ED Grant Performance Report Project Status Chart · Web viewTitle ED Grant Performance Report Project Status Chart (MS Word) Author gwagner Keywords grants, results, measures Last

Join Together ProjectYear 2 Report

Executive Summary

Year two of the Join Together grant has focused upon gathering, understanding and organizing information that has the poten-tial to substantially enhance the preparation of teachers of the deaf. In comparison to the grant’s year one data, this focus has resulted in:

a 62% increase in the number of individuals who are registered users of the grant’s web site, i.e., www.deafed.net [Note: as of 12/31/05, there are nearly 17,000 registered users of the grant’s Web site];

a 67% increase in the number of individuals who are members of one, or more, of the grant’s Topical Teams; a 65% increase in the work carried out by topical team members, as indicated by the number of “Choices” that were awarded to

the team members; the ongoing identification, recognition and support of the nation’s most innovative and effective teachers of students who are d/

hh, i.e., Master Teachers [Note: since the onset of the Join Together grant, 158 Master Teachers from 28 states have been identi-fied]; and

the Topical Team meeting/exceeding their year two performance measures by an average of 126%.

Particularly noteworthy accomplishments of the grant’s topical teams are as follows:

Obj. 1.1 – Technology InfrastructureIdentified, research, piloted, shared and supported the use of two, low cost, high impact, Web based video conferencing technologies (i.e., iVisit & dLink)….resulting in a sustainable, collaborative, technological system to facilitate the grant’s work.

Obj. 1.2 & 2/3 – Faculty Tech. Competence & PK-12 Inst. Tech. Best PracticesMerged to facilitate a common search for those technologies and technological practices that have the greatest potential to enhance PK-20 teaching and learning….resulting in a growing data base and support system concerning the effective use of technologies within PK-20 deaf education.

Obj. 1.3 – Preservice Teacher DiversityModeled, researched and captured the diversity that has been historically lacking within PK-20 deaf education….resulting in a grow-ing knowledge base of information, “best practices,” and multi media case studies that have the potential to substantially enhance the recruitment, support and preparation of teachers that more accurately reflect the diversity of the nation’s students who are deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh).

Obj. 1.4 – Multi-State Teacher Preparation Program DesignAccomplished the seemingly impossible task of securing agreements across eight southeastern states to collaborate for the common purpose of increasing the quantity and quality of teachers who are prepared to meet the instructional needs of students who are d/hh…. resulting in an emerging regional model of deaf education teacher preparation in which Web based technologies enable states and uni-versities to share, rather than duplicate, specialized course work.

Obj. 2.1 – PK-12 Instructional Best PracticesTackled one of the most fundamental problems that has historically impeded deaf education, i.e., too many “beliefs” and too little em-pirical evidence…resulting in a series of investigations concerning the importance, or lack thereof, of differing levels (e.g., state vs. national board) and types (e.g., deaf education vs. deaf education + science/math) of certification upon teachers’ perceived knowledge bases and instructional practices.

Obj. 2.2 – PK-12 Instructional Content Best PracticesSystematically investigated the PK-12 academic (i.e., math, science and literacy) knowledge and skills that states now require of deaf education teachers and the literature concerning academic “best practices”….resulting in a grounded knowledge base of the academic content and instructional practices that should be taught to, and demonstrated by, both preservice and existing teachers of students who are d/hh.

Obj. 2.4 – PK-12 Instructional Assessment Best PracticesSystematically investigated what is often discussed, yet rarely carried out within the PK-12 education of students who are d/hh, i.e., the effective use of informal and formal assessments to document academic knowledge and skills….resulting in a grounded knowl-edge base of the assessment “best practices” that should be taught to and demonstrated by both preservice and existing teachers of stu-dents who are d/hh.

While the Join Together grant has accomplished a great deal during its second year of work, a significant challenge must be met during its third and potentially final year. Year three of the Join Together grant will focus upon encouraging, supporting and doc-ED 524B

umenting the extent to which the nation’s deaf education teacher preparation program faculty and preservice teacher’s use the models (i.e., Obj. 1.3 & 1.4), technologies (i.e., Obj. 1.1 & 1.2/2.3) and instructional “best practices” (i.e., Obj. 2.1, 2.2 & 2.4) that were iden-tified, researched and organized during the grant’s first two years of work. This focus will not be accomplished by asking faculty and preservice teachers to do additional work, but rather by demonstrating how the grant’s models, technologies and “best practices” can be used to enhance their existing courses. A unique component of that enhancement will consist of the use of Web based video confer-encing technologies to provide effective and efficient links between deaf education teacher preparation programs and the nation’s “Master Teachers” of students who are d/hh. This linkage constitutes a core element of the grant’s “Virtual Professional Development School” model, a model that serves to ground the theories and research of our universities in the “best practices” and learning opportu-nities of PK-12 Master Teachers of students that are d/hh. In this way, year three of the Join Together grant has the potential to not only substantially enhance the preparation of new teachers, but to also enhance the knowledge and skills of existing teachers and the academic performance of students who are d/hh.

ED 524B

U.S. Department of EducationGrant Performance Report (ED 524B)

Project Status ChartPR/Award # (11 characters): ________

SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

1. Project Objective [ ] Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

Topical Team 1.1 Technology Infrastructure

Create an efficient collaborative network of consortium members (CM), institutes of higher education (IHE), State educational agencies (SEA) and local educational agencies (LEA) that results in empirical evidence regarding the impact of Web-based video conferencing (VC) to reform d/hh teacher preparation. 1.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Produce and video streamed 16 Virtual Topical Seminars (VTS) and provide asynchronous access for the Join Together (JT) community by posting on the Join Together (JT) Project’s web site (www.deaf-ed.net).

ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

16 / 16 / 100%

1.b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Increase number of JT members who use Web-based video conferenc-ing technology (WBVCT).

Project Target Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

25 / 42 / 170%

1.c. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Increase the number of technology and software alternatives evalu-ated for a Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS).

Project Target Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

2 / 7 / 350%

1.d. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Increase the amount of technical assistance provided to the JT com-munity.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

500 / 1,120 / 224%

1.e. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative DataED 524B Page 3 of 48

OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

http://www.deafed.net/


Increase the number and diversity of participants in the community of learners through the VPDS.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

1200 / 2667 / 222%

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

1.a. Produce VTS To produce the VTS, this team developed a mechanism for video capturing and streaming.

Data collected: Web-based surveys, conducted after each VTS, collected both quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analyzed by calculating de-scriptive statistics and cross-tabs, as well as by content analysis of the qualitative data. In addition, evaluators analyzed the posted VTS on the Project web site. In Year 1, the Project produced 3 VTS on a pilot basis; this number increased to 16 VTS in Year 2 (a complete list of Years 1 and 2 VTS is included in Appendix A).

From post-VTS survey results, it was determined we needed a program which was easier to set-up and use. The evaluation of results also highlighted the need for a viable method for captioning WBVCT programs in order to make them accessible to the deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh) population. This information was used to provide guidance for performance measure 1c on the evaluation of technology and software alternatives.

1.b. Increase use of WBVCT Data collected: In Spring 2005, Web-based surveys were conducted to determine the usage of video conferencing tech-nology (VCT) amongst 54 members of the JT community. The results revealed that 83% of the respondents had access to VCT; 78% used it at least quarterly. Over half of the respondents indicated that the use of VCT had an impact on their teaching, service, and scholarly work. This suggests a target for Year 3 to increase faculty, teacher preparation program, and Advisory Board member use of VCT in terms of frequency and impact on work. The tables below include data from Year 1 and Year 2 on comparable measures.

Frequency of Use: Year 1 and Year 2 ComparisonYear 1 data: based on 15 Topical Team Leaders (TTL) and 10 Executive Advisory Board (EAB) members; Year 2 based on 54 members of the JT community (includes TTLs, EAB members, and deaf education faculty)

VCT Frequency Use Year 1 TTL (15)

Year 1EAB (10)

Year 2 (54)

Every Day 7% 14% 13% Once a Week 21% 21% 25%Once a Month 29% 14% 18%

Quarterly 21% 21% 20%Never 21% 21% 22%

ED 524B Page 4 of 48

The overall percentage of VCT users remained essentially the same from Year 1 to Year 2; however, a larger overall number of users was identified in Year 2.

In Year 2, members were asked to list their present and future reasons for using VCT. The highest percentage, for both present and future, was instruction.

VCT Use Present FutureInstruction 34% 36%

Virtual Tours 6% 9%Observation 13% 24%

Other 22% 30%

When the high percentage was noted for “Other”, further questions were asked. We discovered all other videoconferencing (e.g., testing, meetings, and project collaborations) was placed here.

94% indicated they believed that VC could be a valuable tool for the d/hh.

Members were asked to rate their VC experiences. Over 80% of the respondents (five did not answer) rated their experience OK or above.

Video Experience rating PT3(Outstanding) 5 9%

4 41%3 35%2 5%

(Very poor) 1 2%

Members were asked to rate the impact that VC has on their teaching, service and scholarly activities. For Year 2, 46-56% rated VC as having rarely or no impact. In Year 1 this exact data was not collected; however, available Year 1 data permit a tentative comparison. By casting a wider net, the percent of those responding that VC had no impact on their teaching was higher in Year 2 (from 0% in Year 1 to 41% in year 2). However, the raw numbers show an increase from 24 TTL and EAB respondents to 32 overall members of the JT community. In Year 2, we noted JT faculty used VCT for teaching, service, and scholarly work.

Year 2Videoconferencing Impact Teaching Service Scholarly

None 41% 41% 39%Rarely 11% 5% 17%

Sometimes 37% 30% 26%A lot 11% 24% 18%

Year 1ED 524B Page 5 of 48

Evaluation of VCT Current Impact Future Impact

TTL EAB TTL EABVery High Impact 15% 7% 64% 50%

High Impact 21% 50% 29% 29%Fair Impact 43% 29% 7% Poor Impact 21% 7%

None 7% 21%

1.c. Increase number of evaluated technology alternatives After each VTS, viewers were asked to complete a survey. Additionally, Project staff who help others with tech issues complete an on-line survey after many of their help sessions. From the VTS and tech assistance survey results, it was determined that the Project and many of our users need a cheaper program – one easier to set-up and use. This led us to begin investigating Ec-tus (for a Project level resource). For our users having difficulties with higher end systems, we have begun suggesting they start with iVisit or D-link.

In the survey to determine the needs of the JT community, it was asked: What assistance would you need to increase the impact of videoconferenc-ing? The responses included:

Funding for better equipment. A videoconferencing system that doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out; easy access to technical support; a system that doesn't lock up

or drop the session half-way through a class. Need feedback and ideas from colleagues who have successfully used the four systems [named in survey]. What are the pros and cons of each

system? What is the best application for each system? Which systems are most easily obtained, installed and maintained? More teachers having the technologies in their classroom; more support by the district or school staff in dealing with firewalls. Need easy 1-button click to have guest speakers show up on camera, etc.

Year 1 technology evaluations indicated the Polycom ViewStation systems provide an excellent platform for classroom based video conferencing. However, these systems were complex to install and relatively expensive to purchase. From the Year 2 tech assistance surveys, it was noted that users needed a cheaper, easier to set-up system. As a result, Topical Team 1.1 began exploring the availability and use of additional WBVCT. These explorations led to an evaluation of two additional WBVCT, i.e., “FaceToFaceMeeting” and “iVisit” technologies which were selected based on their:

cost effectiveness (i.e., $100 or less), ease of installation (i.e., 1 vs. 14 ports of a firewall required to be opened), quality (i.e., usefulness for spoken and/or signed communicative exchanges), array of applications that can be shared (web pages, documents, presentation software, spreadsheet software, etc.), and ease of use & support.

As a result of this evaluation, Topical Team 1.1 determined the iVisit system was the most cost effective, easy to install, and the highest quality; pro-vided the most applications; and was both the easiest to use and support. The iVisit system still has limitations with regard to the ability to read sign


language when communicating with a signing d/hh person. During Year 3, Topical Team 1.1 will explore technologies (starting with D-link) that meet the feasibility criteria as well as usefulness for signed communication.

In addition to WBVCT systems, Topical Team 1.1 also evaluated several software systems that could be used by the JT Project to facilitate the dis-semination of grant produced information and products. Four dissemination software systems were evaluated: Breeze, Breeze Live, Ectus, and New Horizon. Extensive review and tests of the software systems revealed that the Ectus system provided the greatest ease of installation, use and acces-sibility (i.e., open/closed captioning). The Ectus software is now being investigated for a pilot that will explore the effectiveness of the software sys-tem to disseminate grant related information.

Note: In addition to the hardware and software systems identified above, Topical Team 1.1 also evaluated Polycom PVX software. This software al-lows the user to gain the functionality of a Polycom ViaVideo system with less cost ($150 for PVX vs. $650 for a ViaVideo) or installation complex-ity (i.e., the number of firewall ports that must be opened). As a result of this evaluation, the PVX software, used with a Logitech webcam, provided an easy to install, cost effective alternative to the Polycom ViaVideo system.

Topical Team 1.1 has captioned one of the VTS seminars. In Year 3, they plan to evaluate alternative captioning systems.

The Project, through its work with vendors and VuPorts, has been able to reduce the pricing for new and reconditioned systems from 50-75%.

1.d. Increase technical assistance Technical assistance, on a number of VCT used by the Project, is available by calling (phone or video) any number of Project personnel. Information and help/how-to documents (including problem solving issues) have been created and are available 24/7 from the Project’s website (www.deafed.net). Relating to preservice teacher/K-12 Master Teacher collaborations: preservice teachers from Kent State Uni-versity (OH) have been able to observe V. Smith (Mississippi School for the Deaf) teach a class and then collaborate afterwards (e.g., share insights, ask questions, discuss resources).

