Join Together Project
Year 2 Report
Executive Summary
Year two of the Join Together grant has focused upon gathering, understanding and organizing information that has the potential 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 identified]; 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 Infrastructure
Identified, 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 Practices
Merged 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 Diversity
Modeled, researched and captured the diversity that has been historically lacking within PK-20 deaf education….resulting in a growing 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 Design
Accomplished 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 universities to share, rather than duplicate, specialized course work.
Obj. 2.1 – PK-12 Instructional Best Practices
Tackled one of the most fundamental problems that has historically impeded deaf education, i.e., too many “beliefs” and too little empirical 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 Practices
Systematically 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 Practices
Systematically 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 knowledge base of the assessment “best practices” that should be taught to and demonstrated by both preservice and existing teachers of students 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 documenting 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 identified, 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 conferencing 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 opportunities 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 Page 3 of 48
U.S. Department of Education
Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)
Project Status Chart
PR/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 DataProduce 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.deafed.net). / Project / Target / 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 conferencing 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 evaluated 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 community. / Project / Target / Actual Performance Data
Raw Number / Ratio / % / Raw Number / Ratio / %
500 / / / 1,120 / / / 224%
1.e. Performance Measure / Measure Type / Quantitative Data
Increase the number and diversity of participants in the community of learners through the VPDS. / Project / Target / Actual Performance Data
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 descriptive 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 technology (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 Comparison
Year 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%
· 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 2
Videoconferencing Impact / Teaching / Service / ScholarlyNone / 41% / 41% / 39%
Rarely / 11% / 5% / 17%
Sometimes / 37% / 30% / 26%
A lot / 11% / 24% / 18%
Year 1
Evaluation of VCT / Current Impact / Future ImpactTTL / EAB / TTL / EAB
Very 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 Ectus (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 videoconferencing? 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.