U.S. Department of Education Exp. Date: 8/31/2007

U.S. Department of Education Exp. Date: 8/31/2007

Final Performance Report Cover Sheet

Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3)

1. PR/Award Number: P342 B000034

Grant Type:___Implementation __x__Catalyst (Specify, if applicable)

2. Recipient Information:

3. Project Director or Contact Person:

4. Project Reporting Period :

State Date End Date

5. Expenditures for Full Project Period:

6. Indirect Cost:

Do you have a current negotiated indirect cost agreement with the U.S. Department of Education (ED)? __8__%

Expiration date:______

7. Authorized Representative Information:

Authorized Representative: (This should not be same person who is completing this report, i.e. the person listed in 3)

_Carol Toncar______Director, Sponsored Programs Administration Name (Typed or Printed) Title

______330-672-2070

Signature Date Telephone Number

B. Executive Summary

This grant represented an effort to enhance an entire field of preservice teacher preparation, i.e., the nation wide preparation of individuals to become teachers of students who are deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh). The grant was designed to “bridge” the “realities divide” between the theories and resources of teacher preparation programs and the challenges and “best practices” of the nation’s existing teachers of students that are d/hh. Computer based, Internet linked technologies provided the bridge between theory and practice. University faculty, preservice teachers and existing teachers used the technologies to establish an on-line community of learners. This community created “cyber mentors” and topical interest groups to collaboratively identify, share, use and evaluate the impact of existing and emerging technologies upon course designs, student work and collaborative activities between both universities and organizations. The net impact of this grant was the nation wide establishment of the technological skills, resources and desire to reduce isolation, recognize excellence and foster collaboration within K-20 deaf education.

This grant was designed to work with faculty and preservice teachers in all of the nation’s 69 colleges/universities that offer programs to prepare individuals to become teachers of d/hh students. The targeted programs were divided into 5 regions that encompass 37 states (note: 13 states do not offer any deaf education teacher preparation). Five deaf ed. teacher preparation program faculty served as regional directors; they received a quarter-time, academic year release to support their work. One full-time project coordinator, two half-time co-directors, a project evaluator and an Advisory Council comprised the grant team. The Advisory Council was composed of representatives from virtually all the major deaf education organizations (i.e., ACE-D/HH, ASDC, AG Bell, CAID, CEASD, CED & NAD). The core activities of the grant entailed encouraging, supporting and documenting the work of deaf ed. faculty as they selected from a menu of instructionally-based, technology grounded “Choices.” These Choices included the use of products developed during a 1999-2000 PT3 Capacity grant. The products included 1) collaboratively developed, technology enhanced course syllabi; 2) multimedia case studies of technologically proficient teachers of d/hh students; and 3) a data base of available technology focused grant opportunities at the foundational, state and federal level. Other Choices involved participation in faculty development forums, the teaching of college courses in a technology rich K-12 settings and assigning preservice teachers to: a) work with cyber mentors, b) develop curricular resources for existing teachers of d/hh students, c) provide “on-line” learning opportunities for d/hh students, d) develop multi-media case studies of the learning needs/abilities of d/hh students, or e) design and develop multi-media professional portfolios. Each of the faculty Choices was designed to produce products that could be shared, via the web, with other professionals nationwide. Published products were reviewed yearly to identify those preservice teachers and deaf education teacher preparation programs that created the most useful products. The resulting list was shared with the field in an effort to recognize those programs and their preservice teachers that were judged to be the most technologically proficient.

Analysis of evaluation data indicated that in relation to Goal objectives, the number of classroom teachers matched with preservice teachers exceeded the number in the original proposal. The desired number of preservice teachers matched with cyber mentors was not achieved; however, there were many ways to involve preservice teachers in the use of technology. If the full spectrum of options is considered in terms of preservice teachers, then this goal was also exceeded. For objective 1.2, throughout the full course of the grant, more than 150 individual faculty engaged in intensive technological collaborations. Thus, the goal for this objective was exceeded. Finally, objective 1.3 was accomplished by building an infrastructure through technology that allowed deaf educators to partner across the nation. This infrastructure was used to obtain a third PT3 grant in October 2003.

Analysis of Goal 2 data indicate that virtually every faculty member responding to the summative survey (May 2004) responded they had modified their curriculum to incorporate the use of technology, and over half rated themselves as at least somewhat proficient in the use of technology in instruction for 25 of 32 (78%) possible uses. For Objective 2.2, program leaders indicated 90% of their graduates over the previous four years were technologically proficient, and that 67% of their currently enrolled students could be considered to be proficient as well.