Problems encountered while providing technical assistance include: limited bandwidth in public schools, firewalls issues, configuration differences of computers, lack of funding, different levels of computer knowledge, level of on-site technology support, and administrators not allowing users to install applications on school machines. We have identified a number of ways to address these issues.

To meet the challenge of limited bandwidth, we give the user the option of using iVisit or D-link video conferencing systems. These systems use far less bandwidth and therefore can be used in schools that cannot support Polycom, Sony or Tanberg systems.

If firewalls are a problem, we suggest the teacher start out using iVisit which only needs one port opened in a firewall.

For instructors having a very limited budget, we suggest they look into the Polycom PVX which works with a Logitech web camera and is 1/4 the cost of a ViaVideo system. We have also suggested they look into purchasing a reconditioned system from Vuports (a company specializing in used video conferencing equipment).



When permission is needed to install applications, we found that someone needs to have talked to the administration about our Project. With the ad-ministration’s support, most barriers are dropped.

Our most difficult challenge is getting technical support on site. Possible answers include recruiting tech personnel (from the user’s college or a nearby program) to join the JT Project and using preservice teachers as tech support.

Topical Team 1.1: Goals for Year 3

In the coming year we will work to bring more K-12 and college teachers and preservice students into the project and will work to incorporate video conferencing into their activities.

We will continue with VTS in the form of online workshops and continuation courses for deaf education teachers. We expect Ectus will be used for the creation of these online offerings. Dr. Harry Lang and colleagues are creating a math lesson that will demonstrate the potential of Ectus. This les-son will be placed online and JT members will be asked to view it and complete a survey. Because of it’s ease of set-up and use, and because it can be viewed over the web live or from the archives, the number of instructors willing to participate is expected to increase.

We will recruit preservice teachers to join Topical Team 1.1 and then be responsible for iVisit tech support for Regional Leaders, TTLs, Master Teachers or other classroom teachers. Under this plan, preservice teachers will learn a new skill and the teacher or instructor will have on-site sup-port for video conferencing.

More than 60 of the nation’s 72 deaf education teacher preparation programs have some type of VC. Many of the programs’ people have some expe-rience in using VC and therefore would be ready to go from the start. By increasing the number of people collaborating with the JT Project we should see an increase in the usage of VC.

To determine if the usage of VC has an impact on d/hh teacher preparation programs, we expect to develop an online survey series to:

measure the impact of VC on the deaf education community, measure the impact of Ectus use on the participants in the program, and determine if iVisit use by members has increased.

The data from these surveys will be compared with Year 2 survey data. In order to disseminate the information we will collect, two new team members will be added to Topical Team 1.1. The first new team member will be responsible for:

evaluating collected data results, creating a paper sharing findings and post on www.deafed.net, submitting the paper to an educational publication, and presenting the findings at the 2007 ACE-D/HH conference.


The second new team member will be responsible for creating a newsletter to:

review funding requirements for obtaining help to purchase VC equipment, describe how teachers are using VC in their classrooms, explain how grant participants can receive tech support via www.deafed.net, over the phone, and through e-mail, invite grant participants’ tech personnel to submit a choice and join Topical Team 1.1, and inform readers of technology documents available for review.

Additional Year 3 Goals

1. Investigate applications for SignLink program. SignLink is a program developed in Canada which utilizes QuickTime technology to develop web pages using video and American Sign Language. The idea behind SignLink is creating web pages that are signed as well as written. While it can be a labor intensive process, the programming code is free and uses easily obtainable technologies. Are there applications for it? Is this an-other way to reach remote and isolated students and teachers?

2. Develop a connection with VCWeb (http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/vcweb). The American School for the Deaf and the Clerc Center at Gal-laudet University developed a web site to help facilitate video collaborations in K-12 schools and programs serving the d/hh. We wish to work toward incorporating or integrating VCWeb with Topical Team 1.1 goals so as not to duplicate efforts.

3. Develop signed training materials. Explore the use of Flash or other appropriate software to develop training (accessible online) for Master Teachers and others wishing to use VCT. Start with training on iVisit.

4. Continue to identify, evaluate and share existing and emerging video conferencing technologies and on-line professional development systems that have the potential to assist in accomplishing the overall grant goals.

5. Continue to provide leadership and technical assistance in the captioning of grant related material.


http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/vcweb






Topical Team 1.2 Faculty Technological Competence and Use / 2.3 Technological Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers NOTE: These two teams (1.2 and 2.3) merged at the beginning of Year 2 because of the overlap in activities needed to achieve their objectives.

Identify the technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources needed for effective instruction and increased academic achieve-ment of PK-12 students who are d/hh and incorporate these into faculty instruction within d/hh teacher preparation programs. Using action re-search and the Virtual Professional Development School (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.

2.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Establish virtual study groups (VSG) to respond to those technology needs identified in the Year 1 baseline survey.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

8 / 8 / 100%


Establish and pilot a bulletin board for student and first year teachers in deaf education teacher preparation programs to exchange informa-tion regarding technologically based lessons and the use of devices and materials with other teacher preparation programs.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

2 / 3 / 150%


Capture the way technology has changed the lives of deaf students through videotaped interviews.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

10 /

9 / 90


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007


Increase number and diversity of team members ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

30 / 31 / 103


2.a. Virtual Study Groups (VSG) During Year 1, a survey was developed by Topical Team 1.2 in collaboration with Topical Team 2.3. The survey was posted on the ACE-D/HH and Master Teacher listservs to obtain information from faculty and preservice teachers in d/hh teacher preparation programs and Master Teachers. The results were collected and data summarized for dissemination to the Topical Team Leaders (TTLs). The results were used to guide the implementation of Year 2 activities to increase technology competence. We found all three groups needed to be asked very similar survey questions. The survey outcomes demonstrated a need for the same intervention at all levels – introduction of deaf-specific technolo-gies and instruction as to the application of technologies in educational settings with the goal of technology integration to increase k-12 student per-formance. Over the decades most technologies were auditory-based and minimal educational technology was developed specifically for deaf learners leaving the field of deaf education far behind in the integration of technology. Focus was placed on other concerns regarding the learning of deaf children (e.g., hearing technologies, language methodologies, etc.). Today, technology allows for a much more visual and interactive learning envi-ronment. This is what deaf educators knew their students needed and they provided it through drawing, collecting images, using video, and going on field trips. We need to find out if today’s interactive and visual technologies, especially the multitude allowing picture-to-text and projection tech-nologies, are being utilized. These technologies are providing a richer educational experience for students who have significant learning needs and previously could not access the general curriculum. Will the same benefits be found in deaf education? Are such technologies known and being inte-grated?

VSG were developed to address the common need for faculty, preservice teacher and Master Teacher professional development. Eight VSG were es-tablished with facilitators to address the technology areas of interest and needed growth noted on the Year 1 survey. Currently these groups are inter-acting virtually using bulletin boards, iVisit and e-mail. The bulletin boards function to expand the knowledge base of how to incorporate the spe-cific technology into teaching. Currently, the following VSG are accessible through www.deafed.net: Digital Imaging, iLife by Apple, Inspiration/Kidspiration, Internet Information and Resources, Microsoft Office, Portfolios, Presentation Technologies, Software and Accommodations for Deaf Learners, Special Needs Technologies, Technology and the Itinerant Teacher, Using Digital White Boards, Using Handhelds, PDAs

Data collected through the web site for the VSG include the number of posts and the number of people who view each post. Also, qualitative data are accessible from the content included in the posts. Sample comments include:

I began searching for some resources and ideas online. I am not sure where everyone is at in their understanding, but it's a start. The following web address is from a course at the University of Illinois- it's kind of like a syllabus, but it is an example of what students in the class had to include in their e-portfolios and gives some other information. http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/squad99/portfolio.htm This next website comes from the University of Virginia and has some portfolio samples. Unfortunately, not all the links work, but you can


http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/squad99/portfolio.htm

http://www.deafed.net/DeafedForums/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=506















play around with it. http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/class/edlf/589-07/sample.html This last website is titled THE KALAMAZOO COLLEGE PORTFOLIO. Click around a little bit and learn what the Portfolio is, how to construct the Portfolio, what your Portfolio needs, and a couple of outstanding Portfolios to peek at. P.S. I like this one! http://www.kzoo.edu/pfolio/ (Preservice teacher, April 2005)

Under this [task], Trekking through Whiteboards: New Territory for Preservice Teachers, I elected to teach my students about netTrekker and the use of the smart board as two strong tools for instruction with deaf children. Students were introduced to netTrekker by me during the se-nior level Methods of Language and Reading Instruction for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Course (EDD373) using the Smart Board. We dis-cussed the pros and cons of the netTrekker tool and I gave them a guided presentation on how to use it to find information for the unit plans and microteaching they were planning as 30% of their grade during this course. Students were to select a genre, character, or series of litera-ture to present to students, capture the state standards for the content, prepare age appropriate activities, and then devise a number of lessons united by literary theme to plan. From this series of lessons, students were to select one lesson to present as a micro-lesson using the Smart Board Technology and Resources from the netTrekker site. (Faculty member, Fall 2005).

Faculty indicated they preferred face-to-face acquisition of new knowledge. They want workshops with interactive formats, e-mail/phone follow-up and mentor/coaching. The TTLs realized this may be an opportunity to design workshops to be offered at the ACE-D/HH annual conference.

2. b. Bulletin Board A bulletin board for first year and student teachers was set-up on www.deafed.net. The collaborative effort involved Utah State University, Illinois State University (ISU) and Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). The purpose was to provide students with a place to exchange information regarding technologically-based lessons and the use of devices and materials. The title of the bulletin board is “Happy Hour”. The bulletin board software automatically counts the number of hits and replies to a thread of discussion. Sample comments include:

I think many of the ideas on this board are really interesting. I know I hadn't really thought of the technology benefiting parents, but some of them would be learning sign alongside their child, and would find vocabulary tapes and similar materials very helpful. Other ideas for inte-grating the technology across both home and school environments appeal to me as well; the more involved parents are in their child's educa-tion, the better their child's chances of success. Considering that these students are generally very visual in their learning and communication, the better quality and smaller size (like DVD or VCD versus VHS) would make materials more accessible for many students and families. With digital video equipment, ASL-based students would have a better opportunity to express themselves since they can use their own lan-guage. Maybe for students just starting to work in-depth with English, an assignment could be completed in ASL using the video equipment, and then reviewed by the teacher and student to explain how the same ideas could be expressed in English, like as an essay or creative story. (Preservice teacher, April 2005)

We posted correspondence on the Deafed.net bulletin board for our topic and other than the Team Leader and two study group facilitators, four other people posted replies. A number of ideas were discussed on the bulletin board, including suggestions for Power Point for making e-Books, Breeze to make Power Point run on the web, MAGpie software for captioning, web pages for teachers to share information with families, and Cornerstone e-Books. The threads on our bulletin board garnered 244 views. (Preservice teacher, July 2005)


http://www.kzoo.edu/pfolio/

http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/class/edlf/589-07/sample.html

As co-facilitator, I helped generate questions for discussion. We found that email, rather than the bulletin board, was more effective for this as everyone checks email regularly but was not checking the bulletin board. Study group members had some great ideas to share, though we did not have time to go into anything in great depth due to the time of year we began our discussions. My co-facilitator and I have other questions we would like to see the group discuss next year. We would also hope to have more people participate. (Study Group facilitator)

The piloting of VSG to evaluate the use of bulletin boards for on-going, just-in-time professional development activities is in process. The investiga-tion will focus on the increase in skills using online communication technologies and increase in skills and understanding of the topics in the VSG. In the pilot study thus far:

one TTL led this activity.

seven faculty and seven Master Teachers joined as Study Group facilitators.

one faculty person assigned a class of 16 preservice teachers to participate.

a few Master Teachers joined the groups for the last two or three weeks.

no other faculty participated although five or six claimed to be interested at the 2005 ACE-D/HH conference.

The timing of this undertaking was bad. Faculty were ending their semester and some of the Master Teachers hoped to wait until June to participate when they were done with their school session.

2.c. Technology and Deaf Students Interviews were conducted to find out how technology has changed the lives of deaf students. TTLs proposed that having the message of beneficial technology come directly from the students themselves would increase attention to the message and that fac-ulty, Master Teachers, and preservice teachers would be more likely to attend to the content and utilize the modules.

Deaf students from ISU and EKU participated in this process. The two-fold interview consisted of written demographic information being taken and videotapes made of student’s answers to standardized questions. One TTL led the project. Preservice teachers participated as interviewers, developed transcripts, and searched for themes. Interviews were done with deaf college students to determine the technologies being used in their college pro-grams and what they felt was making a positive impact in their learning (including independence in learning and communicating). In Year 3, the re-sults from these interviews will be presented at the 2006 ACE-D/HH conference. Additionally, online module will be developed to provide this in-formation to faculty, preservice teachers, and Master Teachers.

2. d. Increase number and diversity of Topical Team members The involvement of Master Teachers increased in this Team’s work. This team included deaf and hard of hearing teachers and preservice teachers in their work. One significant Master Teacher led activity was the inventory and evaluation of Master Teacher and preservice teacher (student) documents posted at www.deafed.net. With the intent to look for evidence of technologies used, and the perceived benefits of, a Master Teacher reviewed more than 500 posted documents to determine: What topics were covered? What technologies were covered? and What topics were not covered? TTLs drafted a process of reviewing posted documents to iden-tify keywords to assist www.deafed.net users in finding materials for which they are searching. A discussion is taking place regarding a possible


need to review materials for consistency and quality. The TTLs have discussed strategies for “marketing” the posted materials to JT participants so resources are used, best practices are shared, and document posting is encouraged.

