Get documents about "JTYr1Rpt.doc - Deafed.net Homepage
Shared by: wanghonghx
-
Stats
- views:
- 1
- posted:
- 8/17/2011
- language:
- Dutch
- pages:
- 58
Document Sample
OMB No. 1890-0004
Exp. Date: 6/30/2005
U.S. Department of Education
Grant Performance Report
Cover Sheet
1.) PR/Award No
See Block 5 on the Grant Award ED P342A030098
Notification.
2.) Project Title
Enter the same title as on the Join Together: A Nation Wide On-line Community of Practice &
approved application. Professional Development
3.) Recipient Information
Repeat from Block 1 on Grant Name: Kent State University
Award Notification. If address PO Box 5190
has changed, provide the current Address 134 Auditorium Building
address.
City: Kent State: OH Zip+4: 44242-0001
4.) Contact Person
Provide the name of the project Name: Harold Johnson
director or the contact person Title: Professor and co-Director
who is most familiar with the Telephone Number: 330-672-0735
content of the performance Fax Number: 330-672-2498
report.
E-mail Address: hjohnson@kent.edu
5.) Performance Reporting Period
Include the interval for the
information requested in the
performance reporting period. _10_/_01_/_03__ - _07_/_31_/_04_ (mm/dd/yy)
See instructions on page 2 for
details.
6.) Cumulative Expenditures
Report actual budget Federal $ Non-Federal $
expenditures for the above Current Budget Period $211,690 $187,855
performance reporting period. Previous Budget Period Na Na
See instructions on page 2 for
Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate: _8_%
details.
Exp. Date: _09_/_30_/_06_
7.) Annual Certification of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
If applicable, see instructions on
page 2 for details on annual IRB Yes ____ No _X__ NA ____
approval (Please circle one).
Authorized Representative:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this performance report are true and correct.
Name (typed
Title:
or printed):
Signature: Date:
ED Form 524-B
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Index
Section I: Cover Sheet
Section II: Executive Summary
Section III: Project Status
Objective 1.1 Technological Infrastructure
Objective 1.2 Faculty Technological Competence
Objective 1.3 Preservice Teacher Diversity
Objective 1.4 Multi-state Certification & Preparation
Objective 2.1 Instructional Competence
Objective 2.2 Content Competence
Objective 2.3 Technology Competence
Objective 2.4 Assessment Competence
Section IV: Budget Information
Section V: Supplemental Information
Section VI: GPRA Indicators
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Section I: Cover Sheet
See first page
Section II: Executive Summary
(back to Index)
Purpose
The primary problem of students who are deaf/hard-of-hearing (d/hh) is not too
little hearing, but too much isolation from peers, meaningful learning opportunities and
high expectations for academic performance. The primary problem of PK-12 deaf
education teachers is not too little effort, but too much difficulty in collaborating with
peers, in sharing effective instructional practices and accessing needed learning
resources. The primary problem of deaf education teacher preparation is not too little
innovation, but too much theory that is not grounded in the day-to-day instructional
practices of the nation‟s most effective teachers (i.e., Master Teachers) of students who
are d/hh. This grant was funded to enhance deaf education teacher preparation by
addressing the problems of isolation, collaboration and grounding the preparation process
with computer based, Internet linked technologies to establish a virtual professional
development school for PK-20 deaf education.
Figure 1: Grant Design
Design
Obj. 1.1
The grant was designed to Obj. 2.4
Tech. Support
Obj. 1.2
PK-12
accomplish eight objectives Ass ess ment
Fac ulty Tech.
Competence
(Figure 1). Each objective is lead Bes t Practices
by two “Topical Team Leaders”
(TTL). “Topical Team Experts”
(TTE) and “Topical Team Obj. 1.3
Preservice
Members” (TTM) support TTL in Obj. 2.3
PK-12 Tech. Teacher
their work. The work of TTL, Bes t Practices
Deaf Ed. Divers ity
Preservice
TTE and TTM is facilitated by the Teacher
work of the grant‟s two Co- Obj. 1.4
Obj. 2.2
Directors and evaluated by the PK-12 Multi-State
Obj. 2.1
work of the grant‟s two Co- Content Best PK-12
Teacher Prep.
Practices Pro. Design
Evaluators. Two staff members Instructional
Bes t Practices
provide logistical support for the
grant. The grant‟s Web site
(www.deafed.net) provides a common portal for all grant related information and
activities. Weekly phone/videoconferences between the Co-Directors, followed by
bimonthly phone/videoconferences with the TTL and grant Evaluators provide the
necessary grant oversight and problem solving. E-mail exchanges, bulletin board
postings and an on-line “Choice” system (i.e., database) are designed to track the
activities, timeline, products, expenditures and cost share of each individual participating
in the grant.
Year One Focus and Activities
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Year one of the grant focused upon (1) clarifying TTL roles, responsibilities and
resources (2) recruiting TTE and TTM (3) refining the grant‟s communication strategies,
accounting system and Web resources and (4) gathering information as indicated by the
year one activities for each objective.
Accomplishments
At the onset of the grant, there were 16 TTL and 2 Co-Directors representing 14
states and 13 deaf education teacher preparation programs working to carry out year one
activities. By the end of year one, the number had grown to 71 individuals from 27 states
representing 26 deaf education teacher preparation programs. While a detailed account
of these individual's accomplishments are provided
in Section III, a few highlights are as follows: Figure 2: Year One Grant Participation
baseline data were collected for: 80
videoconferencing access and use
faculty and Master Teacher (MT) 60
technology access use and competence
state certification and content Number 40
requirements, teacher program
designs and teacher shortage 20
case study research was carried
0
out concerning the instructional Onset End
beliefs of nationally recognized teachers Individuals 16 71
literature reviews were conducted for: States 13 27
PK-20 technologies and technology 11 26
Teacher Prep.
competencies Programs
recruitment, preparation and retention
content based instructional and Individuals States Teacher Prep. Programs
assessment "best practices"
Problems and Solutions
The primary strength of the grant is the group of individuals who are carrying out
the grant activities. The primary problem of the grant centers around individual
circumstances of those who are carrying out the grant activities. Retirements, changing
workloads, evolving professional interests and unexpected professional opportunities
necessitated changes in a few of the original TTL. Confusion regarding the meaning of
“x” word or “y” phrase within the grant, the lack of familiarity with a particular type of
technology, or a lack of comfort in directing the work of others fostered the development
and use of increasingly refined, yet straightforward grant based communications and
support systems. The fact that 71 individuals, spread out over 27 states, working on eight
distinct, yet inter-related objectives, have accomplished the vast majority of their year
one activities is a testament of the grant‟s effectiveness.
Unexpected Outcomes
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
The most significant unexpected outcome is that the individuals involved with
this grant have a growing, well-founded sense of what they can accomplish by joining
together. They also recognize that the innovative and effective use of technology can not
only enhance PK-20 teaching and learning, it can also reduce isolation, facilitate
collaboration and ground theory in practice and practice in theory.
Section III: Project Status
Project Objective 1.1 - Technological Infrastructure (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Tom McNeal/Kent State University, Kent OH
o Jorge Maldonado/PEPNet, St. Paul, MN
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Thomas Baggs/UT Health Science Center, Austin, TX
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Landon Kearns/Kent State University, Kent, OH
o Bob Spiecker/Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, St. Augustine, FL
o Megan Troyer/OARnet, Columbus, OH
o Mike O'Connell/Texas School for the Deaf, Austin, TX
o Ali Rashad/State of Georgia Department of Education, Atlanta, GA
o Karen Warren/American School of the Deaf, West Hartford, CT
o Loni Germain/PEPNet, St. Paul, MN
o Susan Wickstrom/PEPNet, St. Paul, MN
Objective
Description: Create an efficient collaborative network of Consortium
Members [CM], Institutions of Higher Education [IHE], State Education
Agencies [SEA] and Local Education Agencies [LEA] that results in empirical
evidence regarding the impact of Web-based videoconferencing to reform d/hh
teacher preparation.
Overall Outcome: Empirical evidence of the use of Web-based
videoconferencing by the CM, IHE, SEA and LEA in collaborating with the
larger CoP in the completion of project activities and in the reform of d/hh teacher
preparation programs.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of the CM , IHE, SEA and
LEA to determine access to and competency with Web-based videoconferencing.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
A. Progress - During year one of the grant, Objective 1.2 TTL focused their
work on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals, objectives,
activities, evaluation protocols and technologies (Conceptual
Understanding)
identifying and inviting TTE and TTM to join in accomplishing the year
one activities (Team Membership)
conducting a needs assessment concerning the availability and use of
Web-based, videoconferencing technologies (WBVCT) by four of the
grant‟s stakeholder groups (Baseline Data):
Topical Team Leaders
Executive Advisory Board Members
Master Teachers of students who are d/hh
faculty that prepare individuals to become teachers of students who
are d/hh
identifying and testing an emerging array of Web-based videoconference-
ing technologies (WBVCT Systems)
providing technical assistance to TTL, TTE and TTM in their installation
and use of grant supported, Web-based, videoconferencing technologies
(Technical Support)
exploration of technological options to provide open captions within
WBVCT applications (Open Captions)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, Objective 1.1
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a growing understanding of their
grant responsibilities, opportunities, resources and technologies
Team Membership - expanded their team to include one TTE and eight
TTM
Baseline Data - established baseline data concerning the availability and
use of WBVCT by TTL, Executive Advisory Board Members (EAB),
Master Teachers (MT) and deaf education teacher preparation program
faculty
The resulting data indicates that:
sixteen TTL and fourteen EAB members provided data concerning their
current use and evaluation of WBVCT
fifteen (93%) TTL and ten (71%) EAB members have access to VCT
data concerning the use of that technology indicates that it provides the
TTL and EAB members with an occasional versus everyday tool
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
VTC Frequency Use TTL EAB
Every Day 7% 14%
Once a Week 21% 21%
Once a Month 29% 14%
Few Times a Year 21% 21%
Never 21% 21%
data were not collected concerning the TTL or EAB perceived competence
in using WBVCT
the TTL and EAB members were asked to judge the quality of their
videoconferences (i.e., picture and sound), it was found the quality of the
conference was generally good
Quality of Videoconference TTL EAB
Very Good 29% 36%
Good 43% 29%
Poor 7% 7%
Not Experienced 21% 29%
narrative data from TTLs indicated they wanted to use the WBVCT to
facilitate student observations, provide teacher support, facilitate
collaborative work and enhance teaching and learning
EAB members indicated that they used VCT for business, to facilitate
collaborative work and to provide outreach and technical services. Both
TTL and EAB members were asked to judge the current and future impact
of VCT upon deaf education. The resulting data from both the TTL and
EAB indicated they are very confident that VTC will have a substantial
impact upon deaf education.
Evaluation of Current Impact Future Impact
VTC
TTL EAB EAB TTL
Very High Impact 15% 7% 50% 64%
High Impact 21% 50% 29% 29%
Fair Impact 43% 29% 7%
Poor Impact 21% 7%
None 7% 21%
The baseline data concerning MT's access and use of WBVCT indicated
that 54% of the 58 respondents did not have access to this technology at
either school or home.
The data also indicated that while 37% had access to WBVCT at school,
4% had access to the technology at home and 6% had access at both
school and home.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Narrative data revealed that MTs used their WBVCT for video relay and
conferencing with deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and
their teacher candidates.
When questioned concerning their competence in using WBVCT, the MTs
responding to the survey indicated:
Competence Level Percentage
Novice 50%
Somewhat Proficient 32%
Proficient 18%
Leader 0%
Baseline data were not collected from the MTs concerning the frequency
with which they used WBVCT or the perceived current/future impact of
this technology.
