Join Together:

A Nationwide On-Line Community of Practice and Professional

Development School Dedicated to Instructional Effectiveness and

Academic Excellence within Deaf/Hard of Hearing Education

 

 

Co-Directors:

Harold Johnson, Kent State University

and

Katharine Stephens Slemenda, Converse College

 

1 October 200330 September 2006

 

Funding by:

U.S. Department of Education

Preparing Tomorrows Teachers with Technology (PT3)

 


Table of Contents

Abstract..............................................................................................................................................

Need for the Project.............................................................................................................................

Significance.........................................................................................................................................

Quality of Project Design......................................................................................................................

            Goal 1......................................................................................................................................

            Goal 2......................................................................................................................................

Adequacy of Resources........................................................................................................................

            Adequacy of Consortium Support..............................................................................................

            Reasonableness of Cost to Project Design & Potential Impact....................................................

Quality of Management Plan.................................................................................................................

Quality of the Evaluation Plan...............................................................................................................

            The evaluators & their contribution to the proposed project.........................................................

            Evaluation design and methods..................................................................................................

            Research and evaluation plan....................................................................................................

            Data collection types................................................................................................................

            Evaluation Plan........................................................................................................................


Abstract                                                                                                                                              Back to TOC

The primary problem of deafness is not too little hearing, but too much interpersonal and informational isolation.  This isolation has resulted in a chronic, nationwide disparity between a) the learning potential and the academic performance of PK-12 students who are deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh); b) the current educational placement of students who are d/hh and the historic centers of d/hh curricular and instructional excellence; and c) the growing need for teachers of d/hh students and the inability of the nation’s d/hh teacher preparation programs to meet that need.  This grant addresses the problems of poor academic performance, inadequate teaching resources and insufficient teacher preparation by establishing a nationwide, on-line Community of Practice (CoP) for PK-20 d/hh education.  The grant’s CoP consortium members have formally committed time and resources to collaboratively research, refine and reform U.S. d/hh teacher preparation.  In addition, the CoP, through the use of Web-based video conferencing, will establish a Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS) network to link the theory and research of the nation’s d/hh teacher preparation programs with the proven practices and resources of the nation’s Master Teachers of PK-12 students who are d/hh.  If funded, the grant will establish the a) technological infrastructure [Obj. 1.1]; b) faculty technology competence [Obj. 1.2]; preservice teacher diversity [Obj. 1.3]; and multi-state certification/preparation model [Obj. 1.4] that are needed to reform U.S. d/hh teacher preparation (Goal 1).  In addition, if funded, the grant will use the technological infrastructure and resulting VPDS to provide preservice teachers the a) instructional [Obj. 2.1]; b) content [Obj. 2.2]; c) technological [Obj. 2.3]; and d) assessment [Obj. 2.4] competencies that are needed to enable PK-12 students who are d/hh to meet challenging state and local standards for academic performance (Goal 2).  The grant will accomplish these objectives through the combined interpersonal and informational resources of the already-committed a) twelve institutions of higher education; b) three national education projects; c) six state education agencies; d) three local education agencies; e) seven national education organizations and f) three corporations. The grant’s Lead Organization is the Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH).  ACE-D/HH is the professional organization for the nation’s d/hh teacher preparation program faculty.  That faculty works in 72 colleges/universities in 36 states and with approximately 3,000 preservice teachers. 


1.  Need for the Project                                                                                                                                                                      Back to TOC

The lead organization for this grant proposal is the Association of College Educators-Deaf/Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH). ACE-D/HH is the professional organization for faculty at the nation’s 72 d/hh (deaf/hard of hearing) teacher preparation programs. Kent State University will serve as the fiscal agent for the grant.

        The administrative leaders of three Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) have formally committed to support the grant’s goals, objectives and activities to research, refine and reform d/hh teacher preparation. In addition, while IHE vary in their locations (three different states), settings (one rural, one suburban and one urban campus), and degrees offered (B.S. & B.A. undergraduate and M.Ed., M.A., Ed.S. & Ph.D. graduate), they are consistent in their willingness to both allocate resources and implement organizational change in support of the goal to insure that all preservice teachers are prepared to use advanced technologies so that PK-12 students who are d/hh can meet challenging state and local achievement standards.   The extent of this support is reflected by the following statement from Dr. Carol Cartwright, President of Kent State University:

The use of advanced, Web based video conferencing technologies, a nation wide, on-line community-of-practice and a virtual professional development school hold tremendous promise not only for the preparation of teachers of deaf/hard-of-hearing students, but for the entire field of education.  As such, my administrative colleagues and I look forward to learning from this grant effort so that we can use the resulting knowledge and technological resources to further enhance and expand out efforts to use the entire university system to prepare the next generation of highly qualified and highly successful teachers for Ohio, the region and the nation.

 

a. Identification & Needs of  Disadvantaged Individuals

        Who is the grant designed to serve? This grant is designed to improve the capacity of 72 colleges and universities in 35 states to implement high quality, technology-centered teacher preparation programs for approximately 3,000 preservice teachers of the nation’s 72,672 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) PK-12 students who are d/hh. If funded, the grant will serve to not only reform the nation’s preparation of teachers of students who are d/hh, it will also serve to provide a technologically-centered model of teacher preparation reform that could be used in the preparation of all teachers so all students are able to address challenging academic content and meet rigorous local and state student achievement standards.  Finally, the grant will serve to provide Web-based technological, informational, instructional, curricular and assessment support to any parent, teacher, support personnel or administrator who is working with PK-20 students who are d/hh.

        How are students who are d/hh disadvantaged?  Individuals who are d/hh possess the same learning potential as their hearing peers (Rosenstein, 1961).  In spite of this fact, students who are d/hh demonstrate a chronic lack of academic success (Bowe, 1988; Easterbrooks, 2001).  This lack of success is reflected by the fact that, on the average, students who are d/hh complete high school with a grade level reading competence of between 2.8 to 4.5 (Dew, 1999; Siegel, 2000).  The combination of poor academic and literacy skills serves to severely limit the number of individuals who are d/hh who enter post-secondary programs.  It also serves to explain why only 25% of students who are d/hh who enter college programs complete those programs (Lang, 2002).  The lack of post-secondary training, poor academic skills and functional illiteracy combine to create a disastrous employment situation for adults who are d/hh.  Siegel (2000) reports that 33% of adults who are d/hh rely upon some form of public assistance, 40% are unemployed and 90% are underemployed.  D/hh individuals’ lack of academic and vocational success is indicative of a failed educational system (Johnson, Erting, Liddell; 1989).  As such, students who are d/hh are not only disadvantaged, they are also grossly ill-prepared to meet the learning and performance expectations of the 21st century. 

        What are the current gaps or weaknesses in the services, infrastructure and opportunities for students who are d/hh?     The primary problem of deafness is not too little hearing, but too much isolation (Johnson, 2002).  This isolation has resulted in the following gaps and weaknesses in the PK-20 d/hh educational system. 

 

Instructional Placements vs. Instructional Infrastructure:

o        residential schools for the deaf have historically served as the primary sites for instructional expertise and academic excellence within d/hh education (Lane, Hoffmeister & Bahan, 1996);

o        80% of the nation’s 72,000+ students who are d/hh are now educated in public local schools, 60% of those serve 1-3 students a year (Easterbrooks, 1999; Holden-Pitt & Diaz, 1998);

o        students who are d/hh (Bugen, Innes, Randall & Siegel, 2001: Johnson, 2002) and their teachers (Dodd & Scheetz; 2003) are becoming increasingly isolated from the instructional resources, peers and learning opportunities they need to meet the increasingly challenging state and local standards for academic content and academic achievement.

 

Faculty Knowledge of Technology vs. Faculty Integration of Technology:  While the need (Bowe, 1988) and potential (Flake, 2001) of technology to both enhance and reform teacher education has been well established, most teachers of PK-12 students who are d/hh (Pagliaro, 1998) and teacher preparation program faculty (Roberson, 2001) lack the time, support and models they need to effectively incorporate existing and emerging technologies into the instructional designs of their courses.

 

Student Diversity vs. Teacher Majority:

o        54% of the nation’s PK-12 students who are d/hh are males, 46% females; 58% are Caucasian, 17% are African-American, 18% are Hispanic, 4% are Asian and 1% are American Indian (Holden-Pitt & Diaz, 1998);

o        95% of the nation’s teachers of d/hh students are females, 90% are Caucasian, 85% are hearing (Andrews & Jordan; 1993; Corbett & Jensema; 1981; Moores, 1995 & 2001);

o        as a group, d/hh teacher preparation programs do not actively recruit ethnically diverse students (Johnson, 2000); few of the existing programs focus upon preparing teachers to work with ethnically diverse students who are d/hh (Christensen, 2000); and the resulting disparity between student and teacher ethnicity has impeded students’ academic success (Easterbrooks & Baker-Hawkins; 1995; Moores, 2001; Rodda & Eleweke, 2002). 

 

Teacher Preparation Program Design vs. State Certification Requirements:

o        there is a chronic, nationwide shortage of teachers of d/hh students (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), to the extent that the need for these teachers outstrips the available supply in virtually every state in the country (American Association for Employment in Education, 2000);

o        Alaska, like 14 other states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming), the Territories of Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, does not offer a d/hh teacher preparation program within its geographic boundaries.

o        the difficulty in establishing more d/hh teacher preparation programs (Bowe, 1988), in staffing the programs (LaSasso & Wilson, 2000) and in reducing the geographic isolation of the programs from the individuals who need them (Johnson, 2002) are all compounded when highly qualified teachers of students who are d/hh graduate from a teacher preparation program in one state and experience tremendous difficulty in becoming certified in other states (Easterbrooks & Baker-Hawkins; 1995).