Additional Master Teacher work was the development of an online module of websites, software, and materials supporting the five components of literacy development as well as writing. A Master Teacher also developed an online module providing tutorial websites and example materials developed from various software programs so faculty, preservice teachers, and Master Teachers have a resource available when learning new pro-grams and how to integrate them successfully into the classroom.

Topical Team 1.2/2.3 Goals for Year 3

Disseminate resulting research, and offer professional development support for the use of the research information, to d/hh teacher preparation fac-ulty. Outcome: Increase in d/hh teacher education faculty’s knowledge and use of effective technologies and multimedia curricular resources.

Present at the annual ACE-D/HH conference, attend the Advisory Board meeting and utilize listservs to send out materials and announcements of workshops and best practices. Offering workshops at various locations for faculty to participate in during the year will be considered. We will use the VSG to present information and mentor faculty. We will conduct another survey to determine the extent to which faculty have incorpo-rated and/or increased their use of technology into coursework.

Again offer opportunities and provide virtual workshops on all eight identified technologies. The invitation will be disseminated via e-mail to faculty in d/hh teacher preparation programs, www.deafed.net, and additional venues we feel will attract educators to join our efforts and learn essential technology skills.

Disseminate the follow-up research concerning faculty integration of technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources into d/hh teacher preparation programs designs and the instruction of preservice teachers resulting in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting institutes of higher education (IHE) in informing faculty of the exis-tence and use of effective technologies and multimedia curricular resources to prepare preservice teachers and to reform teacher preparation. We will continue to present the information we have accumulated at the annual ACE-D/HH conference, via www.deafed.net bulletin boards, and through list-servs. The way to do it seems to be with annual surveys and personal contacts.

Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the a) disseminated research information, b) professional development support for faculty integra-tion of these technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources into d/hh teacher preparation program designs, and c) instruction of preservice teachers resulting in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Empirical evidence. The use of the “Happy Hour” bulletin board information and the faculty and preservice teacher surveys will provide evidence.

During Year 1 a literature review was conducted. Student workers were used to research articles pertaining to the content areas of Math, Science, and Literacy. Reviews included both online and library information. The data collected were summarized and the results disseminated in Year 2.


We realized very little “research-based” data was available regarding technology integration and the achievement of students who are d/hh. Most lit-erature review information gathered by preservice teachers found practical applications of technologies and perceived benefits in instructional prac-tice, but lacked true research and evidence of student achievement. The teams have decided to review research-based literature to discover those tech-nologies making a positive impact in student achievement in regular education, and other exceptional education areas, and do a comparison study to find out if schools for the d/hh and large programs for the d/hh are utilizing these technologies. We need to discover if technology research and prac-tices are making it into the field of deaf education. Only then can we look to find research on the benefits within deaf education. TTLs reviewed pre-sentations presented at, and posted on websites for, Closing the Gap (2003, 2004), Instructional Technology in Deaf Education (2003, 2005), and the Gallaudet Videoconferencing Conference (2002, 2004) to determine the technologies and practices being presented as effective in deaf education.

Year 3 - In process:

1) What technologies are making a difference in academic performance? Team is surveying schools for the d/hh (including Illinois, Texas, CAID, FSDC, FEHI) to find out if they are gathering any data on student use of technology and its impact.

2) College student interview module – post online to provide snippets faculty can use to ensure preservice teachers are knowledgeable about those technologies benefiting learning and communication for individuals who are d/hh.

3) Online modules demonstrating deaf-specific technologies used as accommodations.

4) Contribution of content for newsletters going out to Master Teachers, faculty, EAB members, and others.

Challenges:

*Time is always a factor. The TTLs feel they need to have face-to-face interaction on a regular basis to keep on top of their objectives and goals. This presents a problem because of funding and time. But so much is accomplished that the problems are resolved by the creative opportunities being brainstormed.

*Other problems include survey data such as the identification of faculty who fill out the surveys, the documentation of key information, obsta-cles and concerns of faculty, etc.

*Project goals have been rather vague making it difficult to understand how to achieve our objectives. Focus has changed since the beginning of the Project and it is always hard to keep abreast of the changes in what is expected.

Best Accomplishments:

We have a wonderful team! We are creative and have inspirational ideas that will transform the education of deaf students. That is foremost. Other accomplishments include the faculty survey, literature review, interviews with deaf students, and the establishment of VSG to study various technologies.






Topical Team 1.3 Preservice Teacher Diversity

Increase the ethnic, economic and hearing status diversity of d/hh preservice teachers so there is a more diverse pool of teacher candidates and there is increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.


Increase number of people involved with issues of diversity. ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

10 / 18 / 180%


Develop a knowledge base for dissemination of strategies to increase preservice teacher diversity (FAQs).


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

8 sets / 8 in draft / 100% in draft

3.c Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Determine factors associated with greater success in recruiting and supporting a more diverse teaching pool (survey/focus groups).


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

10 / 10 / 100%


Develop technologically accessible stories of diverse teachers as a method for supporting a more diverse teacher pool. Project

Target Actual Performance DataRaw

Number Ratio %Raw

Number Ratio %25 / 22 88%


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007


3.a. Increase team members Topical Team Leaders (TTLs) kept a record of programs and people who participated in Year 2 with Topical Team 1.3 (a full listing of participants is found in Appendix B). Institutions of higher education (IHE) represented are: Lamar U., Gallaudet U., Flagler Col-lege, Indiana U. of Pennsylvania [IUP], Illinois State U., Western Oregon U., Hunter College and the U. of Hawaii. Three state schools for the deaf are represented: Kansas, Mississippi, and Texas. Additionally, following are the numbers of:

Deaf individuals involved: 11 Individuals involved who represent culturally diverse groups: 11 Deaf and diverse individuals involved: 5

3.b. Develop knowledge base During Year 1 of the project, Topical Team 1.3 conducted a needs assessment of the current ethnic and hearing status diversity of d/hh preservice teachers and the recruitment, preparation and mentoring strategies/resources currently used by deaf education teacher preparation programs. This information was shared with faculty via two Virtual Topical Seminars (VTS). Data from the needs assessment were used to structure the primary activities for Year 2.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): TTLs compiled a menu of sample questions and team members created sets of FAQs for prospective preser-vice teachers and faculty members interested in increasing preservice teacher diversity. (FAQs targeted at prospective teachers will be showcased on a recruitment web site now in development.) Four faculty members created drafts of 8 FAQs for the recruitment website and those will be refined in year 3:

Barbara Gerner de Garcia, Gallaudet UniversityMargaret Finnegan, Flagler CollegeDiane Klein, Indiana University of PennsylvaniaLaurene Simms, Gallaudet University

As website work continues, additional critical FAQs are being identified and addressed by team members. Use of web-based FAQs will allow our team to share the knowledge base in a more dynamic and accessible format. Year 3 plans include assessment of the access to, and use and usefulness of, the FAQs.

3. c. Factors associated with increased diversity Survey of preservice teachers and Focus Group: Preservice teachers at three deaf education teacher preparation programs were surveyed to determine important factors in their selection of a deaf education program. Following the online survey, deaf education faculty conducted a focus group with diverse students to verify the survey results and explore challenges and “what works.” Data were separated by hearing/deaf and majority/minority. Three deaf education teacher preparation programs (Lamar, Flagler, and Illinois State) completed the survey and two universities completed the focus group activity. The survey and focus group is in process at two institutions (Gallaudet and Western Oregon). TTLs are currently in discussion with two other institutions (Arizona and IUP) to conduct the survey and focus group activity.


Investigate Resources at Individual Universities: Team members are researching the recruitment resources and strategies employed by their college or university. Deaf education teacher preparation faculty will summarize their findings, referencing specific activities and strategies used at their in-stitution, and comparing them to “what works” as cited in the academic literature. Team members will then choose a strategy and implement it within their individual program. This activity is now underway at two institutions (IUP and Hunter) with plans to expand to other deaf education teacher preparation programs.

3. d. Accessible personal stories Seven Team members collected a total of 22 personal stories of diverse preservice (14) and in-service (8) teachers. The personal stories consisted of exploring personal backgrounds, reasons for choosing a teaching career, and experiences teaching children who are d/hh. Products submitted include quality digital photos, a personal story transcript, and a permission form from each teacher. Collected stories will be showcased on the recruitment web site as a recruitment tool. Personal stories of in-service teachers working in mainstream settings are now being gathered to complete the complement of preservice and in-service teachers.

Problems/challenges Struggled to develop a recruitment format for sharing personal stories and FAQs. Initially it was planned to create a CD for dissemination,

but this raised issues such as keeping information current, adding or deleting topics, and selecting which platform to use. Ultimately, it was recognized that www.deafed.net has become the pre-eminent portal for information on deaf education and provided the best forum for recruitment. Creating a web site rather than a CD will allow us to capitalize on the strengths of www.deafed.net, use links to other recruitment sites, and easily modify information presented. TTLs working at a distance from Kent State University’s New Media Center also presented some obstacles. The identification of a local liaison affiliated with our project (Project Assistant S. Ernsberger) appears to have solved many of the communication problems. This sequence of events extended the amount of time devoted to researching the strategies and materials needed to effectively recruit, prepare, and mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers.

Creating recognition among faculty that recruitment must become a deliberate, concerted focus. Deaf education teacher preparation programs cannot continue to fill program enrollment without more actively recruiting. Recruiting a more ethnically diverse cadre of teacher candidates is important. In the absence of abundant federal personnel preparation funds, program enrollment is becoming an increasingly critical factor. This threatens a program’s ongoing viability and the current state of PK-12 deaf education.

Topical Team 1.3 – Goals for Year 3

Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support to deaf education teacher preparation program faculty for the integra-tion of the research information into their programs. Outcome: Increase in d/hh teacher education faculty’s knowledge and use of effective strate-gies and materials to recruit, prepare, and mentor a diverse pool of d/hh preservice teachers.

By increasing the total pool of preservice teachers, we expect to accordingly increase the number of teachers proficient at using technology and integrating technology into their instructional practices. An expanded number of preservice teachers will also result in a larger cadre of teachers from diverse backgrounds


Continue developing a recruitment web site in collaboration with Kent State’s New Media Center. The recruitment web site will serve as the primary vehicle for increasing the cadre of diverse preservice teachers. The recruitment web site will also provide a means of disseminating research findings and sharing the products created by team members.

FAQs and personal stories are now undergoing final edits in preparation for populating the web site. FAQs will reference research-based strategies for recruiting a more diverse cadre of individuals interested in a deaf education career. Personal stories will provide a compelling glimpse into the diverse range of preservice and inservice teachers. The website will be structured so we can continue to add FAQs and rotate the personal stories.

The web site will include links to other useful recruitment sites and diversity sites. These additional sites will provide faculty with additional information regarding effective, research-based strategies and materials to recruit, prepare, and mentor a diverse pool of d/hh preservice teachers. A number of high-quality, relevant web sites have already been identified.

A hit counter on the recruitment web site will collect data on the number of prospective preservice teachers and deaf education faculty access-ing the information.

Individual faculty members will select and implement at least one of the recruitment strategies based on the investigation of recruitement, preparation, and retention resources available at their respective institutions and strategies available within their own colleges and universities. Universities will summarize the results.

Continue survey of preservice teachers and follow-up focus groups. Three institutions have completed this activity. With survey procedures and focus group protocol now established, a goal is to recruit additional deaf education teacher preparation programs to participate, with a focus on representation from hearing vs. deaf preservice teachers, minority vs. majority preservice teachers, and a range of geographic areas. Survey and focus group findings will be synthesized and shared with teacher education faculty on the web site. (This could occur during a no-cost extension Year 4.) Data from all surveys will be aggregated and shared on the web site. Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated re-search information and the professional development support for faculty integration of strategies and resources needed to effectively recruit, pre-pare, and mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers. Outcome: Empirical evidence.

We want to move deaf education teacher preparation programs from “standing on the bank” to “wading in the water” when addressing the goal of increasing preservice teacher diversity. One way of doing this is by drawing a distinction between high priority items and low priority items identified on aggregated data from the survey/focus group activity. It is hard to quantify this impact, but creating recognition of the necessity for purposeful recruitment, preparation and retention strategies is an important first step.

Disseminate the follow-up research concerning faculty integration of strategies and resources needed to effectively recruit, prepare, and mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers that results in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in the effective recruitment, preparation and mentoring of a diverse pool of preservice teachers.

Web-based technologies and documents will allow teacher preparation program faculty to organize and access data generated by the grant. The re-cruitment web site will permit a more dynamic knowledge base regarding recruitment, preparation, and retention strategies.






Topical Team 1.4 Multi-State Certification & PreparationEstablish an advanced technology-facilitated, multi-state teacher preparation and certification model and a pilot investigation of the implementation of that model so there is greater access to d/hh teacher preparation programs, and an increase in the number of d/hh teachers, within the multi-state area.In collaboration with SERRC (South East Regional Resource Center), establish a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) signed by the Directors of Special Education and the Directors of Certification from each of the eight southeastern states, concerning the a) critical shortage of d/hh teachers, b) need for a flexible, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation model, c) need for a multi-state d/hh teacher certification model, and d) need for a long-term plan to resolve the d/hh teacher shortage.


