Three obstacles must be overcome before Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States can consistently produce a significant number of technology proficient teachers of deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh) students. First, it must be accepted that the major problem of deafness is not too little hearing, but too much isolation from access to information and interpersonal communication. This isolation also extends to faculty who prepare preservice teachers, cooperating teachers who work with preservice teachers, and the parents of deaf and hard of hearing (d/hh) students who are the recipients of the resulting instruction. The isolation is due to the fact that deafness is a low incidence disability. Most current national statistics reported by Schildroth and Hotto in the American Annals of the Deaf (1995) indicate there are only 43,817 children with hearing loss attending educational programs. Approximately 40% of these children were from ethnic minority groups. Compounding the problem is that the professionals who work with d/hh students and their parents are located in diverse and widespread geographic areas. Fortunately, recent developments in available technologies (e.g., the Internet) can be used to reduce this isolation.

The second substantial barrier that must be overcome in preparing teachers of d/hh students concerns not a lack of innovation in teacher preparation programs, but rather differences in the instructional realities of college professors and K-12 teachers. These differences are due to the contrast in their day-to-day schedules, instructional responsibilities, duties and facility resources that are experienced by both professional factions. Preservice teachers experience the effect of these differences as they move back and forth between their college classes and field experiences in schools. Eventually, preservice teachers resolve their experiential dissonance by abandoning the innovations and research of their college professors in favor of the survival skills and proven instructional strategies of their cooperating teachers. The resolution to this problem centers on grounding the course work, activities and projects of preservice teachers in the instructional needs of their elementary and secondary cooperating teachers. In this way the "realities divide" or "gap" that has historically existed between colleges and schools will be bridged. Graduating preservice teachers will then be prepared begin their teaching careers with the instructional expertise and technological skills that are needed to ensure that all students achieve high academic standards, there by serving as effective instructional "change agents" for the schools that hire them.

The third and final problem that must be overcome in teacher preparation for the field of deafness is not too little technology, but the lack of technologically savvy models that can effectively and efficiently use available hardware and software to enhance teaching and improve learning. While the literature is replete with data concerning the positive impact technology can have upon students with disabilities, there is a dearth of models that demonstrate how computer- based, Internet-linked technologies can be used with d/hh students. Of all the problems, this last one is the most difficult to surmount, for it requires faculty and teachers to demonstrate proficiency in the use of technology, something most professionals have not been exposed to or encountered in their own educational development. If this situation is corrected, the next generation of teachers will be better prepared for the task that lies ahead of them.

The task of teaching d/hh students is very demanding. Teachers must have a wide array of instructional strategies and techniques to convey essential concepts. The disability of deafness profoundly affects most aspects of the educational process. Acquiring language and communication skills is the foundation for the development of reading. This is a tremendous challenge for the majority of d/hh children. In general, d/hh children have great difficulty learning to read and comprehend printed material. It is evident that the low level of academic achievement obtained by many d/hh students correlates with their inability to understand information presented in a text-based format. Research studies (Center for Assessment and Demographic Study, 1991; Quigley & Paul, 1986) have concluded that children with severe to profound hearing losses have remarkably lower scores in reading as compared to their hearing peers. Their reading level plateaus at approximately the fourth grade. Traditional reading material does not appear to augment the reading process. However, teachers are reporting a renewed interest in learning to read by d/hh students when technology is incorporated into the lesson. Students tend to be more motivated, and the process is facilitated by critical visual components. The Educational Services Guidelines for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1992) recognizes the need for technology in d/hh classrooms and recommends the use of electronic mail and a variety of media and multimedia computerized instructional software suitable for students with hearing loss. The Council on the Education of the Deaf also embraces these recommendations and has established certification standards that encourage the use of technology with d/hh students.

The proposed grant project will have a notable impact on the entire field of deafness as well as in the discipline of regular education. As the above sequence demonstrates, the influence of innovative technological methods for teaching will filter down through every segment of education, from the postsecondary level to the secondary and elementary levels. It will have a dramatic effect on the knowledge and learning base of faculty, d/hh and regular education teachers and most importantly children. Through the incorporation of technology, which provides accessibility to information and is embedded in a visually oriented delivery mode, the direction of deaf education can be radically altered. Each consortium partner, under the umbrella of the Council on Education of the Deaf, endorses the project plan to eliminate stagnation in the field and move forward with innovative approaches that enrich the education of d/hh students.

The Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH) consists of faculty in 72 teacher preparation programs from across the United States who network together to determine best practices with the vision/focus of improving the educational status of d/hh children and youth. This organization was previously awarded a Capacity grant, and members have been working diligently on constructing novel strategies for infusing technology into the curriculum, on creating technologically-enhanced products and professional development activities for d/hh faculty that focus on the implementation of software and multimedia tools. Significant progress has been made on all goals, especially the number of participants, which has quadrupled since the inception of the project. Clearly, this increase attests to the fact that faculty are not only aware of the benefits and positive outcomes associated with technology but are also eager to play an active role. A movement toward the inclusion of technology into the educational setting has been set and this trend will be sustained from within, through the continued collaboration of ACE-DHH members, and from outside the organization by the involvement of preservice teachers in the proposed project. With the advent of new technologies, there will be an ongoing need for faculty to keep abreast of the latest developments. Hence, this will guarantee an evolution of activities plus a built-in continuance of the project.

Three problems, interpersonal and informational isolation, the "realities gap" between colleges and K-12 schools, and the lack of instructional models concerning the effective technology use, must be overcome for Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States to consistently prepare a significant number of technology-proficient and instructionally-effective teachers of d/hh students. Without appropriately trained teachers, the majority of d/hh students, in spite of normal intelligence, will continue to gain approximately two months of educational benefit for every year in school and they will continue to "graduate" or leave school functionally illiterate.

A. Project Goals:

This Catalyst grant addresses the Deaf Ed. triad of problems (i.e., isolation, "realities gap" and lack of models) by accomplishing three basic goals. First, interpersonal and informational isolation will be addressed through the establishment of sustainable local, regional and national networks of learners. These networks will insure that preservice teachers, their faculty and K-12 field experience teachers have access to a "community of learners" that understand their instructional needs and who collaborate to marshal their resources to enhance both teaching and learning with K-12 d/hh students. A concerted effort will be made to insure that this network includes colleagues and students in rural and low wealth education settings. Second, the "realities gap" will be "bridged" by grounding preservice students’ course work in the K-12 instructional needs, resources and proven strategies of K-12 colleagues. This grounding will insure that college courses assist preservice teachers as they strive to use recent research findings and technological innovations to both build on K-12 strengths, while simultaneously addressing their weaknesses. The grounding will also serve to generate a substantial number of new learning resources and a significant number of technology proficient faculty and preservice teachers. The resulting technology proficient faculty and preservice teachers will serve as "change agents" for instructional innovation in the colleges and K-12 settings in which they work. The third and final goal of this Catalyst grant entails the basic restructuring of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs. This goal will be accomplished as a natural outgrowth of the grant’s attainment of the preceding two goals and through the acceptance of the ISTE teacher standards 1.1-1.3 into the current continuum of CEC/CED standards. In carrying out this restructuring, Deaf Ed. Teacher Prep. Programs will collaborate, rather than compete with one another, they will have an abundance, rather than dirth of resources and they will seen as significant "change agents" for technological and instructional innovation, rather than expensive "add on" for the relatively few colleges and universities that can afford to house them.

B. Project Objectives, Activities & Outcomes:

a. Objectives:

1) Local: Consortium members, in collaboration with individual Deaf Ed. Teacher Prep. Pro. (DETPP) faculty, will "match" preservice teachers with field experience teachers (Year 1 = 200; Y2 = 275; Y3 = 350) and *"Cyber Mentors" (Y1 = 225:Y2 = 350; Y3 = 475) who will collaborate with preservice teachers as they develop the innovative instructional and technological knowledge and skills that are required to become effective teacher of d/hh students. Field experience teachers and Cyber Mentors will be selected with regard to their instructional expertise and/or technological proficiencies.

*Note: "Cyber Mentors" are recently graduated and experienced teachers of d/hh students, parents of d/hh children and d/Deaf adults ["D" = members of the Deaf culture] who will exchange weekly e-mail messages with their assigned preservice teachers.

2) Regional: Consortium members, in collaboration with Regional and National Grant Directors, and through use of "on-line" resources (e.g., the "Profiler" Web based documentation/matching system provided by the South Central Regional Technology in Ed. Consortium, "http://scrtec.org/") will "match" DETPP faculty (Y1 = 100:Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) who share similar instructional interests and who possess the compatible levels of technological expertise (i.e., one individual is strong, where the other is weak). Once "matched" DETPP faculty collaborative activities will be encouraged and supported through "on-line" interactions (e.g., the "CED-Plan" listserv), regional professional development forums (e.g., in collaboration with R*TEC) and national conference presentations (i.e., the annual ACE-D/HH conference).