 

Instructional Beliefs vs. Student Performance:

o        the best predictor of how beginning teachers will teach is not the university courses they took but the instructional strategies of the cooperating teachers with whom they were placed for student teaching (Browne & Hoover, 1990; Goodlad, 1990);

o        unfortunately, many faculty members consider field experiences to be a possible corrupting influence to what preservice teachers are learning in their course work (Goodlad, 1990); this concept, plus the press for more field experiences with PK-12 students who are d/hh  (Miller, 2000) and the lack of sufficient time to supervise (Isrealite & Hammermeister, 1986) increasingly distant field experience sites (Jones & Ewing, 2002) has lead many faculty to use the “available” vs. “best” cooperating teachers for their students’ field experiences, thus maintaining the “status quo”  of (Goodlad, 1990) d/hh instructional design;

o        as a result, many beginning teachers of d/hh students possess a “belief system” vs. a set of proven instructional tools (Easterbrooks; 1999).

 

Instructional Focus vs. Academic Content:

o        teachers of students who are d/hh typically focus upon developing their students’ speech and language skills to the functional exclusion of other academic subjects (Easterbrooks & Baker-Hawkins; 1995);

o        this focus reflects the traditional d/hh practice (Mackie, 1956), the lower curricular expectations for students who are d/hh (Martin & Lytle, 2000) and the lack of sufficient content course work within d/hh teacher preparation programs (Dodd & Scheetz, 2003);

o        this pattern of instructional design is based on the assumption that teachers of students who are d/hh can teach all subjects (Lytle & Rovins, 1997); unfortunately, research has clearly demonstrated that student performance is tied to teacher content knowledge (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001) and the science and math preparation of teachers of students who are d/hh is substantially inadequate (Lang, 2003; Lang, McKee & Conner, 1993).

 

Technology Access vs. Technology Applications:

o        while gaps still exist in Pk-12 students access to computer based, Web-linked technologies, the greatest challenge facing educators today is not a lack of technology access, but a lack of effective technology use (Cooper, 1997);

o        unfortunately, most PK-12 teachers lack the knowledge, skills and experiences that are needed to effectively use technologies to enhance either instruction or student performance (Carroll, 2000);

o        as a result, while instruction in the use of technology has been a focus of most teacher preparation programs for an extended period of time, preservice teachers continue to graduate from the nation’s teacher preparation programs with insufficient technology skills because the existing teacher with whom they are placed for student teaching do not consistently model the effective use of technology (Browne & Hoover, 1990). 

 

Assessment Requirements vs. Instructional Refinements:  The chronic underachievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh reflects the fact that the teachers of these students do not use and/or have access to assessment protocols that would allow them to effectively utilize student performance data to refine instruction.

        How will the identified gaps or weaknesses be addressed within this grant and what will be the nature and magnitude of the grant’s outcomes?


Logic Model for “Join Together:…

Need

Action

Significance

Project Design

Resources

Outcomes

Obj

Description

Inst. Infrastructure

Res. + Estab. VPDS

Link Theo. to Pra.

1.1

Tech. Infra.

TT

Reduce Iso./Inc Res. + R/TP

Faculty Tech. Comp.

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Know & Use E Tech.

1.2

Faculty Comp.

TT

Effective Inst. + R/TP

Teacher Diversity

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Match Tea. w/ Stu.

1.3

P/T Diversity

TT

Inc. Divr. of P/T Pool + R/TP

Tea. Prep Pro. Design

MOU + Pilot I X/Sta

Inc. Tea. in SE U.S.

1.4

Multi-state C/P

TT

Alt. Model of T/P + R/TP

P/T Inst. Comp.

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Know & Use E Inst

2.1

P/T Inst. Comp

TT/MT

Inc A/P PK-12 d/hh Stu.

P/T A/Cont Comp.

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Know & Use E A/Cont

2.2

P/T Content Comp.

TT/MT

Inc A/P PK-12 d/hh Stu.

P/T Tech. Comp.

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Know & Use E Tech

2.3

P/T Tech. Comp.

TT/MT

Inc A/P PK-12 d/hh Stu.

P/T Assess Comp.

Res. + Prof. Dev.

Know & Use E Assess

2.4

P/T Asst. Comp.

TT/MT

Inc A/P PK-12 d/hh Stu.

Need

Inst. = Instructional; Tech. = Technology; Comp. = Competence; Tea. = Teacher; Prep. = Preparation; Pro = Program; P/T = Preservice Teacher; A/Cont = Academic Content; Assess. = Assessment;

Action

Res. = Research; Estab = Establish; VPDS = Virtual Professional Development School; Res = Research; Prof = Professional; Dev. = Development; MOU = Memorandum of Understanding: + Pilot I = Pilot Investigation; X/Sta = Multi-state

Significance

Theo. = Theory; Pra. = Practice; E = Effective; Tech. = Technology; Tea. = Teachers; w/  = with; Stu. = Students; Inc. = Increase; Tea = Teachers; SE = Southeastern; Inst = Instruction; A/Cont  = Academic Content; Assess. = Assessment

Project Des.

Infra. = Infrastructure; C/P = Certification/Preparation Program

Resources

TT = Topical Teams; MT = Master Teachers of students who are d/hh

Outcomes

Iso = Isolation; Inc. = Increase; Res = Resources; R/TP = Reform/Teacher Preparation; Inst = Instruction; Divr = Diversity; P/T = Preservice Teacher; Alt = Alternative; A/P = Academic/Performance; d/hh = deaf/hard of hearing; Stu. = Students

 

How will the grant conduct a detailed assessment of the gaps and weaknesses?  The grant has been designed to first research, then refine and finally reform U.S. teacher preparation of preservice teachers for d/hh students.  As such, the first activity for each of the grant’s eight objectives is to carry out a needs assessment.  The assessments will be carried out via the grant’s “Topical Team Structure.”  Within that structure, two people with expertise in selected areas have agreed to serve as the “Topical Team Leaders” (TTL) for each of the grant’s eight objectives.  TTL will identify three to five individuals who have distinguished themselves as regional or national experts on the objective’s topical focus.  These individuals will serve as the Team’s “Topical Experts” (TE).  Finally, TTL will use the CM and the 11,500+ registrations of the Deaf Education Web site (www.deafed.net; created under a 2000 U.S. Department of Education PT3 Catalyst grant) to identify those individuals throughout the nation who share a particular interest and experiential background in the objective’s topical focus.  The resulting Topical Teams (TT), under the direction of the TTL and with the advice of the TE and grant evaluators, will then use both standard (e.g., e-mail, listserv, on-line forms, etc.) and advanced Web-based video conferencing technologies to gather the needed baseline data for each of the grant’s objectives.  When appropriate, phone interviews and direct observations will be used to enhance the depth of baseline information collected.

 

2. Significance                                                                                                                                                                                                     Back to TOC

        What is the grant’s vision for change and for classroom implementation of advanced technologies? Carroll (2000) describes U.S. schools as historically being designed around a “Factory” or “Knowledge Transmission Model” (p 124) of education.  Within that model, emphasis is placed upon students’ first learning and then demonstrating to their teachers some degree of informational mastery before they are permitted to move on to the next teacher and the next batch of information.  Within this traditional model of education, learning is essentially a one-way event that is carried out within the isolated confines of the classroom.  Carroll goes on to describe “Knowledge Generation” (p 124) as an alternative model of education that should now be used in schools.   Within this second model, emphasis is placed on the use of existing and emerging technologies to establish networked learning communities that collaboratively assists teachers and students as they explore and address real world problems through the hands-on learning and application of constantly changing knowledge and skills.  In this way Carroll believe that students will develop from novice to mature learners, and schools will develop from places of knowing to places of learning.  This second model, with a “twist,” represents the vision for this grant.  The twist entails the use of advanced technologies to add value to a common, often overlooked, yet one of the most predictive components of how the graduates of any teacher preparation program will teach, i.e., practicum and student teaching experiences (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001).  Within this grant, an on-line Community of Practice (CoP), drawn from the grant’s Consortium Members’ personnel resources, will collaborate with d/hh teacher preparation program faculty and preservice teachers, as they use Web-based video conferencing technologies to observe, research, support and inform the nation’s most effective and innovative teachers of PK-12 students who are d/hh.  In this way theory will be joined with practice, practice will inform theory and the best of our existing d/hh teachers will mentor the next generation of d/hh teachers, a generation that will have the knowledge and skills to use empirically proven best practices to prepare the nation’s students who are d/hh for the 21st century.

