year three report gally pacific region n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 11

Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region' - aaralyn

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
year three report gally pacific region

Year Three Report-Gally-Pacific Region

Dee (sorry I can’t be with you) Klein

choice report
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 21 june 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 Faculty = 21June 2002 – February 2003
Choices Selected by Other Advisory Board Members = 34
  • For a total of 55 choices to date for year three of the grant.
program participants
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
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 StateUniversity; 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
Changes in the Region
  • Lost- Lewis and Clark
  • Gained- University of Hawaii
  • 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
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