3) National: Consortium members and Regional and National Grant Directors, will meet twice a year (i.e., once at the ACE-D/HH national conference and once during the summer) as a project "Advisory Council." During "Year 1" of the project, the Advisory Council will share organizational resources and identify how those resources can be used to support preparation of technology proficient teachers. During "Year 2" of the grant, the Advisory Council will identify and seek resources necessary to continue the project efforts beyond the initial funding period. This effort will entail seeking foundation support (e.g., the MicroSoft Foundation), business partners (e.g., an Internet Service Provider) and a national education technology consortium (e.g., R*TEC). One focus of this work will be to extend the network to include colleagues and students in rural and low wealth education settings. During "Year 3" of the project, the Advisory Council will use the results of "Year 1" and "Year 2" accomplishments and project evaluation data, to design and develop a long term plan to sustain project activities beyond the initial funding period.

b. Outcomes:

1) Local: As a result of this project, a significant and increasing number of DETPP 1,400+ preservice teachers will form an extended network of actual (i.e., field experience teachers) and virtual (i.e., Cyber Mentors) colleagues who share the common goal of enabling d/hh students to achieve high academic standards by preparing instructionally innovative and technology proficient teachers.

2) Regional: As a result of this project, a significant and growing number of DETPP faculty will form an extended network of geographically dispersed colleagues that share common instructional interest and who collaborate in acquiring additional technological expertise. That expertise will be gained through both actual (i.e., Regional Faculty Development Forums & national ACE-D/HH conference) and virtual (e.g., listservs, chat rooms, Web sites, VTell sessions, etc.) interactions.

3) National: As a result of this project, all of the major Deaf Education national organizations will, for the first time in U.S. history, will collaboratively pool their resources and focus their activities to establishing a sustainable support system that fosters instructional innovation and technological proficiency within DETPP. The graduating technology proficient teachers of d/hh students will receive assistance for their ongoing professional development by tapping into that support system, thus insuring the effective education of d/hh students in suburban, rural and low wealth education settings.

Goal 2: Bridge the "Realities Gap"

a. Objective:

1) Faculty: During each year of the project, a significant and growing number of both full and part time DETPP faculty (i.e., Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) will voluntarily elect (i.e., by selecting one or more of the options outlined in Figure 1, "Menu of Choices") to technologically enhance and link their teaching to the instructional needs and resources of their K-12 colleagues. This linkage will serve to identify and address those needs, while simultaneously developing "new learning resources" and supporting their development to become technology proficient faculty.

2) Preservice Teachers: During each year of the project, a significant and growing number of DETPP 1,400+ preservice teachers (i.e., Y1 = 100-225; Y2 = 137-350; Y3 = 150-350) will complete college course activities that will serve to identify, understand and address K-12 instructional needs, while simultaneously developing "new learning resources" and supporting their development to become technology proficient teachers. The array of possible activities is presented within Figure 1, "Menu of Choices", items "4a-4f" and "8."

b. Outcomes:

1) Faculty: As a result of this project, a significant and growing number of full and part time DETPP faculty (i.e., Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150), will; a) update their course syllabi to reflect the field’s "best practices"; b) learn about and incorporate new technologies and innovative instructional strategies into their course designs; c) assign their preservice teacher course activities that will serve to "bridge" the "Realities Gap" by bringing the instructional needs and resources of K-12 settings into the college classroom; d) generate "new learning resources" through the selection of the best of their student’s resulting work to be published on the grant’s Web site; and e) demonstrate their own emergence as both "technology proficient" faculty and "change agents" for their general education colleagues.

2) Preservice Teachers: As a result of this project, a significant and increasing number of number of DETPP 1,400+ preservice teachers (i.e., Y1 = 100-225; Y2 = 137-350; Y3 = 150-350) will, through their course activities, serve to "bridge" the "Realities Gap" by bringing the realities of the K-12 setting to the learning opportunities of the college classroom. This "bridging" will serve to produce a significant number of "new learning resources" and to enable the formal identification, recognition and support of up to 100 preservice teachers each year as "technology proficient change agents" for their K-12 colleagues and schools that they will join after graduation.

Goal 3: Restructuring U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs

a. Objectives:

During each year of the project, within the context of the biannual Advisory Council meetings, and in conjunction with the Board meetings of the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED), the Consortium Member representatives will: Y1…formally review and discuss ISTE teacher standards 1.1-1.3; Y2…share the results of this review with their members; and Y3…vote upon the addition of the identified ISTE standards into the current continuum of CEC/CED standards for the preparation of teachers of d/hh students.

b. Outcome:

As a result of this project, the national standards (i.e., CEC/CED) for the preparation of teachers of d/hh students will, for the first time in U.S. history, include specific (i.e., ISTE 1.1-1.3) requirements for the level and depth of technology proficiency that all graduates of CED DETPP can be expected to possess. The addition of these standards, in combination with the local/regional/national networks of "Goal 1" and "realities bridges"/new learning resources of "Goal 2," will constitute a profound restructuring of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs.

