A. Need
1. Focus Upon Deaf Education:
Most education majors take a very similar array of introductory, method and field experience course. As such, changes in a college's overall curriculum and instructional design impact equally upon most students, regardless of their particular area of concentration. The one exception to this rule occurs within the field of Deaf Education. This exception is tied to two basic facts. First, only half of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs are "housed" within colleges of education, the rest are located within colleges that prepare speech pathologist and audiologist. Second, the cognitive, linguistic and academic realities of deafness require perspective teachers to be prepared to work with students ranging in age from 3 to 21, in languages from spoken English to signed American Sign Language and in settings from schools for the deaf to inclusion placements within neighborhood schools. The net impact of these facts is that the array of method courses taken by Deaf Education majors is distinctly different than those taken by all other education majors. As a result, changes or enhancements within education method courses, as fostered by the "Capacity Building" grant competition, will have little or no impact upon individuals majoring in Deaf Education. In recognition of this situation the Association of College Educators - Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH) has developed this proposal on behalf of all Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs within the U.S. If funded, the proposed activities have the potential to foster a comprehensive and innovative redesign of teacher preparation, not within a single institution, but the entire field of Deaf Education.
2. Problems to be Addressed:
Faculty teach the way that they were taught. Faculty draw conclusions, share insights, tell stories, assign work and test students in a manner that is based upon their own instructional experiences. Unfortunately, within the field of Deaf Education, most faculty completed their doctoral studies before either the wide spread availability of personal computers or the advent of the Internet. In addition, most of their Deaf Education instructional experiences were in schools for the deaf or self-contained classrooms, rather than the "mainstreaming plus" or inclusion settings in which most deaf students are now educated. As a result, while the majority of Deaf Education teacher preparation programs faculty have access to a rapidly expanding array of Internet linked, computer based technologies, they lack the professional development opportunities, instructional models (e.g., case studies) and course syllabi that are needed to effectively incorporate such technologies into their teaching and their students learning.
3. Solutions to be Applied:
Change the work of students and you will change the teaching of teachers. In this proposal, the work of Deaf Education majors will be changed by recognizing, pooling, building upon and increasing the frequency and collaboration with which Deaf Ed. faculty use Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance their teaching and the learning of their students. This work will be carried out by meeting seven goals, i.e., (Note: these goals apply to all Deaf Education teacher preparation programs in the U.S.): (1) increasing the number of consortium partners [= comprehensive partnership]; (2) developing technology enhanced method course syllabi [= infuse technology throughout teaching and learning]; (3) developing multi-media case studies of K-12 Deaf Ed. teaching who are effectively using technology to enhance instruction and improve learning [= acquire new teaching/learning resources]; (4) faculty development in the effective use of technology to enhance teaching and learning [= infuse technology throughout teaching and learning]; (5) identification of support/funding opportunities [= cultivate/seek additional support]; (6) identification additional routes through which individuals can become teachers of the deaf [= establish innovative routes to become Deaf Ed. teachers]; and design and secure consensus for a comprehensive implementation plan for the restructuring of Deaf Education teacher preparation [= innovative restructuring of all Deaf Ed. teacher preparation programs in the U.S.]. Figure 1 presents a graphic representation of these goals and the "vision" that will guide all project activities.
Figure 1
U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs - Capacity Grant
(1) Increase # of Partners
(2) Syllabi Development (3) Case Study Development
(4) Faculty Development
(5) Funding Opt. (6) Recruitment Opt.
(7) Implementation Plan
Vision
Recognize what we each do well, identify what we all would like to do better, collaboratively explore how we can use technology to enhance our instruction, increase our resources, improve the performance of our students, support our recent graduates, expand our enrollments, build learning opportunities for K-12 deaf students and establish a networked community of learners for the field of Deaf Education.
4. Impact of Solutions:
The primary problem of deafness is not a lack of hearing, but an abundance of isolation. This isolation from interpersonal exchanges and informational sources is not only experienced by deaf students, it is also felt by their parents, teachers and the faculty who prepare those teachers. In submitting this grant proposal the Association of College Educators - Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH) will provide recognition, support and collaborative opportunities for the entire faculty at the nation's 72 Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs. The resulting course syllabi, case studies, faculty skills, funding opportunities, recruitment strategies and implementation plan will serve to establish a framework for the comprehensive restructuring Deaf Education teacher preparation. Inherent within that restructuring is the innovative use of technology to not only enhance teaching and improve learning, but to also establish a sustainable community of networked faculty, students, teachers and parents for the field of Deaf Education. The essential purpose of that network is to enable all deaf children to achieve high standards of academic excellence, regardless of their degree of hearing loss or educational setting.
