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    /    Outcomes    /    Individuals Responsible    /     Time Line    /     Budget    /    Weekly Update

Weekly Update:

As of 5/26, the Case Study Development Team:

-discussed the in-progress multimedia case studies.

-Gerry Bateman's case study is completed. It is a power point presentation, on a zip disk, with a KidPixCD to run the program.

-Barbara Strassman's case study is almost completed. It is also on power point. She's editing the video to include about 30 seconds of footage in 2-3 places. It includes slides explaining the lessons, samples of student work, still photos, and short video clips.

-Barbara Schirmer's case study is 80% completed. It is on power point, with links to the students' work on CDs. Text needs to be added to some slides to explain what the teacher and students are doing.

-The cases will be sent to Barbara Schirmer, who will make copies for team members. The team will provide suggestions for an accompanying study guide as well as suggestions for creating the final-final products and how to make them available to teacher educators and teachers.

As of March 22, the Case Study Development Team accomplished
the following:

-The three multimedia case studies have been developed and will
be presented, in draft form, at the ACE-DHH conference.  Gerry
Bateman will take the lead in presenting the cases.

-The team has been engaged in discussion with Donna Mertens,
project evaluator, regarding the best format for soliciting feedback
at the conference.  Focus groups will be the major vehicle.

    The Case Study Development Team is currently engaged in editing
the variety of media and materials that were captured during site
visits.  Specifically, the following activities have taken place and the
following questions are being discussed.

    1.  From Gerry Bateman:
I have completed my work at RSD. I have the students' final work
on the zip drive, I have taken several digital photos of the students
at work, also...there is a copy of the IEP where I will show where
the work "fit", a lesson plan, the yahoo website address (I think
that's it...I need to go through the file again). Oh, I have paper
copies of the students' essays. I have not done the CD rom (scan
in the students' work or add the digital photos). The teacher and I
decided not to do a videotaping (it really asn't necessary...what we
have will show what the project was all about).

    2.  From Barbara Schirmer:
With the assistance of my GA, we have catalogued the most
important items including a) digitial photos, b) transcript of teacher
explaining what/why he's doing, c) kids' hyperstudio and power
point projects.  We have decided to "storyboard" it in a logical
teaching sequence from teacher presentation of info, students
working alone and together on gathering info, students' projects,
and students presenting their projects to classmates.  We have
not yet put this together into presentation format.  I am planning to
use Power Point.  At this point, I have not even looked at the video,
which I think we'll either add later or use as a "stand alone."

    3.  What should the next step be to get this ready for our
presentation in New Orleans?  This is the time we can send rough
cuts to team members.  We can also ask team members to
develop teaching guides and viewer/learner objectives (Susan
suggested that the teacher and site leader develop these, but
perhaps suggestions from editors would be useful).  All ideas are
welcome.

    4.  From Donna Mertens:
For Goal 3, multi-media case studies of K-12 teachers using
technology to teach D/HH students, we said we’d have 2-3 multi-
media case studies developed that met certain criteria, i.e.,
capture and explain the effective use of technology and enhances
student learning, gender, ethnicity, and other cultural sensitivity,
and is responsive to the needs of the D/HH students. We also said
we’d do focus group at the N.O. meeting. What are your thoughts
re: the evaluation activities for the case studies? Would it be useful
to have a brief form to fill in for each case study, like a check list of
the things we said we’d include (e.g., capture and explain the
effective use of technology and enhances student learning, gender,
ethnicity, and other cultural sensitivity, and is responsive to the
needs of the D/HH students, etc.)?  What are your thoughts about
having small focus groups during the N.O. meeting to look at each
case studies and give you feedback?

   1/18/2000

The Case Study Development Team will post information only as
new events unfold. Since early December, the following activities
were carried out:

- Barbara Schirmer visited the OSD classroom for two full days on
January 13 and 14 and carried out 4 data-gathering activities: 1.
Videotaping the teacher and students in a variety of
teaching/learning activities.  2. Shooting photos with a digital
camera.  She took pictures of the same activities as the ones
being captured on videotape, and often tried to take 3-4 pictures
within a few seconds of each other so that the photos could
show the progress of an activity.  3. Audiotaping the teacher
explaining why he chose particular activities and teaching
strategies.  4. Burning the students’ PowerPoint and
Hyperstudio presentations onto a CD rom.  5. Obtaining lesson
plans from the teacher.  Her Graduate Assistant is making a first
cut at editing the raw data.

- Gerry Bateman is planning to gather information from the RSD
classroom during the next week.  He will try to use similar data-
gathering modes to the ones that Barbara used.

- BarbaraStrassman will tape on Feb 8, 15, or 22 in the
classroom at Marie Katzenbach School.

- Barbara Strassman suggested that we discuss the process/steps
and Susan Rose suggested creating a storyboard or script before
taping.  Barbara Schirmer gathered multiple sources of data during
her 2-day visit and will overlay a storyboard on top of what she has
gathered, and edit to fit the storyboard.