This "Catalyst" project builds upon the successes of the 1999 "Capacity Building" project, entitled "Educational Excellence Through Technological Innovations & Collaboration for the Field of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Education." The "Capacity Building" project was awarded in August ’99 to the Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH), with Kent State University serving as the fiscal agent. As a result of that award (i.e., seven months into the project) 58 faculty, from 39 Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs (DETPP), representing 23 states, have collaborated in: a) the development of technologically intensive course syllabi for five major content areas; b) the design, data collection and rough development for three multi-media case studies that capture innovative teachers of d/hh students using technology to enhance their teaching; c) the establishment of a data base of foundations that fund K-16 education activities for the use of technologies with students with disabilities; and d) the provision of two faculty development forums (i.e., one in Massachusetts and one in Missouri) in which faculty from around the country received intensive, hands-on support in the use of computer based, Internet linked technologies to enhance their teaching . The initial "products" of this collaborative work will be presented at ACE-D/HH’s annual conference (i.e., 3/30-4/2/2000, New Orleans) to more than 150 faculty from the nation’s 72 DETPPs.

The proposed "Catalyst" proposal builds on the earlier "Capacity Building" project by expanding both the foci and resources. Where the earlier "Capacity Building" project concentrated upon faculty and relied upon the resources of a single organization (i.e., ACE-D/HH), this "Catalyst" project includes: a) faculty; b) their preservice teachers; c) the field experience teachers who work with the preservice teachers during their practicum and student teaching placements; d) additional teachers of d/hh students, parents of d/hh students and d/Deaf adults who will serve as "Cyber Mentors" for the preservice teachers; and e) finally all of the major Deaf Ed. organizations that represent the field of Deaf Education. Given that the project will work with literally hundreds of individuals from thorough-out the nation, a much larger array of resources are needed. As such, this "Catalyst" project has established a leadership team and consortium of partners that includes:

• Project Directors: (50% of time, CY)
• Harold Johnson (Kent State University)
• Karen Dilka (Eastern Kentucky University)
• Project Evaluator: (flat fee, CY)
• Donna Mertens (Gallaudet University)
• Regional Project Directors: (25% of time, CY)
• Alan Marvelli (Smith College) – Northeast U.S.
• Katherine Slemenda (Converse College) – Southeast U.S.
• Sue Rose (University of Minnesota) – North Central U.S.
• Diane Klein (Indiana University of Penn.) – Northwest/Southwest U.S.
• Larry Hawkins (University of Sci. & Arts of Ok.) – South Central U.S.

• Deaf Education Organizations: (10 wks of staff time, publications, org. network & 12.5% of annual conference activities)
• Association of College Ed. Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH),
• Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. for the Deaf (AGBell)
• Conference of American Inst. of the Deaf (CAID)
• American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC)
• National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
• Conference of Ed. Admin. Serving the Deaf (CEASD)
• Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED)

Additional resources will be provided by the colleges and universities with DETPP, the schools for the deaf and K-12 programs serving d/hh students that offer their facilities for preservice teachers’ field/student teaching placements. It must be noted that this is the first time in the history of U.S. Deaf Education that such an inclusive and diverse array of individuals, colleges/universities, schools for the deaf, K-12 programs serving d/hh students and organizations have agreed to collaborate and focus their resources upon the accomplishment of one goal, i.e., the preparation of technology proficient teachers of d/hh students.

1. Adequacy of Support:

The project budget was designed around both a reality and a philosophy, i.e., Reality: throughout most of the U.S., but especially at colleges/universities, the problem is not too little technology, but rather, too little effective technology use; Philosophy: teachers are the most important technology in the classroom and students are the most underutilized resource. Given that: 1) virtually all of DETPP faculty have Internet linked computers in their office and their homes; 2) most DETPP preservice teachers have Internet linked computers in their dorm rooms/apartments and all have access to such technologies through their colleges/universities labs; 3) all DETPP faculty and students have access to college/university based Internet linked, "smart" multimedia classrooms [Note: "1)-3)" were established by the currently funded "Capacity Building" grant]; 4) a substantial portion of the work of this project focuses upon the "matching" of preservice teaches with field experience teachers and Cyber Mentors who have consistent and ready access to Internet linked, computer based technologies; and 5) virtually all of the Consortium Members have consistent and easy access to Internet linked, computer based technologies, only two additional pieces of equipment are required by this project [Note: an indication of the available array of technologies is provided by the fact that this entire grant was developed "on-line," without any face-to-face interactions between the project’s Co-Directors, Regional Directors or Consortium Organizations].

This project will purchase two pieces of equipment, i.e., a) an Internet file server; and b) a personal computer for the project secretary. The file server is needed because the current Kent State University/College of Education file server is being overwhelmed by the usage generated by the currently funded "Capacity Building" grant. Given that the proposed "Catalyst" project will generate more users and a greater use of multimedia files/applications, a new file server is needed to "handle the traffic." A personal computer is needed for the project secretary because this individual, in addition to handling the project’s "communication traffic," s/he will also provide basic technical assistance to project participants and file uploading to the project Web server.

2. Relevance of Commitment:

This project will begin with seven major Consortium Members, i.e., Association of College Ed. Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH); Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. for the Deaf (AGBell); Conference of American Inst. of the Deaf (CAID); American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC); National Association of the Deaf (NAD); Conference of Ed. Admin. Serving the Deaf (CEASD); and the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED). As noted before, this is the first time in the history of the U.S. that these seven organizations have collaboratively pooled their resources to accomplish a common goal.

A review of the "Consortium Member Identification Form and Cost Share Worksheets" reveals that the major consortium commitment is in essence the value of the time their members (i.e., DETPP faculty, teachers of d/hh students, administrators of programs serving d/hh students, parents of d/hh children and d/Deaf adults) "spend" as they support and mentor preservice teachers during their advanced course work and field placements. The essential factor in this commitment is that each organization will use its staff, communication systems (e.g., journals, newsletters, Web sites, listservs, etc.) and conferences (regional and national) to encourage, prepare and support their members’ participation in the project. Each consortium partner has also agreed to assist in the dissemination of the information and products that result from the project’s activities. In addition, each organization has agreed to collaborative in the search for additional resources and partnerships that will serve to sustain or continue project activities beyond the initial three-year period. Finally, each consortium partner has agreed to collaborate in the substantial restructuring of Deaf Education Teacher Preparation through the review, consideration and inclusion of new teacher preparation standards (i.e., ISTE 1.1-1.3) that will serve to insure that future teachers of the deaf are indeed both instructionally effective and technology proficient. In return for this support, five of the Consortium Member organizations (i.e., ACE-D/HH, AGBell, ASDC, CAID & NAD) will receive an agreed upon "flat fee" that will "cover" ten weeks of staff work on the project. In addition, each of the Consortium Member organizations will receive funds for their representative to participate in the project’s biannual Advisory Council meetings. By mutual agreement, one of the project Advisory Council meetings will be held in conjunction with the annual conference of ACE-D/HH, with the second meeting rotating between the summer conferences of the other Consortium Members. The "design" of this collaborative arrangement was first suggested by one of the consortium members (i.e., AGBell) and then agreed to by the other consortium partners.

3. Reasonable Cost:

This project seeks to impact not upon a single university, state or region, but rather the entire nation. In a similar fashion, the impact of this project will be felt not only by DETPP faculty, their preservice teachers, K-12 teachers of d/hh students, parents of d/hh children and d/Deaf adults, but also by all of the "general education" faculty, teachers and parents who work with the participating Deaf Education colleagues. As such, while the cost of the project are not insignificant, it is very much in line with its potential impact.

An analysis of the project’s "Year 1" cost reveals the following (Note: the cost for Y2-3 are similar, with the exception that no equipment will be purchased):

1. $111,000 (15.9%) spent for course releases so the project leadership team (i.e., two Project Co-Directors & five Regional Directors) would have sufficient time to carryout their responsibilities (Note: this cost represents only a fraction of the actual value of the leadership team’s time);
2. $44,000 (6.3%) spent to support project work by the staff of Consortium Member organizations;
3. $28,750 (4.1%) spent for project evaluation activities, including cost of attending two required PT3 conferences, data collection and reporting at three regional project sites and two project Advisory Council meetings;
4. $5,000 (.07%) spent for Project’s two Co-Directors to attend the required PT3 conferences;
5. $38,000 (5.4%) spent for two Advisory Council meetings of the Consortium Members, Project Co-Directors and Regional Directors (Note: given the geographic distribution of Consortium Members, these two meetings are crucial to establish the level of collaborative work that is required by this project;
6. $19,600 (2.8%) spent on computer equipment to share the project’s information and products via the Web;
7. $3,000 (.04%) spent on supplies, copying and postage;
8. $50,000 (7.1%) spent on rewarding technology proficient preservice teachers; and
9. $285,000 (41%) spent on supporting DETPP faculty redesign of their programs, their instruction and their students’ course activities.

A detailed explanation of budget items "8-9" is provided below.

Item "9" "…supporting faculty redesign" reflects the truth of an old adage in education, i.e., "…the best way to change the teaching of teachers, is to change the work of students." As long as students, in this case, preservice teachers, write the usual papers, complete the usual projects and take the usual test, faculty will be allowed, encouraged even rewarded to maintain the "status quo" (i.e., faculty usually get better course evaluations if they don’t require much of their students and they teach their classes in the usual/expected way). In this project, DETPP faculty are encouraged to take "risks," to be innovative, to use technologies, instructional strategies and resources than they have ever used before. As a result of the currently funded "Capacity Building" grant, we know that while most faculty like the "talk" about technological and instructional innovations, they often don’t do the "walk" unless they receive sufficient recognition, rewards and support. In this project, faculty will be encouraged to take risk, to teach differently, to collaborate with their peers and to learn with their preservice teachers through use of three basic strategies. First, letters of recognition will be sent to faculty for their incorporation of grant activities (see Figure "1", p 9) into their instructional curricula and for the accomplishments of their students as noted by the publication of their work on the project’s Web site. These letters will be composed so as to assist the faculty in their bids for tenure, promotion and merit. Second, faculty will be rewarded for their incorporation of grant activities (see Figure "1", p 9) into their instructional designs by receiving funds to: a) travel to the ACE-D/HH national conference; b) to travel to their regions faculty development forums; and c) to purchase items, pay for speakers or attend seminars that they consider will enhance their teaching skills and technology use. These funds, in turn, enable the third system of support, the system that in the "long-run" will very likely prove to make the greatest difference in how the faculty teach. Participating faculty will have the support of their peers, as they collaboratively use the projects local networks, regional faculty development forums and national conferences to talk about their teaching, to share their preservice teacher’s work and to explore how innovative instructional strategies and emerging technologies can be used to address the historic problems that have plagued d/hh students.

Item "8" "…rewarding technology proficient preservice teachers" entails motivating preservice teachers to do their best, vs. simply what is expected. It encourages preservice teachers to ask their faculty to assign them course tasks/activities that will allow them to learn how to effectively use technology to enhance teaching and improve learning. It does not entail the use of grant funds to recruit or to support (i.e., any form of financial aid assistance including scholarships, internships or student stipends) preservice teachers. It does require, the yearly identification and recognition of the 100 most technology proficient preservice teachers within DETPP (Note: see p 9 , items "4)-6)" for a detailed description of this activity). In addition to letters of recognition, publication of their names on the Web site and a projected increase in teaching position offers, each of the 100 "technology proficient" preservice teachers will receive a $500 award to facilitate their ongoing professional development. This award, combined with the very public recognition of their accomplishment, serves as the project’s "bottom-up" approach to insure that DETPP faculty will be encouraged to both participate in and benefit from the project activities.

(Individuals -/- Activities -/- % of time -/- Time Line -/- Results)

a. Objective: Local Networks: (see page 6 for the complete obj.)

1) Individual DETPP faculty, assisted by the Regional Director for their part of the county (i.e., R1-5) and staff from the Consortium Member Organizations (i.e., C1-7) -/- use combined resources to identify and match (Year 1 = 100-225; Y2 = 137-350; Y3 = 150-475) preservice teachers (e.g., one preservice teacher may be assigned to more than one field exp. teacher [e.g., Fall &/or Spring semesters] and also be assigned to more than one Cyber Mentor) with (Y1 = 200; Y2 = 275; Y3 = 350) field experience teachers and (Y1 = 225; Y2 = 350; Y3 = 475) Cyber Mentors for technology intensive collaborative work, during either the Fall and/or Spring semesters -/- 6% -/- August-October -/- preservice teachers will be matched with and mentored by instructionally innovative and technologically sophisticated colleagues from geographically dispersed suburban, rural, and low wealth K-12 settings.

2) Individual DETPP faculty, assisted by R1-5 and C1-7 -/- will place and monitor the interactions of the (Y1 = 100 to 225; Y2 = 137-350; Y3 = 150-475) preservice teachers with their (Y1 = 200; Y2 = 275; Y3 = 350) field experience and (Y1 = 225; Y2 = 350; Y3 = 475) Cyber mentors -/- 12% -/- October-May -/- preservice teachers will work with existing teachers, parents and d/Deaf adults as they learn how to effectively use technology to enhance teaching and learning with d/hh students. In addition, the preservice teachers will also share their own technological expertise/resources and document their field experience teachers/Cyber Mentors instructional needs, resources and strategies. The resulting information will then shared with their college faculty for use in the preservice teacher’s advanced course work.

b. Objective: Regional Networks: (see page 6 for the complete obj.)

1) Individual DETPP faculty, assisted by the Regional Director for their part of the county (i.e., R1-5) and staff from the Consortium Member Organizations (i.e., C1-7) -/- use combined resources, the "CED-PLAN" listserv, the ACE-D/HH Web site, plus the SCR*TEC "Profiler" system to identify and match (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) faculty (i.e., faculty with similar instructional interest and complementing technological skills) -/- 3% -/- August-September -/- documentation of matched faculty instructional interest, complementary technology skills and needed professional development support.

2) Individual DETPP faculty, R1-5, C1-7, PJ and PD -/- on-line interactions, Web sites, Regional faculty development forums (i.e., one per year, per region), when possible, carried out in conjunction with the "Regional Technology in Education Consortium" (R*TEC), and a national conference (i.e., Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing’s annual conference) will be used to provide (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) "matched" faculty with information and skills concerning the availability and use of technologies to enhance teaching and learning -/- 6% -/- October-July -/- establishment of a faculty professional development network and support system to facilitate cross DETPP collaborative instructional work.

c. Objective: National Network: (see page 7 for the complete obj.)

1) PJ, PD & PE -/- attend req. nat. conf. For PT3 grants -/- 1% -/- June -/- (Y1) focus upon knowledge of and initial networking with other PT3 grants, e.g., R*TEC and ISTE; (Y2) focus on "formalizing" vs. "initial" collaborative work with R*TEC and ISTE; (Y3) focus upon "continuing" vs. "establishing" collaborative work with R*TEC and ISTE)

2) PE -/- implementation of the grant’s evaluation design -/- 12% -/- June-March -/- (Y1-3) formative and summative data will be used to both guide and inform PJ, PD and the AC concerning the grant’s effectiveness in accomplishing its goals. The PE’s first formal report will be due at the AC second meeting in March, 2001 at the ACE-D/HH annual conference (subsequent reports provided at this conference during Y2 and Y3 of the grant), informal, ongoing feedback will be given to PJ and PD each month.

3) AC -/- (Y1) review of grant goals, objectives, activities, time lines and evaluation design + initial identification/description of C1-7 resources & initial decision re. how consortium resources could best be used to support grant goals + assign grant responsibilities for AC members (see Goals 1-3) + review of com. systems/tech. to be used by AC; (Y2) focus upon identifying additional, long term, business, foundation and federal consortium partners; (Y3) focus upon establishing expanded, sustainable support system to continue grant activities after the initial funding runs out -/- 3% -/- July -/- (Y1) AC member’s resources, tasks, com. strategies and time line set for completion of AC responsibilities during the first half of the grant; (Y2) identification of specific businesses, foundations to seek as Consortium members; (Y3) expanded, sustainable systems of support put into place.

4) PJ & PD -/- (Y1-3) monitor and support PE, R1-5 and C1-7 as they carry out their assigned task + maintain/seek additional consortium partners -/- 12% -/- July-March -/- insure timely and effective completion of grant activities with monthly publications on the grant’s Web site concerning the activities and accomplishment for each objective, of each of the grant’s goals.

5) PJ, PD and PW -/- (Y1) redesign the current grant Web site (i.e., www.educ.kent.edu/deafed) to facilitate site’s use to accomplish the grant’s goals; (Y2-3) focus upon the "review" vs. "design" of the grant’s Web site. The design will also include statistical software to monitor’s the site’s use and to assist the PE. -/- 2% -/- August -/- design, establishment and ongoing support of an effective Web tool for the grant and its participants.

6) PW -/- (Y1) create redesigned grant Web site (Y2-3) implementing of needed modifications in the grant’s Web site -/- 6% -/- August-September -/- the resulting Web site will provide an effective collaboration and communication system for the grant’s participants and other colleagues around the world. The site will also assist the PE by providing statistical documentation of that use.

7) PW -/- (Y1) provide face-to-face and on-line technical assistance to the AC members concerning the effective use of the redesigned grant Web site (Y2-3) provide update of the grant’s Web site -/- 1% -/- September -/- insure that AC members are prepared and supported in their use the grant’s Web site. AC members, in kind, will work with their constituent groups to insure their effective use of the grant’s Web site.

8) PW -/- (Y1) place the grant’s redesigned Web site "on-line", monitor its use, trouble shoot site problems, suggest, implement needed enhancements and provide requested technical assistance to AC members; (Y2-3) maintaining and enhancing the grant’s Web site -/- 8% -/- October-May -/- insure the timely and effective use of the grant’s Web site.

9) PJ, PD & PE -/- attend req. nat. conf. For PT3 grants -/- 1% -/- Fall -/- (Y1) focus upon knowledge of and initial networking with other PT3 grants, e.g., R*TEC and ISTE; (Y2) focus on "formalizing" vs. "initial" collaborative work with R*TEC and ISTE; (Y3) focus upon "continuing" vs. "establishing" collaborative work with R*TEC and ISTE)

10) AC -/- PJ & PD review of grant progress. PE review grant’s effectiveness, (Y1) AC formal decision re. how C1-7 resources can best be use to support current and long term grant goals; (Y2) identify additional long term consortium partners; (Y3) CED Board’s vote to accept ISTE teacher prep. standards 1.1-1.3 -/- 3% -/- March -/- (Y1) marshalling of AC member’s resources to support current/long term grant goals, refinement of assigned tasks; (Y2) insuring that grant activities will continue after the initial funding period; (Y3) insuring that national standards for DETPP include ISTE standards 1.1-1.3.