 

        How does this vision differ from and improve upon other efforts that make a difference for technology-centered teacher preparation?  Easterbrooks, Harper, Owens, and Nichols, (2000), in their review of research concerning education reform, noted three basic patterns, i.e., reform movements to 1) raise standards and teacher accountability, 2) improve teacher education, and 3) restructure schools.  Their analysis of the success and failure of reform efforts noted three critical factors, i.e., 1) higher standards for teachers, 2) linkages between teacher preparation programs and PK-12 schools and 3) seamless progress of preservice teachers from recruitment through the first few years of teaching.  Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy (2001), in their analysis of 57 empirically based research studies concerning effective teacher preparation, found that while depth of content and pedagogical preparation was positively correlated with both teaching practices and student performance, clinical experiences had the most powerful influence upon preservice teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices.  Unfortunately, the researchers were unable to draw any conclusions concerning the policies or procedures that were effective in initiating or sustaining teacher preparation reform.  Finally Carroll (2000), in his discussion of why the effective use of technology will reform PK-20 education noted the combined influences of a) the Web, b) interactive technologies, c) the use of technology to support learning at home and in the work place, d) the fact that learning communities have no boundaries and e) “kid power…kids get it!” (p 134) will drive education reform.  This grant builds on the cited research by 1) improving the pedagogical and content preparation of d/hh preservice teachers, 2) using the preservice teachers’ field experiences and Web-based interactive technologies to link colleges with PK-12 schools and 3) using networked learning communities to assist teachers and students to use technology as a learning tool. 

 

        How does the grant use scientifically-based evidence and what potential does it have to add to the knowledge base of best practices concerning teacher preparation?  The activities for the grant’s eight objectives have been designed to first research, then refine and finally reform d/hh teacher preparation.  The activities will use empirical evidence concerning the impact of technological infrastructure, faculty technological competence, preservice teacher diversity and a multi-state model to reform d/hh teacher preparation.  The activities will also use empirical evidence concerning the impact of advanced technologies (i.e., Web-based video conferencing), in conjunction with a CoP and a Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS), to both reform d/hh teacher preparation and enhance d/hh preservice teachers’ instructional, content, technological and assessment competencies.  The grant’s project design and management plan insure resulting empirical information will not only be effectively shared with, but also used by, the participating institutions of higher education, state education agencies, local education agencies and consortium members to substantially enhance and reform PK-20 education.  Finally, the grant’s empirical evidence and teacher education reform strategies will be shared with the larger teacher education community via publications, conference presentations, site visits and a Web-based informational retrieval system.  The sum of these activities will serve to substantially add to the knowledge base concerning effective teacher preparation.

 

        What is the potential magnitude for information, resources, strategies and technologies that can be used to enhance the academic achievement of all students?  This grant will substantially enhance the preparation of approximately 3,000 preservice teachers   in d/hh teacher preparation programs within 72 colleges/universities in 36 states throughout the nation.  This grant will also establish a CoP and a VPDS network that will directly and indirectly enhance the PK-12 instruction and academic performance of a substantial proportion of the nation’s 72,672 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) PK-12 students who are d/hh. In addition, this grant will further enhance the informational resources and interactive opportunities that are already available to the growing number of registrants (i.e., 11,600+) on the Deaf Education Web site (www.deafed.net).  Finally, the “lessons learned,” the empirically evidence generated and the model of teacher preparation developed will provide compelling evidence of how all teachers can be prepared to teach all students so that they can achieve the higher academic standards that are now demanded within the 21st century. 

 

3. Quality of the Project Design                                                                                                                                                                       Back to TOC

This grant will accomplish two major goals, i.e., Goal 1 – a reform of the U.S. model of teacher preparation for preservice teachers of students who are deaf/hard-of-hearing (d/hh) and Goal 2 - the preparation of the nation’s d/hh preservice teachers in the effective use of instruction, content, technology and assessment best practices.  The impact of these goals will be an increase in the ability of students who are d/hh to meet challenging state and local academic achievement standards.  A schematic representation of the grant’s goals, objectives, activities and outcomes is presented in Figure 1.

        The grant’s goals will be accomplished via the use of a Community of Practice (CoP).  The CoP will be composed of the Consortium Members (CM), Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), State Education Agencies (SEA) and Local Education Agencies (LEA) that formally committed to collaborating in achieving the grant’s objectives.  Topical Teams (TT) will be used to carry out the activities that are listed for each of the grant’s objectives, i.e., one TT per objective.  TT members will be drawn from the CoP.  Several of the TT’ activities will focus upon the use of Web-based video conferencing to link the nation’s Master Teachers (MT) of students who are d/hh with faculty and preservice teachers at the nation’s d/hh teacher preparation programs (Note: the MT were identified via a 2000-2004 PT3 Catalyst grant).  The resulting links will serve to establish a Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS) network for the field of d/hh education.   This network, in turn, will provide the essential tool that will be used to insure that preservice teachers of d/hh students possess the competencies needed to increase the ability of students who are d/hh to meet challenging state and local standards for academic achievement.

 

a. Goals, Objectives & Outcomes                                                                                                                                                                      Back to TOC

Goal 1:  Establish and use an on-line CoP to research, refine and reform the U.S. model of teacher preparation used to prepare preservice teachers of students who are deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh), so that faculty will demonstrate increased technological competency and their curriculum reflects effective practice based on credible evidence.

 

Objective: 1.1Technological Infrastructure – Create an efficient collaborative network of CM, IHE, SEA and LEA that results in empirical evidence regarding the impact of Web-based video conferencing to reform d/hh teacher preparation.

Figure 1: Goals, Objectives, Activities & Outcomes

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Outcome: 1.1 - Empirical evidence of the use of Web-based video conferencing by the CM, IHE, SEA and LEA in collaborating with the larger CoP in the completion of project activities and in the reform d/hh teacher preparation programs.

 

Activities:

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of the CM, IHE, SEA and LEA to determine access to and competency with Web-based video conferencing. Outcome: Baseline empirical data.  

2.        Provide assistance in the purchase of necessary Web-based video conferencing equipment for use at IHE, SEA and LEA.  Outcome: Increased Web-based video conferencing capability.    

3.        Provide technical and professional development support for the establishment of Web-based video-conference links among IHE, SEA, LEA and CM. Outcome: Establishment of a VPDS for the field of d/hh education. 

4.        Conduct research concerning the use of Web-based videoconferencing by CM, IHE, SEA and LEA with the larger CoP in the completion of project activities and the resulting impact of this use on the reform of d/hh teacher preparation programs. Outcome: Increase in knowledge base.   

5.        Disseminate research information on the use of Web-based video conferencing by CM, IHE, SEA and LEA and the impact of this use on the reform of d/hh teacher preparation programs. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHE in their awareness, understanding and use of advanced technologies to facilitate collaborative activities and to reform teacher preparation.

 

Objective: 1.2 Faculty Technological Competence and Use of Resources - Identify the technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources needed for effective instruction and increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh and incorporate these into faculty instruction within d/hh teacher preparation programs.

 

Overall Outcome: 1.2 - Empirical evidence of the increase in d/hh teacher preparation program faculty technological competencies and use of multimedia curricular resources needed for effective instruction and increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.   

Activities:

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of d/hh teacher education faculty to determine their technological competencies and knowledge and use of multimedia curricular resources. Outcome: Baseline empirical data. 

2.        Conduct research concerning the technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources that are needed for effective instruction and increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base.

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for the use of the research information to d/hh teacher preparation faculty. Outcome: Increase in d/hh teacher education faculty’s knowledge and use of effective technologies and multimedia curricular resources.  

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated research information, the professional development support for faculty integration of these technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources into d/hh teacher preparation program designs and the instruction of preservice teachers that result in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning faculty integration of technological competencies and multimedia curricular resources into d/hh teacher preparation programs designs and the instruction of preservice teachers that results in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.  Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in informing faculty of the existence and use of effective technologies and multimedia curricular resources to prepare preservice teachers and to reform teacher preparation.

 

Objective: 1.3 – Teacher Diversity - Increase the ethnic, economic and hearing status diversity of d/hh preservice teachers, so that the diversity of d/hh preservice teachers increases and there is increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.

 

Overall Outcome: 1.3 - Empirical evidence of increases in the diversity of d/hh preservice teachers and in the academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh.

Activities:

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of ethnic, economic and hearing status diversity represented within the existing d/hh preservice teacher pool and the recruitment, preparation and mentoring strategies/resources used by d/hh teacher education programs. Outcome: Baseline empirical data. 

2.        Conduct research concerning the strategies and materials needed to effectively a) recruit, b) prepare and c) mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base. 

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support to d/hh teacher preparation program faculty for the integration of the research information into their programs. Outcome: Increase in d/hh teacher education faculty’s knowledge and use of effective strategies and materials to a) recruit, b) prepare and c) mentor a diverse pool of d/hh preservice teachers. 

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated research information and the professional development support for faculty integration of strategies and resources needed to effectively a) recruit, b) prepare and c) mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers.  Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning faculty integration of strategies and resources needed to effectively a) recruit, b) prepare and c) mentor a more diverse population of d/hh preservice teachers that results in increased academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in the effective recruitment, preparation and mentoring of a diverse pool of preserve teachers. 

 

Objective: 1.4 – Multi-state D/HH Teacher Preparation and Certification Model - Establish an advanced technology-facilitated, multi-state teacher preparation and certification model and a pilot investigation of the implementation of that model so that there is greater access to d/hh teacher preparation programs within the multi-state area and an increase in the number of d/hh teachers within the multi-state area.

 

Overall Outcome: 1.4 - Empirical evidence of the use of an advanced technology-facilitated, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation and certification model and an increase in the number of d/hh teachers with multi-state certification. 