Create a “Memorandum of Understanding” with eight states and Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

ProgramTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

10 / 8 / 80%

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)1.1. Create an MOU The MOU was appended and signed by the State Directors of Special Education from all eight states. Puerto Rico (PR) and Virgin Islands (VI) have not yet signed. During Year 2 of the grant, six of the eight states’ Chief Certification Officers have signed the MOU (Louisi-ana, Mississippi, PR and VI have not yet signed). A Georgia Board of Regents approval for an online d/hh teacher certification collaborative between Georgia State U. (GSU) and Valdosta State U. (VSU) was secured. We are using this process to inform the progress of the expanded collaborative now under development, as this will serve as the model to the interstate collaborative among Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia.

As a result of eleven pilot collaborations, there have been varying amounts of course redesign across at least six different d/hh teacher preparation programs. We are in the process of aligning course syllabi for the programs in AR, GA, and LA in order to facilitate an online collaborative program where students from four institutions will receive instruction covering the same knowledge and skills. Because these teacher candidates will be class-mates (cohorts across universities will be formed) in this program, the personnel preparation programs must align curriculum.


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

Corrective Actions Taken in Year 2 Donna Zornes, Director of Southeastern Region of National Association State Directors of Teacher Education Certification (NASDTEC), has

been recruited as the Topical Team Expert (TTE) for Topical Team 1.4 in the area of cross-state certification. She is collecting specific data on mobility of teaching certificates in the area of d/hh. During Year 3, she will be the moderator for the Topical Team 1.4 cross-state certification bulletin board.

Shirley Wilson, SERRC facilitator, is collecting data concerning multi-state collaborative agreements between institutions of higher education (IHE) and multi-state teacher preparation program designs and technologies. She is doing this in her role as a participant of SERRC’s partnership with the Join Together (JT) Project’s Topical Team 1.4. While performing the functions of a TTE, she has not been awarded stipends (“Choices”) for her work as that would conflict with her SERRC contract. The stated priorities of the federal regional resource center program have remained consistent with the JT Project’s goals and objectives. SERRC received ongoing funding (they are entering year 2 of a 5 year grant cycle) and SERRC leadership continues to provide administrative and funding support and we are continuing to partner with SERRC. However, the Topical Team Leaders (TTLs) have assumed more of a leadership, rather than supporting, role in our collaborative work in d/hh with SERRC.

We have identified at least one individual from each state willing to act as facilitator among the IHE, State Directors of Special Education and Chief Certification Officers within their state. It is anticipated we will have identified an individual for the Virgin Islands within the next month. It is doubtful Puerto Rico will become involved.

We have contracted with a researcher who is surveying, via electronic means, district directors of special education within the eight southeastern states, PR, and VI, to determine the numbers of vacancies for teachers of students who are d/hh and collect data on number of certified and non-certified teachers working with students who are d/hh.

During the end of Year 1, and all of Year 2, there were 11 collaborative pilot projects supported by the JT grant. The pilot projects were both inter- and intra-state/regional collaborations. Anecdotal information on the effectiveness of these collaborations was collected for the grant documentation but more formal evaluations have not yet been implemented. A formal evaluation will be developed for the current d/hh Multi-state Collaborative between U. of Arkansas Little Rock, U. of New Orleans, GSU, and VSU.

Problems Encountered in Year 2

Due to the surprisingly prolonged 18 month process to get the GSU/VSU collaborative approved by the Georgia Board of Regents, the regional collaboration has been pushed back one year. Therefore, the GSU/VSU collaborative will not be implemented until the 2006-2007 school year and the multi-state collaborative has been pushed back to 2007-2008 academic year (it is hoped the JT Project will continue to operate in 06/07 under a no-cost extension). However, UNO and UALR are working on the inter-state collaborative and curriculum redesign during the 2005-2006 school year.

As a result of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flooding of New Orleans, the collaboration development and curriculum redesign between LA and AR has been delayed. Communication was extremely difficult late in Year 2. Circumstances are improving daily and it is anticipated the collaboration structure and institutional commitment will be completed by the end of the Spring 2006 semester (one semester delay).

Topical Team 1.4: Goals for Year 3

A concept paper and timeline for the multi-state d/hh collaborative is found in Appendix C. As part of the collaborative, we anticipate using vari-ous distance technologies to connect with Master Teachers in order to provide our students with performance-based field activities. To determine


the impact of disseminated information on the faculty and preservice teachers who participate in using this information, we anticipate developing both formal and informal evaluation tools for both faculty and students involved in the multi-state d/hh collaborative. As we will be in our initial stages of the collaborative, this information will be used to help refine our program.

To determine the impact of disseminated information on the faculty and preservice teachers who participate in using this information, we will present the collaborative models at various conferences, post the information on www.deafed.net, and ask for feedback from our colleagues. Sev-eral manuscripts for articles have already been written on various aspects of distance technology used in the collaboratives and about the develop-ment and progress of the multi-state collaborative. These will be submitted to refereed journals and we will receive feedback from reviewers.






Topical Team 2.1 Instructional Competence

Using action research and the Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS) network, teachers, administrators, and teacher educators 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) resulting in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers.


The number of Master Teachers of mathematics and science engaged in causal comparative research.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

20 / 8 / 40%


The number of deaf education faculty who participate in the discus-sion of the research and its applicability to their teaching.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

100 / 150 / 150


5.a. Number of Master Teachers engaged The performance data available relates to teachers’ scores on the Praxis III observation instrument. Scores for certified teachers averaged 2.7 on a four-point scale for Content Knowledge, 2.9 on Creating an Environment for Student Learning, and 2.8 for Teaching for Student Learning. For non-certified teachers, the average scores were 3.2 for Content Knowledge, 3.25 for Creating an Environment for Student Learning, and 3.5 for Teaching for Student Learning. Thus, the non-certified teachers actually outscored the certified teachers in these three domains of teacher behavior. A serious limitation of the study was that the N for certified teachers was only five and the N for non-certified teachers was only three.

We were able to accomplish other tasks, including the collection of data on each teacher’s views of education through a detailed questionnaire, and


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

their views of important features of education through participation in scheduled focus groups. We used the data for summarizing trends across the two groups.

5.b. Number of deaf education faculty who participate Two potential impacts derive from this activity: 1) The activities involving the survey instru-ments with the board-certified and non-board certified, and again with the certified and non-certified teachers of Math and Science, have given a total of 19 experienced teachers of the d/hh a systematic way of reflecting on their own practice. 2) Approximately 150 members of the ACE-D/HH orga-nization are potentially impacted because of the discussion (at the 2005 ACE-D/HH conference) given to these findings and their implications for de-sign of teacher preparation programs in deafness. In addition, the master copies of the teacher surveys can be used by teacher educators with their candidates to learn about important viewpoints on teaching methodology and philosophy, so as to aid in their development as fully certified teachers upon graduation.

Our best accomplishment was discovering the understanding that certification vs. non-certification is not an important differentiating characteristic for identifying quality in teaching; this finding applied both to certification in Science and Math as well as to being certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

We plan to present the findings at the 2006 annual ACE-D/HH conference, followed by discussions of their implications for teacher preparation.

We have no plans for systematically assessing the impact of the disseminated information, other than seeking responses to the formal presentation at the annual ACE-D/HH conference. We will solicit information at the ACE-D/HH conference on conference participants’ views of the implications for our data.

We would not expect any direct relationship to redesigning curriculum as a result of our research except in the curriculum of teacher education pro-grams. However, the data do have implications for state regulations regarding certification, and we would solicit ideas from colleagues as to how best they could work with their respective state departments of education to consider these data as certification regulations are revised.


Develop and carry out a systematic survey of three constituencies in regard to their criteria for identifying Master Teachers, followed by one-on-one interviews with selected respondents to the survey. This activity is an outgrowth of Year 1 and 2 efforts to specify the qualities of outstanding teach-ers of deaf education through National Board Certification in one case and in the other case special certification in a subject area (Math and Science). The constituencies to be surveyed are teacher educators in deafness, practicing teachers in deafness, and current school administrators in deafness. The information to be obtained will be used particularly by teacher education faculty in terms of the characteristics they need to foster in their pro-grams for candidates; it will be relevant to preservice teachers in identifying the characteristics that are considered to be highly desirable for future teachers. It may be that some teacher education programs may also use these criteria for admission of candidates into teacher education.

A presentation will be made at the 2006 annual ACE-D/HH conference to present the findings of the survey and discuss their implications for teacher education in deafness. It would be expected at least half of the programs in teacher education would either incorporate these criteria into their admis-


sion process and/or actively foster the development of these identified behaviors and skills during the internship experiences required of their candi-dates before graduation and certification.

Topical Team 2.1 – Goals for possible no-cost extension Year 4

An analysis of which teacher education programs are in fact carrying out any aspects of change in their curricula as a result of the data presented in Years 1, 2, and 3. Before-and-after copies of their curricula could be analyzed for changes and interviews could be conducted with randomly se-lected teacher-education faculty in this regard.






Topical Team 2.2 Content Competence

Using action research and the Virtual Professional Development School (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. 6.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Increase the number of team members. ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

11 / 11 / 100%


Assess the use by Master Teachers of research based teaching strate-gies in Science, Math and Literacy.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

40 / 38 / 95%


Begin developing PowerPoint presentations illustrating the use of re-search-based instructional strategies in Math, Science and Literacy.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

11 / 11 / 100%



Raw Number

Ratio % Raw Number

Ratio %


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

Conduct literature reviews on research based practices in Math, Sci-ence and Literacy instruction and make them accessible to the JT community.

4

/

4

/

100%

6.e. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Identify the alignment of state standards and content demands for teachers of the deaf.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

50 / 33 / 66%


6.a. Team Members We are comfortable with the Topical Team Experts (TTEs) we have identified.

6.b. Assess Use of Research-Based Strategies in Content Areas by Master Teachers Baseline data were collected by means of a web-based survey which gathered information from 38 Master Teachers about the use of research-based strategies in Math, Science, and Literacy. Data were uploaded to www.deafed.net. Nine of the 10 literacy practices were highly regarded by Master Teachers. The exception was phonemic awareness, which is a concept new to the field. If there is time at the end of the grant, we will address this particular area because it is controversial. All 10 of the Science and Math indicators were highly regarded by the Master Teachers.

6.c. PowerPoint presentations We authorized five individuals (Harry Lang, Elaine Gale, Susan Easterbrooks, Brenda Stephenson, and Sandy Hus-ton) to develop PowerPoints of instructional practices associated with five of the Science/Math strategies and six of the Literacy strategies. All Pow-erPoints are roughly 85% completed. Master Teachers will be asked to review our PowerPoint presentations. We are awaiting receipt of all the Pow-erPoints before we make this request. Once the PowerPoints have been completed, the Topical Team Leaders (TTLs) will contact four university programs to utilize them within their preservice courses.

From the exception to the rule, PK-20 Science, Math and Literacy “best practices” must be identified, understood and shared. Susan Easterbrooks used these content strategies in two of her courses with preservice teachers as well as sharing them with the four principals and Director of Instruc-tion at the Tennessee School for the Deaf. These have also been posted on www.deafed.net.

6.d. Literature Review Literature reviews in Science, Math, and Literacy were conducted and uploaded to the Topical Team 2.2 bulletin board. We have also posted five web site reviews for Literacy and five web site reviews for Math and Science. TTLs placed these literature reviews along with an executive summary and data report of the States’ reviews on the ACE-D/HH listserv (293 members). This generated much debate over what con-stitutes “research.” Several members sent e-mails thanking us for the literature reviews. No comments were received regarding the states’ reviews. The following descriptions of the literature review work are excerpts from the www.deafed.net database:



An extensive literature review of research on Mathematics and students who are d/hh with implications for best practices in teaching Mathe-matics content has been completed and submitted to Susan Easterbrooks by e-mail attachment for her to put on www.deafed.net. This litera-ture review was completed in collaboration with Ronald R. Kelly. We have offered summaries of about 35 research studies, coding each one according to type of research, and categorizing the studies in broad areas for easy access by educators and other researchers.

(Harry Lang) We have three literature reviews completed in Science and Math and one literature review completed in Literacy. We also have the 20 prac-

tices that were related to the reviews and evaluated by the Master Teachers. Brenda Simmons and I will develop a reader-friendly version of these materials that will relate the literature reviewed to the 20 practices identified and then rated by the teachers so that the relationship be-tween these two documents is evident. (Susan Easterbrooks)

6.e. Academic Standards - content specific standards Data were collected from 33 states. For the remaining 17 states, information will be gathered through the online resource netTrekker.com. Our approach to the needs assessment was to review what it is states’ were requiring of their teachers of the d/hh in terms of content to be addressed. We combined this information with our literature reviews and web site reviews to identify content best practices, which were followed up by the Master Teacher survey. Following are excerpts from the executive summary of the content review:

Part I: Commonalities Among the Standards: Content Matter all Future Teachers Must Know

There is a commonality of structure among the standards. Most are broken down into strands or categories as well as by grade level or grade range. Listed below are topics and concepts appearing in virtually all of the states’ curriculum documents. Topics not appearing repeatedly, such as science safety and vertex-edge graphs, were not included. Interestingly, in none of the summary documents gathered by the team members was there mention of motivation as a factor in literacy. This may be a result of the fact summaries were presented, not comprehensive content requirements. This is not an exhaustive list of curriculum objectives or standards but is intended to present content with which all future teachers of students who are d/hh must be familiar.

