FORM 1 – Cover Sheet

P.L. 100-297, TITLE IITHE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER GRANT

GRANT APPLICATION

TITLEProject ACCESS: Accessing Curriculum Content for Special Education Students

SPONSORED BYUniversity of Tennessee

PROJECT DIRECTORKathleen S. Puckett, Ph.D.

The University of TennesseeCollege of Education419 Claxton Complex

Knoxville TN 37996-3400

865-974-0499:

kpuckett@utk.edu

Department Telephone:Karen Walker, 865-974-3435

Department’s Fax #:865-974-8718

Funding Requested

$ 75,000

__________________________________ __________________________________Signature of Authorized Representative Project DirectorApproving Submission

FORM 2 – Project Abstract

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER GRANT PROJECT ABSTRACTInstitution: University of Tennessee

Project Director: Kathleen Puckett, Ph.D.

Project Title: Project ACCESS: Accessing Curriculum Content for Special Education Students

Estimated number of teacher participants: 15

Contact hours of instruction: 25

Grade levels to be targeted: Special Education Grades K-8

Number of graduate credit hours offered:(Please note: Capacity Building proposals must offer a minimum of 6 graduate credit hours.)

Project Subject Area/s of focus: (Check all that apply)____ Mathematics____ Science____ Foreign languages____ Reading_X_ Special Education

ACCESS will give special education teachers the opportunity for professional

development in content knowledge and pedagogical skills using assistive technology to

access state curriculum content standards in Language Arts and Math. ACCESS will use

the resources of the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab in the UT College of

Education and the expertise of a cadre of professors and consultants specializing in

curriculum and instructional design, educational technology, special education, and

assistive technology to provide 25 hours of direct training. Participants will be recruited

from underrepresented schools in UT’s Professional Development School consortium:

Dogwood Elementary and Belle Morris Elementary in Knoxville, Claxton Elementary

School in Claxton, and Oneida Elementary School in Oneida Tennessee.

Table of Contents

Project Abstract i

Program Narrative 1

Specific needs 1

Recruitment and selection plan 7

Local education agency collaboration 9

Plan of operation 10

Time Commitments 10

Instructional Plan 11

Management Plan 16

Evaluation 17

Form 3 20

Form 4 Budget and cost effectiveness 21

Form 5 Alignment with state framework 24

Appendix 1 Pre and Post Assessment 27

Bibliography 30

Vitae 31

Specific need for content knowledge and instructional skill improvement of

teachers.

Project ACCESS provides special education teachers in Tennessee with the

opportunity for professional development to increase content knowledge and pedagogical

skills related to state content standards in Language Arts and Math. This project

specifically addresses issues of accessibility to general curriculum standards for special

education students using assistive technology devices. Several areas of need have driven

the development of this proposal.

First of all, in enacting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

Congress mandated high academic standards and clear performance goals for children

with disabilities that are consistent with standards and expectations for all students in the

educational system. Congress also required that school districts provide appropriate and

effective strategies and methods to ensure that children with disabilities have maximum

opportunities to achieve those standards and goals. These statements chart a clear change

of direction for special education teachers: they must now consider access to general

curriculum standards as an expectation for all students with disabilities. Individual

Educational Program (IEP) requirements must now emphasize the involvement and

progress of each child with a disability in the general curriculum, including addressing

the unique needs that arise out of the child’s disability. These legislative mandates

signify a change in direction in special education practice. Whereas the special education

program once looked at the needs of the individual child in isolation, it now must look at

the individual needs of the child as it relates to involvement in the general curriculum. In

order for special education teachers to insure access to general education curriculum and

standards for students with disabilities, they must have the content knowledge of those

standards. While most teacher education program are addressing this change, practicing

teachers are more likely to have been trained using models that focus on individual needs,

often to the exclusion of the instructional content and materials of general education

classrooms. Project ACCESS will enable special education teachers to begin to use the

skills necessary to bring general class curriculum into focus.