Activities:

1.        In collaboration with the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC), conduct a needs assessment of the current availability of d/hh teachers and the certification requirements of the 8 Southeastern states (i.e., AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, OK & TX) associated with the SERRC.  Outcome: Baseline empirical data.  

2.        In collaboration with SERRC, establish a “Memorandum of Understanding,” (see Appendix G) signed by the Directors of Special Education and the Directors of Certification from each of the eight southeastern states, concerning the a) critical shortage of d/hh teachers, b) need for a flexible, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation model, c) need for a multi-state d/hh teacher certification model and d) need for a long-term plan to resolve the d/hh teacher shortage. Outcome: A “Memorandum of Understanding.”

3.        With SERRC, and through the use of Web-based videoconferencing, establish a multi-state d/hh teacher preparation and certification model for the 8 southeastern states. Outcome: A pilot investigation.   

4.        In collaboration with SERRC, conduct research concerning the viability of a Web-based, video conferencing-facilitated, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation and certification model to increase the availability of d/hh teachers for the eight southeastern states. Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the resulting research concerning the viability of a Web-based, video conferencing-facilitated, multi-state d/hh teacher preparation and certification model for the eight southeastern states. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHE in their investigation of the use of Web-based video conferencing to establish multi-state teacher preparation and certification models. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Back to TOC

Goal 2: Using Web-based video conferencing capabilities of IHE, SEA, and LEA, establish a VPDS network to reform d/hh teacher preparation that will enable preservice teachers to document and demonstrate effective strategies in instruction, content, technology, and assessment, resulting in an increase in PK-12 students who are d/hh meeting challenging state and local academic achievement standards.

Objective: 2.1 – Instructional Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers  – Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice teachers identify the instructional best practices used by the nation’s Master Teachers: National Board Certified Teachers, math or science certified teachers and other locally identified master teachers of PK-12 students who are d/hh (MT), resulting in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers. 

 

Overall Outcome: 2.1 - Empirical evidence of the impact of instructional best practices used by the nation’s MT of PK-12 students who are d/hh on their students’ academic performance, d/hh teacher preparation program designs and d/hh preservice teachers’ demonstration of instructional best practices competence.

Activities: 

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of the instructional best practices that are used by the nation’s MT of PK-12 of students who are d/hh. Outcome: Baseline empirical data. 

2.        Conduct action research concerning the academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) performance on state-mandated examinations and/or the Stanford Achievement Test – Hearing Impaired of the MT’s PK-12 students who are d/hh. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base. 

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for its use to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, MT and the entire CoP. Outcome: Increase in knowledge base and use of instructional best practices by d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty and MT. 

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of instructional best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of instructional best practices and academic performance information into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ instructional best practices competence. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in informing their faculty of the existence and use of instructional best practices that enhance the academic performance of students who are d/hh. 

 

Objective: 2.2 – Content Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers – Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice teachers identify the content best practices (standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been empirically documented to increase student academic achievement, resulting in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers. 

 

Overall Outcome: 2.2 - Research supporting increased academic achievement as a result of the using the most effective standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies for teaching academic content to PK-12 students who are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing d/hh preservice teachers’ ability to demonstrate content best practices competence.

Activities:

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of the content best practices (standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for ALL PK-12 students.  Outcome: Baseline empirical data. 

2.        Conduct research concerning the use of the content best practices (content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been empirically demonstrated to increase academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement by MT of students who are d/hh and within d/hh teacher preparation programs. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base. 

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for the use of the research information to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, MT and the entire CoP. Outcome: Increase in knowledge base and use of content best practices by d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty and MT. 

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of content best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies information into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ content best practices competence.  Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in informing their faculty of the existence and use of content best practices that enhance the academic performance of students who are d/hh. 

 

Objective: 2.3 – Technological Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers – Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice teachers identify the most effective technological best practices and multimedia resources for increasing academic achievement of PK-12 students who are d/hh, resulting in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and demonstration of their usage by d/hh preservice teachers. 

 

Overall Outcome: 2.3 - Research supporting increased academic achievement as a result of using the most effective technological best practices and multimedia resources for teaching PK-12 students who are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing d/hh preservice teachers’ ability to demonstrate technological best practices competence.

Activities: 

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of the technological best practices and multimedia resources that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for all PK-12 students, hearing and/or d/hh. Outcome: Baseline empirical data.

2.        Conduct research concerning the use of the technological best practices and multimedia resources that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement by MT of students who are d/hh and within d/hh teacher preparation programs. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base. 

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for its use to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, MT and the entire CoP.  Outcome: Increase in knowledge base and use of technology best practices by d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty and MT.

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of technological best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence.

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of the technological best practices and multimedia resources information into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ demonstration of technological best practices competence. Outcome: Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHEs in informing their faculty of the existence and use of technological best practices that enhance the academic performance of students who are d/hh. 

 

Objective: 2.4 – Assessment Best Practices Competence of Preservice Teachers - Using action research and the VPDS network, preservice teachers identify the most empirically supported, assessment best practices for the use of student performance data to refine instruction for PK-12 students who are d/hh, that results in the integration of these into d/hh teacher preparation programs and their demonstration by d/hh preservice teachers. 

 

Overall Outcome: 2.4 - Research supporting increased student academic achievement as a result of using the most effective assessment best practices for teaching PK-12 students who are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing d/hh preservice teachers’ ability to use assessment best practices, specifically student performance data to refine instruction.  

Activities: 

1.        Conduct a needs assessment of the assessment best practices that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for all PK-12 students, hearing and/or d/hh.  Outcome: Baseline empirical data. 

2.        Conduct research concerning the use of the assessment best practices that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement by MT of students who are d/hh and within d/hh teacher preparation programs. Outcome: Increase in the knowledge base. 

3.        Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for its use to d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty, MT and the entire CoP. Outcome: Increase in knowledge base and use of assessment best practices by d/hh preservice teachers, their faculty and MT.

4.        Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on d/hh teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstration of assessment best practices competence. Outcome: Empirical evidence. 

5.        Disseminate the follow-up research concerning the integration of the assessment best practices into d/hh teacher preparation programs and d/hh preservice teachers’ demonstration of assessment best practices competence. Outcome:  Increase in the magnitude of the grant’s impact by assisting IHE in informing their faculty of the existence and use of assessment best practices that enhance the academic performance of students who are d/hh. 

 

b.     Comprehensive Effort to Enhance Teaching & Learning  In year one of the proposed grant, a) 12 institutions of higher education, b) 3 national education projects, c) 6 state education agencies, d) 3 local education agencies, e) 7 national education organizations and f) 3 corporations have formally committed to the proposed grant effort.  The resulting CoP, enhanced by 80 MT of students who are d/hh, represents the nation’s most comprehensive effort to a) reform d/hh teacher education, b) enhance the teaching competencies of d/hh preservice teachers and c) increase the ability of students’ who are d/hh to meet challenging state and local standards for academic achievement.  In years two and three of the grant, the size of the CoP and the number of MT will increase.  This increase will insure that an even greater percentage of the nation’s 72 d/hh teacher preparation programs, their faculty and preservice teachers and MT will become involved with and be impacted by the grant’s activities.  As a result, each year of the grant an increasing percentage of the nation’s 72,672 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) PK-12 students who are d/hh will be prepared for the learning opportunities of the 21st century. 

 

c.     Coherent & Sustainable Effort  This grant establishes the technological infrastructure and collaborative network that will reform the nation’s model of d/hh teacher preparation and enhance the teaching competencies of the faculty and preservice teachers’ competencies at the nation’s 72 d/hh teacher preparation programs.  The grant’s use of: 1) a CoP that has committed real resources to support real progress; 2) a Web-based VPDS network that efficiently and in a cost effective manner links theory to practice; 3) existing practicum and student teaching components of existing d/hh teacher preparation programs; 4) existing MT of students who are d/hh; 5) the growing societal expectations for all students to meet challenging academic standards; 6) empirically based data concerning “best practices” and 7) existing faculty in d/hh teacher preparation programs all combine to establish a collaborative network that will continue beyond this grant’s funding.

 

d.     Use of Research Concerning Effective Practice  During the course of this proposal 59 theoretical and data-based articles/research studies have been used to establish the need and support the design of this grant.  Each of the grant’s eight objectives have been designed to conduct needs assessments, carry out research, conduct professional development, conduct follow-up research and then disseminate the results of the follow-up research to the entire CoP.  Twenty-two (55%) of the grant’s 40 objective activities have been specifically designed to either generate empirical information or add to the existing knowledge base concerning topics of major importance to the entire field of education.  Finally, the grant’s CoP, VPDS and TT have been designed to provide an effective and efficient means through which information can be secured, understood and shared on a national level.  In summary, this grant has identified what is “known” and more importantly, it has proposed a model that, if funded, will serve to substantially add to the database concerning empirically based teacher preparation reform and effective teaching. 

 

4.     Adequacy of Resources                                                                                                                                                                              Back to TOC

a.     Adequacy of Consortium Support to Carryout Project Activities  The “Lead” organization for this grant is the Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH).  ACE-D/HH is the professional organization that represents faculty at the nation’s 72 d/hh teacher education programs.  Kent State University (KSU) will serve both as the grant’s fiscal agent and one of the grant’s Institutions of Higher Education (IHE).  This ACE-D/HH – KSU arrangement has been successfully used in two previously funded PT3 grants.  The grant’s initial Community of Practice (CoP) is composed of both Consortium Members (CM) and Topical Team Leaders (TTL).  The CM are represented by: a) 3 IHE; b) 3 national education projects/centers; c) 6 SEA; d) 3 LEA; f) 6 national education organizations; and g) 3 businesses.  The TTL are represented by 9 d/hh teacher education faculty and 7 colleagues who were drawn from the CM entities.  Each member of the CoP was selected for a particular expertise for participation in the activities for specific grant objectives (see below).  It is expected that during years 2 and 3 of the grant, that the number of IHE, SEA and LEA will increase.  Such increases will be consistent with the grant’s national focus and goals. 