B. Design
As indicated in Figure 1, this project has seven goals. Those goals, their objectives, outcomes, individuals who will carry them out and the time line for the work are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2
|
Goal #1 : Increase the number of consortium partners.Objective: Faculty member within the country's 72 Deaf Ed. Teacher Preparation Programs will be contacted to inform them of the project activities (i.e., Goals 2-7) and to encourage their participation in one or more of those activities. Outcomes: The majority of Deaf Ed. teacher preparation program faculty will: a) participate in one or more of the project's activities; b) submit "Partner ID Forms" indicating their willingness to use one or more of the project's products; and c) agree to participate in project evaluation and dissemination activities. The resulting list of consortium partners, activities and uses will be shared at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and placed on the CED Web site (www.educ.kent.edu/deafed). Individuals Responsible: Drs. Johnson, Dilka, Brelje, Marvelli, Mercaldo & Schirmer Time Line: throughout the grant funding period |
|
Goal #2 : Develop technology enhanced course syllabi for each of the major method courses that are taught within Deaf Ed teacher preparation programs.Objectives: "Syllabi Development Teams" will be established for language, literacy, curriculum and communication [both spoken & signed]) method courses. Each team will be composed of 3-4 Deaf Ed. faculty members who have expressed a particular interest in a particular method course. Each team will identify, describe and share the essential problems, objectives, resources, instructional strategies, instructional activities, assessment protocols and products that their method course will address/incorporate. Each team will incorporate the use of Internet linked, computer based technologies into the components of their syllabi (e.g., Web sites, Cyber Mentors, Curriculum Development, K-12 Instructional Portfolios, Multi-Media Case Studies, etc.). Each team will identify the specific technology hardware, software and skills that faculty will need to effectively use their syllabi. Each team will share the results of their work at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site. Outcomes: Five technology enhanced, Deaf Ed. method course syllabi will be developed and shared. Each syllabi will identify how Internet linked, computer based technologies and resources can be used to enhance instruction and improve learning. Each syllabi will identify the specific hardware, software and technology skills that will be needed by the faculty and students who use them. Individuals Responsible: Dr. Brelje (Lead Faculty) + Deaf Ed. 25 faculty team members Time Line: Sep.-Oct.= build team; Oct.-Apr.= develop syllabi; Apr.= share syllabi at the ACE-D/HH conference & receive feedback; Apr.-Jul.= finalize; Jul.= disseminate course syllabi. |
|
Goal #3 : Develop 2-3 multi-media case studies of K-12 Deaf Ed. teachers that are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning.Objective: A "Case Study Development Team" will be established to pilot the development of 2-3 multi-media case studies of K-12 Deaf Ed. teachers who are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning. The team will be composed of 3-4 Deaf Ed. faculty members who have expressed a particular interest in this project activity. The team will: a) establish a conceptual design for the case study; b) design the data collection methods that will be used for the studies; c) identify 3-4 K-12 Deaf Ed. teachers who are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning; d) secure the permission of 2-3 of those teachers, students and school system to participate in the case study development work; e) collect the targeted exemplars; f) organize and explain how the resulting instructional strategies and learning activities capture the effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies; g) collaborate with the "Syllabi Development Teams" in the incorporation of the developed case studies into the respective content syllabi; h) identify the specific technology hardware, software and skills that faculty will need to effectively use the developed case studies; and i) share the resulting multi-media case studies at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site. Outcomes: 2-3 multi-media case studies will be produced that both capture and explain the effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance instruction and improve student learning within K-12 Deaf Ed. classrooms. In addition, the case studies will serve to: a) provide "instructional models" for both the Deaf Ed. faculty and their students; b) ground the Deaf Ed. method courses in the instructional realities that are found in today's K-12 Deaf Ed. classrooms; and c) identify the specific technology hardware, software and skills that faculty will need to effectively use the multi-media case studies. Individuals Responsible: Dr. Schirmer (Lead Faculty) + three Deaf Ed. faculty team members Time Line: Sep.-Oct.= build team; Oct.-Apr.= develop case studies; Apr.= share case studies at the ACE-D/HH conference & receive feedback; Apr.-Jul.= finalize; Jul.= disseminate case studies. |
|
Goal #4 : Increase faculty use of Internet linked, computer based technology with in Deaf Ed. method courses.Objective: A "Faculty Development Team" will be established to provide Deaf Ed. faculty with the technological support that they need to use the course syllabi and multi-media case studies that will be developed by this project. The team will be composed of 3-4 Deaf Ed. faculty members who have expressed a particular interest in this project activity. The team will: a) document how Deaf Ed. teacher preparation program faculty are using Internet linked, computer based technologies within their method courses; b) the problems that they are encountering in that use; and c) the array of hardware, software and instructional solutions that could be used to address those problems. In addition, the team will collaborate with the "Case Study" and "Syllabi Development" teams to identify the software, hardware and technology skills that Deaf Ed. faculty will need to use the developed syllabi and multi-medial case studies. Finally, the team will use the resulting information to design and implement regional and national (i.e., at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference) faculty development opportunities for Deaf Ed. faculty. Outcomes: Deaf Ed. faculties' current use, problems and solutions in the use of Internet linked, computer based technologies within method courses will be established and shared at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site. The additional skills that will be needed by faculty to use the syllabi and multi-media case studies developed by this project will be identified. Regional and national faculty development opportunities will be provided in the effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance instruction and improve student learning. Individuals Responsible: Dr. Marvelli (Lead Faculty) + four Deaf Ed. faculty team members + 20-40 participants of the regional faculty dev. opt. & 30-50 participants for the national faculty dev. opt. Time Line: Sep.