The baseline data concerning deaf education teacher preparation program
faculty's use of WBVCT was secured from 94 respondents.
While data concerning faculty's access to WBVCT was not collected,
faculty was asked to judge their proficiency with this technology.
Competence Level Percentage
Novice 44%
Somewhat Proficient 32%
Proficient 19%
Leader 4%
A comparison of MTs and faculty competence data indicates that both
groups consider themselves to have very limited ability to use this
technology.
Narrative information concerning faculty's use of WBVCT was not
collected.
WBVCT Systems - identified two additional WBVCT and two additional
software systems:
WBVCT
Sony WBVCT
TTL determined that Sony WBVCT systems were compatible
with the Polycom ViaVideos and ViewStations that had been
previously purchased and distributed by the 2000-2004 PT3
Catalyst grant that was awarded to ACE-D/HH.
Both specifications and pricing for the WBVCT were
incorporated into the current grant‟s design.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Logitech Eyeball Cameras
TTL identified, tested and priced the use of Logitech Eyeball
Cameras in searching for a low cost and easy to install
WBVCT that could be used on both PCs and Macs.
Initial tests were positive and pilot investigations of the use of
Logitech Eyeball Cameras will be carried out in year two of the
grant.
Software Systems
LearnLinc
TTL investigated the compatibility and use of the LearnLinc
distance education course delivery system
Initial findings were sufficiently encouraging to include a pilot
test of this system in year two of the grant.
iVisit
TTL investigated the compatibility and use of the iVisit system
to facilitate collaborative activities between TTL, TTE and
TTM.
While investigation of this system will continue during year
two of the grant, initial results indicate that the iVisit system
provides a dual platform (PC and Mac) that may also support
the use of virtual relay services for the grant‟s deaf colleagues.
Technical Support - provided technical support for TTL, TTE, TTM and
EAB in their installation and use of WBVCT.
data were not collected concerning the frequency of type of technical
assistance provided
anecdotal data indicated the need for an increasingly diverse array of
support information (e.g., additional means beyond phone, e-mail,
Web pages and videoconferences) to provide technical support
open captioned video e-mail messages and downloadable files are now
being developed and tested in relation to their effectiveness in
providing needed technical information and support
Open Captions - exploration of technological options to provide open
captions within WBVCT applications.
during year one of the grant, TTL piloted the use of “Virtual Topical
Seminars” (VTS) as a mechanism to effectively and efficiently
disseminate information to grant stakeholders that are widely dispersed
throughout the United States
three tests of the VTS systems were conducted
within these tests, presenters (one each in MS, CO and DC) used their
Polycom ViaVideo camera to establish a video link with a Polycom
ViaVideo camera in OH
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
VTS focused upon topics of importance to K-20 deaf education (i.e.,
cochlear implants, inclusion and early intervention)
once the connection was established, Kent State University video
streaming technologies were used to distribute the VTS to Web
browsers throughout the United States
VTS were captured and placed, along with the presenters PowerPoint
presentations and resulting “Q and A”, on www.deafed.net bulletin
boards
feedback from the three VTS seminars, while very supportive,
reinforced the need to provide captions (both real time and subsequent)
for deaf individuals who wanted to benefit from the VTS
As a result, TTL have worked with one of the Executive Advisory
Board members (Bill Stark/Director of Captioned Media Programs) to
explore the development and implementation of open captioning
services for future VTS.
exploration will continue during year two of the grant
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “needs [to be] identified.” The year one activity for this objective
called for a needs assessment of the CM, IHE, SEA and LEA to determine
access to and competency with Web-based videoconferencing technology
(WBVCT).
competence and perspective of importance data were collected from
CM (Topical Team Members and Executive Advisory Board
Members)
accessibility and competence data were collected for LEA (Master
Teachers)
only competence data were collected for IHE (deaf education teacher
preparation program faculty)
While some SEA data were collected from members of the Executive
Advisory Board members (e.g., ORCLISH representatives), the
resulting data were from such a small number of individuals as to be of
limited value.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained –
three reasons that the project performance indicators were not completely
attained:
survey tools for MTs and deaf education teacher preparation program
faculty did not ask for all of the needed data
TTL lacked access to a sufficient number of SEA representatives to
gather the needed data
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
an evolving understanding of the grant‟s overall WBVCT needs
demanded that the TTL and their TTM used a substantial proportion of
their time to deal with the topics of:
Conceptual Understanding
Team Membership
WBVCT Systems
Technical Support
Open Captions
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - corrective actions to be taken
in year two of the grant include:
Survey Tools
Survey tools for MTs and deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty will be revised and refined to collect needed
accessibility, use, competence and perspective of importance data.
Once survey tools have been revised, they will be redistributed to
targeted groups at both the onset and end of the ‟04-05 academic
year.
This data, plus that collected at the end of the ‟04-05 academic
year from the grant‟s CM, will be used to determine the presence
or absence of change concerning this grant objective.
SEA Representatives
Most states identify one individual, usually associated with the
state‟s department of education, as the director of K-12 services to
students who are d/hh.
These individuals will be identified and surveyed concerning their
knowledge of WBVCT accessibility, use, competence and
perspective of importance data within K-12 settings serving
students who are d/hh.
Evolving WBVCT Needs
TTL will continue to respond to the grant‟s evolving WBVCT
needs
TTL will also design, develop and implement a system to track the
amount of time that they spend on such needs
TTL will keep anecdotal notes concerning type of WBVCT
assistance provided and how such assistance serves to support the
overall grant‟s goals and objectives
F. Year Two Work: one reality of WBVCT is that there is greater access than
there is use. While many individuals have varying degrees of
videoconferencing available to them, the use of those systems is not yet part
of their daily work routine. As a result, the grant must:
change the work patterns of key stakeholders (TTL, TTE, TTM,
Executive Advisory Board Members, Master Teachers, local education
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
agencies and deaf education teacher preparation program faculty) to
include the use of WBVCT as a new strategy to address old problems
(e.g., isolation, recognition and sharing)
providing compelling applications that demonstrate the potential of
WBVCT to enhance teaching and learning (e.g., Virtual Topical
Seminars, Virtual Field Observations, Virtual Collaborative Teams,
Virtual Educational Learning Opportunities, etc.)
continually search for cost effective, cross platform (PC and MAC)
WBVCT systems that can be easily installed and used in both school
and home settings, with little or no need for ongoing technical support
continually work to develop WBVCT systems that are accessible by
individuals who are deaf/hard-of-hearing
Within year one of the grant, the TTL, TTE and TTM of Objective 1.1 have
accomplished a great deal. In year two of the grant, these individuals will:
carry out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
increase the number of TTM who are actively working with the TTL
to carry out Objective 1.1 activities
increase the accessibility and use of the knowledge and data that were
gained during year one
continue to collect WBVCT accessibility, use, competence and
perspective of importance data
continue to provide technical assistance to grant stake holders in the
purchase, instillation and use of WBVCT
continue to work with the TTL of the grant‟s other objectives to
identify, design, implement, support and document the impact of a
growing array of WBVCT applications
Project Objective 1.2 - Faculty Technological Competence (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Karen Dilka/Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY
o Elizabeth Parker/Utah State University-Logan, Logan, UT
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Eileen Pracek/Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System,
Specialized Center Instructional Technology, Viera, FL
o Donna Baumbach/Florida‟s Instructional Technology Resource Center at
the University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Barbara Strassman/The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ
o Debbie Haydon/Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY
o Jamie Galgoci/Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
o Dee Klein/Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA
o Carol MacAllister/John Tracy Clinic, Los Angeles, CA
o Nancy Benham/Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA
o Carmel Yarger/Utah State University-Logan, Logan, UT
Objective
Description: Identify the technological competencies and
multimedia curricular resources needed for effective instruction and
increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh and
incorporate these into faculty instruction within d/hh teacher preparation
programs.
Overall Outcome: Empirical evidence of the increase in d/hh teacher
preparation program faculty technological competencies and use of
multimedia curricular resources needed for effective instruction and increased
academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of d/hh teacher
education faculty to determine their technological competencies and
knowledge and use of multimedia curricular resources.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
A. Progress: During year one of the grant, Objective 1.2 TTL focused their
work on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying and inviting TTE and TTM to join in accomplishing year
one activities (Team Membership)
conducting a needs assessment of deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty to determine their current level of technological
competencies, knowledge and their use of multimedia curricular
resources (Baseline Data)
conducting a literature review concerning the technological
competencies and multimedia curricular resources that are needed for
effective instruction and increased academic achievement of PK-12
students who are d/hh (Literature Review)
identifying areas of content and technological expertise that current
Master Teachers shared (Content and Technological Expertise)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, Objective 1.2
TTL accomplished the following:
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Conceptual Understanding - developed a growing understanding of
their grant responsibilities, opportunities, resources and technologies.
This understanding resulted in the decision to:
move one team leader (Shelley Popson) from Objective 1.2 to
Objective 2.3 and one team leader (Karen Dilka) from Objective
2.3 to Objective 1.2 (Note: the move reflects leaders experiential
background and professional interest)
combine the efforts of Objective 1.2 (Faculty Technology
Competence) with those of 2.3 (Preservice Teacher Technology
Competence)
meet and work as an expanded team of Objective 1.2 and 2.3 TTL
(Note: the first face-to-face meeting of the 1.2 and 2.3 TTL was
held in May 2004)
Team Membership - expanded team membership to include:
TTE
Objective 1.2 and Objective 2.3: share the same two topical
experts
TTM
Objective 1.2: seven team members
Objective 2.3: four team members
Baseline Data - established baseline data concerning technological
competencies, knowledge and use of multimedia curricular resources
by faculty at the nation‟s deaf education teacher preparation programs.
Analysis of the resulting data from 94 faculty indicate that:
the majority described themselves as proficient in the following
areas:
presentation software
research on the Internet
online discussions
hearing aids
cochlear implants
TTY or TTD.
the following areas are priorities in which they would like to
increase their proficiency:
electronic portfolios
wireless handhelds
digital camera/video
web page development
videoconferencing
content specific software
internet video relay
voice/test-to-sign (e.g. iCommunicator)
VREAL (simulation scenarios)
Baldi
SignSmith
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
they overwhelmingly prefer to receive technology related
instruction via:
workshop (71%)
face-to-face with e-mail/phone follow-up (62%)
mentoring/coaching (57%).
faculty comments included:
I feel I have improved in virtually all areas of technology. I
have moved from “no skill” in many areas, to “some skill”.
Although I still have a long way to go, I am moving in the right
direction…I continue to take technology classes and learn new
software and hardware to help teach others….The technology
standards required of our students necessitates that I become
more proficient in using technology in my teaching.
preservice teacher technological competence
Note: the survey document used to collect the baseline data were
developed in collaboration with the TTL for Objective 2.3.
Literature Review
Due to the acceptance by ACE-D/HH of the International Society
of Technology in Education‟s (ISTE) National Educational
Technology Standards (NETS), there was now a need to determine
levels of technology competence recommended by this team for
grant participants. The levels of competence are defined within the
ISTE NETS.
TTL and TTE did a literature review on additional topics pertinent
to the successful dissemination of information, training, and
collaboration among grant participants. The topics studied include:
Professional Development School Models and Professional
Development Standards, especially regarding Faculty
Development in previous PT3 Grants.
Learning Communities
Distance Learning Models
A summary of the key information from the literature review
follows:
There are no models of Professional Development Schools that
utilize “distance learning” as a primary component of the
partnership.
There are few models utilizing distance learning as the delivery
method for professional development. There are Best Practices
and standards regarding both professional development and
online education, including information regarding making
distance learning appropriate for adult learners and individuals
with disabilities.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
There is a wealth of information regarding Faculty
Development from successful PT3 grants, but few focus on
distance learning models.