 

Lead Organization:  ACE-D/HH - selected for their expertise concerning d/hh teacher preparation (Objectives 1.2-1.4 & 2.1-2.4)

 

Fiscal Agent:  Kent State University - selected for their expertise concerning fiscal management of large Federal grants + their existing d/hh teacher education program.

 

Institutions of Higher Education (IHE): (Objectives 1.1-2.4)

1.     Kent State U. – B.S. & M.Ed. d/hh Teacher Preparation Program – 4 faculty & 90 preservice teachers

2.     Converse College – B.A. - d/hh Teacher Preparation Program - 6 faculty & 25 preservice teachers

3.     Illinois State University – B.S. & M.Ed. d/hh Teacher Preparation Program – 5 faculty & 85 preservice teachers

 

National Education Projects/Centers (NEP/C)

1.     Captioned Media Program (CMP) – selected for their expertise concerning multimedia curricular materials (Objective 2.2)

2.     Postsecondary Education Programs Network (PEPNet) – selected for their expertise concerning postsecondary academic performance requirements and opportunities (Objective 2.1-2.4) 

3.     Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) – selected for their expertise concerning multi-state d/hh teacher and certification needs (Objective 1.4)

 

State Education Agencies (SEA)

1.     Florida School for the Deaf & Blind – PK-12 programming for 830 students who are d/hh - selected for their Master Teachers (MT) of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

2.     Mississippi School for the Deaf – PK-12 programming for 195 students who are d/hh - selected for their MT of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

3.     Ohio Regional Resource Center for Low Incidence Severe Handicaps (ORCLISH) - selected for their expertise concerning multi-state d/hh teacher and certification needs (Objective 1.4)

4.     Resource Materials & Technology Center: D/HH (RMTC) - selected for their expertise concerning existing and emerging instructional technologies and resources (Objectives 1.4 & 2.3)

5.     South Carolina School for the Deaf & Blind - PK-12 programming for 171 students who are d/hh - selected for their MT of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

6.     Texas School for the Deaf - PK-12 programming for 501 students who are d/hh - selected for their MT of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

 

Local Education Agencies (LEA)

1.     Memphis City Schools - PK-12 programming for 300 students who are d/hh - selected for their MT of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

2.     Spartanburg County School District - PK-12 programming for 73 students who are d/hh - selected for their MT of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

3.     Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (Private, Non-Profit Chartered School) – PK-12 programming for 248 students who are d/hh. (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

 

National Education Organizations (NEO)

1.     Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) – selected for their expertise concerning the needs of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

2.     American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC) – selected for their expertise concerning the needs of students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

3.     Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) – selected for their expertise concerning science learning resources (Objective 2.2)

4.     Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) – selected for their expertise concerning state and local PK-12 educational programming for students who are d/hh (Objectives 1.1, 1.3-1.4, 2.1-2.4)

5.     Council of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID) – selected for their expertise concerning instruction of PK-12 students who are d/hh (Objectives 2.1-2.4)

6.     Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) – selected for their expertise concerning the reform of d/hh teacher education (Objectives 1.1-2.4)

 

F.     Businesses

1.     Communication Service for the Deaf – selected for their expertise concerning the use of Web-based technologies to facilitate communication between individuals who are hearing and d/hh (Obj. 1.1).

2.     ReView Video – selected for their expertise concerning Web-based videoconferencing (Obj. 1.1).

3.     Thinkronize – selected for their expertise concerning Web-based, state standards specific, multimedia content resources (Objective 2.2)

 

G.    Topical Teams (TT; representing 9 d/hh teacher preparation programs in 8 states, with 45 faculty and 445 preservice teachers).  Topical Team Leaders (TTL) selected for their expertise and background in the designated objective.

Objective 1.1 – TTL: Tom McNeal/Kent State University & Jorge Maldonado/PEPNet.

Objective 1.2 – TTL: Shelley Popson/RMTC & Liz Parker/Utah State University

Objective 1.3 – TTL: Joyce Daugaard/U. of MN & Zanthia Smith/Lamar U.

Objective 1.4 - TTL: Kate Reynolds /University of New Orleans & Agnes Bellel/SERRC.

Objective 2.1 – TTL: David Martin/Gallaudet University – Retired & Nanci Scheetz/Valdosta State Univ.

Objective 2.2 –- TTL: Susan Easterbrooks/Georgia State University & Sharon Baker/University of Tulsa. 

Objective 2.3 – TTL: Karen Dilka/Eastern Kentucky University & Maribeth Lartz/Illinois State Univ. 

Objective 2.4 –- TTL: Sue Rose/University of MN & Pat McAnnally/Arizona School for the Deaf.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Back to TOC

b.     Reasonableness of Cost to Project Design & Potential Impact  This grant represents a nationwide effort to reform and enhance the entire field of d/hh teacher education.  The grant has also been designed to simultaneously generate substantial additions to the existing knowledge base concerning teaching best practices and teacher preparation reform.  The grant’s Community of Practice (CoP) represents an unprecedented collaboration between PK-20 educational entities, professional organizations, state and national projects and businesses.  Each CoP member represents not an individual, but an entire organizational structure of interpersonal and informational resources.  Those resources have been carefully allocated and committed to accomplishing the grant’s goals, objectives and activities.  The CoP’s willingness to make such commitments reflects the history of success that the two previously funded PT3 grants have generated.  That history, the CoP’s collaborative focus and the grant’s extensive use of Web-based technologies and development of Web-based resources insure that the grant’s impact will outlast the requested funding.

        Analysis of the grant’s *year-one costs provides the following breakdown for the expenditures of Federal and non-federal (NF) resources: a) release time for the CoPIs to provide oversight and leadership for grant activities and attend the required PT3 meeting, Federal=10%, CM=8%; b) grant staff, supplies, communication activities and Web site (www.deafed.net) related work, Federal=20%, CM=2%; c) TT, Federal=32%, CM=57%; d) yearly Advisory Board meeting and responsibilities, Federal=10%, CM= 25%; e) equipment purchases, Federal=10%, CM=**%, f) evaluation activities, Federal=10%, CM=0%; and f) indirect costs, Federal=8%, CM=8%.  *Note: A similar breakdown occurs for years two and three.  **Note: Equipment funds will be used to assist (i.e., dollar-for-dollar) the CM, IHE, SEA, and LEA purchase Web-based videoconferencing technologies.  The technologies will be used to establish the Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS) network (Objective 1.2) that is required to accomplish grant Objectives 2.1-2.4.  While the CM, IHE, SEA and LEA have stated in their letters of commitment they will purchase the necessary equipment, the actual percentage of dollars they expend cannot be calculated until the end of grant’s first year of operation. 

        TT represent the major expenditure area for both Federal and NF resources.  As stated earlier, one TT will be established for each of the grant’s eight objectives.  The TTL are identified in part “a” of this section of the grant proposal.  The activities that each TT will carry out are identified in section “2” of the grant proposal.  Each TT will be allocated $21,500 of Federal funds to carryout their activities.  The amount of the CM resources allocated to the TT represents the value of CM members’ time spent on the TT activities, above and beyond the actual Federal dollars they will receive from the grant (see Appendix B for a detailed explanation of calculations for each of the CM commitments and activities). 

 

c.     Potential for Ongoing Consortium Support - The value of CMs’ three year commitment for the proposed grant now totals to $2,258,522.  Given the history of the 2000-2004 PT3 Catalyst grant, additional IHE, SEA and LEA will join the grant in years two and three.  As a result, the documented three year CM contributions to the grant will be higher.  This level of commitment, combined with the Web-based nature of the grant’s activities and the grant’s CoPIs’ strong collaborative accomplishments and grant award record, provide exceptionally strong indicators of ongoing efforts to further extend the goals, objectives, activities and outcomes of this grant.

 

5. Quality of the Management Plan                                                                                                                                 Back to TOC

        Harold Johnson, Professor, Kent State University/OH (KSU), and Katharine Stephens Slemenda, Associate Professor, Converse College/SC (CC), will serve as the grant’s Co-Primary Investigators (CoPIs).  Both individuals serve as the Directors of their respective D/HH Teacher Preparation Programs.  Both individuals have committed 50% of their calendar year professional activities to provide leadership and oversight for the grant. 

        Michelle Hoversten, Administrative Specialist, KSU, will serve as the grant’s Project Coordinator. Hoversten will devote 100% of her time to this task.  This is consistent with the work she is performing on the 2000-2004 PT3 Catalyst grant awarded to ACE-D/HH and fiscally administered by KSU. Hoversten will be assisted in her work by a full-time Clerical Specialist.  In addition, Tom McNeal, Director, Desktop Videoconferencing, KSU, will devote 25% of his time to provide support for the grant’s Web-based videoconferencing activities (see Appendix E for a description of this technology). 

