Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region

1. Year Three Report-Gally-Pacific Region Dee (sorry I can’t be with you) Klein

2. 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

3. #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

4. Choices Selected by Other Advisory Board Members = 34 • For a total of 55 choices to date for year three of the grant.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Changes in the Region • Lost- Lewis and Clark • Gained- University of Hawaii

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Thank you for 3 great years!