There is a great deal of research supporting virtual Learning
Communities, although few to none focus on collaboration
among K12 and postsecondary systems.
The grant audience is not experienced in the communication
and collaboration technologies utilized in virtual learning
communities.
Content and Technological Expertise - data from the Master Teachers
and faculty surveys was culled to identify both individuals and areas of
content and technological expertise.
resulting information will be used to both enhance and expand the
array of faculty based professional development opportunities
such opportunities will include information on the availability, use
and impact of:
k-12 portfolios
digital white boards
digital cameras
inspiration
presentation software
video phones and videoconferencing
Internet resources
content resources (math, science and literacy)
integrated curriculum
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “Needs assessment [to be] completed; review of research [to be]
completed. The year one activity for this objective called for:
the needs assessment to be conducted concerning the technological
competencies and knowledge and use of multimedia curricular
resources of the faculty who teach in the nation‟s deaf education
teacher preparation programs
a review of the literature to be completed concerning faculty
technological competencies, knowledge and use
Needs assessment data were collected from 94 of the estimated 220+
full- and part-time faculty who teach within the nation‟s 73 deaf
education teacher preparation programs. Initial analysis of the
resulting data has been completed and will be used to guide the year
two activities for this objective.
A literature review has been conducted concerning the technological
competencies and knowledge and multimedia use that are
demonstrated by teacher preparation program faculty. Initial analysis
of the resulting information has been completed and will be used to
guide year two activities for this objective.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained –
the performance indicators for this objective were met.
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - while the performance
indicators for this objective were met, several areas need additional attention
in the forthcoming year:
Baseline Data
Faculty Identification
At this point, it is unclear what percentage of the possible number
of full- and part-time faculty that teaches method courses within
the nation‟s deaf education teacher preparation programs received
copies of the baseline survey form.
identification and contact information is therefore needed
regarding all of the full- and part-time faculty who teach method
courses within the nation‟s deaf education teacher preparation
programs
This information will insure that the grant‟s year two and three
activities are directed at the full compliment of individuals who are
responsible for the preparation of individuals to become teachers
of students who are d/hh.
ongoing efforts are underway to secure the needed information
Survey Design and Protocol
information is also needed regarding why individuals who received
the survey did not respond to it
future survey designs and protocols will be refined to reflect the
resulting understanding
Data Access and Use
Web-based technologies make it relatively easy to collect and
organize data; however, understanding and using data to guide
decisions represents a more difficulty task.
While complete survey results (a 30+ page, single-spaced
document) have been placed on a grant related bulletin board, its
current format does not lend itself to the easy and effective
identification and use of key information.
In light of this reality, strategies (e.g., use of TTE or TTM) will be
explored to develop Web-based documents (e.g., hyperlinked “Q
and A”) and technologies that use the language and interests of
deaf education teacher preparation program faculty to organize and
access data generated by the grant.
Anecdotal information will be collected concerning the use and
effectiveness of the resulting documents and strategies to both
inform and guide grant activities.
Literature Review
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
No corrective actions are required for this objective. The TTLs for
2.1-2.4, in conjunction with the grants Co-Directors and Co-
Evaluators, will discuss, search for and possibly pilot potential
solutions to the nation wide lack of empirical evidence concerning
the utilization of distance learning technologies to support K-12
and postsecondary collaboration, professional development and the
ongoing development of a virtual national learning community.
F. Year Two Work - during the course of the last five years, as a result to two
sequential PT3 grants that were awarded to the Association of College
Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH), there has been a tremendous
growth in the use of technologies by faculty in the nation‟s deaf education
teacher preparation programs. As a result, faculty note the ease and frequency
of which they use an increasing range of technologies (e.g., PowerPoint, Web
searches, e-mail, digital cameras, etc.). Faculty also note the increased
frequency with which they work with deaf education colleagues from around
the nation and how they are often perceived to be one of the more
technologically proficient individuals within their own colleges. What faculty
do not discuss is how their increased technological sophistication has changed
the field (i.e., practicum, student teaching, internship, etc.) based teaching of
their teacher candidates. Nor does faculty discuss the degree to which their
use of technologies within the college setting is similar or dissimilar to that of
the K-12 colleagues with whom they place their teacher candidates. Neither is
there discussion of the extent to which the technologies that they have
incorporated into their instructional designs have been empirically associated
with enhanced K-12 student academic performance. As a result, the year two
activities for this objective will:
carry out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
increase the number of TTM who are actively working with the TTL
to carry out Objective 1.2 year two activities
continue to collaborate with the TTL, TTE and TTM of Objective 2.3
to effectively gather and share related knowledge, skills and strategies
design, implement, evaluate and refine a growing array of face-to-face
and distance education professional development strategies and
collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty and Master Teachers that effectively and efficiently:
share what was learned during year one through the work of both
1.2 and 2.3 objectives (i.e., technologies and technological
applications) that are:
supported by the literature to enhance PK-12 student academic
performance
supported by both faculty and Master Teacher survey data to
be:
used to enhance teaching and learning
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
of professional interests to K-20 colleagues
demonstrate and facilitate the use of Web-based videoconferencing
technologies (WBVCT) that provide effective and efficient:
collaborative opportunities for deaf education faculty, their
teacher candidates, Master Teachers and PK-12 teachers
systems that can be used by faculty, Master Teachers and PK-
12 teachers of students who are d/hh to capture, research,
share, model and rehearse technologically enhanced
instructional practices that have established potential to
enhance the academic performance of PK-12 students who are
d/hh
in preparation for year three, begin to informally explore strategies that
can be used by deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and
PK-12 colleagues to document teacher candidates‟ use of targeted,
technologically enhanced, instructional strategies during their field
based (i.e., practicum, student teaching, internships, etc.) placements
Project Objective 1.3 – Preservice Teacher Diversity (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Sharon Baker/University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
o Joyce Daugaard/University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Zanthia Smith/Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
o Barbara Gerner de Garcia/Gallaudet University, Washington DC
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o None at this time
Objective
Description: Increase the ethnic, economic and hearing status diversity of
d/hh preservice teachers, so that the diversity of d/hh preservice teachers increases
and there is increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.
Overall Outcome: Empirical evidence of increases in the diversity of d/hh
preservice teachers and in the academic achievement of PK-12 students who are
d/hh.
Year One Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of ethnic, economic and
hearing status diversity represented within the existing d/hh preservice teacher
pool and the recruitment, preparation and mentoring strategies/resources used by
d/hh teacher education programs.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
Year One Activity: Conduct research concerning the strategies and
materials needed to effectively (a) recruit (b) prepare and (c) mentor a more
diverse population of D/HH preservice teachers.
Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base
A. Progress: During year one of the grant, Objective 1.3 TTL focused their work
on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying and inviting TTE to join in accomplishing year one
activities (Team Membership)
replacing one of the two individuals who had originally agreed to be a
TTL for this objective (Team Leadership)
conducting a literature search concerning “best practices” in the
recruitment, preparation and support of ethnically diverse individuals
to become PK-12 teachers (Literature Review)
conducting a needs assessment of deaf education teacher preparation
programs to determine: (a) the current level of preservice teacher
diversity (ethnic and hearing status) (b) recruitment, preparation and
retention strategies and (c) the interest and perceived importance of
teacher diversity within deaf education (Baseline Data)
developing a work plan and collaborative relationships to efficiently
and effectively carry out year two activities (Work Plan)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, Objective 1.3
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding
developed a growing understanding of their grant responsibilities,
opportunities, resources and technologies
established a timeline for accomplishing grant goals, objectives,
and activities
Team Membership:
A survey administered to all D/HH teacher preparation programs
identified seven institutions with a diverse population of preservice
teachers. Program coordinators at those institutions will be invited
to join our team as Topical Team Members. Identified institutions
and faculty include:
McDaniel College, Mark Rust, Judy Coryell
University of North Carolina-Greensboro, Mary Compton
Kean University, Carol Goodman
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Lamar University, Zanthia Smith
Eastern Michigan University, Kathleen Quinn
University of Arizona, Deborah Stryker
Gallaudet University, Barbara Gerner de Garcia
Team Leadership
one of the two original TTL for this objective was moved to the
position of TTE for this objective
move was consistent with the amount of time that the individual
could devote to this particular professional activity
extended search for a new TTL identified an individual with
extensive interest and experience on the topic of teacher diversity
within deaf education
Literature Review - Web and library resources were examined to
establish the existing knowledge base concerning “best practices” in
the recruitment, preparation and support of ethnically diverse
individuals preparing to become teachers. Literature review
completed, including information from:
Monarch Center (National Technical Assistance Center for
Personnel Preparation in Special Education at Minority Institutions
of Higher Education)
The Alliance Project (http://www.allianace2k.org) - addresses
increasing demand and declining supply of personnel from under-
represented groups for special education Links to Historically
Black Colleges, Tribal Colleges, etc.
The National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education
The Iris Center for Faculty Enhancement, Peabody College at
Vanderbilt University
(http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html) ASHA- Minority
Student Recruitment, Retention, and Career Transition Practices:
A Review of the Literature U.S. Department of Education,
Planning and Evaluation Service
The Urban Institute- American Federation of Teachers -
information on teacher recruitment and teacher preparation
teacher induction - Center on Personnel Studies in Special
Education: LASER Project: Linking Academic Scholars to
Educational Resources (LASER's mission is to enhance the
capacity of faculty and graduate students in minority institutions to
engage in research that impacts children from minority or low-
income backgrounds.) NASDSE National Association of State
Directors of Special Education. Document expected July 31, 2004.
Baseline Data
Selected a list of items to be included in the on-line survey. Items
were identified in three categories:
recruitment strategies to increase preservice teacher diversity
preparation strategies to increase preservice teacher diversity
retention strategies to increase preservice teacher diversity
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Survey results provide a baseline in terms of (Note: the lead
faculty member in the responding deaf education teacher
preparation programs completed the resulting online survey):
demographic characteristics of students who are
overwhelmingly female and white (not Latino) and hearing
programs identified that had been more successful in recruiting
ethnically diverse (five programs) and deaf or hard of hearing
students (three programs)
Plans are made to contact the leaders of those programs to
participate in the development of virtual professional
development seminars in year two.
program indicated their dissatisfaction with their recruitment
strategies
The majority of the programs mentioned use of the following
strategies:
scholarships/stipends
highlighting their diverse student body or their deaf
friendly culture
mentoring support
offering deaf-cultural issues courses
advertisements in deaf magazines/newspapers
networking with feeder institutions
provision of academic support services
inviting ethnic/cultural or deaf/hard of hearing lecturers
provision of deaf role models and campus visits for
students and families
faculty comments included discussion of their use of
technology in recruitment and support strategies
Work Plan
Developed a work plan, tentative Choice Matrix, document
template for prospective "choice makers" and team members, a
choice proposal template, workflow timeline and choice budget
tracking spreadsheet.