        Donna Mertens, Professor, Gallaudet University, and John McLaughlin, Independent Consultant, will serve as the outside evaluators for the grant.  Details concerning the Evaluators and their evaluation design are provided in the next section of this grant proposal. 

        Information concerning when, what, who, where, why and results of the grant’s management plan is provided in Figure 2.  Figure 3 provides a schematic representation of the grant’s organizational structure.  Within that structure, the Executive Advisory Board (see Appendix D for Board members’ letters of commitment) will insure that the voices of the grant’s diverse array of stakeholders are taken into consideration for all substantive grant decisions.  The stakeholders represented within the Executive Advisory Board are as follows:

1.     Parents of children who are d/hh – represented by the President of the American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC) and the President of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (AGBell).

 

Figure 2

*When

What

Who

Where

Why

Results

PIs

Eval.

Cord.

Topical Teams

AB

L

E

M

Daily

D

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

1,2,4,5

c)

1) 2)

Weekly

B

A

x

 

x

 

X

 

x

 

x

 

5

1,2,5

a)

a) c)

1) 2)

1) 2) 3)

Bi-Monthly

E

F

x

x

x

X

 

x

 

 

X

4

3

b) c)

a) d)

1) 2) 3)

1) 2) 3)

Monthly

G

C

x

 

x

 

X

 

 

 

3

1,2,3,4,5,7

d)

b)

1) 2) 3)

3)

Bi-Annual

H

x

x

x

X

 

 

X

2,3,4,5

b) c)

1) 2) 3)

Annual

H, I

H, J

J

x

x

x

x

x

x

X

 

 

X

6

9

10

b) c) e)

c) d) e)

c) d) e)

1) 2) 3) 4)

1) 2) 3) 4)

1) 2) 3) 4)

 

Key

Who:

PIs = Primary Investigators; Eval. = Evaluators; Topical Teams: L. = Leaders; E = Experts; M =  Members; Cord.. = Coordinator; A.B. = Advisory Board

What:

A = Carryout Grant Objective Activities; B = Carryout Grant Oversight Activities; C = Carryout Grant Evaluation Activities: D = Carryout Grant Communication, Financial & Web Site Maintenance Activities; E = Status Reports; F = FAQ Postings; G = Accomplishments & Products Posting; H = Summative Reports; I = Formative Decision Making; J = System Change & Dissemination Activities

Where:

1 = e-mail; 2 = listserv; 3 = Bulletin Board; 4 = phone conf; 5 = Web-based video conf; 6 = Advisory Board Meeting; 7 = Professional Development Settings; 8 = Professional Conferences; 9 = PT3 Director’s Meeting; 10 = Professional Publications & Web Sites 

Why:

a) = Accomplish Objectives; b) Document, Inform, Refine & Guide Activities/Decisions; c) Facilitate Collaborative Work; d) Disseminate Information, Knowledge, Skills & Products; e) Foster Change

Results:

Effective 1) = Communication; 2) Collaboration; 3) Learning; 4) Change

 

Figure 3

Grant Stakeholders

Grant Design

Advisory Board (AB)

Community of Practice (CoP)

Topical Teams (TT)

Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS)

d/hh Teacher Preparation Program Faculty

Preservice Teachers

Existing Teachers

Students who are d/hh

 

 

2.     Teachers of students who are d/hh – represented by the President of the Council of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID).

3.     Administrators of educational programs for students who are d/hh – President of the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the Deaf (CEASD).

4.     D/hh teacher preparation program Faculty – President of the Association of College Educators – Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-D/HH).

5.     National standards for the preparation of teachers of students who are d/hh – Executive Director of the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED).

6.     Deaf/hard of hearing consumers – CEO of Communication Services for the Deaf (CSD) (Note: CSD has over 2,000 employees [80% are d/hh] that provide relay [voice/text/video] services to 2/3 of the nation, as such, CSD also serves as a stakeholder for “Private, technology based, businesses).

7.     State, regional and national deafness related projects: a) Florida Resource Materials & Technology Center: D/HH (RMTC), b) Ohio Resource Center for Low Incidence Severe Handicaps (ORCLISH), c) Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) and d) Postsecondary Education Programs Network (PEPNet).

8.     Academic content specialists and organizations: a) Clearinghouse On Mathematics, Engineering, Technology and Science (COMETS), b) Captioned Media Programs (CMP) and c) Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC).

9.     Private, technology based, businesses – President & CEO of Thinkronize (Note: Thinkronize markets “netTrekker”, a Web-based, standard’s tied, content provider) & Director of Vertical Market Sales for ReView Video (Note: ReView Video is the world’s largest distributor of Web-based video conferencing technologies). 

 

        Each of the members of the Executive Advisory Board has made the following commitments: 

1.        Attend and substantively contribute to a yearly Board meeting that will be held in conjunction with the Association of College Educators: Deaf/Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH) annual conference. 

2.        Provide substantive encouragements to the members of their organizations, projects, or businesses to participate in one or more of the “Join Together” Topical Teams and to assist in the dissemination of the Topical Teams’ results and resources. 

3.        Establish and staff a Bulletin Board on the Deaf Education Web site (www.deafed.net) for the purpose of sharing public information and answering basic questions concerning their organization, project or business.

4.        Collaborate in the conceptualization and proposal of policies, standards and national initiatives that are designed to increase both instructional and academic excellence within PK-20 deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh) education. 

These commitments help to insure that the grant will not only accomplish its objectives, but that the grant activities will be sustained beyond the funding period. 

        As indicated earlier in this proposal, Topical Teams (TT) have been established to carryout the activities for each of the grant’s objectives.  While the circular schematic in Figure 3 provides a visual representation of the fact that TT members will be drawn from the larger Community of Practice (CoP), Figure 4 provides a schematic representation of each TT will be organized.  While the Topical Team Experts (i.e., individuals with state, regional and/or nationally recognized expertise concerning the Team’s topical focus) and Members have yet to be identified, the following individuals have specifically been selected and formally accepted the role and responsibilities of Topical Team Leaders (TTL).  See Appendix D for the letters of acceptance.   

Figure 4  Topical Team Organizational Structure

 

Objective #

 

 

Topical Team Leaders (TTL)

 

 

1

2

 

 

Topical Team Experts (TTE)

 

 

1

2

3

4

 

 

Topical Team Members (TTM)

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

 

Obj. 1.1: Technology Infrastructure - Tom McNeal/Kent State University & Jorge Maldonado/PEPNet

Obj. 1.2: Faculty Technology Competence - Shelley Popson/RMTC & Liz Parker/Utah State University

Obj. 1.3: Preservice Teacher Diversity - Joyce Daugaard/U. of MN & Zanthia Smith/Lamar U.

Obj. 1.4: Multi-state Certification, & Prep. - Kate Reynolds /U. of New Orleans & Agnes Bellel/SERRC

Obj. 2.1: Instructional Competence - David Martin/Gallaudet U. – Retired & Nanci Scheetz/Valdosta State U.

Obj. 2.2: Content Competence - Susan Easterbrooks/Georgia State University & Sharon Baker/University of Tulsa

Obj. 2.3: Technology Competence - Karen Dilka/Eastern KY University & Maribeth Lartz/Illinois State University

Obj. 2.4: Assessment Competence - Sue Rose/U. of MN & Pat McAnally/AZ School for the Deaf

 

Each of the Topical Team Leaders has made the following commitments to the grant: 

1.        Recruit Topical Experts and Team Members. 

2.        With the assistance of the Topical Experts, Team Members, grant CoPIs and staff, complete the activities that are identified with the Team’s objective. 

3.        Post monthly to the Team’s bulletin board summations of work completed and work anticipated. 

4.        Offer, review and award “Choices”, i.e., funds, to encourage and recognize Topical Experts’ and Team Members’ work in carrying out the Team’s activities.

5.        Participate in monthly phone/video conferences with the grant’s CoPIs and Evaluator concerning the Team’s activities and accomplishments.

6.        Present a written summary of the Team’s activities and accomplishments at the grant’s yearly Advisory Meeting.  Advisory Meeting will be held in conjunction with the ACE-D/HH annual conference at which a “poster presentation” concerning the Team’s topic is also to be presented.

