year three report gally pacific region n.
Download
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


  • 73 Views
  • 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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
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
slide4
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

Wrap-up
changes in the region
Changes in the Region
  • Lost- Lewis and Clark
  • Gained- University of Hawaii
perspective
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
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