11) PE -/- (Y1-3) cont. implementation, w/ any necessary modifications, of grant’s evaluation design -/- 5% -/- April-July -/- formative and summative data will be used to both guide and inform PJ, PD and the AC of the grant’s effectiveness in accomplishing its goals. The PE’s next formal report will be due at the AC meeting in July, informal, ongoing feedback will be given to PJ and PD each month.

a. Objectives: Faculty & Preservice Teachers: (see page 8 for the complete obj.)

1) Individual DETPP faculty, assisted by their Regional Directors (i.e., R1-5), PJ and PD -/- faculty (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) from the nation’s DETPP will select 1-6 "options" from the "Menu of Choices" (see Figure 1, p 9) for inclusion into their AY Program and course design -/- 3% -/- August -/- a significant number (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) of the nation’s DETPP faculty will commit to substantially change their program and instructional designs through the incorporation of products developed within the current "Capacity Building" grant and through the use of additional technologically intensive, K-12 grounded, preservice teacher centered course activities.

2) R1-5, C1-7, PJ and PD -/- faculty "matches" will be made based upon their "menu" choices -/- 2% -/- August-September -/- "Matches" will be used to further strengthen and focus the faculty support and ongoing professional development work of the grant’s "Regional Networks."

3) Individual DETPP faculty -/- faculty (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) from the nation’s DETPPs will incorporate the selected "menu" choices into their program and instructional designs with preservice teachers (Y1 = 100-225; Y2 = 137-350; Y3 = 150-350) throughout the country -/- 9% -/- September-May -/- a significant number of the nation’s DETPP faculty will initiate substantially changes their program and instructional designs through their incorporation of products developed within the current "Capacity Building" grant and through the use of additional technologically intensive, K-12 grounded, preservice teacher centered course activities.

4) Individual DETPP faculty -/- faculty (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150) from the nation’s DETPPs will select the best of their preservice teacher’s work, as generated by the 1-6 "options" they selected from the "Menu of Choices" (see Figure 1, p 9), for publication on the grant’s Web site -/- 2% -/- September-May -/- a significant number of the nation’s DETPP faculty and preservice teachers will use technology to both collaborate with and support their K-12 colleagues in the production and publishing of a substantial array of "new learning resources."

5) Individual DETPP faculty, field experience teachers, Cyber Mentors, R1-5, C1-7, PJ & PD -/- faculty (Y1 = 100; Y2 = 125; Y3 = 150), field experience teachers (Year 1 = 200; Y2 = 275; Y3 = 350) and Cyber Mentors (Y1 = 225:Y2 = 350; Y3 = 475) will be asked to review the year’s preservice teachers published work (i.e., as available on the grant’s Web site) and nominate the best of that work for special recognition. Nominations will be used to identify, recognize and support 100 (Y1-3) "technology proficient" preservice teachers and the DETPP faculty who prepared them -/- 2% -/- May-July -/- a growing cadre of "technology proficient" preservice teachers and their faculty will be recognized and supported as "change agents" for instructional innovation and technological effectiveness within college and K-12 settings.

6) R1-5, PJ, PD & C1-7 -/- a) letters, certificates of accomplishments and cash awards (preservice teachers only) will be sent to the identified "technology proficient" "change agents"; b) copies of DETPP faculty letters will be sent to the appropriate college deans; c) a list of the resulting individuals (i.e., preservice teachers and their faculty) will be published on the grant’s Web site; and d) C1-7 will encourage their members to seek out/employ the identified individuals as college/K-12 "change agents" for instructional and technological innovation and effectiveness -/- 2% -/- August -/- Deaf Education faculty and preservice teachers will be recognized and sought as "change agents" for instructional and technological innovation and effectiveness in colleges and K-12 schools throughout the nation.

(Individuals -/- Activities -/- % of time -/- Time Line -/- Results)

a. Objective: ISTE Standards: (see page 12 for the complete obj.)

1) AC -/- Y1…formally review and discuss ISTE teacher standards 1.1-1.3; Y2…share the results of this review with their members; and Y3…vote upon the addition of the identified ISTE standards into the current continuum of CEC/CED standards for the preparation of teachers of d/hh students -/- 5% -/- July-March -/- the strengthening of existing CEC/CED Deaf Ed. teacher prep. standards to include the identified ISTE standards insures that "technology proficient change agents" will continue to graduate from the nation’s DETPP long after the funding for this grant has been exhausted. The ongoing preparation of such "…change agents" substantially increases the probability that d/hh students throughout the nation will achieve "higher academic standards" than has heretofore been possible.

V. Quality of Project Evaluation