-Oct.= build team; Oct.-Apr.= determine current uses & needs + offer two regional faculty development opportunities; Apr.= offer national faculty development opportunity at the ACE-D/HH conference & receive feedback; Apr.-Jul.= offer two regional faculty development opportunities; Jul.= disseminate results of faculty development work. |
|
Goal # 5 : Identify grant opportunities that can be used to sustain project activities.Objectives: A "Support Development Team" will be established to identify, evaluate and share possible consortium, foundation, state and federal grant opportunities that can be used to sustain and expand project activities. The team will be composed of 3-4 Deaf Ed. faculty members who have expressed a particular interest in this project activity. The team will: a) identify sources of grant information; b) use those sources to develop a list of likely grant opportunities for project related activities; c) secure and evaluate in-depth information from each of those likely sources; d) rank order the resulting list of likely grant opportunities in relation to probability of success and grant submission dates and e) share the resulting grant information at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site. Outcome: Grant opportunities that can be used to extend and expand project activities will be identified, evaluated and shared. Individuals Responsible: Dr. Mercaldo (Lead Faculty) + three Deaf Ed. faculty team members Time Line: Sep.-Oct.= build team; Oct.-Apr.= identify & evaluate funding opportunities; Apr.= share funding opportunities at the ACE-D/HH conference & receive feedback; Apr.-Jul.= write & submit 1-3 grant proposals; Jul.= disseminate results of grant work. |
|
Goal #6 : Identify additional strategies to recruit individuals into the field of Deaf Ed.Objective: A "Project Leadership Team" will be formed from the "Lead" faculty member for each of the Project's teams (i.e., "Syllabi", "Case Study", "Faculty Development" & "Support") and the Project's two Co-Directors. This team will collaboratively identify, describe and share how individuals are currently recruited and encouraged to become teachers of the deaf. The team will also identify, pilot and share additional/alternative strategies that can/should be used (e.g., recruitment of educational interpreters and parents of deaf children to become teachers; establishing e-mail exchanges between current Deaf Ed. majors and high school students who are volunteering in K-12 Deaf Ed. classrooms; etc.). The team will share the resulting information at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site. Outcome: Current recruitment strategies will be identified and alternative strategies for recruitment of additional individuals into the field of Deaf Education will be identified, piloted and shared. Individuals Responsible: Drs. Johnson, Dilka, Brelje, Marvelli, Mercaldo & Schirmer Time Line: Oct.-Apr.= identify current recruitment strategies, identify additional strategies & pilot additional strategies; Apr.= present additional recruitment strategies at the ACE-D/HH conference & seek feedback; Apr.-Jul.= modify recruitment strategies; Jul.= disseminate. |
|
Goal #7 : Write and develop consensus for the comprehensive restructuring of Deaf Ed. teacher preparation.Objective: The "Project Leadership Team" (see Goal # 6), as guided by the Project Evaluator, will conceptualize, write, disseminate and work to achieve consensus concerning a comprehensive restructuring of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs. That restructuring will focus upon the development and use of an Internet linked network of Deaf Ed. faculty, students, teachers and parents of deaf children that collaboratively work to improve instruction, increase instructional resources and enhance the academic performance of all deaf students through the innovative use of Internet linked, computer based technologies. Outcome: An "implementation plan" for the comprehensive restructuring of teacher preparation within the field of Deaf Education will be written. The partner consortium/resources, course syllabi, multi-media case studies, faculty skills, grant opportunities and recruitment strategies that were developed by this project will constitute the foundation upon which the implementation plan will be based. Individuals Responsible: Drs. Johnson, Dilka, Brelje, Marvelli, Mercaldo & Schirmer Time Line: Oct.-Apr.= conceptualize the redesign of U.S. Deaf Ed. teacher preparation; Apr.= present re-conceptualized at the ACE-D/HH conference & seek feedback; Apr.-Jul.= modify conceptual model; Jul.= disseminate model for the redesign of U.S. Deaf Ed. teacher preparation. |
C. Resources
D. Evaluation
E. Budget Narrative
This project takes place not in a single institution, but in institutions throughout the U.S. As such, while phone contacts, mailings, e-mail exchanges, listserv discussions, Web postings, teleconferences and video conferences will be used extensively, a significant amount of funds are needed to support travel for "face-to-face" syllabi development, case study development, faculty development, support development, implementation plan development and consensus building. The amount of travel funds needed by the project is offset by the fact that consortium resources are such that no equipment needs to be purchased by this project. The project's budgetary expenditures, the goals (G) they serve to accomplish, the basis for cost estimations, the consortium contributions and the cost of project evaluation are detailed below in Table 1.