The overall impact of the grant is perhaps most evident via a brief review of narrative evaluation data. Selected excerpts from that data are as follows:

“This has been a wonderful experience for the student as well as for me. We worked closely together on this project…. I feel like programs for this need to continue to keep teachers and students linked together. The students have information that we as teachers like to learn and we have the classroom experience that the student (preservice teacher) likes to learn.” (Field experience teacher comment from web-based survey referring to preservice teacher, April 2003).

“I applaud this excellent program. I think education programs are improving by giving the preservice teachers the experience of communicating with professional teachers informally through email. The experience helped me to be reflective in deciding how to answer her questions appropriately in order to be supportive of her in her program and to provide insight to her questions and concerns.” (Cyber mentor comment from web-based survey, April 2003).

“I believe this project has done more for deaf education that any other single project. I do believe it takes time for the whole field to be sold on the idea of sharing. Throughout history this has been a secretive field. I would love to see the grant funded again so that the progress that has been made does not slip away.”

C. Report Narrative

1.Project Overview

This grant represented an effort to enhance an entire field of preservice teacher preparation, i.e., the nation wide preparation of individuals to become teachers of students who are d/hh. The grant was designed to “bridge” the “realities divide” between the theories and resources of teacher preparation programs and the challenges and “best practices” of the nation’s existing teachers of students that are d/hh. Computer based, internet linked technologies provided the bridge between theory and practice. University faculty, preservice teachers and existing teachers used the technologies to establish an on-line community of learners. This community created “cyber mentors” and topical interest groups to collaboratively identify, share, use and evaluate the impact of existing and emerging technologies upon course designs, student work and collaborative activities between both universities and organizations. The net impact of this grant was the nation wide establishment of the technological skills, resources and desire to reduce isolation, recognize excellence and foster collaboration within K-20 deaf education.

2. Background and Origins:

Problem: The primary problem of deafness is not too little hearing, but too much interpersonal and informational isolation. This isolation is experienced not only by d/hh students, but also by the students’ parents and teachers. The primary problem of deaf education teacher preparation is not too little innovation, but too much of a gap, or difference, in the day-to-day realities of college faculty and their K-12 colleagues. The individuals who most frequently bridge this gap are preservice teachers who are in preparation to become teachers of d/hh students. The resulting dissonance in the preservice teachers’ college preparation and K-12 field experiences frequently results in a replication of instructional strategies, rather than the integration of instructional innovations, such as the effective use of computer-based, internet linked technologies to enhance teaching and learning.

Solution: One solution is to establish local, regional and national networks of deaf education college faculty, preservice teachers, existing teachers, parents and d/hh consumers. Use the resulting networks to link the preparation of preservice teachers to the day-to-day instructional needs of d/hh students. In this way, preservice teachers become information workers for the field of deaf education. The resulting products, shared via the web, will serve to effectively and efficiently expand the available array of curricular materials, instructional opportunities and informational resources. The sharing will also serve to ground the preparation of new teachers in the realities of the K-12 setting while simultaneously integrating the informational resources and technological innovations of the nation’s colleges. In addition, the products will serve to: 1) insure and demonstrate the preservice teachers’ technological proficiency; 2) substantially increase the number and diversity of individuals who participate in the preparation of the preservice teachers; and, 3) restructure deaf education teacher preparation from an isolated, competitive model to one that is based upon a networked community that uses computer-based, internet linked technologies and resources to collaboratively prepare the next generation of teachers of d/hh students.

Grant Design: This grant was designed to work with faculty and preservice teachers in all of the nation’s 69 colleges/universities that offer programs to prepare individuals to become teachers of d/hh students. The targeted programs were divided into five regions that encompassed 37 states (note: 13 states do not offer any deaf education teacher preparation). Five deaf education teacher preparation program faculty served as regional directors. The regional directors received a quarter-time, academic year release to support their work. One full-time project coordinator, two half-time co-directors, a project evaluator and an Advisory Council comprised the grant team. The Advisory Council was composed of representatives from virtually all the major deaf education organizations (i.e., ACE-D/HH, ASDC, AG Bell, CAID, CEASD, CED & NAD). The core activities of the grant entailed encouraging, supporting and documenting the work of deaf education faculty as they selected from a menu of instructionally-based, technology grounded “Choices.” These Choices include the use of products that were developed during a 1999-2000 PT3 Capacity grant. The products included: 1) collaboratively developed, technology enhanced course syllabi; 2) multimedia case studies of technologically proficient teachers of d/hh students; and 3) a data base of available technology focused grant opportunities at the foundational, state and federal level. Other Choices involved the participation in faculty development forums, the teaching of college courses in technology rich K-12 settings and assigning preservice teachers to: a) work with cyber mentors; b) develop curricular resources for existing teachers of d/hh students; c) provide “on-line” learning opportunities for d/hh students; d) develop multi-media case studies of the learning needs/abilities of d/hh students; or e) design and develop multi-media professional portfolios. Each of the faculty Choices was designed to produce products that could be shared, via the web, with other professionals throughout the nation. Published products were reviewed each year to identify those preservice teachers and deaf education teacher preparation programs that created the most useful products. The resulting list was shared with the field in an effort to recognize those programs and their preservice teachers that were judged to be the most technologically proficient.