Mathematics Math skills Solve problems Understand and use Math terminology, processes, and operations Reason mathematically Make real world mathematical connections and applications

Math topics Number sense and computation Measurement and estimation Ratios, proportions and percents Algebra Spatial sense and geometry Statistics, data analysis, and probability


Patterns, functions and relationships Discrete mathematics

Science Science skills Scientific process and inquiry Scientific classification Communicating and reasoning scientifically Application of science and technology to the individual and to society Critical thinking and problem solvingScience topics (science themes) History and principles of science Natural sciences - matter, its properties, structures, and functions Energy and its effects on matter Earth and space Earth’s dynamic systems; ecology; diversity and continuity of living things Life science, cycles Chemistry and physics

Literacy Literacy Skills (Broad) Understanding and using oral and written English (listening, speaking, reading, writing) Skill application Evaluation, analysis and reasoning of and through text Connections and application to self and societyLiteracy Topics (and specific skills) Genres (e.g., mysteries, science fiction, poetry) and types of written materials (e.g., texts, manuals, newspapers, forms, visuals) National Reading Panel categories: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension Purposes: informative, narrative, persuasive, outline; reading for enjoyment Research reading and writing

Part II: Interview Results: What help is available to teachers of students who are d/hh from their states regarding content instruction of students who are d/hh.

1. Most (but not all) states have highly specified core curriculums.

2. With the exception of one state, all states require all of their teachers of the d/hh to teach “from the general curriculum”.

There appear to be three different approaches taken to the general curriculum: 1) The “one size fits all” version.


“There are no alternatives. All children will achieve”2) The “mix and match” version.“Teachers may use the standards appropriate for a child’s current level of functioning in each subject area.” One state allows teachers to choose language arts and math objectives based on current levels of functioning, but all subject area standards must be age-appropriate.3) The “rungs of the ladder” version. Some states require teachers to show a connection between IEP objectives and curriculum standards but allow teachers to teach objectives in the IEP.

3. No states reported giving teachers of the d/hh specific guidance on how to make appropriate modifications to the general education curriculum

4. No states gave specific guidance on how to decide when a student should be on the regular curriculum or a special curriculum.

5. Most states that gave an answer regarding alternative assessments indicated that their alternative assessments were given to students with severe to profound cognitive impairments

6. No state provided any graduation data on students who are d/hh that is disaggregated from all of special education or from all learners who are d/hh.

7. Very little is being done to address the problems surrounding high school exit exams.

Discussion: After a review of the states’ structures of curriculum in Literacy, Science and Math, there seems to be a lack of clarity of the difference between a standard and a set of curriculum entries. In other words, curriculum is often used interchangeably with standard when data were collected. In written documents many states’ indicate their standards provide the targets for instruction and student learning and they are not to be seen as a cur-riculum or a prescribed series of activities. Instead it is written school entities are to use the standards to develop a local school curriculum that will meet local students’ needs. Again, the standards provide a definition of the categories of skills or strategies local schools must address, but they are not “standards” by vocabulary definition. In practice, most constituents indicated their standards or their Standard Course of Study is in fact their cur-riculum for all students. Thus, there still appears to be confusion between content standards, knowledge, skills, and/or strategies every child should master.

Presently, the overall expectation is that students with hearing loss will be placed in the regular curriculum. While people use terms such as individ-ualizing and differentiating learning, none of the states provide a definition of what those terms mean, nor do they provide guidance for their teachers on how to implement them. In addition, even though there is an attempt to align the curriculum content with standards, there seems to be a fractur-ing of how this is addressed as indicated by such terms as parallel curriculum, or modified curriculum. Again, no clarification is provided of what those terms mean. Moreover, while all states indicated teachers of students who are d/hh must differentiate materials, instructional strategies, and methods, no state delineates how. Teacher preparation programs need to make sure that teachers of the deaf have had experience in navigating the state’s curriculum and curriculum web site.

To address the problems identified in this review of content standards, we recommend the following:


Teacher preparation programs must make sure their teachers in training understand the basic set of Literacy, Math, and Science concepts out-lined above as well as how to teach these.

Teacher preparation programs need to give teachers in training experience in identifying general education curriculum objectives and relating these to IEP objectives to identify how to bridge the gap between what is expected of students and their present levels of functioning.

Deaf education professionals need to support dis-aggregation of data on students who are d/hh from the general special education data.Regarding bullet #2, each of the PowerPoints we developed includes a video clip of a lesson from that Master Teacher’s state curriculum.

Problems/Challenges

Dissemination - We tried the www.deafed.net bulletin board and the listservs to disseminate this information but feel this has not been sufficiently productive. We will seek assistance from the JT Project office in setting up a chat room to discuss all materials, the date and time of which will be an-nounced.


Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for the use of the research information to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, Master Teachers and the entire field. Outcome: Increase in knowledge-base and use of content best practices by d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty and Master Teachers. The TTLs are working on reader friendly articles of the literature reviews and Master Teacher data. These are still in rough draft form.

Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of content best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence.

We are just about to complete the task of putting the content best practices into PowerPoint Presentations to be used by our colleagues around the na-tion in their instructional programs. Eleven such PowerPoints are being created and are 85 to 95% completed. They are in the process of being sent to Master Teachers for content and format reviews. While the Master Teachers are reviewing the PowerPoints, Team members are developing pertinent video clips to be incorporated into the PowerPoints at the time of revision. In addition to this action, we will be working with Topical Team 1.2/2.3, Technology Competence, to integrate additional technology recommendations into the PowerPoint presentations. Our contacts are Maribeth Lartz ([email protected]) and Shelley Popson Ardis ([email protected]). Our intention is to have all of this completed by the end of De-cember 2005 so in January and February we can try one presentation each in our classes. We plan to do a K-W-L chart and have our students fill these out regarding the practice. Next, they will integrate the practice into an instructional sequence they are doing in their classrooms. They will then do a reflection on the lesson they did and complete the K-W-L chart. We will share this information during the presentation at the 2006 ACE-D/HH conference, where the plan is to roll out the PowerPoints, demonstrate their use, and recruit other teacher educators to implement some of the Power-Point presentations into their classrooms and to document student and pupil performance in the process.

Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies information into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ content best practices competence. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


grant’s impact by assisting institutes of higher education (IHE) in informing their faculty of the existence and use of content best practices that en-hance the academic performance of students who are d/hh.

We will include a summary of the results of the preservice teachers’ experiences on the PowerPoints. These final products will be made available to all teacher preparation programs in ACE-D/HH.






Topical Team 2.4 Assessment Best Practices

Using action research and the Virtual Professional Development School (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 d/hh which results in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers.


Increase number of team members. ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

11 / 12 / 109%


Complete literature review on research-based assessment strategies and make it accessible to the Join Together (JT) community.


Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

7 / 7 / 100%


Complete needs assessment survey. ProjectTarget Actual Performance Data

Raw Number Ratio %

Raw Number Ratio %

90 / 87 / 96%


7.a. & 7.b. Increase number of team members & complete literature review We recruited professionals in the field of deaf education to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature in assessment of literacy, math, science, language, multi-cultural, educational environment, and accommodations related to students who are deaf or hard of hearing (d/hh). The purpose of this review was to identify “best practices” in the area ED 524B Page 33 of 48

OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

of assessment of students who are d/hh. The literature reviews were completed, posted on the grant website (www.deafed.net) and disseminated at the 2005 ACE-D/HH conference.

In Year 2 we recruited additional professionals to convert the individual literature reviews into summaries that can be downloaded from the grant web site in a PDF format. The drafts have been completed and the final work is being undertaken and are scheduled to be completed by November 2005. Samples of this work include: Elaine Gale created PDFs from Inspiration documents. They are easy to read one-page documents that are excellent visual displays of the

findings of Topical Team 2.4. One example, High Stakes Accountability Assessment, gives the definition of the assessment, presents both the pros and cons, and shares how high stakes testing can work for students who are d/hh. Another one-page PDF example on multicultural assessment shows the difference in assessment considerations for hearing students and students who are d/hh.

Through work by Sam Slike, mathematics checklists of national and state standards in the areas of science and technology were created for teach-ers of the d/hh. Accompanying grids for these checklists were also created to provide a quick overview of student progress for the teachers.

7.c. Needs assessment survey We developed and disseminated an online assessment survey to be completed by professionals, working in large K-12 programs throught the U.S., involved in the assessment of students who are d/hh. Eighty-seven professionals completed the survey. The data were analyzed. We are currently in the process of preparing this material for dissemination.

In addition, we developed a questionnaire focusing on teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and skills in the area of assessment. We pilot-tested the questionnaire with a group of teachers of students who are d/hh attending a professional development workshop on curriculum-based assessment. We are currently in the process of analyzing the data.

Assessment is complex. It is used to address where, what, and how to teach as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, programs, schools, and communities. In addition, many funding decisions are tied to assessment results. As such, this has been a difficult topic to appropriately examine and to report in a useful manner. In addition, while multiple perspectives about how assessment should be conducted with students who are d/hh exist, there is a paucity of research on this essential topic.

Given the multiple aspects that assessment plays in education, it has been difficult to pick the essential areas to focus on for the purposes of the grant. As a result, it has been challenging to appropriately involve colleagues to participate in grant activities. To address this problem we will work with the JT Project Directors and the evaluators to prioritize what aspects of assessment to focus upon in order to ensure that professionals and preservice teachers become knowledgeable of assessment practices.


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, activities for this Topical Team will focus upon establishing a growing cadre of Topical Teams experts and members who are working to:

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 Years 1 and 2

demonstrate and facilitate the effective and efficient use of Web-based video conferencing technologies (WBVCT).

identify and encourage 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 having the established potential to document the academic performance of PK-12 students who are d/hh.

continue exploring 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 of Teams 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, in conjunction with the JT Project Co-Directors and Co-Evaluators, in the discussion, search and possible pilot of solutions to the lack of empirical evidence concerning the academic performance of students who are d/hh.

Additional Year 3 Goals

Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for its use to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, Master Teachers and Master Teachers.

Place the best practices PDF files on the grant website.

Write and disseminate the results of the survey of current assessment practices of students who are d/hh.

Analyze, write and disseminate the results of the pilot-study on teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and skills related to assessment. Expand the pilot study to include more teachers in different states.

Share the results of both studies (current assements practices and teacher’s attitudes, etc.) at the 2006 ACE-D/HH conference, at the Council for Exceptional Children’s 2006 conference in Utah, through a juried journal article, and through placement on www.deafed.net.

Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of assessment best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence.


Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of the assessment best practices into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ demonstration of assessment best practices competence. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting institutes of higher education (IHE) in informing their faculty of the existence and use of assessment best practices that enhance the academic performance of students who are d/hh.

Present at professional conferences, publish in professional journals, place summaries on the grant website and conduct professional development workshops using video conferencing and web-based delivery.

The use of video conferencing and web-based technology will encourage the use of technology by preservice teachers and teachers in the field.

Topical Team 2.4 will select 5-10 things they have learned about effective assessment with deaf students. They will create video-based cases illus-trating these assessment strategies. They will implement these cases studies into their teaching to determine their effectiveness in terms of teaching the strategies. They will link up with other teams (e.g., 1.2/2.3, 2.2) to offer assistance in assessing student outcomes of their teaching strategies. They will document the effectiveness with the TTLs first, and then more broadly in the deaf education community. They will work with the JASON Expedition project by recommending an appropriate performance based pretest related to the expected outcomes from the JASON Project.




SECTION B - Budget Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

Statement of Actual Expenditures

Category Year 110/1/03-9/30/04

Year 210/1/04-9/30/05

Total10/1/03-9/30/05

Salaries & Wages $60,755 $97,488 $158,243Consultants $26,908 $51,254 $78,162Non-Kent State $42,577 $101,104 $143,681Employee Benefits $16,039 $29,760 $45,799Travel $49,427 $70,871 $120,298Supplies $3,640 $10,889 $14,529Misc. Expenses* $5,690 $24,564 $30,254Communications $3,106 $6,763 $9,869SubContract $17,000 $25,500 $42,500Equipment $0 $9,144 $9,144Total Direct Costs $225,141 $427,337 $652,478Indirect Costs $18,011 $34,187 $52,198Total Expenditure $243,153 $461,523 $704,676Cost Share Expenditure $260,667 $419,241 $679,908

A total of $704,676 was expended in the two year grant period 101/03 thru 9/30/05. During this same period $679,908 in non-Federal matching funds (cost share) was expended.

Explanation of Less Than Expected Expenditure Rates

Overall, the budgets for year one ($451,458) and year two ($549,850) total $1,001,308 with $296,632 (30%) unexpended as of 9/30/05. In looking at year two, one sees that we left only $88,327 (16%) unexpended at year end. This is a substantial improvement over the 53% left unexpended as of our year one report.


OMB No. 1890-0004Exp. 10-31-2007

By increasing the number and types of communications (informing of our Project and encouraging participation) to the nations deaf education fac-ulty, their students, and pK-12 teachers of deaf and hard of hearing, we have made great strides in overcoming the expenditure issues faced our first one (see year one report). Nevertheless, we continue to face and address the following challenges:

1. The matching equipment dollars (for videoconferencing equipment) budgeted for years one and two have been used only sparsely. Although interest in video conferencing continues to be high in selected K-12 schools and postsecondary deaf education program, the technological challenges and educational concerns regarding this technology have been more difficult to overcome than anticipated. To address this issue, Project co-Directors and technology staff have introduced a two-prong approach to their communications with programs – when higher level video conferencing systems seem to overwhelm a program’s administration or tech area, we introduce lower end resources (e.g., eyeball web cameras, iVisit). While these resources are much more limited in nature, they serve to open the doors to acceptance of higher end, classroom observation level systems.