- In the next few weeks, the team will discuss suggestions for
editing and presenting the cases.  Harold would like them to be
in PowerPoint.  This will mean very limited use of video.
Another approach is to burn the video on CD rom, as Barbara
Strassman suggested.  We could actually have two kinds of
multimedia case studies, both PowerPoint and CD rom.

- Harold suggested that some of the team members might want to
attend the next faculty development workshop to gain skills in
putting the presentations together.

    12/08/99

    Since the middle of November, the Case Study Development Team
carried out the following:
 

1-Barbara Schirmer submitted the Human Subject Review Board
application to Kent State.

2-Copies of the template consent form were sent to Barbara
Strassman and Gerry Bateman. Barbara Schirmer sent copies of
the consent form to Bill Newman at Ohio School for the Deaf to
distribute to parents, and set up dates in January to visit his class.

3-The teacher who was chosen at the Rochester School for the
Deaf has a 3rd or 4th grade class and most of the students are
children of deaf parents.  Gerry has a student teacher in this class
starting in January, which will give him many opportunities to visit.

4-The team has not yet come to agreement on what we would all
be looking for in the lessons that we observe.  Susan had
suggested a set of questions that would address objective of the
lesson, prerequisites or student prep for the event being captured,
integration with which aspects of the curriculum, description of the
ecology of the lesson, and teacher responsibilities vs student
responsbilities.

5-The team has also not yet come to agreement on how we will
capture the information.  We talked about having 2 video cameras
and a digital camera.  Also, we talked about capturing student
work via scanning, CDs, and disks (probably zip disks). Harold
suggests that we use a small tape recorder to provide an ongoing
commentary on what we're filming, which may not be feasible for
everyone.

    During the past two weeks, the Case Study Development Team
considered the nominations for case study teachers and made the
following two decisions:

    1-The three case study teachers will be a high school teacher at
the Marie Katzenbach School for the Deaf; a middle school teacher
at the Ohio School for the Deaf; and a teacher chosen by Gerry
Bateman at the Rochester School for the Deaf.  Gerry will let us
know once he and the principal have decided on the teacher.  As
part of this decision, team members noted that we will continue our
efforts at finding teachers in a variety of settings that we will use as
case studies next year, if we are funded again. Margaret, Mary V.,
& Susan know teachers who may be very willing to participate, as
long as we have greater notice than we did this year.

    2-The site leader will gather the data, which will enable us to gather
data over more than one day.  This will maximize the opportunities
to capture as much quality teaching and as much use of
technology in teaching as possible.  Unedited tapes will then be
sent to team members for editing.  Perhaps we might even use 2
video cameras, so that we can capture as much of the teacher,
students, and technology as possible during each lesson.

    Also, during the next couple of weeks, Barbara Schirmer will obtain
information from site leaders regarding the students (number in the
class, ethnicity, genger, age) and how many classrooms.   This
information is needed to submit the Human Subjects Review Board
application at Kent State.
 

    10/30/99

    As of October 30, the Case Study Development Team
accomplished the following:

• Nominations were submitted for case study teachers.
• Six teachers at two schools for the deaf have been nominated so far.
• The technology they use includes PCs, a scanner, the Internet, school network systems, printers, SMARTboards, LCD projection machines, and equipment to "burn" Power Point & Hyperstudio into CDRom.  Software includes Hyperstudio, Power Point, and Word.
• Technology is integrated into social studies, science, language, reading, and history.

    10/8/99

   As of October 8, the Case Study Development Team accomplished the following:

• The criteria for choosing the case study teachers, the nomination process, and the time line were agreed upon.

the nominees. The following information will be included when submitting a nomination:

• -name of teacher
• -name of school and location
• -description of setting
• -description of students
• -type(s) of technology used
• -subject area(a)
• -language(s)

    9/28/99

   As of September 28, the Case Study Development Team accomplished the following:

        The following criteria will be used in choosing case study teachers:

1. Language is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).
2. Technology is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).
3. Several content areas are represented (across the 2-3 cases).
4. Diverse age ranges and characteristics of students are represented (across the 2-3 cases).
5. Diverse modes of communication are represented (across the 2-3 cases).

• -name of teacher
• -name of school and location
• -description of setting
• -description of students
• -type(s) of technology used
• -subject area(s)
• -language(s)

• -Choose our case study teachers by mid-November,
• -Obtain permissions by the end of December,
• -Plan trips in December,
• -Do the site filming (2 team members to a site, perhaps 3 at one site if all want to do a site visit) in January,
• -Put together the final product in February and March,
• -Present at ACE-DHH the end of March.

