Year Three Report-Gally-Pacific Region

Dee (sorry I can’t be with you) Klein

Choice Report

• This was the first year that some choices were denied, because….– Lack of completion of previous choices– Choice selected was not appropriate for requested

funds– Choice description was inadequate or unclear

Choices Selected by Faculty = 21June 2002 – February 2003

• #1 – Syllabus 1• #3 – Technology-focused grant

1• #4b – Cyber mentor

2• #7 – Electronic Portfolio

1• #9 – Professional Development

6

• #11 – On-line Course Development 1

• #12a – Multi-faculty Collaboration 3

• #12d – K-12 Post-Secondary Collaboration 4

• #13 – Expert Team 1

• #14 – Other 1

• Choices Selected by Other Advisory Board Members = 34

• For a total of 55 choices to date for year three of the grant.

Program Participants

• California State University-Northridge = 4• California State University-Fresno = 3• John Tracy Clinic = 3• **Western Oregon University = 3• Gallaudet University = 5• Utah State University = 2• **University of Hawaii = 1** NEW Program Participants

Special Participant

• University of British Columbia in Vancouver was an indirect participant in the grant– Dr. Janet Jamieson requested the consulting

services of Dee Klein to facilitate her program’s use of WebCT, electronic portfolio, and cyber mentor/cyber pen pal activities.

– Her students are now involved in a cyber dialogue with the students at Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Wrap-up

• The only program NOT participating in the GPR-PT3 grant activities over the three year period was Idaho State University; every other program participated at least once

• On the average, one or two faculty per program participated by selecting choices.

• GOLD STAR participation goes to:

• Ellen Schneiderman-CSUN• Carol Mc Allister-JTC• Barbara Hecht – JTC• Deborah Stryker- Fresno• Lou Larwood – San Jose• Liz Parker –Utah• John Covell – Western Oregon• Marilyn Sass-Lehrer- Gallaudet

Changes in the Region

• Lost- Lewis and Clark• Gained- University of Hawaii

Perspective

• Although choices were down this year in the GPR, the type of participation was clearly more collaborative among faculty and between faculty and k-12 entities

• The GPR faculty are significantly more comfortable in their use of a variety of technology hardware and software since the inception of the PT3 initiative

• Pre-service teachers are also clearly receiving significantly improved instructional exposure to and interaction with educational technologies.

In short

• We have accomplished what we set out to do– 90+% participation of the deaf education programs in

the GPR– 70+% participation of faculty (full-time) in the training

and use of technology– Pre-service teachers who are more prepared to face

the technology challenges that will confront them when entering the teaching arena