2. A smaller number of individuals than initially envisioned have stepped forward to work on/with this Project. This is not from a lack of enthu-siasm or interest (as we consistently meet with both when communicating with individuals) but rather from an extreme difficulty on every-one’s part to “work one more thing into” their schedule. Achieving our Project’s goals and objectives relies primarily on a largely dispersed group of people i.e., faculty and preservice teachers from the nation’s 72 deaf ed. teacher preparation programs and those pK-12 teachers from across the nation who were nominated as Master Teachers in our project. Most believe in our Project’s vision and want to help but re-grettably have not realized how working with us might benefit them. We are working to address this issue by more personalized communica-tions including developing lists of concrete ideas of how working on one of our objectives, and/or applying lessons we have learned to date, will actually fit into what they are already currently doing i.e., how it will benefit them. We believe this more individualized approach, cou-pled with the already present enthusiasm and interest, will increase the numbers of individuals working with our project. Note: because indi-viduals receive $500 for 25 hours of approved, goal/objective related work, an increase in individual participation will increase our grant ex-penditure rate.

Cost ShareThe $679,908 in cost share captured as of 9/30/05 reflects 96.5% of our dollar-for-dollar matching requirements. We are on target to fulfill our cost share obligation. Items of note:

1. In our year one report, which covered only 10 months, we reported $187,855 in cost share captured. The total amount captured for year one, as reported above, is $260,667 (an additional $72,812). This additional amount reflects: a) cost share captured in the final two months of the year, and b) a correction by the Project Coordinator to how cost share was being collected and from whom. This correction has allowed us to calculate and capture cost share more completely and accurately as the Project has progressed. No further such correc-tions are anticipated to be needed.

2. With the corrections noted above, we are on target to fulfill our dollar-for-dollar cost share (matching) requirements. However, there was an overestimation of cost share expected from both our parent organization (ACE-D/HH) and other national deafness organizations. This was a result of our enthusiasm for the work outlined in our initial proposal and the expectation that there would be no difficulty in having an appropriate number of individuals working on the project. Although we continue to be hopeful we can capture more than a dollar-for-dollar match, we request approval to reduce our non-federal cost share commitment to $1,560,900. If approved, the Project Office will submit revised cost share statements from our collaborators.


Budget Changes Due to Modification of Project ActivitiesDue to the increase in communications and technical assistance relating to video conferencing use, we need to increase the level of time/effort from the “videoconferencing director”. The increase is from 25% CY ($13,515) to 50% CY ($27,030) beginning 10/1/05 (plus benefits at approximately 32.5%).

Additionally, to support the increased time and activities of the videoconferencing director, the Project Assistant staffing will increase from 79% CY ($20,063) to 100% CY ($25,397) beginning 10/1/05 (plus benefits at approximately 47.5%).

Anticipated Changes in Operational Budget for Year Three (10/1/05-9/30/06)Unexpended funds, as explained above, allow for year three budget re-allocations (outlined below) which will address problems realized in years one and two and allow the project to utilize newly identified strategies and resources in accomplishing our goals.

1. Duplicating what was done in Year 2, monies ($12,500) to be re-allocated for individuals’ work on activities which benefit two or more goals/objectives of the project. Initially monies were allocated only for work specific to one of the eight project activities. However, we 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.

2. Duplicating what was done in Year 2, a travel re-allocation of $5,000 for 4-7 persons (two project co-Directors, 1-4 evaluators, and Project Coordinator) to meet late in the project year to review evaluation activities of current year, write annual report and identify project and evaluation activities for fourth year (no-cost extension) if appropriate.

3. We wish to allocate $750 for office supplies and small non-necessity items to given to appropriate project participants as “incentives”. During year two, the Project Coordinator found that awarding small recognitions of appreciation (e.g., pens & pencils, post-it and note pads, highlighters) to our Master Teachers and others achieved outstanding involvement levels when asking for suggestions, input, opin-ions, survey participation, etc. Additionally the Project Coordinator sends holiday and birthday cards (store bought and homemade). This has all served to foster very good relationships with many individuals and contributes to higher rates of attentiveness. [To test the success of incentives, and to foster the resultant networks, during Year 2 the Project Coordinator was able to utilize funds (over $600) of a Deaf Education Network Foundation account.]

4. Re-allocate equipment monies ($4,000) into the supply line to cover purchases of eyeball/web cameras for project participants. Because of the reluctance or apprehension of schools and individuals to use higher level videoconferencing equipment, we have begun focusing on lower-end technologies to introduce and increase program’s and individual’s comfort zones. Utilizing project provided eyeball cameras and using our Project iVisit subscription (iVisit.com: an Internet based video conferencing system which allows sharing of files and web-sites, has chat features, etc.), others are learning the benefits of video conferencing and its potential for virtual professional development (a goal of our project).

5. Re-allocate equipment monies ($7,500) into the supply line to cover purchase of up to 50 copies of PVX software for use by select Project participants. The PVX software ($150) allows persons with eyeball cameras ($40-75) to experience videoconferencing similar to a higher


level system (e.g., Polycom ViaVideo $600). We will pilot test this pairing of eyeball cameras and the PVX software to see how it might best fit within a Virtual Professional Development School or network.

SECTION C - Additional Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

Current members1 of the Project’s Executive Advisory Board are: Todd Houston, Executive Director, Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) Roger and Sherry Williams, Co-Presidents (replace Natalie Long), American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC) Nancy Benham, Past-President, Assoc. of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH) Bill Stark, Project Director, Captioned Media Program (CMP) Andy Lange (replaces Roger Kraft), Public Affairs Officer, Communicatoin Services for the Deaf (CSD) Claire Bugen, President, Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) Robert Hill, President, Council of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID) Roslyn Rosen Executive Director, Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) Leeanne Seaver, Executive Director, Hands & Voices National2

Harry Lang, Professor, National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID)/RIT David Buchkoski (replaces Ray Olson), Director, PEPNet (Postsecondary Education Programs Network) Robert Graham, Director, Resoure Materials & Technology Center (RMTC): D/HH Chris Otten, ROSCOR Corporation3

Betty Beale, Director, Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) Randy Wilhelm, President/CEO, Thinkronize

1 – Our Project has lost the counsel of the a) Ohio Regional Resource Center for Low Incidence Sever Handicaps (ORCLISH) due to the state dis-banding that group during a restructure, and b) the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) due to personnel shifts and a realignment of their support priorities.2 – Hands and Voices National has recently joined our Board and brings to it a passionate viewpoint from parents of children who are deaf/hard of hearing.3 – Chris Otten remains on our Board and represents the business world perspective of video conferencing. However, Mr. Otten is now with ROSCOR Corp. rather than ReView Video.

One additional change in Project leadership is that Karen Warren, American School for the Deaf (CT), has recently replaced Jorge Maldonado, PEP-Net (MN) as co-Leader of Objective Team 1.1 (Technology Infrastructure).

GPRA data


Indicator 1.1 Curriculum Redesign.

The percentage of funded teacher preparation programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology in teacher education will increase.

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 (JT) grant. However, the faculty members have been involved in the prior Capacity Building and Catalyst grants since 1999. Thus, this in-formation provides a good baseline for the JT grant.

In Year 2, the primary focus has been on the development of interventions that could be introduced into teacher preparation programs as a way of re-designing their curriculum. During Year 2, the virtual study groups were pilot tested with three teacher preparation programs. The data support the feasibility and effectiveness of using this as a strategy. These will be tested on a broader basis in Year 3. Also, the PowerPoints that are being devel-oped on effective teaching strategies will be pilot tested in selected teacher preparation programs in Year 3.

The primary objective of the Diversity team is to increase the cadre of teachers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Actual data on the number of new teachers proficient in using technology and integrating technology into classroom instruction is very difficult to gather for this particular objective. Logically, if the physical pool of diverse teachers is increased, the number of technology-proficient teachers will increase ac-cordingly. In addition, faculty comments from the Year 1 needs assessment included discussion of their use of technology as a recruitment and sup-port strategy.

As one indication, preservice teachers at three deaf education teacher preparation programs were surveyed to determine important factors in their se-lection of a deaf education program. Survey results revealed that integration of technology was a high priority for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (4.41/5.0). Preservice teachers who value the integration of technology as an instructional tool for their own learning are more likely to be-come technology proficient teachers and use technology in their own instructional practices.

Indicator 1.2 Technology-proficient faculty

The percentage of faculty members in funded teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology in their teaching will increase.

Although we do not have information directly related to an increase in technological proficiency as of yet (Year 3 survey) the Year 1 survey re-sults indicated that faculty view themselves as proficient in presentation software, research on the Internet, online discussions, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and TTY or TTD use. The priorities for workshop topics for faculty include content specific software, internet video relay, iCommunicator, VREAL, Baldi and Sign Smith. The effectiveness of the technology-related workshops (whether face to face or virtual) will be assessed through research studies conducted in Year 3.

Indicator 2.1 Learning resources

The percentage of teacher preparatory programs that use Web-based, multimedia learning resources, course materials, and teaching tools will in-crease, as will the programs use of video conferencing technologies as a collaborative and instructional tool.


The pilot projects for the multi-state deaf education programs were both inter and intra-state/regional collaborations. Anecdotal information on the ef-fectiveness of these collaborations was collected for the grant documentation but more formal evaluations have not yet been implemented. A formal evaluation will be developed for the current D/HH Multi-state Collaborative between UALR, UNO, GSU, and VSU. The concept paper and timeline for this collaboration is attached to this report.

Teacher preparation programs will be invited to participate in the pilot testing of technology-based materials on the topics of teaching in the content areas (science, math and literacy) and effective assessment strategies for deaf students. Research data on these learning resources will be collected in Year 3.

Evaluation Plan for Year 3The evaluation activities in Year 2 revealed a number of areas that need to be revised or added in Year 3. The evaluation plan for Year 3 includes specific evaluation activities by objective, as well as evaluation activities that look at the broader picture of the overall project and its impact.

As the project becomes more complex, the project directors have requested additional evaluation data on an on-going basis. To that end, the evalua-tion will provide data on the overall functioning of the project, as well as by objective team.

Overall, the evaluation will make systematic inquiry on a number of priority items: Document interactions amongst the objective teams (e.g. Assessment and Content Instruction) and collaborations between faculty and Master

Teachers and between faculty at one program with faculty at another program Improved access to usable products (e.g., literature reviews, power points) by evaluating there current placement in www.deafed.net and ways

to make them more accessible Evaluate the overall help given to TTLs with regard to the production of web-based products, especially those that are video-based Overall evaluation of the website to determine revisions that make it more useful to the Join Together community Evaluate the role of the Executive Advisory Board, Master Teachers and Cyber Mentors in terms of the amount, type and impact of their con-

tributions. Evaluate the project-developed newsletters for each target audience Involvement in the project by the deaf community Access to video-based products through the use of captioning Assess the impact of the ACE-DHH on-line professional development effort to sustain and expand the grant’s impact

With regard to each objective team, the evaluation rubric will include the following items: Document reviews of phone conference notes Document reviews of choice data Interviews with TTLs and others of the Join Together community in to provide project leadership with information on a quarterly basis. Action research/case studies to evaluate the nature of use and the effectiveness of infusing 5-10 things each team has learned into at least 5

faculty members course teaching. Action research will be conducted through the use of interviews, artifacts (as attached to Choices), surveys, and direct observations (e.g., via video and/or at the ACE-DHH conference.)

Capture spin-offs by bi-weekly calls with TTLs and project leadership (e.g., Jason Project) Performance measures will be monitored to insure data is being collected



GPRA indicators will be monitored to determine data relevant to them Common data points will be used in surveys from year 1 and 2 and 3.

Restructuring the Evaluation TeamWith the increased demand for evaluation data, the need arises to restructure the evaluation team so that the data can be collected and discussed with the appropriate stakeholders in a timely way. Dr. Donna Mertens will continue as Lead Evaluator. John McLaughlin will no longer be the co-evalua-tor because of other commitments. Dr. Mertens will work with a team of individuals who represent various areas of expertise relevant to the objec-tives so that frequent communication and data collection and reporting is possible. Dr. Katrina Bledsoe, Assistant Professor at the College of New Jersey, received her PhD from Claremont University in applied social sciences and program evaluation and specializes in theory-based evaluation and complex cultural contexts. She will be responsible for objectives 1.2/2.3 and 1.3. Dr. Pauline Ginsberg, a Professor at Utica College, has experi-ence in cross-cultural research and evaluation that spans 23 years. She will be responsible for objective 2.1. Heidi Holmes is a doctoral student in the Department of Education at Gallaudet University and she will work with Dr. Mertens on objective 1.1.

Evaluation ReportingThe evaluators will provide quarterly reports to the project leadership on the activities and accomplishments of the teams. They will also contribute to the third year report.

Research and Evaluation Plan: Join Together Year 3October 2005-September 2006

Goal 1: Community of Practice


Objective Indicators of success/Outcomes Data collection methods & sources

Use of evaluation data Timeline

1.

1 T

echn

olog

ical

Infr

astr

uctu

reCreate an efficient collaborative net-work of CM, IHE, SEA and LEA that results in empirical evidence re-garding the impact of Web-based video conferencing to reform d/hh teacher preparation.

Increase amount of technical assis-tance provided to JT community

Increase the number of technology and software alternatives evaluated for VPDS

Increase number of JT members who use Web Based Video Conferencing Technology (WBVCT)

Increase number and diversity of participants in the community of learners through the Virtual Profes-sional Development School

-On-going assessment and docu-mentation of technical assistance provided to JT.-Action research on effective use of technology in cooperation with the TTLs, Executive Advisory Board, and the Join Together com-munity.-Follow-up on needs assessment re: access to and use of video con-ferencing- Review of phone conference notes and choices-Quarterly reports to evaluators

To identify need for equip-ment & professional develop-ment; to determine the status of equipment & effectiveness of support; to provide evi-dence of effective strategies for use of technology.

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technology uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Conference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evalua-tors re: accomplishments and challenges to inform project leadership just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports.


