Harold Johnson

4/16/99

***********************************

Working Title:

"Instructional Effectiveness through Collaboration and Technological Innovations for the Field of Deaf Education"

Narrative Sections:

A. Need 3 pages

B. Design 4

C. Resources 2

D. Evaluation 4

E. Budget 2

Narrative Outline:

1. Need (Note - this section must: clearly/powerfully identify specific gaps/weaknesses/problems -- how those problems will be addressed -- the nature/magnitude of resulting impact)

1. interpersonal and informational isolation of deafness
2. isolation felt not only by d/hh students, but also by their parents, teachers, interpreters and the faculty that prepare teachers
3. isolation increasing due to the use of inclusion
4. previously, most d/hh students were educated in either schools for the deaf or large "magnet" day school/class programs
5. change has resulted in a further "dispersal" of d/hh students to their neighborhood schools
6. this dispersal necessitates a substantial change in the roles and responsibilities of teachers of d/hh students
7. previously, self-contained or resource model predominated
8. this is the model around which most Deaf Ed. teacher prep. pro. are built
9. this model also reflects the teaching experience of the vast majority of Deaf Ed. teacher prep. pro faculty
10. thus, there is a mismatch in the emerging ed. placement for d/hh students and the preparation of teachers to work with those students
11. the critical need to address this mismatch is underscored by the 1999 implementation of new teacher preparation standards for the field of Special Education as a whole (CEC standards: www......) and in particular the field of Deaf Education (CEC/CED standards: www.....)
12. among other things, the resulting 157 standards require Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs to substantially increase the extent to which new teachers are prepared to effectively use:

1. computer based, Internet linked technologies to enhance teaching, increase curricular resources and learning;
2. assessment protocols that are culturally and linguistically appropriate for an increasingly diverse population of d/hh students; and
3. instructional strategies that recognize the multiple learning patterns demonstrated by d/hh students.

1. the new standards also call for increased collaboration between K-12 programs that serve d/hh students and the colleges/universities that prepare teachers to work with those students
2. unfortunately, the new standards do not come with new resources, as such, Deaf Ed. teacher prep. programs are now forced to search for additional or alternative teacher preparation designs
3. while traditionally each of the U.S. ___ Deaf Education Teacher Preparation competed for the same federal grants, taught essentially the same array of courses and targeted the same group of perspective students, the new standards and educational realities demand a more collaborative rather than duplicative or competitive model
4. in recognition of this need, the Association of College Educators of Deaf/Hard of Hearing (ACE-D/HH) has devoted an increasing amount of its annual conferences to the presentation and discussion of how curricular based, technologically facilitated, collaborative activities can be used to support faculty development, increase curricular resources and improve instructional effectiveness
5. the importance of this effort was underscored by the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) by its establishment of a Web site for the field of Deaf Education (www.....)
6. the CED Web site now serves as the primary Internet location for Deaf Education teacher preparation and instructional information on the Web
7. unfortunately, while there is a consensus among the ___ ACE-D/HH members regarding the need for change, the importance of collaboration and the possibilities of technology, resources are needed to design and prepare faculty for an innovative and comprehensive model of teacher preparation

1. collaboratively we are rich, individually we are poor
2. collectively, the U.S. Deaf Education Teacher preparation programs represent the world's largest collection of expertise regarding the education of d/hh students
3. while individual programs are typically small, i.e., one to three faculty and 10 to 50 students, each program is typically "known" for expertise on a particular aspect or element of deaf education, e.g., literacy, language, speech, American Sign Language, secondary education, etc.
4. collaboration between programs is usually informal and primarily reflected in infrequent interactions between program faculty
5. as such, resources are rarely shared, interactions between students do not occur and an "unevenness" is frequently demonstrated between the graduates of different programs with "x" being strong in "y", but weak in "a", "b" and "c"
6. this project uses the consensus generated by ACE-D/HH and the opportunities provided by technology to:

1. provide faculty development opportunities concerning the effective use of technology to enhance teaching, increase curricular resources and improve student performance
2. generate course syllabi (i.e., objectives, resources, activities and evaluation protocols) that reflect and share the individual expertise of ACE-D/HH members and the collective goal of preparing increasingly effective teaches of d/hh students
3. conceptualize, design and pilot the development of multimedia resources (e.g., videos, Web sites, CD-ROMs and text) that reflect "best practices" in the use of technology to educate culturally diverse (e.g., African-American, Hispanic, Culturally Deaf, etc), communicatively different (i.e., Oral, T.C. and Bi/Bi) d/hh students in diverse educational settings (e.g., rural, urban, inclusion, resource, etc.) so that they can achieve high standards of educational excellence
4. expand the number and diversity of individuals who enter Deaf Education teacher preparation programs
5. develop an implementation plan that can be used to apply the enhanced faculty skills, collaboratively developed course syllabi and piloted multimedia resources for the comprehensive improvement of Deaf Education Teacher Preparation within the United States
6. search for, investigate and develop additional sources of support that can be "tapped" to put into effect the developed implementation plan

1. the proposed project will directly enhance and support the technological tools, curricular resources and instructional activities of ___ Deaf Education faculty, the teacher preparation of the ___ students that each year graduate from the faculty's programs, the ___ teachers of the deaf and ____ d/hh students with whom those graduates carried out their field experiences and the ___ parents of those students who's education was substantially enhanced as a result of the graduates field work.
2. the project will also establish an implementation plan that can be used to systematically integrate, support and evaluate the impact of newly developed faculty skills, syllabi and resources in Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs throughout the United States
3. finally, the project will serve to provide a collaborative network of faculty, college/university students, teachers, parents and related professionals that can be used to address additional problems within the field of Deaf Education.

