Goal #3: Develop 2-3 multi-media case studies

ACE-D/HH Web Site / Goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Goal #3:

Develop 2-3 multi-media case studies of K-12 Deaf Ed. teachers that are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning.

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

Weekly Update:

12/08/99

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

1-Barbara Schirmer submitted the Human Subject Review Board
application to Kent State.
2-Copies of the template consent form were sent to Barbara
Strassman and Gerry Bateman. Barbara Schirmer sent copies of
the consent form to Bill Newman at Ohio School for the Deaf to
distribute to parents, and set up dates in January to visit his class.
3-The teacher who was chosen at the Rochester School for the
Deaf has a 3rd or 4th grade class and most of the students are
children of deaf parents. Gerry has a student teacher in this class
starting in January, which will give him many opportunities to visit.
4-The team has not yet come to agreement on what we would all
be looking for in the lessons that we observe. Susan had
suggested a set of questions that would address objective of the
lesson, prerequisites or student prep for the event being captured,
integration with which aspects of the curriculum, description of the
ecology of the lesson, and teacher responsibilities vs student
responsbilities.
5-The team has also not yet come to agreement on how we will
capture the information. We talked about having 2 video cameras
and a digital camera. Also, we talked about capturing student
work via scanning, CDs, and disks (probably zip disks). Harold
suggests that we use a small tape recorder to provide an ongoing
commentary on what we're filming, which may not be feasible for
everyone.

11/12/99

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

1-The three case study teachers will be a high school teacher at
the Marie Katzenbach School for the Deaf; a middle school teacher
at the Ohio School for the Deaf; and a teacher chosen by Gerry
Bateman at the Rochester School for the Deaf. Gerry will let us
know once he and the principal have decided on the teacher. As
part of this decision, team members noted that we will continue our
efforts at finding teachers in a variety of settings that we will use as
case studies next year, if we are funded again. Margaret, Mary V.,
& Susan know teachers who may be very willing to participate, as
long as we have greater notice than we did this year.
2-The site leader will gather the data, which will enable us to gather
data over more than one day. This will maximize the opportunities
to capture as much quality teaching and as much use of
technology in teaching as possible. Unedited tapes will then be
sent to team members for editing. Perhaps we might even use 2
video cameras, so that we can capture as much of the teacher,
students, and technology as possible during each lesson.

During the next two weeks, team members will discuss Susan
Rose's suggestion that we have a set of questions that are
addressed as part of the recording process. This will provide us
consistency across settings. Susan suggested the following:
-objective of the lesson,
-prerequisites or student preparation for the event captured in the
case study,
-integration with which aspects of the curriculum,
-detailed description of the ecology of the lesson (technology in the
classroom or in separate lab facility)
-teacher responsibilities vs student responsibilities.

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

10/30/99

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

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

The team will begin discussing the ranking of nominees on Nov. 1.

10/8/99

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

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

During the next few weeks, team members will submit nominations via e-mail. On Nov. 1, the team will begin to discuss the ranking of

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

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

During the next few weeks, the team will also continue discussing, and decide on, the technology to be used when visiting the teachers, such as video and digital camera.

9/28/99

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

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

Language is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).

Technology is infused into instruction of content (w/i each case).

Several content areas are represented (across the 2-3 cases).

Diverse age ranges and characteristics of students are represented (across the 2-3 cases).

Diverse modes of communication are represented (across the 2-3 cases).

Nominations will be submited by team members by Oct. 31 via e-mail to the full team. Included will be the following:

-name of teacher

-name of school and location

-description of setting

-description of students

-type(s) of technology used

-subject area(s)

-language(s)

Barbara Schirmer suggested that Kent State be used for Human Subjects Review Board permission. Also, as nominations are developed, team members need to make sure that the school will give its permission and start any process toward that end. Barbara suggested the following time line, which will be discussed by team members during the next week:

-Choose our case study teachers by mid-November,

-Obtain permissions by the end of December,

-Plan trips in December,

-Do the site filming (2 team members to a site, perhaps 3 at one site if all want to do a site visit) in January,

-Put together the final product in February and March,

-Present at ACE-DHH the end of March.

9/23/99

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

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

Barbara Schirmer noted the following about the team's goal and objectives:

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

Barbara suggested that the criteria for choosing teachers be the following (taken from the ones the team discussed previously):

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

The next step is figuring out how the list of nominees will be narrowed. Barbara Strassman suggested that the following be asked of each nominee:

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

The team then can do a first cut. If the first cut leaves us with too many, team members can make cases for nominees and ultimately narrow it down to 2-3 by discussion via e-mail. If we decide to have an "A" list and a "B" list (as a back-up in case all permissions don't come in on the "A" list), it can be made clear to the "B" list that they will be used in the next phase of the study (ie., the next grant). Ultimately, when we go out to do the videotaping, Susan's point in about keeping the case studies focused, straightforward, and simple should be kept in mind. During the next week, the team will finalize criteria, the nomination process, and the narrowing process.Barbara Schirmer will be in Portland, Oregon next Thurs so the weekly update will be delayed till the following Monday.

9/16/99

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

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

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

During the next week, team members will consider the list of criteria for case studies, perhaps adding more or arguing against including any that are there. Also, the team will discuss how we will narrow the list of nominees.

9/9/99

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

-Team membership was set with the following individuals:

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

-Team members will communicate predominantly on e-mail, thoughwe will use conference calls when needed.

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

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

submitted by: Barbara Schirmer - Goal Leader

9/2/99

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

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

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

Objective:

A "Case Study Development Team" will be established to pilot the development of 2-3 multi-media case studies of K-12 D/HH Education teachers who are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning. The team will be composed of 3-4 D/HH Education faculty members who have expressed a particular interest in this project activity. The team will: a) establish a conceptual design for the case study; b) design the data collection methods that will be used for the studies; c) identify 3-4 K-12 D/HH Education teachers who are recognized for their effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance teaching and improve student learning; d) secure the permission of 2-3 of those teachers, students and school system to participate in the case study development work; e) collect the targeted exemplars; f) organize and explain how the resulting instructional strategies and learning activities capture the effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies; g) collaborate with the "Syllabi Development Teams" in the incorporation of the developed case studies into the respective content syllabi; h) identify the specific technology hardware, software and skills that faculty will need to effectively use the developed case studies; and i) share the resulting multi-media case studies at the 2000 ACE-D/HH conference and on the CED Web site.

Outcomes:

2-3 multi-media case studies will be produced that both capture and explain the effective use of Internet linked, computer based technologies to enhance instruction and improve student learning within K-12 D/HH Education classrooms. In addition, the case studies will serve to: a) provide "instructional models" for both the D/HH Education faculty and their students; b) ground the D/HH Education method courses in the instructional realities that are found in today's K-12 D/HH Education classrooms; and c) identify the specific technology hardware, software and skills that faculty will need to effectively use the multi-media case studies.

Individuals Responsible:

Dr. Schirmer (Lead Faculty) + 4-5 D/HH Education faculty team members. :

Barbara Schirmer (Team leader), Kent State University
Gerald Bateman, National Technical Institute for the Deaf at RIT
Mary V. Compton, University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Margaret Finnegan, Flagler College
Ann Powers, Southern Missouri State University
Susan Rose, University of Minnesota
Barbara Strassman, The College of New Jersey

Time Line:

Sep.-Oct.= build team; Oct.-Apr.= develop case studies; Apr.= share case studies at the ACE-D/HH conference & receive feedback; Apr.-Jul.= finalize; Jul.= disseminate case studies.

Budget:

Personnel:

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

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

Student Workers:

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

Travel:

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

uploaded by Harold Johnson