Collaborations are underway with Kent State University‟s “New
Media” division to design and pilot the development of multimedia
materials to be shared with faculty at deaf education teacher
preparation programs to provide:
a compelling argument of the importance of increasing the
diversity of individuals who are preparing to become teachers
of students who are d/hh
research-based strategies and materials that can be used to
recruit a more diverse cadre of individuals who want to become
teachers of students who are d/hh
research-based “best practices” concerning the preparation and
retention of a diverse cadre of preservice teachers of students
who are d/hh
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “accessible database re: diversity in teacher candidates and
teaching strategies for diverse students”. The year one activity for this
objective called for a “…needs assessment of ethnic, economic and hearing
status diversity represented within the existing d/hh preservice teacher pool
and the recruitment, preparation and mentoring strategies/resources used by
d/hh teacher education programs”. While the targeted knowledge (Literature
Review) and data (Baseline Data) were collected, organized and placed on the
grant‟s Web site, the relative accessibility of the resulting information would
be enhanced through the development and use of a more “user friendly”
format.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained –
while the planned performance indicators for this objective were attained, the
extent to which the resulting knowledge and data are available in an easily
accessible format can yet be further improved. There were essentially three
reasons why the accessibility issues have not yet been resolved:
the need to find a replacement TTL for Objective 1.3 consumed a
considerable amount of time
While the topic of teacher diversity has been discussed in numerous
professional settings over an extended period of time, very few faculty
within the nation‟s deaf education teacher preparation programs have
focused upon this topic. As a result, it was very difficult to find TTM
for this objective.
there was a dearth of published literature concerning the identification,
recruitment, preparation and retention of a more diverse cadre of
teachers of students who are d/hh, as a result, the literature search had
to be substantially revised and expanded
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - corrective action to be taken
in year two of the grant includes:
Knowledge and Data
Web-based technologies make it relatively easy to collect and
organize literature and data, however understanding and using that
literature and data to guide decisions represents a more difficulty
task.
While the literature review is in electronic form and the complete
survey results (a 30+ page, single spaced document) has been
placed on a grant related bulletin board, the current format of this
material does not lend itself to the easy and effective identification
and use of the resulting information.
In light of this reality, strategies (e.g., use of TTE or TTM) will be
explored to develop Web-based documents (e.g., hyperlinked “Q
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
and A”) and technologies that uses the language and interests of
deaf education teacher preparation program faculty to organize and
access data generated by the grant.
Anecdotal information will be collected concerning the use and
effectiveness of the “Q and A” vs. existing survey result format to
both inform and guide grant activities.
In addition, recently initiated collaborative work with Kent State
University‟s division of “New Media” will very likely result in the
pilot production of dynamic and compelling multimedia materials
that are designed to invite, inform and support deaf education
teacher preparation faculty to become actively involved in the
identification, recruitment and preparation of a more diverse pool
of teacher candidates.
Team Membership
One question on the faculty survey asked why individuals had not
yet become involved in the grant activities.
43 (46%) of the 94 faculty responded to this question
responses indicate while 44% did not have the time to be involved,
52% indicated that they were not aware of the grant or how to get
involved in its activities
These responses reflect the fact that the grant has substantially
increased the survey population to include both full- and part-time
faculty that teach method courses within deaf education teacher
preparation programs.
The responses indicate that there is a large, essentially untapped
pool of full- and part-time faculty that need to both informed and
invited to be involved in the grant activities.
During this process of inviting, informing and supporting (see
“Knowledge and Data” above), emphasis needs to be placed on the
fact that the grant does not represent more work (thus the time
issue), but rather new strategies to address old problems.
This emphasis, combined with the use of a more accessible and
dynamic knowledge base should result in individuals becoming
TTM for this objective of the grant.
F. Year Two Work - the recruitment of a more ethnically diverse cadre of
teacher candidates is important not only for PK-12 deaf education, it is also
vital for many deaf education teacher preparation programs. Many of these
programs are run by a single faculty member who teach, advise and supervise
a relatively small number of students. In previous decades, when federal
personnel preparation funds were abundant, the number of individuals enrolled
in such program was rarely an issue. Now that federal funds are scarce,
program enrollment is an increasingly critical factor that determines a
program‟s ongoing viability. This is exactly the situation that has occurred in
relation to programs that prepare individuals to become teachers of students
who are visually limited. Therefore, the recruitment, preparation and retention
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
of a more diverse cadre of deaf education preservice teachers will serve to both
enhance PK-12 education and assist in insuring the long-term viability of many
deaf education teacher preparation programs. This perspective will serve to
guide the year two activities for this grant objective. Those activities will
concentrate on:
carrying out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
design, develop and pilot multimedia materials to invite, inform and
support deaf education faculty as they identify, recruit and prepare a
more diverse cadre of preservice teachers of students who are d/hh
gathering additional knowledge and data concerning useful strategies
to recruit, prepare and retain a more diverse cadre of preservice
teachers of students who are d/hh
design, implement, evaluate and refine a growing array of face-to-face
and distance educational professional development strategies and
collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty that effectively and efficiently share what was learned
during year one
Project Objective 1.4 - Multi-state D/HH Teacher Preparation and Certification
(back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Pamela Broadston/University of Arkansas Little Rock, Little Rock, AR
o Kate Reynolds/University of New Orleans, Slidell, LA
Topical Team Experts (TTM):
o None at this time
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o None at this time
Objective
Description: Establish an advanced technology-facilitated, multi-
state teacher preparation and certification model and a pilot investigation
of the implementation of that model so that there is greater access to d/hh
teacher preparation programs within the multi-state area and an increase in
the number of d/hh teachers within the multi-state area.
Overall Outcome: Empirical evidence of the use of an advanced
technology-facilitated, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation and
certification model and an increase in the number of d/hh teachers with
multi-state certification.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Year 1 Activities: In collaboration with the Southeast Regional
Resource Center (SERRC), conduct a needs assessment of the current
availability of d/hh teachers and the certification requirements of the eight
southeastern states (i.e., AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, OK and TX)
associated with the SERRC.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
A. Progress - during year one of the grant, Objective 1.4 TTL focused their work
on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying possible TTE and TTM to join in accomplishing year one
activities (Topical Team Experts and Membership)
collaborating in the design, implementation and follow-up SERRC
sponsored phone conferences and face-to-face meetings (SERRC
Collaborations)
collaborating in the design, implementation, analysis and sharing of a
needs assessment of the availability of and certification requirements
for teachers of students in eight southeastern states (i.e., AL, AR, FL,
GA, LA, MS, OK and TX) (Baseline Data)
piloting the design, implementation and informal evaluation of a multi-
state (LA and AR), technologically facilitated (e.g., video streamed,
captioned lectures) d/hh teacher preparation program course,
Introduction To Deaf Education (Pilot Investigations)
B. Examples of Accomplishments: - during year one of the grant, Objective 1.4
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a working knowledge of the
grant design, goals, objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and
technologies.
Topical Team Experts (TTE) and Topical Team Membership (TTM) -
identified and are currently in the process of inviting individuals to
join the team as TTE and TTM
SERRC Collaborations - carried out frequent and lengthy phone
conferences with key SERRC personnel, representatives from the eight
southeastern states (state department of education leaders, deaf
education teacher preparation faculty, professional organization
leaders, etc.) for the purpose of:
planning, implementing and sharing baseline data collection
establishing the critical steps and individuals needed to gain a
collaborative agreement among the state directors of education
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
within the eight southeastern states to implement a multi-state d/hh
teacher preparation and certification model
planning and implementing of two face-to-face three-day meetings
(New Orleans, LA and Tampa, FL) that were sponsored by
SERRC to provide a forum for key state and national leaders to
meet, discuss and decide upon:
the essential concepts, technologies and program designs that
should guide the development of the proposed multi-state d/hh
teacher preparation and certification model (New Orleans, LA
meeting)
the certification standards and certification process (initial and
subsequent) that should be used within the proposed multi-state
d/hh teacher preparation and certification model (Tampa, FL
meeting)
analysis of deaf education certification requirements across eight
southeastern states completed
initial agreement among SERRC members to use Council on
Education of the Deaf (CED) certification requirements to guide
the multi-state teacher preparation design established
identification of a “lead” representative from seven of the eight
states to facilitate collaborative work between the states
determined.
Baseline Data - established baseline data, drawn from the existing
reporting systems within the eight southeastern states (i.e., AL, AR,
FL, GA, LA, MS, OK and TX) , concerning existing:
student and teacher populations
number of students (ages 3-21) who are d/hh and their existing
d/hh certified teachers in each state
States # of D/HH # of Cert. Teachers for D/HH
Students Students
Alabama 1055 148
Arkansas 650 34.5
Florida 3764 NA
Georgia 1789 254
Louisiana 1422 93
Mississippi 640 33
Oklahoma 884 NA
Texas 6266 860
Note: the “NA" designation indicates the information was not available from
the individual state departments of education.
certification requirements
state certification requirements
multi-state initial certification requirements comparison
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
application process and requirements of each state to determine
if a teacher who is certified in one state, will be awarded
certification in another state
teacher preparation programs
location
contact information
accreditation
certification levels
program delivery models (e.g., interactive T.V., Web-based,
CD modules, on/off campus, etc.)
Pilot Investigations
faculty at the University of New Orleans and University of
Arkansas/Little Rock jointly offered an “Introduction to Deaf
Education” course via distance education technologies
asynchronous video streamed, captioned lectures, e-mail
exchanges, listserv and Web pages were used to offer the course to
students at both campuses
deaf education faculty from the Valdosta State University
contributed to the content provided within this course
the pilot investigation was used to both explore the technological
options and the registration/tuition requirements of a multi-state
course offering
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for the “certification process [to be] documented in SERRC; support for
multi-state preparation and certification obtained; agreement reached”. The
year one activity for this project called for “…in collaboration with the
Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC), conduct a needs assessment of
the current availability of d/hh teachers and the certification requirements of
the eight southeastern states (i.e., AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, OK and TX)
associated with the SERRC”. While the year one performance indicators were
met and year one activities were carried out, a number of areas need additional
refinement. Those areas are as follows:
TTE and TTM - TTL need formally to identify, seek out, and secure
the collaborative agreement of TTE and TTM to become actively
involved with the activities of this objective
SERRC Collaboration - SERRC provided the funding for the two face-
to-face meetings for this objective of the grant. Changes in the
priorities for the federal regional resource centers and delays in
extended funding decision for the existing regional resource centers
have served to both slow the rate of progress and to make less certain
if SERRC will be able to continue its effort on this objective of the
grant.
Baseline Data
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
While the targeted baseline data were secured, discussions
concerning the reliability of the data and the need for further
refinements of the data collection and analysis process were often
voiced within the two face-to-face SERRC sponsored meetings.
While the certification requirements (initial and cross state) for
each of the eight southeastern states were been identified, they
have not been shared outside of the context of the two SERRC
sponsored meetings.
Pilot Investigation
The results and “lessons learned” from the pilot investigation have
not yet been formally recorded or shared with the larger
community of learners.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained -
while the year one activities for this grant were accomplished, the depth of the
accomplishment was limited by:
TTE and TTM - a focus upon working within the SERRC
collaborative process, rather than seeking individuals to serve as
Topical Team Experts and Topical Team Members
SERRC Collaboration - changing funding schedules and priorities for
the federal regional resource center program through which SERRC is
funded
Baseline Data - incomplete and inconsistent data collection protocols
that are currently used within the eight southeastern states and the lack
of an effective strategy to share the baseline data
Pilot Investigation - the lack of a formal evaluation process to both
capture and evaluate the impact of the pilot investigation
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - the corrective action to be
taken during year two of the grant includes:
Team Experts and Membership - identification and collaborative
agreements with:
two or more individuals to serve as the Team‟s Topical Experts
regarding such topics as:
multi-state teacher preparation program designs and
technologies
multi-state certification agreements and protocols
multi-state collaborative agreements between institutions of
higher education
multi-state system change models
two or more individuals (e.g., faculty and department of education)
from each of the southeastern states to assist in completing the
activities of this objective
SERRC Collaboration - a formal decision to either:
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
continue working within the existing SERRC/grant design
develop a modification of that design in which the TTL will
assume more of a leadership, rather than supporting role
develop an alternative design in which the grant‟s TTL will work
to accomplish the objective without direct support or involvement
from SERRC
Note: this decision will be determined by the extent to which:
the stated priorities of the federal regional resource center
program are consistent with the grant‟s goals and objectives
SERRC receives ongoing funding
SERRC leadership continues to provide administrative and
funding support that is consistent with the grant‟s goals and
objectives
Baseline Data - the design, implementation and evaluation of a formal,
reliable and sustainable data collection protocol within the eight
southeastern states to determine the number of:
vacancies for teachers of students who are d/hh
individuals granted multi-state certification to teach students who
are d/hh
Pilot Investigation - the design and use of a formal evaluation process
to both capture and determine the effectiveness of pilot investigations
F. Year Two Work - the viability of a deaf education teacher preparation
program is dictated by both the quality and quantity of its graduates.