7.        Participate in grant evaluation activities.

        In “Section 4” subsection “b” of this proposal a cost analysis was provided for the grant.  Within that analysis it was identified that 32% of the Federal funds and 57% of the non-Federal (NF) matching commitments would be used to directly support the work of the Topical Teams (TT).  An additional 10% of Federal funds will be used to assist in the purchase of Web-based video conferencing technologies to pilot the multi-state teacher preparation model (Obj. 1.4) and to establish the Virtual Professional Development School (Obj. 1.1) that will be used to accomplish Goal 2 (Obj. 2.1-2.4) of the grant.  TT funds will be dispersed via an on-line “Choice” system developed via the two previous PT3 grants awarded to this grant’s Lead Organization (i.e., ACE-D/HH).  Within this grant, each “Choice” is worth $500 and each TT will be allocated 44 Choices (i.e., $22,000) to recognize the work they, their TTE and TTM do to complete the activities that are listed for each Objective.  The on-line Choice system requires individuals to first complete a Web-based “Pre” form in which they must use a combination menu and open-ended questions to specify exactly a) what they intend to do; b) when they will do the work; c) with whom they will work; and d) what the projected outcomes will be.  The resulting information is then automatically sent to a Web-based database accessed only by authorized individuals.  The grant Co-PIs are the authorized individuals for Choices submitted by the TT Leaders, and the TT Leaders for each objective are the authorized individuals for their TT’ Experts and Members.  If the Pre-Choice submission is approved, a notice is automatically sent to the submitting individual and to the grant’s Clerical Specialist.  At that point, one-half of the Choice funds (i.e., $250) is paid to the individual.  The Choice system is designed to record correspondence between the submitter and authorized individuals.  In addition, the Choice system is designed to automatically query the Choice submitter for their “Post” data two weeks following the promised due date.  When the individual submits their Post data, they are again required to use a Web-based form in which they use a combination menu and open-ended questions to specify exactly a) what they accomplished, b) when the work was completed and c) with whom the work was done.  In addition, the individual is required to attach to the Post form any products they promised to produce.  Then, as in the case of the Pre Choice form, the Post data is automatically sent to authorizing individuals for their review.  If the Post Choice submission is approved, a message is automatically sent to the grant’s Clerical Specialist for payment of the second half of the Choice funds.   All of the Pre/Post Choice information, correspondence and attachments are maintained in a searchable Web-based database. Grant PIs, Evaluators and TT Leaders have access to that database.  The net result of the online Choice system is an efficient, effective, objective specific, time critical, empirically documented management system of the grant’s funded activities.  Note: within ACE-D/HH’s current PT3 Catalyst grant, the Choice system has been used to document over 970 Choices from hundreds of individuals throughout the nation. 

 

6.     Quality of the Evaluation Plan                                                                                                                                  Back to TOC

      The Evaluators & their contribution to the proposed project.  Dr. Donna M. Mertens, a Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Research at Gallaudet University, and Dr. John McLaughlin, Independent Consultant, will serve as the project's lead evaluators.  The evaluation team leaders are impartial, third-party evaluators who are not members of the ACE-D/HH Consortium. They will work collaboratively with the Topical Team Leaders (TTL) and other stakeholders to conduct the evaluation and research activities of this project. During the design of the proposed project, the evaluators worked with the co-PIs and TTL to formulate the goals, objectives, activities, and outcomes in order to integrate the research and evaluation priorities that are associated with this project. The evaluation is designed to provide evidence that the needs and purposes identified earlier in this proposal are addressed: isolation of d/hh students, faculty and teachers; d/hh students' achievement; the diversity of the teaching force as well as their ability to teach a culturally diverse student population; and effective instructional, assessment and technology strategies, as well as content knowledge for faculty, preservice teachers, and PK-12 teachers who assist in the training of the next generation of teachers of the d/hh students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Back to TOC

        Evaluation design and methods. The evaluation design is an Inclusive Mixed Methods Design based on the principles of the transformative paradigm of research and its associated philosophical principles (Mertens 2001; 2002a & b; 2003). The role of the evaluator who works within this framework is to raise questions surrounding mechanisms for meaningfully involving diverse groups in the process of constructing an understanding of what the project should do, actually does, and documenting its accomplishments. In this case, the evaluation plan calls for involvement of the variety of stakeholders who represent both diverse professional and personal positions with regard to the preparation of teachers, and dimensions of diversity such as preferred communication mode, hearing status, race/ethnicity, rural/urban settings, and socioeconomic status, and faculty, preservice and cooperating teachers, and the students they serve. A second underlying philosophical assumption is related to the need for an interactive relationship between the evaluators and the stakeholders in the project in order to provide opportunities for trust to develop, as well as for deeper understandings of diverse perspectives to emerge.   The evaluation design includes mixed methods, with both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods (Mertens & McLaughlin, in press; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).

        The Program Evaluation Standards also guided the development of the evaluation design (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994). These standards were developed by a Joint Committee with representatives of many national organizations such as the American Evaluation Association, American Educational Research Association, and other organizations for administrators, counselors, and teachers. The main categories of the Standards are:  Utility (an evaluation must be useful); Feasibility (it must fit within the resources and time constraints of the project); Accuracy (appropriate criteria of rigor will be applied to yield credible evidence), and Propriety (evaluations must be designed to respect the ethical principles when dealing with human beings).

        The evaluation plan will reflect an integration of formative and summative evaluation, including needs assessment to provide a baseline of both existing institutional technology resources and the need for training to insure that faculty and other members of the Community of Practice (CoP) have the skills necessary to effectively use the technology.  Needs assessment activities will be integrated into several project objectives, including the identification of reasons that some institutions and individuals choose not to participate. Thus, it will be possible to formulate a proposal for future action that addresses some of these perceived barriers. A formal needs assessment will also be conducted during the first six months of the project to determine the needs for faculty development, both in terms of technology-based equipment, as well as training needs. The project evaluators have the capability to do much of the needs-sensing activities via surveys conducted in an electronic format through their Internet capability and email listserv. The information from these needs assessment activities will be used to strengthen the bonds of the Consortium, prepare faculty development activities during the project’s first year, and contribute to the development of plans for building the technological infrastructure for the CoP and the Virtual Professional Development School (VPDS).

        In the formative evaluation stage, the evaluator will examine general organizational dynamics and project management, establish clear benchmarks for documenting future improvements, and provide feedback at specific milestones on progress toward the desired outcomes. Formative evaluation will be particularly important during the development of the technological infrastructure, identification of faculty, Master Teacher and preservice teacher competencies, and research strategies to address the project objectives. Technology-based instructional materials will be reviewed by experts from within the ACE-D/HH prior to their dissemination to a wider audience, using evaluation checklists to determine that they meet specific criteria, such as appropriate use of technology, integration of higher levels of learning , and sensitivity to gender, race, and other cultural factors. Formative evaluation will continue with action research studies being conducted to determine effective instructional practices. Each regional and national gathering will be viewed as a venue for data collection through the use of focus groups, participant observation by the evaluator, and completion of evaluation feedback forms by participants. The data will be used to improve the products at each stage of the project.

        Formative evaluation will also have a strong role in the research studies that are part of each objective.  Each objective includes activities related to testing effective practices using rigorous methodologies.  Each objective also has an intended outcome tied to effective practice. Through designing an iterative research plan for each obj., the effective practices can be supported by evidence.

        Summative evaluation activities will assess the project’s overall effectiveness and impact by measuring the extent to which individuals and institutions have chosen to participate and the quality of the technology enhancements by faculty development and preservice teachers. The summative evaluation will be completed near the end of the project by means of interactive conferencing with the appropriate project and team leaders via email or teleconference, as well as by the review of appropriate documents. This information can be used to provide support for efforts to sustain the project beyond the federal funding.

 

Alignment with GPRA. The major goals and objectives of the project are aligned with the GPRA Indicators for PT3, as follows:

·         Join Together: Objectives 1.1 Technological Infrastructure, 1.2 Faculty Technological Competence, 1.4 Regional D/HH Teacher Education Program Model via Technology, and 2.1 Best Practices contain elements related to the redesign of curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of teacher education. Thus they align with PT3 GPRA Indicator 1.1: Curriculum redesign: The percentage of funded teacher preparation programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology in teacher education will rise;

·         Join Together: Objective 1.2 Faculty Technological Competence focuses on increasing the competency of faculty with technology and instruction, thus it aligns with the PT3 GPRA Indicator 1.2: Technology-Proficient Faculty: The percentage of faculty members in funded teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology will increase.

·         Join Together: Objectives 1.3 Teacher Diversity, 2.2 Instructional competence of preservice teachers, 2.3 Technological competence of Preservice Teachers, and 2.4 Assessment competence of preservice teachers all align with the PT3 GPRA Indicator 2.1 Technology-proficient new teachers: The percentage of new teachers who are proficient in using technology and integrating technology into instructional practices will increase.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Back to TOC

Research and Evaluation Plan: Objectives, indicators, outcomes, data collection, use, & timelines. For each of the major goals, the evaluation plan includes specification of clearly defined and measurable goals and objectives, yearly indicators of success, data collection methods and sources, intended uses of the evaluation data, and dates when the evaluation activities would be conducted (see Figure 1). The evaluation includes the collection of data that will assess the impact of teacher preparation program improvement on teachers' use of technology in the classroom and how that makes a difference for all students' achievement. Each objective is associated with specific quantitative and qualitative instruments. The specific instruments are listed in the Research and Evaluation Plan. It also includes assessment of the impact of equipment purchases in helping the project reach its goal of improving the learning and teaching of preservice teachers (Objective 1.1).

        Because of the emphasis on rigorous evaluation to assess the impact of teacher  preparation program improvement on teachers' use of technology in the classroom and how that makes a difference for all students' achievement, the evaluation plan includes an action research component in almost every objective. Many scholars have recognized the challenges associated with conducting rigorous scientific research on the effectiveness of instruction in the complex environment of the classroom (Ysseldyke, 2001; Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002). When treatments are implemented by someone other than the research and implemented in many locations simultaneously, it becomes a greater challenge for the researcher to verify that the treatment was implemented as intended, as well as to control for the multiplicity of factors that can influence student achievement across settings.

