technology and acquisition of technological resources.

· The program meets other factors related to this standard of quality brought to the attention of the team by the program.

The following questions are designed to assist accreditation team members during training and continuing accreditation reviews. They may also assist institutions in preparing proposals for initial accreditation of programs and self-study reports for continuing accreditation.

· How adequate are personnel resources (including sufficient numbers of full and part-time positions for instructional faculty, field supervisors and support personnel) to staff each credential program and maintain its effectiveness?

· How well does the institution provide a critical mass of faculty resources to provide breadth and depth of expertise to support an effective program of instruction and supervised field experience in each credential area? Do credential candidates have sufficient opportunity for contact with faculty members?

· To what extent do faculty, staff and candidates have access to appropriate buildings, classrooms, offices, study areas, furniture, equipment, library services, computers, media, and instructional materials? Are those resources sufficient and adequate?

· To what extent do faculty, staff, and candidates have equitable and appropriate access to computer-based technology, information and network resources for teaching and learning?

· To what extent do faculty, staff, and candidates have adequate technical support services for maintenance and training to support instructional goals?

· To what extent are the admission criteria and procedures clearly described and available to prospective candidates for credentials?

· What are the multiple measures used by the institution to define the academic achievement and professional potential of credential candidates?

· For the basic teaching credential programs; does the institution define an appropriate comparison group? Does each admitted candidate have an undergraduate GPA that is above the median GPA for the comparison group?

· For advanced credential programs; does each admitted candidate meet the institutional standards for graduate study?

· How does the institution determine and evaluate each applicant's personal qualities and preprofessional qualifications (including entry level computer skills), for example, personal interviews with candidates, written evaluation of candidates' prior experiences with children and youth, and prior leadership activities?

· What alternative criteria and procedures are used to encourage admission of candidates from underrepresented groups?

· To what extent do the institution's recruitment and admissions policies and practices reflect a commitment to achieve a balanced representation of the population by gender, race, ethnicity and disability?

· How do the admissions criteria consider the candidates' sensitivity to (and interest in) the needs of children and youth, with special consideration for sensitivity to those from diverse ethnic, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds?

· For each credential preparation program, to what extent does an effective and ongoing system of communication and collaboration exist between the institution and local districts and school sites where candidates are placed for their field experiences?

· To what extent does the institution, in consultation with local administrators and teachers, have clear, explicit criteria for the selection of schools and district field experience supervisors? How effectively does the institution seek to place candidates in self-renewing schools in which the curriculum and the staff develop continually?

· To what extent is there a description of the fieldwork/clinical experience options that are available and how those options correspond to the organizational structure and academic requirements of each credential program?

· To what extent does the institution provide opportunities for candidates to be placed in schools where computer-based technology is used to support teaching and learning?

· How does the institution ensure that each credential candidate's field/clinical experiences are planned collaboratively, involving the candidate, school district personnel and institutional personnel?

· How thoroughly does the institution periodically review the suitability and quality of all field placement sites?

· To what extent does the institution review each candidate's fieldwork/clinical placement to ensure that candidates are assigned to appropriate site supervisors?

· How well developed is the institution's plan and rationale for the sequence of field experiences in each credential program?

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Advisory Panel on Teacher Education, Induction and Certification for the Twenty-First Century Schools (SB 14232). (1997). California's future: Highly qualified teachers for all students. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing & California Department of Education. (1997). California standards for the teaching profession: A description of professional practice for California teachers. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997). Standards of program quality and effectiveness, factors to consider and preconditions in the evaluation of professional teacher preparation programs for multiple and single subject credentials. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1996). Standards for district internship teaching programs with BCLAD emphasis.: Handbook for district intern program administrators and program reviewers. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Committee to Review Computer Education Requirements. (1996). Computer education recommendations to the Senate Bill 1422 Advisory Panel of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education, Education Technology Office. (1997). Educational technology programs in California. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education, Education Technology Office, Education Council for Technology In Learning. (1997) Draft: Recommendations regarding technology-based content and performance standards. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Cassidy, John. (1998, February 23). Annals of enterprise: The Comeback. The New Yorker. pp. 122(6).