The second need addressed by this project also relates to changes in special education

legislation. The regulations require, as part of the IEP process, that all children who are

identified as having exceptional educational needs must be considered for assistive

technology. There are no exceptions or prerequisites, and the determination of whether

an assistive technology device or service is required must be made on an individual basis.

Many special education teachers do not possess sufficient knowledge to select technology

devices or services, do not have sufficient knowledge of possible tools, do not have the

necessary resources, or do not have sufficient knowledge to develop evaluation criteria

for the selection and use of assistive technology. Special education teachers need to

know the capability of a particular technology, how to match it appropriately to the

general education needs of the learner and must be able to instruct the learner to use it to

the best of his/her ability.

The third need addressed by this project concerns the actual progress of the special

education student in the general curriculum. IDEA legislation mandates that special

education students participate in state and district-wide assessments, or state why that

assessment is not appropriate and develop alternate measures. In practice, this change in

regulation means that the scores of most students with disabilities, especially those with

mild disabilities, are included in the overall scores reported for each school and district.

This change means that special education as well as general education teachers must now

consider progress in general curriculum standards as an expectation for all students with

disabilities, and by default includes these students in the assessment reporting programs

of each school district. Most special education teachers have been trained to focus on the

educational strengths and current levels of performance of the children they serve, but

few have had training in curriculum standards and performance expectations for students

at various grade levels. There appears to be a disconnect between IEP individualized

goals, curriculum standards, and assessment results for special education students and the

teachers who administer their programs.

Project ACCESS addresses these primary needs. Because the IDEA requires that

all students with disabilities have access to the general classroom curriculum, that assistive

technology be considered for every student with a disability as part of the Individualized

Educational Program (IEP) process, and that special education students participate in the

state and district assessment process, these regulations can work together to improve student

performance. Much of the assistive technology that should be considered by IEP teams is

readily met by available classroom technologies. Project ACCESS will show special

education teachers how to change the use of classroom technology from drill and practice to

a powerful and readily available tool for access to the general curriculum.

Recent research has shown that when students with disabilities have access to

multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, (principles of universal

design made possible by technology) participation in the general curriculum is improved

(O’Neil, 2000, Rose & Meyer, 2000). For example, reading a textbook passage, (a difficult

task for most students with learning disabilities) could be supported by digitizing the text and

using a screen reader for auditory feedback (a form of altering the representation). While

most schools targeted in this project have access to the simple hardware and software needed

to accomplish this task, the possibilities of use in and integration with the general curriculum

require further work among teachers, technology trainers, and university professors.

The need to develop general curriculum-specific methods that meet state and district

standards for Special Education students cannot be overstated. We need to restructure special

education professional training opportunities and experiences to include methods that

promote access to the general curriculum through the support possible by classroom uses of

technology. This technology training must be curriculum specific, integrated across subject

areas, and actively engage learners. Project ACCESS will directly support efforts to develop

accessible teaching strategies connecting technology across the general curriculum for special

education students. While measurable improvement for all special education students in state

and district wide assessments is also an intended focus of Project ACCESS, the real work

must begin at the level of access to general curriculum concepts and materials.

Specific needs of Project ACCESS partners

Data from school improvement plans show a continuous need for academic

improvement of all students and increased use of technology among students and

teachers. Furthermore, teachers’ use of technology varies. Data from our PDS

partnerships and intern surveys show that among those teachers who use technology in

their classrooms, applications varied from using the computer as a whole class

presentation tool, as a center for small group activities, as a remediation activity, and as a

drill-and-practice application for practicing basic skills. Few of the general education

teachers and none of the special education teachers used the powerful accessibility

features of simple technology applications to aid students with disabilities in their

mastery of general curriculum standards.

We are targeting the following four schools, which span three counties

surrounding the University of Tennessee Professional Development School (PDS)

program, as those most in need of additional training by virtue of their underrepresented

student populations, impact of poverty, and the diversity of inner city and rural

Appalachia issues. Our affiliations with these schools are already well established by

virtue of our PDS work with pre-service teachers. Their specific needs are listed as

follows.