Unfortunately, while many programs have the capacity to prepare more
teachers, they are geographically isolated from many of the individuals who
would like to enter their programs. In addition, individuals with deaf
education teaching certificates from one state, often find the process of
obtaining certification in another state to be a confusing, difficult and time-
consuming process. As a result, the year two activities for this objective will:
carry out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
secure a “Memorandum of Understanding,” signed by the directors of
special education, the directors of certification and administrative
representatives of institutions of higher education from as many of the
eight southeastern states as possible, concerning the:
critical shortage of d/hh teachers
need for a flexible, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation model
need for a multi-state d/hh teacher certification model and
need for a long-term, multi-state, technologically based,
videoconferencing facilitated plan to resolve the shortage of
teachers of students who are d/hh
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
design, implement, evaluate and share a variety of Web-based,
videoconferencing facilitated, pilot investigations concerning multi-
state, d/hh teacher preparation and certification models for the eight
southeastern states
Project Objective 2.1 - Instructional Best Practices Competence of Preservice
Teachers (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTE):
o David Martin/Gallaudet University (Retired), Marstons Mills, MA
o Nanci Scheetz/Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Marlene Henriques/National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
Arlington, VA
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Three graduate research assistants worked on this project
Kim Harney
Jo Wilson
Beth Varnadoe
o Teachers involved in the project represented the following states:
South Carolina
Texas
Florida
Illinois
Mississippi
Virginia
Colorado
West Virginia
North Carolina
Minnesota
Objective
Description: Using action research and the “Virtual Professional
Development School” (VPDS) network and preservice teachers identify the
instructional best practices used by the nation‟s Master Teachers: National Board
Certified Teachers, math or science certified teachers and other locally identified
master teachers of PK-12 students who are d/hh (MT), resulting in the integration
of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh
preservice teachers.
Overall Outcome: Empirical evidence of the impact of instructional best
practices used by the nation‟s MT of PK-12 students who are d/hh on their
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
students‟ academic performance, d/hh teacher preparation program designs and
d/hh preservice teachers‟ demonstration of instructional best practices
competence.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of the instructional best
practices that are used by the nation‟s MT of PK-12 of students who are d/hh.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
A. Progress - during year one of the grant, Objective 2.1 TTL focused their
work on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying and inviting TTE and TTM to join in accomplishing year
one activities (Team Membership)
conducting a comprehensive integrated literature review on teacher
excellence and expert teacher behaviors (Literature Review)
the design, completion and reporting of a series of comparative case
studies in which characteristics of teachers of the deaf who were
Nationally Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
certified were compared to teachers who while not NBPTS, were
identified as Master Teachers by the grant(Case Study Research)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, Objective 2.1
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a working knowledge of the
grant design, goals, objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and
technologies
Team Membership - expanded the team membership to include one
topical expert, three graduate research assistants, seven NBCT and
four teachers who do not hold National Board Certification
Literature Review - established key information concerning:
the establishment, design, process, requirements, incentives and
prevalence of Nationally Board for Professional Teaching
Standards within both general and deaf education
effective teaching practices and characteristics
impact upon student performance
critical beliefs, experiences, resources and practices
ethnic diversity
classroom designs
interactional/communication styles
credentials
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Case Study Research - designed, implemented and reported on a series
of comparative case studies regarding the characteristics of NBPTS-
certified teachers of students who are d/hh vs. teachers of students who
are d/hh were who were identified as Master Teachers by this grant.
Resulting information indicates that:
Video Tapes - use of PRAXIS III observation protocols to analyze
videotape segments of seven NBPTS-certified teachers‟ and four
Master Teachers‟ teaching, across three domains (Organizing
Content Knowledge, Creating an Environment for Student
Learning and Teaching for Student Learning) did not reveal any
substantive differences.
Questionnaires
NBPTS-certified teachers‟ beliefs:
adhere to state-mandated curricula
promote activities that include real life experiences
grounded in language
incorporate teacher-generated demonstrations and modeling
of concepts to enhance instruction
provide students with clear expectations for classroom
behavior
promote parental involvement
Master Teachers‟ beliefs:
utilize accurate assessments
support individualized instruction
encourage parent involvement
follow the general curriculum
expect appropriate behavior from their students
Both NBPTS-certified and Master Teachers‟ beliefs:
d/hh students should follow the general curriculum
whenever possible
assessment was critical and should be conducted using
appropriate accommodations
modeling as an instructional strategy is very beneficial
parental involvement plays a critical role in education
Student Achievement - insufficient and incompatible test data and
classroom artifacts made it impossible to compare the performance
of students of NBPTS-certified and Master Teachers
Focus Group Discussions - although difficulty was experienced in
getting subjects to collaboratively participate in this element of the
case studies, each individual had the opportunity to express his/her
views at asynchronous times which provided very valuable insights
into the study
Overall Findings
NBPTS-certified teachers
all were interested in some “macro-issues” related to
education and deaf education beyond their own classrooms
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
all recognized the significance of self-analysis of their
teaching
Master Teachers
recognized that focusing upon individual learning styles,
promoting critical thinking skills, soliciting parental
involvement and informing/rewarding students for
appropriate behaviors are essential elements for student
success
lack of knowledge, support and incentives to become
NBPTS-certified teachers
Both NBPTS-certified and Master Teachers :
no substantive differences in teaching quality between the
two groups of teachers
Conclusions
both groups represent highly skilled teachers
PRAXIS III provides a viable tool to document the
instructional skills of deaf education preservice and existing
teachers
given needed information, support and incentives, Master
Teachers could become NBPTS-certified teachers
K-20 deaf education programs should become more proactive
in encouraging and recognizing NBPTS-certified teachers
NBPTS-certified teachers have a stronger sense of
“connectivity” and interest in research that is of critical
importance to K-20 deaf education
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “Survey of BP [best practices] [to be] completed; database for PK-
12 academic performance [completed]; action research: instructional
effectiveness in writing with National Board certified (NBC) vs. non-NBC
[completed]”. The year one activity for this objective: “Conduct a needs
assessment of the instructional best practices that are used by the nation‟s MT
of PK-12 students who are d/hh”.
The TTL for this grant objective, with the support of the grant‟s Co-
Directors and Co-Evaluators, focused their year one work upon conducting a
literature review and series of case studies concerning the instructional
similarities and differences between two groups of deaf education teachers
who have been formally recognized for their instructional effectiveness
(NBPTS-certified and Master Teachers). This focus was undertaken with the
understanding that in subsequent years, additional case studies would be
carried out concerning instructional similarities and differences between other
groups of similarly recognized deaf education teachers (e.g., Y-2: Math or
Science certification vs. Master Teachers; Y-3: CED certified vs. Master
Teachers). The narrowing focus of this objective was also supported by the
surveys of PK-12 deaf education best instructional practices that are/will be
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
carried out by the TTL for grant objectives 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. The resulting
year one focus on NBPTS-certified vs. Master Teachers has provided a
descriptive base upon which subsequent research will be carried out.
Unfortunately, the relative usefulness of that base is diminished by two
factors, the lack of base line performance data for students who are d/hh and
the difficulty of providing an effective, on-line collaborative discussion and
data collection forum.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained -
A significant reason that the amended performance indicators for this
objective were not met was:
the lack of adequate baseline data concerning the academic
performance of students who are d/hh
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - the corrective action to be
taken in year two of the grant:
Collaborative Forum - with support from the TTL for objectives 1.1,
1.2 and 2.3, additional technological solutions to this problem will be
identified, informally evaluated and, if deemed appropriate,
incorporated into the research design for objective 2.1.
F. Year Two Work - the academic performance of students is directly related to
the instructional effectiveness of teachers. Unfortunately, deaf education lacks
data concerning the academic performance of its PK-12 students. Fortunately,
deaf education does not lack individuals who are recognized at the local, state
and even national level as innovative and effective teachers. A growing cadre
of these Master Teachers has been and will continue to be identified by this
grant. Objective 2.1 is focused on documenting, comparing and sharing the
similarities and differences in the backgrounds, beliefs, resources, instructional
strategies and professional activities of the Master Teachers. The goal of this
work is to establish, to the best extent possible, an array of teaching models
that can be used to enhance both initial and ongoing professional development
of deaf education teachers. Given this context, the TTL for objective 2.1 will
use year two of the grant to:
carry out the suggested actions outlined in section “E” of this objective
increase the number of TTM who are actively working with the TTL
to carry out objective 2.1 year two activities
design, implement and report additional research concerning the
similarities and differences in the background, beliefs, resources,
instructional strategies and professional activities of Master Teachers
design, implement, evaluate and refine an ongoing array of face-to-
face and distance education professional development strategies and
collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher preparation
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
program faculty and Master Teachers that effectively and efficiently
share what was learned during year one of the grant
in preparation for year three, begin to informally explore strategies that
can be used by deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and
PK-12 colleagues to document teacher candidates‟ use of targeted,
technological instructional strategies during their field based (i.e.,
practicum, student teaching, internships, etc.) placements
Project Objective 2.2 - Content Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers
(back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Susan Easterbrooks/Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
o Brenda Simmons/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Harry Lang/Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
o Gay Su Pinnell/Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Pat Chrosniak/Canisius College, Buffalo, NY
o Elaine Gale/Hunter College, New York, NY
o Len Roberson/University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL
o Dave Smith/California State University-Fresno, Fresno, CA
o Marcia Virts/McDaniel College, Westminster, MD
o Kathleena Whitesell/Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Objective
Description: Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice
teachers identify the content best practices (standards-based content resources and
content-specific strategies) that have been empirically documented to increase
student academic achievement, resulting in the integration of these into d/hh
teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers.
Overall Outcome: Research supporting increased academic achievement
as a result of using the most effective standards-based content resources and
content-specific strategies for teaching academic content to PK-12 students who
are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing d/hh
preservice teachers‟ ability to demonstrate content best practices competence.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of the content best practices
(standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been
empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics
and science) achievement for all PK-12 students.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
A. Progress - during year one of the grant, objective 2.2 TTL focused their work
on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant „s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying, inviting and directing the work of the TTE and TTM to
accomplish the year one activities for this objective (Team
Membership)
conducting a Web site and literature review concerning the content
specific (i.e., science, mathematics and literacy) instructional strategies
that are needed to enhance the academic performance of PK-12
students who are d/hh (Literature Review)
began an investigation of the state-by-state, academic standards for
PK-12 science, mathematics and literacy (Academic Standards)
discussing the development of a survey instrument that will be used to
gather information concerning the use of content specific (i.e., science,
mathematics and literacy) instructional strategies by (1) deaf education
teacher preparation program faculty (2) Master Teachers and (3)
individuals preparing to become teachers of students who are d/hh
(Baseline Data)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, objective 2.2
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a growing understanding of
their grant responsibilities, opportunities, resources and technologies
Team Membership - expanded team membership to include two TTE
and six TTM
Academic Standards
academic standards that have been endorsed by nationally
recognized professional organizations have been identified (e.g.,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics):
Content Standards
Number and Operations
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Data Analysis and Probability
Process Standards
Problem Solving
Reasoning and Proof
Connections
Representations
The content specific, PK-12, academic standards have been
identified for 30 states:
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
academic standards for additional states will be added in year
two of the grant
resulting matrix of content specific, PK-12, academic standards
is now being examined to determine those standards that are:
shared across the nation
shared by groups of states
shared by single states
resulting information will be used to guide both the search and
sharing of standards based, content specific, PK-12
instructional strategies (e.g., emphasis will first be placed on
those instructional strategies that address the most common
academic standards)
Literature Review
review is now in its final stages of completion
review has been designed to identify empirically supported “best
practices” in both general and deaf education for the
technologically enhanced instruction of literacy, mathematics and
science (e.g., literacy):
General Education
phonemic awareness
phonics
vocabulary comprehension
fluency
motivation
Deaf Education
visual fluency
visual decoding and encoding (e.g., use of cued speech and
visual phonics)
code-switching (i.e., dealing with dual languages)
balanced literacy (as described in on the Laurent Clerc
Website)
The resulting information is being used to verify the informational
matrix found on the Laurent Clerc Website
(http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu) of those instructional strategies
that should be used vs. those that should be avoided in the
education of students that are d/hh, e.g.,
Increase: reading aloud to students and time for independent
reading
Decrease: exclusive stress on whole class or reading group
activities
Baseline Data - knowledge gained from the Academic Standards and
Literature Review work is guiding the development of a survey
instrument that will be used with (1) deaf education teacher
preparation program faculty (2) Master Teachers and (3) individuals
preparing to become teachers of students who are d/hh. The survey
instrument is to document their knowledge and use of the empirically
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
supported, standards dictated, content specific PK-12 instructional
strategies.
