During the Fall 1999 semester, a doctoral student examined UTeach curriculum developed to date and UTeach technology benchmarks.  She found the NETS*T to be a superior model to the proposed in-house benchmarks.  She surveyed UTeach professors about their course technology goals and then generated a preliminary curriculum map that correlated the NETS*T with the stated course goals.   This initial map was revised in Spring 2000 and again after the release of the third version of NETS*T was released (Fall 2000). The UTeach program evaluator and UTeach faculty have continued to revise UTeach curricula to better reflect the NETS*T.  This is, and will continue to be, an ongoing process of program evaluation and revision.

UTeach is accredited by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). During the Spring 2000 semester, our program evaluator collected course syllabi and analyzed UTeach in terms of four themes required for secondary math and science teacher certification programs in Texas: integration of mathematics and science, technology, equity, and experiential/teaching practice. The State Board for Educator Certification in Texas lists five technology competencies for beginning teachers:

1. knowing how and when to integrate technology into instruction
2. knowing how and when to integrate technology into assessment
3. knowing how technology can support instructional goals and objectives
4. using technology to promote equitable learning environments
5. knowing how to select technologies for suitable instructional goals

In May 2000, we conducted exit interviews with our first nine graduates to determine their level of comfort and proficiency with technology.  From the information gleaned in exit interviews we devised a survey which we administered to current students to determine the extent to which professors were addressing the course goals, to determine if they had adequate access to technology in their field placements and to guage overall technology use in the program. This survey was administered in April 2001.  Survey results indicated that technology goals needed to be more explicit in some cases and that students usually go far beyond course expectations in terms of their technology use. Additionally, the results of the survey indicated that some field placements fostered instructional use of technology by preservice teachers whereas others did not. Based on this information, the following programmatic changes were implemented:

• UTeach obtained grant funding for a portable cart of networked laptops and training for teachers at one of our field sites.
• We also changed some course goals to include goals addressing technology use in field placements. For example, Step II now requires preservice teachers to use technology with students in one of their four lessons.
• We also found that students misinterpreted the survey question on technology use in the field. They included technology used in lesson planning in their responses. We have revised the survey and will readminister it this semester (Fall 2001) to student teachers.
• Step II and Project Based Instruction have both added training on use of CBLs in mathematics and science (Fall 2001).
• Student teachers will be required to turn in lesson plans demonstrating effective use of technology with students in their field placements.
• Student teacher supervisors will be required to observe student teachers using technology in their field placements as one of their formal observations.