Claxton Elementary School (K-6) is located in a rural community of southeastern

Anderson County, and is a partner PDS in our Special Education program. The community

consists mainly of residential areas with some small businesses. Because Claxton is a rural

area, the community's economic support some from the neighboring cities. School enrollment

is approximately 635 students (96% Caucasian, 3% African American, 1% Hispanic). Of the

total student population, 59% qualify for free and reduced lunch and 11% have been tested

for special education needs. The latest school improvement plan, in addition to improving

skills in Language Arts and Math, indicated student expectations include using technology to

improve reading and math skills.

Dogwood Elementary School was established in January 1995 and combined three

schools in the South Knoxville area. It serves children from a low-income neighborhood,

which includes a 452-unit integrated government subsidized housing project and surrounding

low-income housing. Presently Dogwood Elementary has 780 students. At Dogwood, 72%

of the students are on free or reduced lunch. Many children enrolled in this school come from

a background that may include: high crime neighborhoods, drug and alcohol abuse, limited

parent education, single-family parents, and family violence and abuse. Programs include the

following: Title 1 funded initiatives serving children who are below grade level in reading

and mathematics; five self-contained special education classes (preschool, CDC, LRE); a

resource program serving learning disabled students; and an Earth Flag program to promote

environmental education. The latest school improvement plan indicated as the first goal that

all students increase their performance level by a minimum of .05 points in reading and math

as measured by the Terra Nova. Student expectations include using technology to practice

reading and math skills.

Belle Morris Elementary is a P-5 inner-city school. Of the 473 students, 21.6% are

African American, 76.7% are Caucasian, and the remaining 1.8% are Hispanic, Native

American, and Asian. Belle Morris is a Title 1 school serving a large at-risk population.

Approximately 54.1% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch and 16.7% have been

identified as students with special needs. Their mobility rate is very high, indicating an ever-

changing student population. This school reflects many of the academic challenges known to

urban education, and is a Professional Development School (PDS) for the individualized

instruction program, which seeks to cross-train elementary education and special education

majors in the diverse student needs found in general curriculum settings. Faculty members at

Belle Morris and UT collaborate to prepare interns to teach in urban settings and to

understand the unique needs of an academically diverse student population. The school

improvement plan includes the need to improve achievement in Language Arts and the value

added gain in Math. Technology use in special education has been hindered by difficulty in

wiring a very old facility and lack of system resources.

Oneida Elementary is a P-5 small city school located in a rural Appalachian area. Of

the 575 students, 99.3% are Caucasian, .2% are African American, and the remaining .5% are

Asian. Oneida Elementary is a Title 1 school. Approximately 68.6% of students qualify for

free or reduced lunch and 11.7% have been identified as students with special needs. This

school is a Professional Development School (PDS) for the rural education program at the

University of Tennessee. Faculty members at Oneida Elementary and UT collaborate to

prepare interns to teach in rural settings and appreciate the challenges of rural Appalachia

areas that have sparse populations and limited resources. While student achievement scores

in Language arts and Math are exemplary, the value added gain is deficient, prompting a look

at the discrepancy between actual and potential progress of the students. Oneida Elementary

special education staff has expressed need for additional training in general curriculum issues

and in the use of technology in the classroom.

Each of these schools listed goals in improving Language arts and math skills of their

students in their school improvement plans. The faculty and staff are reporting a general

realization that unless special education students begin to show progress toward state and

district curriculum standards, the aggregate grade level assessment scores in these areas will

remain low.

Summaries of student performance on grade level assessments. Recent state

standardized testing results reveal the following scores across various academic areas for

our partner schools (see Table 1). The scores of Special education students are included

in this report.