1.2/

2.3

Fac

ulty

& P

rese

rvic

e T

each

ers T

echn

olog

ical

Com

pete

nce

& U

se o

f Res

ourc

es

Conduct professional development for faculty and preservice teachers

Research evidence of technological competencies & curricular & techno-logical modifications

Increase use of virtual study groups to respond to technology needs iden-tified in first year baseline survey

Increase use of bulletin boards for first year teachers and student teach-ers in deaf education programs to ex-change information regarding tech-nologically based lessons and the use of devices and materials with other teacher prep programs.

Capture the way technology has changed the lives of deaf students through videotaped interviews & use in teacher prep programs

Increase number and diversity of team members

-Workshop evaluation forms-Participant observation/interviews-Performance assessment-Action research on effective tech-nological competencies, curricular resources, & technological modifi-cations.- Review of phone conference notes and choices-Quarterly reports to evaluators

To determine effectiveness of training materials; to provide evidence of effective strategies for developing faculty & pre-service teachers competencies.

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technology uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Conference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evalua-tors re: accomplishments and challenges to inform project leadership just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports.


1.3

Tea

cher

Div

ersi

ty Diversity of d/hh preservice teachers increases; Increased achievement of ALL students

Increase number of people involved with issues of diversity

Increase knowledge base for dissemi-nation of strategies to increase pre-service teacher diversity (FAQ’s)

Determine factors associated with greater success in recruiting and sup-porting a more diverse teaching pool (survey/focus groups)

Develop technologically accessible stories of diverse teachers as a method for supporting a more di-verse teacher pool

Implement strategies and investigate their effectiveness in deaf education teacher prep programs

-Monitoring of Bulletin Board re: discussion of recruitment issues-Participant observation/interviews-Action research on effectiveness of recruitment & instructional strategies-Case studies on strategies to re-cruit and support diverse preser-vice teachers- Review of phone conference notes and choices- Quarterly reports to evaluators

To identify potentially effec-tive strategies; To provide credible evidence of effective strategies.

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technology uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Conference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evalua-tors re: accomplishments and challenges to inform project leadership just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports

1.

4 M

ulti-

stat

e D

/HH

Tea

cher

Pre

pa-

ratio

n an

d C

ertif

icat

ion

Mod

el

Technology system installed and functioning across state lines;

Number of D/HH teachers with cross state certification increases as a re-sult of technology and grant

-Audit of equipment installation and functioning-Follow-up survey to determine number of teacher prep programs and faculty using technology to implement multi state teacher prep and certification-Frequency of teacher certification by state associated with technology and regional agreement-Interviews-Case studies of cross-state activi-ties- Review of phone conference notes and choices-Quarterly reports to evaluators

Document certification re-quirements; insure cross-state agreements are in place;

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technology uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Conference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evalua-tors re: accomplishments and challenges to inform project leadership just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports


Goal 2: Virtual Professional Development School

Objective Indicators of success/Outcomes Data collection methods & sources

Use Timeline

2.1

Inst

ruct

iona

l com

pete

nce

of p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs

Identify criteria for identifying Master Teachers for teacher educators, practicing teachers, and current school administra-tors in deafness

At least half of the programs in teacher education would either incorporate these criteria into their admission process and/or actively foster the development of these identified behaviors and skills during the internship experiences required of their candidates before graduation and certifi-cation.

Analyze which teacher education pro-grams are in fact carrying out any aspects of change in their curricula as the result of the data presented from Objective 2.1. in Years 1, 2, and 3.

-Administrator checklist to identify innovative teachers-Survey of teacher educators, practicing teachers, and cur-rent school administrators in deafness -Before-and-after copies of teacher prep programs’ curric-ula analyzed for changes, and interviews with randomly se-lected teacher-education fac-ulty in this regard.- Review of phone conference notes and choices-Quarterly reports to evalua-tors

Feedback to individual teachers; dissemination through national networks; publications

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technol-ogy uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Con-ference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evaluators re: accomplishments and chal-lenges to inform project leader-ship just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports


2.2

Content compe-

tence of preser-

vice teachers

Instructional strategies by Master Teach-ers, faculty, & preservice teachers result in improved PK-12 achievement

Research supports increased student achievement by improved preservice teacher content knowledge & instructional strategies.

Increase the number of team members

Assess the use of research based teaching strategies by MTs in science/math and lit-eracy

Develop Power Point presentations illus-trating the use of research-based instruc-tional strategies in math/science and liter-acy

Complete literature review on research based practices in math/science and liter-acy instruction and make it accessible to the JT community

Identify the alignment of state standards and content demands for teachers of the deaf.

Jason Project – investigate its effects for deaf students

-State mandated academic achievement tests in literacy, science & math-Document review of curricu-lum-Portfolios; on-site and Web-based observations; interviews-Case studies of use of Power Point presentations-Review of phone conference notes and choices- Quarterly reports to evalua-tors

-Inform community re: effective practices & resources, especially related to standards-based curriculum-Provide research-based evidence of ef-fective practices related to improved student achievement

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technol-ogy uses; progress reports bi-weekly with Co-PIs/TTL Con-ference Calls ; Quarterly reports to evaluators re: accomplishments and chal-lenges to inform project leader-ship just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports

2.4

Assessment

competence of

preservice

teachers

-Data base made accessible re: student performance data; assessment protocols-Documentation of use of and attitudes to-wards assessment strategies-Master Teacher, faculty, & preservice teachers increase their use of effective as-sessment strategies-Increased use of effective assessment yields increased achievement in PK-12 students.-Increase number of team members-Complete literature review on research-based assessment strategies and make it accessible to the JT community

-Workshop evaluation-Tests for PK-12 students (re-liable & valid student assess-ment instrument in content ar-eas)-Observations & interviews-Case studies of use of assess-ment strategies with deaf stu-dents-Review of phone conference notes and choices- Quarterly reports to evalua-tors

-Disseminate informa-tion to CoP re: assess-ment strategies;-Design training in as-sessment & modify as necessary;-Document impact of assessment on student achievement

Survey completed in the last 6 months; observations of technol-ogy uses; progress reports quar-terly with Co-PIs/TTL Confer-ence Calls ; Quarterly reports to evaluators re: accomplishments and chal-lenges to inform project leader-ship just in time; Review of quarterly reports from evaluator to project leadership; annual & final reports


-Increase use of strategies by deaf educa-tion teacher preparation program faculty and their PK-12 colleagues to document teacher candidate’s use of targeted, tech-nologically enhanced, assessment strate-gies during their instruction of literacy, mathematics and/or science within their field-based placements


Join Together Project: Year Two

Appendix AObjective 1: Technological Infrastructure and Use:

Virtual Topical Seminars

November 2004

17th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.3Technology Competence: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: Shelley Popson Ardis, Resource Materials and Technology Center: D/HHView video

10th: Join Together Project - Planning and Evaluating TeamworkPresenter: John McLaughlin, Evaluator/Independent ConsultantView video

4th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.4Assessment Competence: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: John Luckner, University of Northern ColoradoView video Transcript

3rd: Join Together Project - Objective 2.3Technology Competence: Introduction & OverviewPresenter: Maribeth Lartz, Illinois State UniversityView video

1st: Join Together Project - Objective 2.4Assessment Competence: Introduction & OverviewPresenter: Sandy Bowen, University of Northern ColoradoView video

October 2004

27th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.2Content Competence: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresented by Brenda Simmons, University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleView video

25th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.2Content Competence: Introduction & OverviewPresented by Brenda Simmons, University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleView video Transcript

20th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.1Instructional Competence: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: David Martin, Gallaudet University (Retired)View video

19th: Join Together ProjectResearch Strategies: Joining Deaf Educators TogetherPresenter: Donna Mertens, Gallaudet UniversityView video Transcript

18th: Join Together Project - Objective 2.1Instructional Competence: Introduction & Overview

ED 524B

http://www.deafed.net/activities/Transcripts/10_19_04VTS.doc

http://wmserver.kent.edu:8800/tmcneal/10-19.wmv











Presenter: Nanci Scheetz, Valdosta State UniversityView video Transcript

14th: Join Together Project - Objective 1.4Multi-state Certification and Preparation: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: Kate Reynolds, University of New OrleansView video Transcript

12th: Join Together Project - Objective 1.4Multi-state Certification and Preparation: Introduction and OverviewPresenter: Pamela Broadston, University of Arkansas Little RockView video Transcript

6th: Join Together Project - Objective 1.3Preservice Teacher Diversity: Application of Lessons Learned & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: Sharon Baker, University of Tulsa, OklahomaView video Transcript

5th: Join Together Project - Objective 1.3Preservice Teacher Diversity: Introduction & OverviewPresenter: Joyce Daugaard, University of MinnesotaView video Transcript

September 2004

27th: Join Together Project - Objective 1.2Faculty Technology Competence: Introduction & OverviewPresenter: Liz Parker, Utah State UniversityView video Transcript

23rd: Join Together Project - Objective 1.1Technology Infrastructure: Application Possibilities & Invitation to ParticipatePresenter: Tom McNeal, Kent State UniversityView video Transcript

21st: Join Together Project-Objective 1.1Technology Infrastructure: Introduction & OverviewPresenter: Tom McNeal, Kent State UniversityView video Transcript

Spring 2004

May 6: Early InterventionPresenter: Marilyn Sass-Lehrer, Gallaudet UniversityView video Transcript

April 1: Support of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Inclusion SettingsPresenter: John Luckner, University of Northern ColoradoView video Transcript

ED 524B

http://www.deafed.net/activities/Transcripts/4_1_04VTS.pdf

http://wmserver.kent.edu:8800/tmcneal/VTS2.wmv

http://www.deafed.net/activities/Transcripts/5_6_04VTS.pdf

http://wmserver.kent.edu:8800/tmcneal/sass-lehrer.wmv

















Join Together Project: Year TwoAppendix B

ED 524B

Team Leaders: Sharon Baker and Joyce DaugaardTeam Experts: Barbara Gerner deGarcia and Judy Coryell (not confirmed)Participants:

#1 FAQ #2 Survey of Pre-service Teachers and Focus Group

#4 Research Re-cruitment at Your University

#3 Collection of Personal Stories

#3 Sharing of Per-sonal Stories (Inser-vice)

Barbara Gerner de Garcia(D. C.)

Melissa DeLana(Lamar)

Nancy Benham(IUP)

Sandie Kelly (Kan-sas)

Linda Hill

Margaret Finnegan(Florida)

Laurie Sexton(Illinois State)

Elaine Gale(Hunter)

Shaitaisha Winston(Texas)

Carolyn McCaskill

Dee Klein(Pennsylvania)

Margaret Finnegan(Flagler)

Keith Ba ker(Texas)

Varsha Dandekar

Laurene Simms(Gallaudet)

Laurene Simms (Gallaudet,

Vivian Smith(Mississippi)

Kitty Graham

Tia Gardner (Gallaudet,

Melissa DeLana(Texas)

Loralee Plummer

Dee Klein(IUP, in process)

Judy Coryell(Hawaii)

Sabrina Simon

John Covell(Western Oregonin process)

Laurene Simms(Gallaudet)

Sutha Ramanathan

(Preservice)Student Assistants: Jonathan Leach

Amy Gengler Jose Ovidio Ve-lasquez “Ovi”

Tia Gardner(in process)

Peter Skarp

Shaitaisha WinstonYing Li

Join Together Project: Year TwoAppendix C

DRAFT 7/23/05

SERCLID Regional Personnel Preparation Model (RPPM)

Southeast Regional Consortium for Low Incidence Disabilities

Concept Paper: Interstate Online Collaborative for Teachers of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students

Background: The Southeast Regional Consortium for Low Incidence Disabilities (SERCLID) is a regional community of practice of professionals and consumers invested in identifying avenues to increase the number of highly qualified personnel serving students (early childhood through 12th grade) who are deaf/hard of hearing (D/HH), blind/visually impaired (B/VI), and deaf-blind (DB). In-creases in the quantity of qualified personnel are needed in six areas: (1) teachers of individuals who are deaf/hard of hearing, (2) teachers of individuals who are blind/visually impaired, (3) teachers of individuals who are deaf/blind; (4) educational interpreters; (5) orientation and mobility specialists; and (6) Braille transcribers. This regional framework was initiated and facilitated by the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) at the request of the state directors of special education in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the US Virgin Islands. SERRC is a project federally funded by the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Training personnel in low incidence disabilities poses unique challenges:

Low incidence disabilities are not a priority of institutes of higher education (IHEs). Many low incidence programs at IHEs are downsizing, some to single faculty programs. The local education agency needs for teachers are sporadic, but immediate. There is often a need for on the job training for uncertified personnel. The No Child Left Behind Act and highly qualified teacher requirements place new demands on teacher training.

To address these challenges, the concept of a Regional Personnel Preparation Model (RPPM) was developed by a task force of con-sortium representatives across the southeast region. The word “regional” is used very loosely here to describe various collaborative ac-tions within the southeast region rather than implying commitments or actions across all states and/or all higher education programs. The model must be based on collaboration between participating states in which resources are shared, rather than duplicated, and stan-dards are aligned. On the behalf of any personnel group (teachers, educational interpreters, orientation and mobility specialists, Braille transcribers) for any of the low incidence disabilities (deaf/hard of hearing, blind/visual impairment, deaf/blind), the RPPM task force identified a framework of design protocols or features (see page 2) that need to be in place for successful regional or multi-state col -laboration across personnel prep programs. The preliminary model is intended as a generic design that must be tailored to the individ -ual states and higher education programs where commitment sprouts into action. The autonomy of current IHE programs in low inci -dence disabilities as well as individual states’ licensure and certification must be recognized. It is assumed that any personnel prepara-tion collaborative would build upon the existing strengths of participating higher education programs. It is also assumed that the RPPM would comply with Federal Law (e.g., accessibility) and would consider nationally accepted models and practices.