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “Knowledge base developed re: effective content-specific strategies
and standards-based content resources”. The year one activities for this
objective called for “…a needs assessment of the content best practices
(standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies) that have
been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy,
mathematics and science) achievement for all PK-12 students" to be
conducted.
The “knowledge base” (Literature and Academic Standards Reviews) for
this objective is near completion. The “needs assessment” (Baseline Data) is
still in the design stage. That design will be completed and the needs
assessment will be implemented during the fall 2004 semester.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained -
there were three basic reasons why the performance indicators and activities
for this objective were not fully achieved. First, there were two changes in the
TTL for the objective. One individual changed to a different grant objective
and one individual found the tasks to be outside of their professional
expertise. Throughout these changes, one of the original TTL for this
objective has worked exceedingly hard to maintain both momentum and
focus. Second, several of the TTM for this objective were unable to meet the
established time line for their component of the activity. The third and final
reason is both the daunting amount of knowledge that this objective was
designed to accomplish and the relative paucity of college level, deaf
education professionals who have focused their scholarship on science or
mathematics instruction. As a result, there were few individuals to recruit to
work on this very large and extremely important grant objective.
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - the corrective actions to be
taken in year two of the grant include:
TTL and TTM
a solid and consistent team of TTL has been established for this
objective
search for additional TTM for this objective will be expanded to
include not only a larger array of deaf education college faculty
(e.g., an expanding list of faculty that teach method courses), but
also the growing number of Master Teachers that have/are being
identified through the grant activities
Knowledge Base
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Academic Standards - content specific standards for the remaining 20
states will be identified via use of the netTrekker on-line database
system
Literature Review
complete the literature review
explore, in collaboration with the grant Co-Directors and other
TTL, the use of Web-based documents and strategies that use the
language and interest of deaf education colleagues to organize and
access the knowledge generated by this objective
use the resulting knowledge base to guide the design,
implementation and analysis of baseline data concerning the use of
assessment strategies within PK-20 deaf education
Baseline Data
complete the design of the needs assessment survey document and
protocol
implement the survey, analyze and use the results to guide year
two activities.
F. Year Two Work - federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation mandates that
grade equivalent, standards based science, mathematics and literacy content
must be provided for ALL K-12 students. This new reality poses a substantial
challenge to most deaf education professionals. This challenge is rooted in
the belief that students who are d/hh must first develop adequate language and
then use that language to learn academic content. This belief is in contrast to
the position that students can best learn language via engaging, “hands/minds
on” science, mathematics and literacy learning experiences. Unfortunately,
while there is a great deal of literature to support the “hands/minds on”
approach, there are not a great many PK-12 deaf education colleagues who
consistently and effectively incorporate this approach into their teaching.
Therefore, to move from the exception to the rule, PK-20 science,
mathematics and literacy “best practices” must be identified, understood and
shared. As a result, year two activities for this objective will focus upon:
carrying out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
establishing a growing cadre of TTE and TTM who are working to
carryout the activities for this objective
Working with the literacy specialist at a school for the deaf to develop
four PowerPoint presentations with video clips to demonstrate some of
the concepts around which there is very little information but which
we know are key. These include:
visual fluency
visualization
incorporation of finger spelling
comprehension through conceptual accuracy
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
designing, implementing, evaluating and refining a growing array of
face-to-face and distance education professional development
strategies and collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher
preparation program faculty and Master Teachers that effectively and
efficiently:
share what was learned during year one
demonstrate and facilitate, with technical support form the
Objective 1.1 Topical Team, the use of Web-based
videoconferencing technologies (WBVCT) that provide effective
and efficient:
collaborative opportunities for deaf education faculty, their
teacher candidates, Master Teachers and PK-12 teachers
systems that can be used by faculty, Master Teachers and
preservice teachers of students who are d/hh to capture,
research, share, model and rehearse technologically enhanced
science, mathematics and literacy best practices that have the
established potential to document the academic performance of
PK-12 students who are d/hh
in preparation for year three, begin informally to explore strategies
that can be used by deaf education teacher preparation program
faculty and their PK-12 colleagues to document teacher
candidates‟ use of targeted, technologically enhanced, science,
mathematics and literacy best practices during their instruction of
literacy, mathematics and/or science within their field based
placements (i.e., practicum, student teaching, internships, etc.)
collaborate with TTLs for 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 in conjunction with the
grant Co-Directors and Co-Evaluators in the discussion, search and
possible pilot solutions to the lack of empirical evidence
concerning the academic performance of students who are d/hh
Project Objective 2.3 - Technological Best Practices Competence of Preservice
Teachers (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o Maribeth Lartz/Illinois State University, Normal, IL
o Shelley Popson/Resource Materials and Tech Center: D/HH, St.
Augustine, FL
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
o Eileen Pracek/Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System,
Specialized Center Instructional Technology, Viera, FL
o Donna Baumbach/Florida‟s Instructional Technology Resource Center at
the University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Kay Ezzell/Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, St. Augustine, FL
o Marybeth Lauderdale/Illinois School for the Deaf, Jacksonville, IL
o Kathie McKenzie/Converse College, Spartanburg, SC
o Francisco Abeyta/American School for the Deaf, West Hartford, CT
Objective
Description: Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice
teachers identify the most effective technological best practices and
multimedia resources for increasing academic achievement of PK-12 students
who are d/hh, resulting in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation
programs and demonstration of their usage by d/hh preservice teachers.
Overall Outcome: Research supporting increased academic
achievement as a result of using the most effective technological best
practices and multimedia resources for teaching PK-12 students who are
d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing
d/hh preservice teachers‟ ability to demonstrate technological best
practices competence.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of the technological
best practices and multimedia resources that have been empirically
demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and
science) achievement for all PK-12 students, hearing and/or d/hh.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
A. Progress - during year one of the grant, Objective 2.3 TTL focused their work
on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocols and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying and inviting TTE and TTM to join in accomplishing year
one activities (Team Membership)
conducting a needs assessment of PK-12 deaf education Master
Teachers to determine their current level of technological
competencies, knowledge and their use of multimedia curricular
resources (Baseline Data)
conducting a literature review concerning the technological
competencies and multimedia curricular resources that are needed for
effective instruction and increased academic achievement of PK-12
students who are d/hh (Literature Review)
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, objective 2.3
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a growing understanding of
their grant responsibilities, opportunities, resources and technologies.
This understanding resulted in the decision to:
move one team leader (Karen Dilka) from Objective 2.3 to
Objective 1.2 and one team leader (Shelley Popson) from
Objective 1.2 to Objective 2.3 (Note: the move reflects leaders
experiential background and professional interest)
combine the efforts of 2.3 [Preservice Teacher Technology
Competence] with those of Objective 1.2 [Faculty Technology
Competence]
meet and work as an expanded team of Objective 1.2 and 2.3 TTL
(Note: the first face-to-face meeting of the 1.2 and 2.3 TTL was
held in May of 2004)
Team Membership - expanded team membership to include:
TTE
Objective 1.2 and Objective 2.3: share the same two topical
experts
TTM
Objective 2.3: four team members
Objective 1.2: seven team members
Baseline Data - established baseline data concerning technological
competencies, knowledge and use of multimedia curricular resources
by PK-12 Master Teachers (MT) of students who are d/hh. Analysis
of the resulting data from 58 of the possible 83 Master Teachers
indicates that:
changes in MT use of technology over the last four years falls into
the following categories:
increase in internet access
increase in the use of technology as an incentive to learning
increase in the use of technology to facilitate communication
between and among, teachers, students and parents
increase in the use of presentation software and digital cameras
in the classroom
In relation to such increases, MT said:
“Technology has made it easier to bring in pictures and graphic
organizers into my teaching. Using my digital camera also
makes lessons more motivating for students. The digital
camera also makes it easier to keep portfolios on a variety of
student work.”
“I am more inclined to look at internet sites to support what I'm
doing in the therapy setting. I have my students do guided
research on the internet using the computer in my classroom.”
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
“I use a tremendous amount of internet searches and use of
PowerPoint presentations for class projects by students. I also
communicate primarily via e-mail.”
“The ability to share information with others in a much clearer
and quicker format has had the greatest impact: power points,
interactive white boards, digital pictures and video are just a
few tools that I've grown accustomed to using.”
Overall, the survey data indicates that MT:
appear to be more comfortable/competent in the personal vs.
professional uses of technologies (i.e., they know how to use
technology to communicate with colleagues or prepare a
lesson, but they are less confident of their ability to use
technology to increase the higher order thinking skills of their
students)
majority of the MT want and plan to use more technology in
the actual instruction of their students
60% use the Windows platform at both home and school
50% have high-speed Internet access at both home and work
50+% have not used videoconferencing
70% have not used netTrekker
The primary barriers to more technology use are:
time to practice [76%]
time to learn [67%]
money to buy software [62%]
time demands of school obligations [60%]
money to buy hardware [53%]
The preferred modes of professional development were:
workshops [76%]
face-to-face with follow-up (e-mail and phone) [45%]
mentoring/coaching [41%]
group projects [31%]
online courses w/ hands-on assignments [31%]
Q and A opportunities [21%]
The survey also collected data on the perceived proficiency of the
respondents in 31 types of technology. While there was
considerable diversity on perceived level of proficiency, the
information will serve not only as a baseline, but also as a basis for
framing future instructional enhancements.
Note: Ninety-four faculty members presently teaching in the field of d/hh
responded to the higher education survey. The majority of these were full time
faculty members responsible in some way for the preparation of preservice
teachers of d/hh students. This survey is discussed under objective 1.2. However,
it is important to point out that one element of the survey centered on the current
proficiency of preservice teachers with whom the faculty member worked on the
same technology skills as assessed in the Master Teacher survey. While many
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
were unaware of their student‟s level of proficiency, most were able to suggest
strengths and weaknesses. When the two databases are combined a better
understanding of base level performance and needs will be possible to support
future project activity.
Literature Review - a literature review was carried out by TTL, TTE
and TTM. The review searched for text that provided evidence of
those technologies that have proven to enhance the academic
performance of PK-12 students in either/or general and deaf education.