Table 1. Tennessee School Report Card 2000K-8 Academics Claxton Dogwood Belle Morris Oneida

ElementaryReading C D C B

Language Arts B D D AMath B D C A

Science C D D BSocial Studies C F D B

(Grade Scale: A=Exemplary, B=Above Average, C=Average, D=Below Average, F=Deficient)

Recruitment and selection plan

The following recruitment plan specifies procedures for recruiting and selecting teachers

of underrepresented and under-served areas. Schools targeted for Project ACCESS meet

the following criteria: (a) have established working relationships between university and

K-12 faculty as partners in a Professional Development School (b) serve

underrepresented populations (students from inner city or impoverished situations), or

underserved areas (rural Appalachia), and (c) are participants in other curriculum and

technology training initiatives sponsored by the University of Tennessee and have a

faculty and leadership interested in extending these training opportunities to the special

education staff.

Special education teachers eligible for Project ACCESS are those serving children

with disabilities who are included for any part of the school day in the general education

classroom and who participate in the regular state and district assessment programs.

Special education teachers selected must meet the following preliminary requirements:

(a) willing to develop lessons that meet state and district standards in Language Arts and

Math that are supported through the use of technology, (b) a basic working knowledge of

computer operations (turning the machine on, saving files, printing, accessing e-mail and

various programs), (c) desire to increase their technology skills, (d) access either at

school or at home to an internet connection, and (e) a working e-mail address.

Recruitment will be conducted by through principals or directors of special education,

who will nominate teachers on their staff who meet these criteria. Upon receipt of the

nomination by the principal or director of special education, the Project ACCESS director

will inform the potential teacher participants of pre-conference requirements, workshop

dates, information regarding the post conference project, and the support offered by the

project. Those from each school who are nominated and agree to fulfill the attendance

and project obligations will be selected. As an incentive for participation and support for

project completion, each participant will be paid the equivalent of $50 a day for a total of

5 days ($250), will receive mileage reimbursement, and will receive approximately

$1,500 in assistive technology software and equipment that will enable them to complete

and extend project goals with individual students in the classroom.

Recruitment tailored to the demographic characteristics as well as participation by

parochial and private schools. In the event that the recruitment goal of 15 special

education teachers is not met from the targeted schools, recruitment will open for special

education teachers from public, private, or parochial schools within a 60 mile radius of

the University of Tennessee. Special education supervisors from these counties and

principals from the private and parochial schools will be notified of this opportunity, and

final selection will be made on a first come basis for those who agree to the conditions of

the project. Special education supervisors and private and parochial school principals

will be recruited using information provided by the East Tennessee Regional Office

Special education consultant.

Local Education Agency Collaboration and Links to Other Projects. Project Access

format and activities were planned in consultation with LEA principals, assistive

technology consultants, and supervisors of special education. Letters of support from

these partners are offered to support this effort. Furthermore, this project links with other

Local Education Agency partnerships and projects at the University of Tennessee. As

mentioned above, the target schools already are partners with UT in initial and continuing

teacher training through the Professional Development School program. Secondly, this

project links directly with Project Impact, a PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use

Technology Today) grant sponsored by the Department of Education. Project Impact

will train general education mentoring teachers and interns in classroom applications of

technology to increase student achievement. Project ACCESS will extend this general

education training and support to the special education teachers in the target schools.

Plan of operation

The following is the Project ACCESS plan for providing effective instruction to

participants and managing the day to day requirements of the project.

Time commitments: Project ACCESS will provide 25 contact hours of direct instruction

to 15 teachers in a workshop format. Actual time devoted to each participant exceeds the

25-hour time commitment. Participants will be asked to complete preliminary surveys

and pre-conference work regarding individual students, which will assist Project

ACCESS staff in customizing workshop topics. They will also be asked to review

potential assistive technology vendor web sites as an overview in order to maximize

direct instruction time. During the week of the workshop, one additional hour of

independent time will be offered in an optional open lab format. Finally, the special

education teachers will be asked to complete lesson plans using the concepts developed

in Project ACCESS. A detailed look at the time commitment given this project can be

found in the workshop syllabus.

Instructional Plan

Specific measurable objectives

The major goal of Project ACCESS is to access state and district curriculum content

standards in Language Arts and Math for special education students using assistive

technology. This goal has three objectives:

Objective 1: Develop special education teachers’ skills in aligning general

curriculum standards, curriculum material, and IEP goals for special education

students.