   As of September 23, the Case Study Development Team accomplished the following:

• Team members added a few criteria for cases to the ones discussed previously:
• -consider mode of communication/language in choosing cases, and include one auditory/oral child.
• -include one creative/authentic/meangiful exemplar teacher in addition to content teachers.

• -The team is charged with creating only 2-3 case studies. What we create may not ultimately be outstanding, but we will be learning what we should do in developing future case studies from future grants. Therefore, let's not expect our first efforts to be perfect.
• -We only have enough money, and undoubtedly time, to visit each case site once and capture the information on video (or other media) as well as acquire artifacts. Let's assume we will capture information over the course of a full day. The teacher will undoubtedly be teaching more than one group of children, more than one subject area, and using more than one type of technology.

1. Language is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).
2. Technology is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).
3. Several content areas are represented (across the 2-3 cases).
4. Diverse age ranges and characteristics of students are represented (across the 2-3 cases).
5. Diverse modes of communication are represented (across the 2-3 cases).

• -description of setting & kids
• -technology use
• -subject area(s)
• -language

    9/16/99

    As of September 16, the Case Study Development accomplished the following:

Team members discussed the team's first objective--to establish a conceptual design for the case study. The following is a summary of their ideas:

• -Technology should be infused into instruction; we should not consider tech ed for a case study.
• -The teacher should clearly link what is being taught to the curriculum such as statewide curriculum & assessments.
• -The teacher should always teach language as a part of whatever concept or unit of study is being taught. Related to this is the point that the focus of the cases should be the teaching of content (e.g., science, social studies, math) and language/English should support the teaching of content but not be the focus of the instruction.
• -The case studies should reflect a variety of school/community environments (i.e., urban, rural, suburbuan) and placements (i.e., itinerant, resource, residential, public).
• -The case studies should reflect a diversity of students by age level/grade span and characteristics (such as including children with special needs).
• -The case studies should reflect a range of content areas.There was also quite a bit of discussion about the kind(s) of technology that might be used for recording and presenting the cases including video on CD Rom and Power Point. Harold has been participating on these discussions because one of his roles as co-PI is to help assemble the case studies into a multimedia format.

    9/9/99

    As of September 10, the Case Study Development Team accomplished the following:

   -Team membership was set with the following individuals:

• Mary Compton <mvcompto@uncg.edu>
• Margaret Finnegan <finnegMH@Flagler.edu>
• Ann Powers <arp862f@mail.smsu.edu>
• Barbara Strassman <strassma@tcnj.edu>
• Gerry Bateman <gcbnmp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>
• Susan Rose <srose@maroon.tc.umn.edu>

    -We reviewed the goal, objectives, timeline, and budget.-We began discussion about the first objective, which we hope to complete by the end of September. This objective is "to establish a conceptual design for the case study."

   -We also began discussing the media we might use for the case studies. Two ideas are a) still pictures with voice carryover and b) CD/Video.

submitted by:  Barbara Schirmer - Goal Leader

    9/2/99

      As of Sept. 2, 1999, the Case Study Development Team accomplished the following:

    -Barbara Schirmer, team leader, contacted members who originally expressed interest in being part of this team to confirm their continued interest and ability to participate. Gerry Bateman (NTID), Margaret Finnegan (Flagler), and Barbara Strassman (College of New Jersey) responded positively. We are still waiting to hear from Susan Rose (University of Minnesota) and Ann Powers (Southwest Missouri State University).

   -Barbara reviewed the goals, objectives, outcomes, responsibilities, and time line of the Case Study Development Team with Harold Johnson, Co-Director of the grant, who is the team's liaison. They discussed the kinds of technology that we might use in the multi-media case studies, the budget for activities such as travel and student workers, and how we will use the next two months for organization.

Objective:

   A "Case Study Development Team" will be established to pilot the development of 2-3 multi-media case studies of K-12 D/HH Education 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 D/HH Education 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 D/HH Education 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 D/HH Education classrooms. In addition, the case studies will serve to: a) provide "instructional models" for both the D/HH Education faculty and their students; b) ground the D/HH Education method courses in the instructional realities that are found in today's K-12 D/HH Education 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) + 4-5 D/HH Education faculty team members. [1]

• Gerald Bateman, National Technical Institute for the Deaf at RIT [1]
• Mary V. Compton, University of North Carolina, Greensboro [1]
• Margaret Finnegan, Flagler College [1]
• Ann Powers, Southern Missouri State University [1]
• Susan Rose, University of Minnesota [1]
• Barbara Strassman, The College of New Jersey [1]

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.

Budget:

    Personnel:

        Goal Leader (GL) - Barbara Schirmer         $1,000

        5 Team Members (TM) - (to be named)     $1,000@

    Student Workers:

        6 students x 150 hrs. @ x $7 = $6,300

    Travel:

        6 case study development trips x $1,000 @
        6 individuals (i.e., 1 GL + 5 TM) x $750@ to attend the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference

uploaded by Harold Johnson