Table 1 (Key: "C" = consortium contribution; "F" = federal grant funds)
|
Goals |
Salaries |
Benefits |
Travel |
|
1 - Partners |
Faculty |
Faculty |
|
|
2 - Syllabi |
Stu. Workers: C= F= 6 stu. x $7.00 hr. x 150 hrs.= $6,300 |
Stu. Work |
a. ACE-D/HH Conference: C= 1 Goal Leader x $500+ 5 syl. teams x 4 members @ x $500 = 20,500 F= 1 Goal Leader x $750+ 5 syl teams x 4 members @ x $750 = $15,750 |
|
3 - Cases |
Stu. Workers: C= F= 4 stu. x $7.00 hr. x 150 hrs.= $4,200 |
a. Case Study Dev.: F = 2 team members x 3 trips @ x $1,000 @ = $6,000 b. ACE-D/HH Conference: C = 1 Goal Leader x $500 + 3 team members x $500 @ = $2,000 F = 1 Goal Leader x $750 + 1 case dev. team x 3 members @ x $750 = $2,250 |
|
|
4 - Faculty Dev |
Stu. Workers: C= F= 5 stu. x $7.00 hr. x 150 hrs.= $5,250 |
a. Regional Faculty Dev. Opt.: F= 4 regional faculty dev. opt. x 10 participants @ x $750 @ = $30,000 b. ACE-D/HH Conference: C= 1 Goal Leader x $500 + 4 regional presenters x $500 @ = $2,500 F= 1 Goal Leader x $750 + 4 regional presenters x $750 @ = $3,750 |
|
|
5 - Support |
Stu. Workers: C= F= 4 stu. x $7.00 hr. x 150 hrs.= $4,200 |
a. ACE-D/HH Conference: C = 1 Goal Leader x $500 + 3 team members x $500 = $2,000 F= 1 Goal Leader x $750 + 3 team members x $750 @ = $3,000 |
|
|
6 - Recru- itment |
|||
|
7 - Imple-mentaion Plan |
Stu. Workers: C= F= 2 stu. x $7.00 hr. x 300 hrs.= $4,200 |
a. Required Grant Conferences: F= 2 Project Co-Dir. x 4 trips (2 regional + 2 national, 3 days @) x $1,000 @ = $8,000 b. ACE-D/HH Conference: C = 2 Project Co-Dir. x 1 trip x $500 @ = $1,000 F= 2 Project Co-Dir. x 1 trip x $750 @ = $1,500 |
|
Goals |
Material |
Consultants |
Other |
|
1 - Partners |
Evaluator: F= 10% of the grant budget of $150,000 = $15,000 (Note: this fee is for the evaluation of all project goals) |
||
|
2 - Syllabi |
F= 1 Goal Leader x $1,000 + 5 syl. team leaders x $1,000 @ = $6,000 |
a. Video Conferencing: C= 2 v-conf x 5 syl teams x $200 @ = $1,000 F= 2 v-conf x 5 syl teams x $200 @ = $1,000 |
|
|
3 - Cases |
F= 1 Goal Leader x $1,000 + 3 team members x $1,000 @ = $4,000 |
||
|
4 - Faculty Dev |
F = 1 Goal Leader x $1,000 + 4 regional presenters x 1,000 @ = $5,000 F= 1 tech. support indi. x 4 regional faculty dev. opt. x $500 @ = $2,000 |
||
|
5 - Support |
F = 1 Goal Leader c $1,000 + 3 team members x $1,000 @ = $4,000 |
||
|
6 - Recru- itment |
F = 2 Project Co-Dir. x $1,000 @ =$2,000 |
||
|
7 - Imple- mentation Plan |
F = 2 Project Co-Dir. x $1,000 @ =$2,000 |
Project Indirect Cost: 8% of $150,000 = $12,000
Total Federal Grant Share:
Total Consortium Cost-Share: