12-13 October 2000
St. Paul,
Minneapolis – ACE-2 Leadership Team
2:00-2:15 Welcome & Review/Modification of the
Agenda [Michelle]
2:15-2:45 “Choices”:
Identification, Prioritization & Initial Discussion of Questions, Concerns
& Problems [Harold]
2:45-3:30 Evaluation:
Reporting Requirements & Data Collection [Donna]
3:30-3:45 BREAK
(light refreshments served)
4:00-5:30 “Choices”:
Discussions & Decisions [Karen]
5:30-6:00 BREAK
6:00-7:30 Dinner
at a local Italian restaurant
7:45- $$$
Resources [Harold] – location (casual) to be determined
Friday (10/13/00)
8:00- Breakfast
(in meeting room)
8:15-8:45 Web:
Demonstration & Discussion of the Initial Site Design [Harold]
8:45-9:15 Update:
Gallaudet Video Conference & Consortium Member Organization Activities
[Karen]
9:15-9:30 BREAK
9:30-12:30 “Choices”:
Discussions & Decisions [Harold]
12:30-1:30 Lunch
(in meeting room)
1:30-3:15 “Choices”:
Discussions & Decisions [Karen]
3:15-3:30 BREAK
(light refreshments served)
3:30-4:00 Wrap
Up: Summary & “Next Step” [Harold]
4:00 Donna,
Harold, and Karen depart for airport (time approximate)
4:00-5:30 Continued
discussions of interest to remaining participants
[“Springboard” document to begin identifying and
prioritizing questions/concerns]
Shall we post
sample pre-proposals from the regions?
Yes, get faculty permission and post new, unique or creative
proposals.
Idea: On our website have a list of Choices. When you click on a Choice it will give you
a list of faculty working on that Choice.
Click on an individual person and it will give information regarding the
faculty, their projects, and their contact information. If faculty member approves, we could link
their “cool” project to the pertinent Choice.
The faculty are to
be compared to themselves and not others; we want to encourage furthering their
personal technology proficiency.
Pre-proposal: Changes were discussed including that we
need to request the number of students being taught by faculty with their new
technology. Also, ask how the skill
will be learned by the faculty or student.
Preliminary editing on the pre-proposal was done on-site by Dee Klein. The completed form will be sent to the
Regional Director’s the following week.
Post-Proposal: A post-proposal evaluation form needs to be
developed; form to be more comprehensive and include a self-assessment.
Dee will create a
checklist form for use, primarily by regional directors, of pre- and post-
information for each Choice.
It is left to the
Regional Director’s discretion as to whether or not to approve a Choice.
Regional Directors
can submit Choices proposal and receive either payment or “credit” carried over
into next year for travel purposes.
If a Regional
Director elects not to submit a Choice proposal for their work, the data still
should be maintained for evaluation purposes.
As Regional
Directors become expert in an area of technology they than can be speakers at,
for example, forums.
Six (6) Choices
are available per program per year plus one per program for completing the
federally mandated evaluation form (for a total of seven [7] Choices per
program per year). The RD can determine
for him/herself how their Choices are to be allocated in their region, e.g., if
other programs haven’t been responding, you can allocate more than six to a
program which has great interest.
Michelle to be
sent a list of approved faculty Choices.
RD will email approved faculty person with instructions for them to
provide Michelle with pertinent information (home address and social security
number).
Faculty can be
made aware of options for handling the monies (e.g. put their money into a
foundation account at their university to draw upon or write a check to their
department as a ‘donation” upon which they can draw).
If someone wants
more than $475 for an activity, help him/her conceptualize how their activity
encompasses more than one Choice.
Abridged Choices –
Dee revised on site and it will be distributed. Dee learned search and replace.J Note:
the on-line version of Choices needs to be updated to match Dee’s
abridged version which should also be uploaded.
Choice #1: Syllabi - It was noted that perhaps this
Choice does not currently produce technology proficiency in the preservice
teachers because it only asks that the syllabi be incorporated. It was suggested that the syllabi on our web
site should have the options of “viewing” or “downloading as Word document”.
Choice #3:Database
– Regional faculty are to be encouraged to use the database to write
collaboratively a grant proposal to enrich some element of a teacher pre-prep
program. The idea is to have a
collaboration of at least two partners and the proposal have an element of
technology. We (the project) will write
letters of support for such proposals.
Choice #4a:Web
researcher – This topic is information based and the information is wanted by
the faculty person. In addition to the
name of the researcher, we need the proposed topic(s). “Log” refers to journal. The synthesis of the research is what will
be posted on the web. This is the topic
that web page development would fall under (the web page is the
synthesis). Monies are to go to the
faculty person who is requesting/requiring research.
Choice
#4b:Curriculum development – Involves actually developing curriculum material,
etc. for teaching/interacting with their kids.
Would like the project to evolve to where this Choice is
cross-programs. Request in pre- the
curriculum request.
Choice #4c:Case
Study –We are referring to case studies of kids (how are kids learning, what
are the stumbling blocks, etc.) but they can encompass teachers (e.g.,
itinerant teacher). Our goal is to
gather a bank of case studies. We hope
to have sthe tudies be increasingly multimedia as it becomes available and
people are comfortable. We will respect the differences that teachers feel
about the case study assignments and changes they may wish to make to the
suggested Choice. The pre-proposal is
to include a copy of their case study assignment.
Choice #4d:On-line
learning opportunities – teacher or parent would identify a purpose or goal for
the interaction.
Choice
#4e:Cybermentors – This refers to cyber-mentors for pre-service teachers. Students will share with their cyber mentor
what they are learning in their course, the value of it, etc. The mentor would share real life problems,
solutions, etc. A cyber-mentor could be
a techie; can be anyone who will enhance the teacher’s preparation. Students must post a minimum of one message
per week.
Choice
#4f:Portfolios – capture the expertise of our K-12 colleagues, e.g., their
beliefs, teaching strategies.
Pre-proposal to include a plan for incorporating technology. Post-proposal to contain reflection upon
technology used and experience gained in preparing the portfolio.
Note: all items under #4 will produce preservice
teacher products. Those products that
are published will be reviewed for possible awarding of $500.
Choice
#5:Technology Rich K-12 Settings – sustained interaction within this type of
setting. Can include interactions that
do not necessarily result in credit (i.e., they do not have to be offering a
course in that setting).
Choice #6:Faculty
Development Forum – does anyone have any planned? GPR will possibly hold a multi -media one in Oregon. NCR has a regional meeting wherein they
could have UMN technology people do a “sandbox” demonstration (i.e., technology
stations where people could learn, for example, scanning or digital cameras)
where people could “play”. Donna needs
to be made aware of faculty development events that she could come to for the
evaluation process. She could attend
the event as well as spend an extra day interviewing, observing, etc. RD needs to keep her informed of what or
when is good time to come. Alan would
be happy to work with an RD to develop a forum.
Choice #8:Other -
when reviewing these proposals, keep in mind the proposal needs to involve
pre-service teachers and technology and it must result in some type of product,
e.g., expertise, insight, or something to post on the web. This Choice could be publication of an
article on technology.
Evaluator/Evaluation:
It is important to
show partnerships with K-12 (physical presence as well as cyber relationships).
Evaluation data should
be gotten for all preparatory programs, even those not participating. When referring, on evaluation forms, to our
faculty and number of courses we mean our deaf ed faculty.
Evaluation data
can be incorporated into a form which will be required to be completed during
the post-process. A group session at
the 2001 ACE-D/HH meeting in San Diego to complete forms was suggested. Final Choice payment to be sent only after
the evaluation form is submitted from a program. The Project will allocate one Choice per program to the person
completing the form. Form to be sent as
a paper copy; faculty can look it over and synthesize it then contact their
Regional Director who will work with them to complete it. Form can be sent to project office for input
into the data system by a student worker.
The
data reported to the Feds in Spring 2001 will not reflect Spring activities
because the semester will not be over; this is ok from an evaluation/final
report stand point.
The
final evaluation form will be given to us by Donna by January 20 so we may send
it out to our programs in advance.
Data/forms to be submitted to Michelle by March 16 in order to have them
to Donna by April 2.
Video Conferencing
Conference (Washington D.C.) – Karen gave a brief overview of what was learned;
she distributed the conference outline, handouts, and panel discussions. She also shared company and product
information that was on display including a simple, clear guidebook on video
conferencing (it was determined guidebook was not copyrighted so it will be
copied and distributed to the Leadership Team). Finally, information was distributed and shared on Washington
State’s Shared Video Outreach Project.
Monthly reports
from Project and Regional Directors and Consortium Member organizations: Michelle will work with Harold to develop a
“form”/checklist. The form will request
information that is informative to all that we could post on the web. Form to include any technology expertise RD
has learned that month. We need to give
ourselves credit for what we’ve done and report on it, e.g., who has signed up,
what Choice are they working on, a sentence or two narrative on cool
projects. Form due 1st of
month.
Regional Director
to try as much as possible to collect information electronically as well as
paper copy.
Copyright issues
(words, student work, concepts, etc.) were discussed. Care must be taken in distance learning, our web site, etc.
Packet of material
to be pulled together which the Leadership Team can have on hand to present to
interested individuals, corporations, sponsors, etc. Question to be asked at ACE-D/HH conference in San Diego: “how many of you know someone in the
corporate world” with whom we could make connections? We should not forget the parental level for possible contacts.
T.H.E. Journal –
roadmap to the web for educators; excellent resource
Debbie Haydon - Article regarding our project should be
sent to Sylvia Charp (Debbie to contact Sue Rose who knows Charp well)
Advisory Board
meeting will be Wed, 2/21 in San Diego.
CED will be Tues, 20th.
We need to know
how many preservice teachers in your programs are out in practicum or student
teaching (this is part of how we document cost sharing).