State directors of special education and certification officers across the southeast region have signed their com-mitment to operationalize the regional personnel preparation model. This paper describes an online collabora-tive for the post-Baccalaureate preparation of teachers in deaf/hard of hearing education across four universities and three southeast states. Additional regional collaboratives are underway in training teachers of deaf-blind ed-ucation and orientation and mobility specialists.

Design Protocol for a Regional Personnel Preparation Model (RPPM) 1. Develop the RPPM concept

Develop a clear vision for the RPPM.Compile a listing or matrix of existent distance courses within region and nation-wide for possible use in new regional training pro-

gram curriculum.Establish a sequence of competencies / courses to ensure that all students have the same knowledge and skill base.Provide multiple pathways to training and certification.Establish state, center and local education agency schools as professional development schools with universities using Memoran-

dums of Understanding.

2. Develop and implement distance learningDevelop a matrix of various distance education delivery methods (technologies) that are compatible.

ED 524B

Design distance education accessible options for personnel preparation.Develop multi-entry / exit systems (e.g., prior learning portfolio assessment) for personnel preparation.Develop faculty expertise in moving from traditional course delivery to distance course offerings.Provide full time technology staff to train students and professors on technology use.

3. Establish and maintain collaborative teamsDetermine faculty roles (adjunct status, credentials). Develop a strategy for encouraging state legislators and university administrators to support regional collaborative efforts among

low incidence programs.Build collaboration partners across universities to assure players are in place above faculty level. Capture real “buy in” by university administrators so that time and money is allotted and collaborative efforts can succeed and grow.

4. Identify and coordinate institutional policies and proceduresIdentify institutional policies and obtain university support / acceptance of a RPPM by contractual agreements among collaborating

institutions.Encourage faculty and administration from teacher training programs in the region to meet and work on issues of collaboration and

transfer of credits and tuition issues.

5. Ensure that programs encompass multi-state standardsAlign personnel prep programs with state licensure / certification requirements.

6. Leverage funding sourcesEstablish a low incidence personnel prep consortium to effectively leverage a variety of funds.Ensure the financial backing to support the program delivery the way it needs to be to ensure the production of highly qualified per-

sonnel.

7. Design and implement systematic and coordinated recruitment processesPlan and implement recruitment activities with a focus on recruiting underrepresented groups.Build knowledge and skills in effective recruitment techniques in service providers, special education directors, higher education

personnel, and state education agencies.Provide fiscal support to preservice professionals.

8. Deliver regional personnel preparationIdentify inter and intra state supervisory resources and sites for internships and field experiences and include face to face supervision

and mentoring when appropriate.

9. Design and implement effective program evaluation and data collection processesInvestigate current evaluation systems and establish needed evaluation system for the regional personnel prep model.Establish commonly accepted meaningful data resources to indicate low incidence disability prevalence and personnel shortages

across the region including change over time.

10. Ensure successful communication among consortium stakeholdersDevelop a regional personnel prep model stakeholder team that meets regularly and participates in ongoing communication initiated

through technology on efforts in the southeast region.Establish a system to foster regular communication between the special education divisions of state departments of education and

university administrative leadership.

Description of RPPM for D/HH Teachers: Converging collaboration for add-on certification

Georgia State University (GSU) and Valdosta State University (VSU) have developed an intrastate online certificate program for teacher preparation of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students. Simultaneously the Southeast Regional Consortium for Low Inci-dence Disabilities (SERCLID) and the Join Together Grant awarded to the Association of College Educators in Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH) have engaged in efforts to establish region-wide collaboratives to meet the pervasive, critical shortages of per -sonnel in low incidence disabilities. The synchronous efforts between the GSU/VSU intrastate collaborative and SERCLID activities led to the intent to expand to an interstate collaborative. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and the University of New Orleans (UNO) intend to develop a collaborative interstate online program based on the GSU/VSU model. Once established, these two collaboratives (GSU/VSU and UALR/UNO) intend to converge into a southeast regional personnel preparation model. This multi-state collaborative is intended as an add-on certification for participants who are currently credentialed teachers in their respec-tive states.

The need for creative solutions to the pervasive, critical shortages of personnel in low incidence disabilities was identified as a priority by the state directors of special education in the southeast region (via the Southeast Regional Resource Center) and the U.S. Depart -ment of Education (via the Join Together Grant awarded to the ACE-D/HH. This was the impetus for the development of a Regional Personnel Preparation Model (RPPM) by a task force of consortium representatives across the southeast region. The word “regional” is used very loosely here to describe various collaborative actions within the southeast region rather than implying commitments or ac-tions across all states and/or all higher education programs. The model should be based on collaboration between participating states in which resources are shared, rather than duplicated, and standards are aligned. The consortium members felt strongly that the auton -ED 524B

omy of current IHE programs in low incidence disabilities as well as individual states’ licensure and certification be recognized. State directors of special education and certification officers across the southeast region have signed a Memorandum of Understanding indi-cating their commitment to operationalize inter-university/interstate personnel preparation models for certification of personnel in low incidence disabilities areas. Donna Zornes, Coordinator for the Arkansas Office of Teacher Quality, in her role as the southern re-gional director of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education Certification (NASDTEC) has committed to facili-tate communication among state certification officers toward the development and implementation of an agreement for interstate mo-bility of certification in DHH.

The purposes of establishing an interstate, multi-university collaborative model are to:

1. Prepare highly qualified teachers of DHH in a manner that surpasses the capability of any single university program;2. Allow combined resources of the universities to prepare more students than each program can prepare individually;3. Increase student access to a variety of faculty expertise from multiple universities;4. Increase student semester credit hours (SSCHs) for all involved universities;5. Allow teacher candidates from all areas of the region to access a variety of course offerings;6. Grant reciprocity of certification between participating states;7. Create a community of online learners;8. Provide a technology based program to prepare educators for the student of the 21st century;9. Improve pre-kindergarten through grade 12 education of students who are DHH;10. Fill the critical shortage experienced throughout the southeast region.

Coordination of convergent design efforts would include frequent and purposeful opportunities for program planning throughout year 1 (2005-2006) across the four universities. The following events would take place:

Year 1 (Summer, 2005 – Summer, 2006)1. Prepare for Fall 2006 roll-out of GSU/VSU intrastate collaborative.2. Design the UALR/UNO interstate collaborative with significant support and input from GSU/VSU. 3. Obtain MOUs from all four university Deans.4. Begin design of convergent model (GSU/VSU/UALR/UNO multi-state collaborative) for 2007-2008 delivery5. Align coursework among all four institutions of higher education.6. Work with state certification officers to develop and implement an interstate contract for mobility of certification in

DHH across Arkansas and Louisiana (with significant support and input from Georgia certification office).

Year 2 (Fall, 2006 – Summer, 2007)1. Implement parallel models (GSU/VSU intrastate and UALR/UNO interstate collaboratives)2. Complete design of convergent model (GSU/VSU/UALR/UNO multi-state collaborative) for 2007-2008 delivery3. Submit convergent model to all applicable administrative bodies to all four universities for approval4. Expand interstate contract for mobility of certification in DHH across Arkansas and Louisiana to include Georgia5. Design brochure promoting Add-on certificate program in deaf and hard of hearing: A multi-state collaborative6. Develop website for application process and general information

Year 3 (Fall, 2007 – Summer, 2008) 1. Implement the Add-on certificate program in deaf and hard of hearing: A multi-state collaborative for the first co-

hort of students.The RPPM for D/HH Teachers would build on prior experiences that the four universities have in distance course sharing and would expand upon the agreement between Valdosta State and Georgia State for intrastate program delivery. Individuals involved in the col-laborations include:

Susan Easterbrooks of Georgia State University Nanci Scheetz of Valdosta State University Pamela Broadston, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Kate Reynolds, University of New Orleans

Technical support provided by: The Southeast Regional Resource Center, SERRC Eric Dickson Rhonda Beach Tyree The Join Together Grant of ACE-DHH (Objective 1.4)

Standardize title of multi-state collaborative & Join Together

ED 524B

Timeline

DRAFT 7/26/05

Timeline for developing and implementing “Converging Collaborative for Deaf Education Add-On Certification between VSU/GSU/UALR/UNO

Date Action Parties responsi-ble

Date Com-pleted

YEAR 1Summer 2005

Meet to decide on and begin preliminary develop-ment of collaborative model ( produce timeline and concept paper to use in “selling” idea

Susan Easter-brooks (SE), Kate Reynolds (KR), Pamela Broadston (PB), Nanci Scheetz (NS), Rhonda Tyree (RT), Eric Dick-son (ED)

7/23/05

Meet in person with Donna Zornes to delineate JT3 work/choices and how it relates to SERRC work

PB

Start certification discussions between GA, LA, AR Donna ZornesSecure all signatures on MOU from State officers of certification (4 left to get)

SERRC

Discuss model and share preliminary writings with 4 chairs

SE, KR, PB, NS

Finish VSU/GSU program website SEUpdate JT3 website (1.4) KR, PBSubmit choices for summer meeting and fall 2005 work

SE, KR, PB, NS

Submit all course syllabi to Kate Reynolds for audit PB, NS, SEComplete syllabi audit across all 4 IHEs KR, PB, Maryrita

Ducote

Fall 2005 Go to Deans with chairs with SERRC rep to present plan (and further if needed)

SE, KR, PB, NS, and ED or RT

Have facilitated deans (across universities) meeting via teleconference

Deans from GSU, UNO, VSU, UALR, SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED maybe Harold Johnson and Betty Beale

Announce GSU/VSU program via brochures, GA State superintendents/ personnel offices notices

SE, NS

Develop UNO/UALR collaborative model and time-line with significant input from GSU/VSU

KR, PB, NS, SE

Attend NASDE annual Meeting (10/22-25) Minne-apolis - MONDAY, OCTOBER 24 Theme: Spot-lighting Services for Children and Youth with Low-Incidence Disabilities

KR, PB, NS, SE, Betty Beale, Harold Johnson

Meet 2 times with all 4 collaborator (Can coordinate attendance at NSASDE mtg with this)

SE, KR, PB, NS

Arrange VSU/GSU internal alterations (i.e., fee an-nouncement, catalog)

SE, NS

Finalize Web Vista site for courses at VSU/GSU SE, NEPlan two collaborative courses between UNO and KR, PB

ED 524B

UALR for Spring 2006Present model to DOE/CERT officials Donna Zornes, SE,

KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

Secure LAS/AR certification mobility agreement Donna ZornesWork out interstate FTE/SSCH arrangement (UNO/UALR)

KR, PB

Explore sources of funding (OSERS/OSEP/Founda-tions)

SE, KR, PB, NS, ED, Harold John-son

Work with all state certification officers top gain cross-state mobility agreement in D/HH

Donna Zornes

Spring 2006 Review teacher candidate applications (GSU/VSU) SE, NSOffer two collaborative courses (UNO/UALR) KR, PBWrite MOU between UNO/UALR KR, PB, RT, EDGet all 4 IHE signatures on MOU for the collabora-tive

SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED, Betty Beale

Get key administrator at UNO/UALR to sign off on MOU (include overview of model and parameters [i.e., online class size])

KR, PB

Meet 2 times with 4 participants SE, KR, PB, NSDetermine staffing (VSU/GSU) SE, NSDetermine cohort (May) KR andB, NS and

SE (parallel pro-gram cohort 1)

Notify UNO/UALR of openings in GSU/VSU cour-ses

SE

Align course offerings to build sequence across 4 IHEs

SE, KR, PB, NS

UNO/UALR determine 2006-07 collaborative cour-ses

KR, PB

Summer 2006

Have KR and PB attend part of GSU/VSU orienta-tion

KR, PB, (SERRC)

Finalize plans for parallel collaboratives SE, KR, PB, NSMeet for 3 day work session (all 4): nuts and bolts of course offerings …finalize

SE, KR, PB, NS ED, RT

UNO/UALR plan AY 2006-07 courses KR/PBWrite for grant SE, KR, PB, NS,

(Johnson, ED, RT-tech. assistance)

YEAR 2Fall 2006 Roll out parallel collaborative Year 1 (VSU/GSU

and UNO/UALR)SE, KR, PB, NS

Submit grant SE, KR, PB, NSHire consultant to collect efficacy data KR, PBMeet twice to review lessons learned from roll-out at parallel collaboratives (all 4)

SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

Complete design for 4-way model KR, PB, SE, NS, ED, RT

Submit new 4-way collaborative program to cur-riculum committee (GSU/VSU) if courses/program changes

SE, NS

Expand interstate mobility contract to include Geor-gia

Donna Zornes

Propose new course (if needed) at UNO/UALR cur-riculum committees

KR, PB

ED 524B

GSU/VSU submit 4-way collaborative program to BOR

SE, NS, ED, RT

Begin recruitment for 4-way program KR, PB, SE, NSDesign, develop and distribute materials to advertise 4-way program

KR, PB, SE, NS, ED

Spring 2007 Meet 2 times (all 4) to work on Fall 2007 roll-out SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

Develop Application Website SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

Admit 1st 4-way cohort SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

Summer 2007

All 4 meet for at least 1 week to attend to details for first 4-way cohort and integration of parallel cohorts

SE, KR, PB, NS, RT, ED

YEAR 3Fall 2007 Initiate four university/three state collaborative pro-

gram in D/HHSE, KR, PB, NS

ED 524B


Documents

ED Grant Performance Report Project Status Chart · Web viewTitle ED Grant Performance Report Project Status Chart (MS Word) Author gwagner Keywords grants, results, measures Last