Particular attention was given to text that described the use of
technology to enhance science, mathematics and literacy. A summary
of key information from the literature review is as follows:
Classroom Technologies:
Common
computers
printers
projectors
VCRs
DVD players
Frequently Available
document cameras
digital cameras
video cameras
Increasingly Available
Scanners
digital white boards
videoconferencing equipment
Content Specific Technologies:
Mathematics
Technologies
o stop watch, calculators, rulers
o geometers sketchpad
o virtual manipulative software (e.g., Intellimathics),
tutorial programs (e.g., Turbo Math Facts)
Deafness Related Projects
o Family Math (Clerc Center)
o COMETS (NTID)
o National Technical Signs Project (NTID)
Science
Technologies
o Common
microscopes, microcomputer based labs and
equipment, cameras, spreadsheet and graphing
software
o Frequently Available
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
simulation software, virtual manipulative,
tutorial software, videos and science specific
software
o Increasingly Available
Captioning software, teacher tools and
organizational software
Deafness Related Projects
o COMETS (NTID)
o Classroom of the Sea
o GLOBE and SOAR-HIGH (Clerc Center)
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “Needs [to be] identified re: technological BP (best practices)
competence and training”. The year one activities for this objective called for
a “…needs assessment of the technological best practices and multimedia
resources that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student
academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for all PK-12
students, hearing and/or d/hh.”
A needs assessment (Baseline Data) was conducted of the grant‟s Master
Teachers. Survey responses were received from 70% of the possible
respondents. Initial analysis of the data has been completed and will be used
to guide the year two activities for this objective. Information concerning
those technologies with the proven ability to increase the academic
performance of PK-12 students was sought from the literature (Literature
Review). As in the case of the needs assessment, initial analysis of the
resulting texts has been completed and will be used to guide the year two
activities of this objective. While the literature review revealed a substantial
array of valuable information, it did not yield a substantial array of research
concerning the actual impact of technologies upon the academic performance
of PK-12 students who are d/hh. As was noted in section “C” of objective 2.1,
there is a systemic, nation wide lack of baseline academic performance data
for students who are d/hh. As a result, while the needs assessment and
literature review has established a good “picture” of the current availability
and use of technologies within PK-12 programs serving students who are
d/hh, it does not provide information concerning the impact of such
technologies upon the students' academic performance.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained -
the essential performance indicators and activities for this objective were met.
The lack of empirical evidence (Baseline Data) of the impact of technologies
upon the academic performance of students who are d/hh does not exist.
Note: see discussion concerning this issue in section “D” of objective 2.1
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
E. Corrective Action Taken to Address Any Problems - no corrective actions
are required for this objective. However, the TTLs for 2.1-2.4, in conjunction
with the grants Co-Directors and Co-Evaluators will discuss, search for and if
possible, pilot possible solutions to the nation wide lack of empirical evidence
concerning the academic performance of students who are d/hh.
F. Year Two Work - technology is tool, rather than an end in and of itself. As
such, a given technology has value only to the extent that increases in the
efficiency and/or effectiveness with an individual, or group of individuals can
accomplish a particular task. To state it another way, applications drive
technology use. The more compelling the application, the more that the
technology provides a new strategy to address an old problem, the more that
the technology will be used. When PK-12 teachers (and faculty) say that they
do not have enough “time” to learn, practice or use a given technology, what
they are really saying is that they do not think that the technology is worth
their time. Instead, many believe that the technology will take more time, be
less reliable and not yield substantially better results than their current
“system.” As a result, year two activities for this objective will focus upon
identifying, sharing, modeling, supporting and describing:
an increasing array of technologically facilitated applications used by an
increasing number of geographically and contextually (PK-12 programs
and deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and their
preservice teachers) dispersed individuals (Master Teachers, faculty and
preservice teachers) to enhance teaching and learning with students who
are d/hh.
Given this contextual statement, the TTL for objective 2.3 will use year two of the
grant to:
increase the number of TTM who are actively working with the TTL
to carry out year two activities
collaborate with the TTL from objectives 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 in
identifying sharing, modeling, supporting and describing
technologically facilitated applications to enhance teaching and
learning within PK-20 deaf education
design, implement, evaluate and refine a growing array of face-to-face
and distance educational professional development strategies and
collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty and Master Teachers that effectively and efficiently:
share what was learned during year one through the work of both
2.3 and 1.2 objectives (i.e., technologies and technological
applications) that are:
supported by the literature to enhance PK-12 student academic
performance
supported by both faculty and Master Teacher survey data to
be:
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
used to enhance teaching and learning
of professional interests to K-20 colleagues
demonstrate and facilitate the use of Web-based videoconferencing
technologies (WBVCT) that provide effective and efficient
collaborative opportunities for deaf education faculty, their teacher
candidates, Master Teachers and PK-12 teachers
systems that can be used by faculty, Master Teachers and PK-12
teachers of students who are d/hh to capture, research, share,
model and rehearse technologically enhanced instructional
practices that have established potential to enhance the academic
performance of PK-12 students who are d/hh
in preparation for year three, begin to informally explore strategies that
can be used by deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and
PK-12 colleagues to document teacher candidate‟s use of targeted,
technologically enhanced, instructional strategies during their field
based (i.e., practicum, student teaching, internships, etc.) placements .
collaborate with TTLs for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4, in conjunction with the
grants Co-Directors and Co-Evaluators, in the discussion, search and
possible, pilot solutions to the nation wide lack of empirical evidence
concerning the academic performance of students who are d/hh.
Project Objective 2.4 - Assessment Best Practices Competence of Preservice
Teachers (back to Index)
Topical Team Leaders (TTL):
o John Luckner/University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
o Sandy Bowen/University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
Topical Team Experts (TTE):
(None at this time)
Topical Team Members (TTM):
o Jennifer Howell/University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
o Dee Klein/Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA
o Sheryl Muir/University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
o Sam Slike/Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA
o Ann Velaski/University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
o Alfred White/Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX
o Jennifer Wolf/University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Objective
Description: Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice
teachers identify the most empirically supported, assessment best practices for the
use of student performance data to refine instruction for PK-12 students who are
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
d/hh, that results in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs
and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers.
Overall Outcome: Research supporting increased student academic
achievement as a result of using the most effective assessment best practices
for teaching PK-12 students who are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher
preparation program designs and increasing d/hh preservice teachers‟ ability
to use assessment best practices, specifically student performance data to
refine instruction.
Year 1 Activities: Conduct a needs assessment of the assessment best
practices that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic
(i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for all PK-12 students,
hearing and/or d/hh.
Outcome: Baseline empirical data.
A. Progress - during year one of the grant, Objective 2.4 TTL focused their work
on:
developing a working knowledge of the grant‟s design, goals,
objectives, activities, evaluation protocol and technologies
(Conceptual Understanding)
identifying, inviting and directing the work of TTE to accomplish the
year one activities for this objective (Team Membership)
conducting a literature review concerning the assessment protocols
that are needed to both document the academic performance and guide
the instruction of PK-12 students who are d/hh (Literature Review)
designing a survey instrument that will be used to gather empirical
information concerning the use of assessment strategies by (1) deaf
education teacher preparation program faculty (2) Master Teacher and
(3) individuals preparing to become teachers of students who are d/hh
(Baseline Data)
B. Examples of Accomplishments - during year one of the grant, objective 2.4
TTL accomplished the following:
Conceptual Understanding - developed a growing understanding of
their grant responsibilities, opportunities, resources and technologies
Team Membership - expanded team membership to include seven
TTM
Literature Review
the review is now in its final stages of completion
the resulting information is being divided into categories and
subcategories:
Norm-referenced Tests
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
Literacy, Mathematics and Science content areas
Criterion-referenced Tests
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Literacy, Mathematics and Science content areas
Curriculum-based Assessments
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Literacy, Mathematics and Science content areas
Performance-based Assessments
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Literacy, Mathematics and Science content areas
High-stakes Accountability Assessments
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Literacy, Mathematics and Science content areas
Testing Adaptations
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Assessing the Instructional Environment
hearing students and students who are d/hh
Cross-cultural and Multi-cultural Considerations
hearing students and students who are d/hh
TTL have reviewed and edited TTE‟s submitted literature reviews
and, when necessary, revisions have been requested
TTL project that the literature review will be completed by 9/1/04
Baseline Data
TTL will submit survey questions in the fall of 2004 in order to
document faculty, Master Teacher and preservice teacher use of
assessment instruments and strategies
C. Project Performance on Established Program Performance
Indicators/Measures - the year one performance indicators for this objective
called for “database [to be] developed re: student performance data;
assessment protocols; documentation of Master Teachers, faculty and
preservice teacher use of assessment strategies”. The year one activities for
this objective called for a needs assessment to be conducted regarding“…the
assessment best practices that have been empirically demonstrated to increase
student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for all
PK-12 students, hearing and/or d/hh”.
The “database” (Literature Review) for this objective is in the final stages
of completion. In contrast, the “needs assessment” (Baseline Data) is still in
the design stage. That design will be completed and the needs assessment
survey will be implemented during the fall 2004 semester.
D. Reason Planned Performance Indicators/Measures Were Not Attained -
the TTL for this objective changed after the grant had been awarded. The
original TTL resigned, one due to retirement and the other due to unexpected
award of a large grant that did not permit the individual sufficient time to
devote to this grant effort. As a result, the current TTL were not identified
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
until late November of 2003. This late start reduced the amount of work that
the TTL could logically be expected to achieve. In addition, after extensive
discussions between the current TTL, the grant Co-Directors and Co-
Evaluators, it was agreed that the design and implementation of the needs
assessment (Baseline Data) should be guided by the database (Literature
Review) of existing knowledge concerning the academic assessment of
students that are d/hh.
E. Corrective Action to Address Any Problems - the corrective actions to be
taken in year two of the grant include:
Literature Review
complete the literature review
explore, in collaboration with the grant Co-Directors and other
TTL, the use of Web-based documents and strategies that use the
language and interest of deaf education colleagues to organize and
access the knowledge generated by this objective
use the resulting knowledge base to guide the design,
implementation and analysis of baseline data concerning the use of
assessment strategies within PK-20 deaf education
Baseline Data
complete the design of the needs assessment survey document and
protocol
implement the survey, analyze and use the results to guide year
two activities
F. Year Two Work - assessment is not an option it is a requirement.
Unfortunately assessments of students who are d/hh are essentially informal,
infrequent and undervalued. The widely varying linguistic characteristics of
students, the uncertainty concerning which academic standards should guide
students‟ education and inadequate professional development, combined with
the lack of reliable and valid formal assessment protocols have served to
create a confusing, often conflicting array of assessment designs within PK-20
deaf education. As a result, the lack of valid and reliable assessment protocols
and the lack of an effective and efficient professional development system
have resulted in a lack of baseline data concerning the academic performance
of PK-12 students who are d/hh. As a result, year two activities for this
objective will focus upon:
carry out the corrective actions outlined in section “E” for this
objective
establish a growing cadre of TTE and TTM who are working to
carryout the activities for this objective
design, implement, evaluate and refine a growing array of face-to-face
and distance education professional development strategies and
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
collaborative opportunities for deaf education teacher preparation
program faculty and Master Teachers that effectively and efficiently:
share what was learned during year one
demonstrate and facilitate the use of Web-based videoconferencing
technologies (WBVCT) that provide effective and efficient:
collaborative opportunities for deaf education faculty, their
teacher candidates, Master Teachers and PK-12 teachers
systems that can be used by faculty, Master Teachers and
preservice teachers of students who are d/hh to capture,
research, share, model and rehearse technologically enhanced
assessment practices that have the established potential to
document the academic performance of PK-12 students who
are d/hh
in preparation for year three, begin informally to explore strategies that
can be used by deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and
their PK-12 colleagues to document teacher candidate‟s use of
targeted, technologically enhanced, assessment strategies during their
instruction of literacy, mathematics and/or science within their field-
based placements (i.e., practicum, student teaching, internships, etc.).
collaborate with TTLs for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, in conjunction with the
grant Co-Directors and Co-Evaluators in the discussion, search and
possible, pilot solutions to the lack of empirical evidence concerning
the academic performance of students who are d/hh
Section IV: Budget Information
(back to Index)
Explanation of Less Than Expected Expenditure Rates
A total of $211,690 was expended in the ten-month grant period 10/1/03 thru 7/31/04.