        The action research approach in the Join Together Project is exemplified in the plan for Objective 2.1 (Instructional Effectiveness) which includes at least three action research studies with comparison groups to determine differences in student achievement based on specific characteristics and strategy usage by teachers on their students' achievement. Graduate students will be trained in observational techniques to document the implementation of the treatment. In addition, statistical analysis for this particular objective will require comparison of dependent variables with controls for relevant background characteristics of the teachers (e.g., number of years of teaching). Therefore, ANCOVA statistical analysis will be used to determine statistically significant differences between the groups. A similar strategy will be applied to the other objectives that involve improvement of teaching skills to determine the impact on student achievement.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Back to TOC

        Data collection types. A wide variety of data collection types and methods will be modified/ developed and implemented, including web-based surveys to reach all constituencies, participant observation, web site collection of demographics and use data, site visits by the evaluators and research team collaborators, special case studies on diversity issues, focus groups with faculty and preservice teachers, a rubric to assess preservice teachers' work in a competition, document reviews, personal interviews, and portfolios for preservice teachers. 

        Performance assessments will be included in a number of ways:  The evaluator will attend many of the professional development sessions and will gather data both by participant observation, as well as through observation of participants' applications at the end of the workshops. For example, at the conclusion of the workshop, all participants will be asked to make a presentation demonstrating their first attempts at implementing their new technological skills.  For workshops that used this demonstration strategy, participants and the evaluator were immediately able to determine the effectiveness of the workshop based on their performance.

        A second form of performance assessment will be assessment of preservice teachers' work that is technologically based. There are five evaluation categories for rating their products: Quality of Writing, Quality of Content, Educational Value of Materials, Educational Use of Technology, and Inclusion of Diversity. A rubric was developed by the Regional Directors during the Crossing Realities Divide Catalyst grant in cooperation with the evaluator to judge the quality of preservice teachers' work.  The specifics of the rubric can be viewed at the www.deafed.net web site. Practicing PK-12 Master Teachers will be recruited to do the judging of the preservice teacher's products. Evaluation information use by the grantee: In the first month of the project, a conference call will be held with all TTL and the PIs to discuss the role of evaluation in the project, determine how the evaluation can be modified to enhance its utility and feasibility, and begin the identification of strategies for inclusion of members of under-represented groups and the PK-12 partner schools. The evaluation plan is viewed as an evolving, participatory process, and is designed to be responsive to the needs that arise during the course of the project. Insights will be regularly sought from multiple constituencies, including PK-12 partner schools and members of the d/hh communities.

        The evaluation plan, with its tie to the underlying logic of the program and the standards for good evaluation, will provide steady guidance with regard to the progress, successes, and challenges of the project.  A culture of evidence exists in the d/hh education community in which the project leadership looks to the evaluation to collect data on issues of importance and then made decisions based on that evidence. The evaluators will participate in bi-weekly conference calls with the project directors and TTL to listen to their concerns and to share evaluation findings in the formative stage. The biweekly calls will allow timely feedback from evaluation to management and is thus included as a means of providing progress reports on all objectives so that empirical evidence, systematically collected can be used in decision making.


Research and Evaluation Plan: Join Together

Goal 1: Community of Practice

Objective

Indicators of success/

Outcomes

Data collection methods

& sources

Use of evaluation

 

data

Timeline

1.1 Technological Infrastructure

Y1:  Needs identified

Y2: Equipment tested & in place; Professional development completed

Y3: Research based evidence re: use of Web- based videoconferencing technology for effective teacher preparation.

Needs assessment survey: Modify CEO Forum STaR Chart - self-assessment for colleges of education (Web-based with topical team leaders [TTL] support & ViaVideo as necessary); audit equipment installation/use; Workshop evaluation: Participant observation/interviews; Action research-effective use of technology.

Identify need for equipment & professional dev.; to determine the status of equipment & training  effectiveness; to provide evidence of effective strategies for use of web-based video conferencing.

Survey completed w/in first 6 months; observations at scheduled training sessions; progress reports bi-weekly at Co-PIs/TTL Conference Calls (CP/TTLCC); annual & final reports.

1.2 Faculty Technological Competence & Use of Resources

Y1: Needs assessment completed; review of research completed;

Y2: Professional development for faculty completed;

Y3: Research evidence of faculty technological competencies & use of multimedia curricular resources.

Needs assessment modified from ISTE/NETS Standards chart; Workshop evaluation forms; Participant observation/interviews; Performance assessment; Action research on effective technological competencies and use of multimedia curricular resources.

To identify needs for professional development; to determine effectiveness of training; to provide evidence of faculty technological competence & use of multimedia curricular resources.

Survey completed w/in first 6 months; observations at scheduled training sessions; progress reports bi-weekly at CP/TTLCC; annual written reports; final report.

1.3 Teacher Diversity

Y1: Accessible database re: diversity in teacher candidates & teaching strategies for diverse students.

Y2: Implement recruitment strategies; train preservice teachers in diversity strategies;

Y3: Diversity of d/hh preservice teachers increases; increased achievement of ALL students

Online survey completed by partner IHE's re: diversity in teacher candidates pool & recruitment & instructional strategies used;

Document review re: strategies focused on diversity issues;

Monitoring of Bulletin Board re: discussion of recruitment issues; Participant observation/interviews; Action research on effectiveness of recruitment & instructional strategies.

To determine the current baseline for diversity in the teacher candidate pool; To identify potentially effective strategies; To provide credible evidence of effective strategies.

Survey completed w/in first 6 months of the project; Document review w/in first year; Bulletin Board monitoring and progress reports bi-weekly; annual written reports; final report.

                            1.4 Multi-state D/HH Teacher Preparation and

                                  Certification  Model

Y1: Certification process documented in SERRC; support for multi-state preparation & certification obtained; agreement reached

Y2: Web-based video-conferencing functioning across state lines;

Y3: Number of D/HH teachers with cross state certification increases as a result of Web-based videoconferencing and grant.

Online survey completed by state directors of special education and certification; document reviews; Follow-up survey to determine viability of teacher preparation & certification model by states participating in multi-state collaboration via Web-based videoconferencing; Interviews.

To determine baseline re: number of teachers and teacher preparation programs/state; document certification requirements; insure cross-state agreements are in place;

Survey w/in first six months; Document review by end of year 1; Audit completed by end of year 2, but with bi-weekly P progress reports bi-weekly at CP/TTLCC; annual written reports; final report.

 

Goal 2: Virtual Professional Development School

Objective

Indicators of success/outcomes

Data collection methods

 & sources

Use

Timeline

2.1

Instructional Best Practices (BP) competence of preservice teachers

Y1: Survey of BP completed; database for PK-12 academic performance; Action research: instructional effectiveness in writing with National Board certified vs. non-National Board certified teachers (NBC vs. non-NBC)

Y2: Action research: instructional effectiveness in math & science (NBC vs. non-NBC)

Y3: Action research: instructional effectiveness by nation's PK-12 Master Teachers (innovative vs. non-innovative).

-Scores on SATHI

-Writing samples for students writing & an assessment  rubric

-Observation of teachers using PRAXIS III

-Math and science scores for students on mandated state achievement tests

-Administrator checklist to identify innovative teachers

Feedback to individual teachers;

dissemination through national networks;

publication.

Y1: Survey completed; data base w/in 6 months; First action research completed.

Y2: Second action research completed;

Y3: Third action research completed; final report. Throughout study: bi-weekly progress & annual reports

2.2

Content Best Practices (BP) competence of preservice teachers

Y1: Knowledge base developed re: effective content-specific strategies & standards-based content resources

Y2:  Content BP by Master Teachers, faculty, & preservice teachers result in improved PK-12 achievement.

Y3: Research supports increased student achievement by improved preservice teacher content knowledge & content-specific strategies.

-Levels of Use to document stages of change (CBAM, Hall, Wallace & Dossett, 1973)

-State mandated academic achievement tests in literacy, science & math

-Document review of curriculum

-Portfolios; on-site and Web-based observations; interviews.

-Inform community re: effective practices & resources, especially related to standards-based content

-Provide research-based evidence of effective practices related to improved student achievement

Y1: Document data base of knowledge-base, resources, strategies; standards-based content resources;

Y2: Reports of action research;

Y3: Reports of action research; final report. Throughout study: bi-weekly progress & annual reports

2.3

Technological Best Practices (BP) competence of preservice teachers

Y1: Needs identified re: technological BP competence & training

Y2: Preservice teachers increase their technological     competence

Y3: Increased technological competence is tied to increased achievement in PK-12 students.

-Online survey of preservice teachers technological competence based on ISTE/NETS Standards with observation by faculty;

-Workshop evaluation form & performance assessment

-Student achievement scores from mandated tests

-Observation & interviews

-Identification of areas to include in training;

-Modification of training as necessary.

-Document impact of improved technological skills for student performance.

Y1: Needs assessment report; training plan developed

Y2: Evaluation report each training session;

Y3: Research report completed; Biweekly, annual & final reports

2.4

Assessment competence of preservice teachers

Y1: Data base developed re: student performance data; assessment protocols; Documentation of Master Teacher, faculty, & preservice teacher use of assessment strategies;

Y2: Preservice teachers increase their use of Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM);

Y3: Increased use of CBM yields increased achievement in PK-12 students.

-Needs assessment (online)

-Workshop evaluation

-CBM tests for PK-12 students (Wright, no date; Fuchs & Deno, 1992) (reliable & valid student assessment instrument in content areas)

-Observations & interviews

-Disseminate information to CoP re: assessment strategies;

-Design training in assessment & modify as necessary;

-Document impact of CBM on student achievement

Y1: Needs assessment report;

Y2: Workshop evaluations

Y3: Research report

Biweekly, annual & final report.