Copley, Richard J., Cradler, John & Engel, Penelope K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: the status of technology in U.S. schools (Chapters 3, 4 & 5). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Cradler, John & Bridgforth, Elizabeth. (1995). Telecommunications and technology education: what have we learned from research and experience? San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (for the California, Department of Education). (Chapters VIII and IX).

Cradler, John & Bridgforth, Elizabeth. (1996). Effective Site Level Planning for Technology Integration. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (for the California Department of Education).

Cradler, John & Cradler, Ruthmary. (1997). Inventory of conditions for effective technology use. San Mateo, CA: Educational Support Systems (Draft, for Fall 1997 Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Meeting.)

Cradler, John. (1994). Summary of Current Research and Evaluation Findings on Technology in Education. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.

Cradler, John. (1997). Educational technology and telecommunications research policy, and planning, documents on the Internet. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: TECH Corps.

Cradler, John. (1997). Resources supporting educational technology and telecommunications implementation. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: TECH Corps.

Derich, Barbara, Redmond, Pamela & Education Task Force. (1996). Technology planning guide for curriculum integration. Larkspur, CA: Author.

Education Week. (1997, November 10). Technology counts: Schools and reform in the information age. 16(11). (Entire edition dedicated to educational technology.)

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (1998). ISTE national educational technology standards (NETS): Guiding the development of new learning environments for today's classrooms. Eugene, OR: Author. [Available on the World Wide Web]. Retrieved May 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.iste.org/Resources/Projects/TechStandards/NETS/

Kotkin, Joel. (1997, July). The emergence of the entrepreneur. Foundation for Enterprise Development. [Posted to the World Wide Web]. ]. Retrieved May 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fed.org/leading_companies/july97/kotkin.html

Milbury, Peter. (1997, October). Collaborating on Internet-based lessons: A teacher and librarian SCORE with PBL. Technology Connection, 4(5), 8-9.

Milbury, Peter.(1998, March). Daily news on the Internet: Finding and effectively using free online news sources (full-text daily news archives with search engines). Technology Connection, 5(1), 28-30.

Milbury, Peter. (1997, September-October). Effective searching buys time to reflect, ponder & analyze. The Book Report, 16(2), 23-25.

NCTET Executive Board and Policy Committee, National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training. (1997) Educational technology goals, progress, and recommended actions. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1998). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st Century classroom.st Century classroom. [Monograph]. Washington, DC: Author.

Normington, Richard S. (1998). Optimizing the effectiveness of education technologies, or, Why some ed tech deployment projects don't work. [Monograph]. Sacramento, CA: TQM Services Group.

Phelan, Rick. (1997). SVUSD Technology rubric: Classroom uses of technology. [Monograph]. Sonoma, CA: Sonoma County Office of Education.

San Jose Unified School District. (1996). Draft #1: IBM "Reinventing Education Grant": Standards for using technology to achieve student-centered teaching and learning. [Handout]. San Jose, CA: Author.

Smith, Sheldon & California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) & San Luis Obispo County Office of Education. (1998). TechCert: Technology Certification for San Luis Obispo County Educators. [Brochure]. San Luis Obispo, CA: Author.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). The Emerging Digital Economy. Washington, DC: Author [Available on the World Wide Web]. Retrieved May 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecommerce.gov/emerging.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge: A report to the nation on technology and education. [Monograph]. Washington, DC: Author.

Umbach, Kenneth W. (1998). Computer Technology in California K-12 Schools: Uses, Best Practices, and Policy Implications. [Monograph, prepared at the request of Assembly Member Kerry Mazzoni]. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. Available in Adobe Portable Document (pdf) format at http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/98/03/98003.pdf.

Umbach, Kenneth W. (1998). Learning-Related Outcomes of Computer Technology in K-12 Education. [Monograph, prepared at the request of Assembly Member Kerry Mazzoni to support the work of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing]. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. Available in Adobe Portable Document (pdf) format at http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/98/10/98010.pdf.

Wiebe, James. (1995). Editor's message: Technology and the restructuring of teacher education. Journal of Computing In Teacher Education. 11(2), 2.

Wiebe, James. (1995). Editor's remarks: The need to teach people about computers. Journal of Computing In Teacher Education. 113), 2.