During this same period $187,855 in non-Federal matching funds (cost share) was
expended.
The budget for year one was $451,458 leaving $239,769 unexpended as of 7/31/04.
This reflects a less than anticipated expenditure rate for the following reasons:
1. The funds cover only ten months of a twelve month budget; additional funds will be
expended in the final two months of the grant year (for example, the evaluators will
submit their final third invoice and requests for payment for summer activities will be
submitted by project Topical Team Leaders [TTLs]).
2. Notification of grant funding was received less than one week prior to grant period
beginning. Therefore the first few months of the project period were spent informing
constituents and identifying and bringing on board interested individuals as TTLs. Until
the TTLs and each Team Objective‟s plan of action was in place, additional planned
work could not be undertaken in as timely a manner as had been proposed.
3. The matching equipment dollars budgeted for year one have not yet been utilized.
Although the interest in videoconferencing is high by selected K-12 schools serving
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
students who are deaf/hard of hearing, the fears and concerns regarding this largely
unfamiliar technology has been more difficult to overcome then anticipated. Project co-
Directors and technology personnel have been communicating frequently with school
administrators and their technical staff to address and alleviate the concerns. It is
expected that schools will come on board during year two of the project and the
equipment monies will be utilized.
4. The amount of cost share monies expended is slightly low. This is not unexpected at
this point however. Because cost share monies are contributed to this project via the
value of individuals‟ time toward project activities, and because individual participation
was lower than anticipated in year one as reported in #2 above, cost share expenditures
are understandably low. With the expected increase in time contributions for years two
and three of the project it is anticipated that cost share monies will be contributed in an
amount significant higher than that outlined in the grant proposal.
Statement of Actual Expenditures
Category Amount
Salaries & Wages $49,080
Consultant $24,908
Non-Kent State $39,328
Employee Benefits $12,706
Travel $49,947
Supplies $2,365
Communications $675
SubContract $17,000
Total Direct Costs $196,009
Indirect Costs $15,681
Total Expenditures $211,690
Cost Share Expenditure $187,855
Budget Changes Due to Modification of Project Activities
No modification of project activities are planned.
Anticipated Changes in Operational Budget for Year Two (10/1/04-9/30/05)
Unexpended year one funds, as explained above, allow for year two budget re-allocations
(outlined below) which will address problems realized in year one and allow the project
to utilize newly identified strategies and resources in accomplishing our goals.
1. Monies ($12,500) have been re-allocated for individuals‟ work on activities which
benefit two or more goals/objectives of the project. Originally monies were allocated
only for work specific to one of the eight project objectives. However, we have realized
that additional work can and should be done which contributes towards the success of
more than one objective or to the project as a whole.
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
2. The individual maximum reimbursement for Executive Advisory Board members to
travel to the yearly meeting has been raised from $1500 to $1750 (an additional $8,750).
The Board meeting is held in conjunction with the annual ACE-D/HH conference and the
increase is in recognition of the higher than usual travel costs anticipated due to this
year‟s location (Banff, Alberta, Canada).
3. A travel re-allocation of $5,000 has been made for five persons (two project co-
Directors, two evaluators, and Project Coordinator) to meet late in project year to write
annual report, review evaluation activities of current year and identify evaluation
activities needed for coming year.
4. An additional $4,000 has been re-allocated to Supplies for the purchase of eyeball
video cameras and subscription service from iVisit. iVisit is a newly realized technology
resource being utilized and investigated by this project‟s participants; the inexpensive
cameras provide access to participants to iVisit. Use of this technology does not reflect a
modification of project activities but merely an additional avenue with which to
accomplish our initially stated goals.
5. $4,200 has been re-allocated to Communications to cover the higher than anticipated
conference calling expenditure. This is a national project and our leadership is spread
throughout the United States. We have learned that electronic communications must be
augmented by verbal communications. Conference calling is proving to be an excellent
means of facilitating the advancement of project goals.
6. An additional $7,500 has been re-allocated to Communications for the production and
distribution of multi-media materials/packages in order to share information and foster
change in goal specific areas e.g. recruitment of diverse preservice teacher population.
7. Monies are being reallocated for work to be done by outside vendors for two
purposes: (a) $33,600 for extensive website development work including enhancement
of significant participation areas of the site as well as the project administrative areas of
the site (both necessary due to the national endeavor undertaken by this project) and (b)
$10,000 for captioning of planned Virtual Topical Seminars which will then be housed on
the project website and thereby addressing the accessibility issue for deaf/hard of hearing
individuals.
Section V: Supplemental Information
(back to Index)
Requested Changes in Grant Performance Objectives and Activities:
No changes are requested in the grant performance objectives or activities.
Unanticipated Project Outcomes:
In addition to the planned activities and accomplishments, the “Join Together”
grant generated the following unanticipated outcomes:
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
between 10/1/03 and 7/31/04 the grant‟s Web site (www.deafed.net)
registered users grew from 12,939 to 16,287
two additional Internet based videoconferencing systems (iVisit and
LearnLinc) were identified and are now being pilot tested for possible
use within the grant
the use of “Virtual Topical Seminars” (VTS) and video streaming has
emerged as a major dissemination tool for the grant
the professional organization that submitted the “Join Together” grant,
the Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-
D/HH), is now investigating the use of VTS, streaming video and
continuing education credits (CEUs) to offer an on-line, nation wide
professional development system for PK-20 colleagues who work with
students who are deaf/hard-of-hearing (d/hh)
Kent State University‟s “New Media” Center is collaborating with the
Topical Team Leaders for Objective 1.3 (Preservice Teacher
Diversity) in the design, development and use of Internet/CDRom
based multimedia materials concerning the need to recruit a more
diverse pool of deaf education preservice teachers
the grant‟s Master Teachers are forming multi-state collaborative
teams that will explore, use and model teaching and learning with PK-
12 students who are d/hh
staff from schools for the deaf are taking on leadership responsibilities
in the design, implementation and monitoring of Web-based
videoconferencing technologies to establish a Virtual Professional
Development School for PK-20 deaf education
the grant‟s Cyber Mentors are being used as “focused groups” that
provide feedback and suggestions to the grant‟s leadership team
concerning the design of grant initiatives
members of the grant‟s Executive Advisory Board are volunteering
resources to design, develop and implement resources and activities
that will serve to enhance and sustain the impact of the grant‟s work,
e.g.,:
Communication Services for the Deaf (SCD)
developed PK-20 Internet based, multimedia material and
professional opportunities concerning the use of Virtual Relay
Services (VRS) to enhance teaching and learning
Captioned Media Services (CMP)
provided captioning service and advice to insure the
accessibility of information generated by the Virtual Topical
Seminars
Thinkronize
established focused groups to explore the use of Internet based,
standard‟s linked curriculum tools within PK-20 deaf education
Florida Regional Media Technology Center (RMTC)
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
provided technical advice and support concerning the
availability and use of low cost, high impact, Internet based,
videoconferencing systems
Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC)
sponsored two, three-day professional meetings for
representatives of eight southeastern states to share, discuss
and agree upon the essential elements of a low incidence,
multi-state, teacher preparation program design
Alexander Graham Bell Association (AGBell)
committed travel resources for AGBell‟s Executive Director to
travel to the grant‟s office to meet with the grant‟s Co-
Directors to discuss and plan a year long series of professional
activities to enhance collaborative activities
Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-
D/HH)
actively considering allocating association funds to support the
design, development, evaluation and implementation of initial
and ongoing, on-line professional development opportunities
for deaf education
Harold Johnson, grant Co-Director has:
been asked by the state of Louisiana to join a cross categorical
team of professionals in the conceptualizing how Internet based
technologies can be used to reduce isolation, foster collaboration
and enhance teaching and learning with low incidence students
been asked by the Florida and Colorado state deaf education
teacher associations to share how technologies can be used to
enhance teaching and learning via key note presentations at their
2004 conventions
been asked by the Coeditors of the 2005 Gallaudet University
Press text entitled “Deaf Learners: New Developments in
Curriculum and Instruction” , in collaboration with Donna
Mertens (Grant Evaluator), to write a chapter on the use of
technologies to enhance teaching and learning within PK-20 deaf
education
been asked by the Co-Directors of the 2005 National Technical
Institute for the Deaf (NTID) International Symposium:
Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf to collaborate
in the use of the Symposium to foster PK-20 collaborative use of
technologies to enhance teaching and learning within PK-20 deaf
education by using the conference as an important setting for grant
related activities
collaboratively designed, written and submitted a NSF IERI grant
proposal that, if funded, will use Internet based technologies to
enhance middle school Science teaching and learning with students
who are d/hh
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
been asked by a group of scientists to collaborate in the design and
submission of a NSF MRSEC proposal that, if funded, will
enhance the preparation of deaf education teachers to teach
Science to PK-12 students who are d/hh
been asked by the National Inventors Hall of Fame, the Cleveland
University Circle Distance Education Initiative and the Case
Western Reserve University Jason Project to collaboratively
explore how Internet based technologies can be used to enable
these Science resources can be used to enhance teaching and
learning within PK-20 deaf education
Section VI: GPRA Indicators
(back to Index)
This report addresses activities in the first year on the project that would yield
information that the project plans to use to design strategies that will over the remaining
years of the project impact on all three of the GPRA indicators. Thus, our activities to
date have enabled us to set the stage for future successes targeted in our proposal.
Curriculum Redesign - in the faculty survey of June 2004, respondents were
asked to what extent they had redesigned their curriculum and/or one or more
course syllabi to incorporate best practices in the use of technology in teacher
education. All 94 faculty members who responded to the needs sensing survey
reported that they had done so: 13% a little bit; 53% a moderate amount; and 33%
extensively. Curriculum redesign was not a goal for year one of the Join Together
grant. However, the faculty members have been involved in the prior Capacity
Building and Catalyst grants since 1999. Thus, this information provides a good
baseline for the Join Together grant.
Faculty proficiency- the majority of faculty respondents described themselves as
proficient in the following areas: presentation software, research on the Internet,
online discussions, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and TTY or TTD.
Preservice teachers - two surveys were administered in year one: Faculty in IHEs
who are responsible for preparing teachers of d/hh students and Master Teachers.
One element of the faculty survey centered on the current proficiency of
preservice teachers with whom the faculty member worked on the same 31
technology skills as assessed in the Master Teacher survey. While many were
unaware of their student‟s level of proficiency, most were able to suggest
strengths and weaknesses. Faculty reported that their students were proficient in
only three areas: presentation software, research using the internet, and
participating in online discussions. Master teachers reported proficiency in eight
areas. Two of these – presentation software, and internet research were similar to
faculty reports on preservice trainees. In addition, Master teachers reported
proficiency in desktop publishing, use of digital camera/video, content-specific
hardware, hearing aids, TTY or TDD, and captioned media resources. On area in
which the Master Teachers reported lower proficiency was the use of on-line
discussion groups. While Master Teachers have had greater opportunity for post-
graduate learning, it is useful to look at what skills they have acquired and what
Deaf Education – “Join Together”
they continue to require training. Taken together the two databases provide
important insights on the framing of subsequent project activities with respect to
enhancing preservice teacher technology integration knowledge and skills. A
survey of preservice teachers will be undertaken in year two.