3. Project Status

Project Objectives and Accomplishments

Goal 1: Quantitative and qualitative data are presented for Goal 1 objectives in Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. For objective 1.1, the number of classroom teachers matched with preservice teachers exceeded the number in the original proposal. The desired number of preservice teachers matched with cyber mentors was not achieved; however, there were many ways to involve preservice teachers in the use of technology. If the full spectrum of options is considered in terms of preservice teachers, then this goal was also exceeded. For objective 1.2, throughout the full course of the grant, more than 150 individual faculty engaged in intensive technological collaborations. Thus, the goal for this objective was exceeded. Finally, objective 1.3 was accomplished by building an infrastructure through technology that allowed deaf educators to partner across the nation. This infrastructure was used to obtain a third PT3 grant in October 2003.

Goal 2: Goal 2 data are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. For objective 2.1, virtually every faculty member responding to the summative survey sent in May 2004 responded they had modified their curriculum to incorporate the use of technology, and over half rated themselves as at least somewhat proficient in the use of technology in instruction for 25 of 32 (78%) possible uses. For Objective 2.2, in a summative survey in May 2004, program leaders indicated that 90% of their graduates over the previous four years were technologically proficient, and that 67% of their currently enrolled students already could be considered to be proficient as well.

Unanticipated outcomes or benefits

Several changing trends can be noted. First, preservice teachers are now bringing innovative ideas and techniques to the collaborative setting. Classroom teachers are learning children from the preservice teacher about new technological developments that enhance the learning of d/hh. Second, field experience teachers are recognizing the value of technology-based lessons because they notice a significant difference in their children’s understanding and comprehension of classroom material. Third, a “team” approach is more readily apparent in classrooms between the field experience teacher and the preservice teacher, and the preservice teachers are more confident of their skills in preparing lessons that will be interesting and challenging for children. A remark from a field experience teacher follows:

“They made me aware of the vast array of technology available and not just for higher functioning students but for multihandicapped students as well. It also made me aware that new teachers who have not had the advantage of working with master teachers are often at a great disadvantage. They enter their first job not only having to learn the system at that school and district but not knowing who to turn to for help and where to look for help as well. If they are aware of the new "cutting edge" technology they are one jump ahead of the bunch. Then not only do they benefit but also the students benefit as well. Maybe this will help the new and existing teacher burn out rate as well. Who knows?”

Barriers

The major barriers occurred early in the project with the task of bringing faculty together from 69 different universities and linking with their preservice teachers and classroom teachers in cyber space. Two major initiatives proved to be the turning point to catalyze the grant. First, a web site was set up that allowed for easier communication and sharing of ideas and resources ( Second, faculty who were willing to be leaders were identified and regional teams were created. Also, ACE-D/HH held its annual meeting in February 2001 which allowed face-to-face meetings with the leaders and other faculty.

There continues to be insufficient time for faculty to collaborate more with their colleagues. Support continues to be an issue in terms of purchasing of equipment, and especially, provision for hiring adjunct faculty to allow deaf education faculty time away from their normal responsibilities. Fewer faculty now claim to be fearful of technology, therefore there is evidence of a cultural shift towards increasing use of technology. However, faculty say lack of access to equipment either in their university or in the schools where they place their preservice teachers continues to be an issue. With the increase in the use of video conferencing, complaints about insufficient bandwidth have surfaced. Finally, faculty expressed dissatisfaction with the Topical Experts offered through the web site. While the strategy of having experts field questions has potential, problems surfaced because the students felt it was hard to find and navigate on the web site, and their questions were not answered in a timely fashion.