1. Design (Note: this section must - establish goals, objectives & outcomes that are clearly measurable + that are comprehensive and will yield improved teaching, improved learning and rigorous academic standards for all students)

1. the more complex the task, the simpler the design must be
2. the best way to alter/enhance faculty teaching is to change the resources that they use with and the activities that they require of their students
3. "method" classes form the core of our preparation programs and should therefore be the focus of this project
4. individuals in those method classes should also be in field settings in which they have the opportunity to work with "master" teachers of d/hh students
5. the work of those individuals should be designed to both prepare them to become a teacher of d/hh students and serve to support the work of current teachers of d/hh students
6. the "products" of those individuals is valuable and should be shared
7. education should be "additive" rather than "repetitive" and as such, the work of those individuals should also serve to provide additional resources for the preparation of future teachers of d/hh students
8. parents of d/hh students represent a tremendously valuable, underutilized resource for the field of Deaf Education - this resource and that provided by existing teachers of d/hh students, should be "tapped" by programs that prepare teachers of d/hh students
9. the individual strengths of our teacher prep pro should be recognized, built upon and shared
10. collaboratively we can accomplish much more than we ever could individually
11. some computer based, Internet linked technologies can serve to enhance our instruction and our students' performance
12. we are willing to work together for the good of our individual programs and the common good of d/hh students

1. given the above, the overall goals (?) of the project might be to:

1. assess the technological needs of teacher preparation programs within the field of Deaf Education
2. identify the current technology based strategies and resources of those programs
3. conceptualize a redesign of those programs, one based upon collaboration, supported by technology, guided by research and grounded in the day-to-day realities of K-12 d/hh students
4. explore additional/alternative routes through which recent graduates can be assisted during their first few years of teaching and through which additional individuals (e.g., talented high school students, interpreters, parents of d/hh students, etc.) can be encouraged to enter Deaf Education teacher preparation programs
5. pilot the development of new technological enhanced instructional strategies, assessment designs and learning resources that can/should be used within those programs
6. expand the consortium of program stakeholders
7. search for additional support opportunities for the consortium, i.e., institutional, federal, state, foundation, businesses/organizations
8. plan for the implementation of the redesigned programs
9. submit for funds to implement the redesigned programs

1. given such goals(?) this project would logically have five components or parts, i.e.,

1. Project Director(s)
2. Faculty Development
3. Syllabi Development
4. Resource Development
5. Support Development
6. Evaluation

1. while one or two individuals must provide leadership for each of the project "parts", many individuals can/should be involved in those "parts" for which they have the greatest interest/strength - the more that are involved, the more likely the resulting "products" will be valued and used
2. the role and responsibilities of project "parts" might be:

1. Project Director(s)

1. monitor project activities
2. facilitate collaboration, coordination and consensus among consortium member concerning project activities
3. lead the identification and description of additional/alternative strategies through which individuals are encouraged to enter the field of Deaf Education
4. participate in all required grant conferences (i.e., one regional and two national)
5. manage the project budget
6. assist with and be guided by evaluation activities
7. lead the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for the enhancement of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
8. write and submit for additional resources to support the implementation of comprehensive design for the enhancement of U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
9. write all required project related reports
10. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Faculty Development

1. use evaluation information to identify those consortium members who posses technological skills that are of interest to/needed by other consortium members
2. design and implement faculty development opportunities that both build upon and expand consortium members skills to use technologies to enhance teaching and learning
3. assist with and be guided by evaluation activities
4. participate in the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
5. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Syllabi Development

1. use evaluation information to establish teams of consortium members that share common strengths/interest in the major method courses that are taught in Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs (e.g., language, literacy, curriculum, etc.)
2. facilitate the work of those teams as they collaboratively develop syllabi for each of the targeted method courses (Note: such syllabi would be designed to reflect the effective use of technology and "best practices" in each of the respective content areas)
3. assist with and be guided by evaluation activities
4. participate in the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
5. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Resource Development

1. use evaluation information to identify consortium members who have an interest/strength in "case studies" and to identify the range and characteristics of those cases that could be used to enhance the instructional models (i.e., the effective use of technologies to enhance teaching and learning with culturally diverse and communicative specific d/hh students in distinct educational settings) incorporated into Deaf Education method courses
2. design, pilot and evaluate the development of targeted multimedia case studies
3. assist with and be guided by evaluation activities
4. participate in the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
5. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Support Development

1. search for additional consortium members and document the resources that they bring to the consortium
2. search for additional support opportunities (e.g., federal, state, foundation, organization and business grants) that can be used to both support and enhance consortium activities
3. assist with and be guided by evaluation activities
4. participate in the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
5. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Evaluation

1. determine curricular strengths/interest and current technological uses, resources and needs of Deaf Education Teacher preparation programs
2. collect, analyze and share information concerning project goals, indicators, benchmarks, measures and conclusions
3. participate in the conceptualization and design of a comprehensive implementation design for U.S. Deaf Education Teacher Preparation programs
4. participate in all required grant conferences (i.e., one regional and two national)
5. assist in the writing of all required project related reports
6. disseminate project information on the CED Web site

1. Resources

(this section is composed by what each of the consortium members "brings to" the project - this information is documented on the Appendix of the grant proposal on the form labeled "Partner Identification Form and Cost Share Workshop" - this is the "cost share" part of the grant - remember that we must match "1 for 1" each dollar received - the completion of this form for each of the consortium members represents both the biggest challenge and strength of our proposal - the "Leaders" of each of the project major activities [e.g., faculty development, syllabi, resources and support] will be responsible for gathering the information from their team members)

2. Evaluation

(to be written)

3. Budget