1. Year Three Report- Gally-Pacific Region Dee (sorry I cant 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. Choices Selected by Faculty = 21 June 2002 – February 2003 #1 – Syllabus1 #3 – Technology-focused grant 1 #4b – Cyber mentor 2 #7 – Electronic Portfolio 1 #9 – Professional Development 6 #11 – On-line Course Development1 #12a – Multi-faculty Collaboration3 #12d – K-12 Post-Secondary Collaboration4 #13 – Expert Team1 #14 – Other1

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 programs 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. Wrap-up The only program NOT participating in the GPR-PT3 grant activities over the three year period was Idaho State University ; 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

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