Objective 2: Develop special education teacher’s technical skills in use of

assistive technology software that supports general curriculum

Objective 3: Apply technical skills in Assistive Technology to general curriculum

content standards and IEP goals.

From these goals and objectives, the following observable outcomes are identified:

Outcome 1: Project ACCESS special education teachers’ ability to align general

curriculum content standards, curriculum materials, and IEP goals for individual students

will be enhanced.

This outcome will be achieved through the following activities. Each Project

ACCESS teacher will select one special education student as a case study. The teacher

will review the general education expectations as listed in state and district standards for

that student’s grade level in Language Arts and Math and review the general curriculum

materials used in the district to support this standard. The teacher will also review the

student’s present level of academic achievement and goals as presented in the Individual

Education Program. From this review, the Project ACCESS teacher will choose one

learner expectation as listed in the state or district content standards in Language Arts and

in Math that can be aligned with the students’ IEP goals and general classroom materials.

Outcome 2: Project ACCESS special education teachers will demonstrate skills in using

assistive technology to access general curriculum materials.

This outcome will be achieved as follows. The Project ACCESS staff will train

special education teachers in assistive technology that supports the curriculum

expectations and materials identified for the target student. This training will be

conducted in a week-long workshop format to include 25 hours of direct instruction with

an additional 5 hours of open independent lab. Workshop assistive technology skills (as

listed in the preliminary syllabus) will be derived from pre-conference activities and

surveys of the participants.

Outcome 3: Project ACCESS teachers will use assistive technology as a method and

strategy for accessing general curriculum standards in order to meet the diverse needs of

their students.

This outcome will be achieved as follows. Using information gathered from

analysis of the general curriculum, materials, and student needs, and the skills developed

in the workshop, the special education teacher will design a lesson from general

classroom curriculum materials using technology as a tool for access in Language Arts

and Math. Project ACCESS Teachers will receive a copy of each software program

trained in the workshop to support their efforts in developing the lessons. These lessons

will be posted to a web site, with a follow up report on the successes and challenges of

lesson implementation shared with project participants.

Outline of content knowledge and pedagogy conveyed (syllabus of workshop events)

PRELIMINARY SYLLABUS

ACCESS: Accessing Curriculum Content for Special Education Students.

A PL 100-297 TITLE II DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER GRANT

Teacher Planning Phase (March 2002-May 2002)

1) Pre Assessment (pre-conference survey)

2) Select Student Case and Review IEP

i) Review IEP Goals and Objectives

ii) Review State and District Content Standards in Language Arts and Math

iii) Inform/Convene M-Team

3) Teacher Preliminary Review of Assistive Technology (website review)

i) Review Universal Design concepts

ii) Review Procedures for Selecting Assistive Technology

iii) Review Vendor Websites (examples: Intellitools, Kurzweil 3000 Inspiration)

Workshop Schedule: Note: Information from pre-assessments will be used to customize

workshop topics.

DAY TOPIC INSTRUCTIONAL

FORMAT

Monday (5 hrs) Universal Design & Assistive Technology

Selection

Lecture and Website Review

“Tour” of Curriculum Lab Materials

Available for Projects

Browse and Locate

General Accessibility Options for Mac and

Windows

Hands-On Training

TEXT TO VOICE SCANNING: Kurzweil

3000, e-text, others.

Hands-On Training

Literacy Support & Study Skills Hands-On Training

Concept Mapping: Inspiration as support for

writing

Hands-On Training

General Study Skills Strategies Lecture Demo

Monday open

lab (1 hour,

optional)

TRY-OUTS Independent Time on

Computers with Instructional

Support

Tuesday (5 hrs) Alternate Input Text to Speech W.P. –

Intellitalk II – Alternate Keyboards Support

Hands-On Training

Multi Media Support for Literacy Intellipics Hands-On Training

Keyboard Adaptations and support for

Language Arts – Overlay Maker

Hands-On Training

Tuesday open

lab (1 hour,

TRY-OUTS Independent Time on

Computers with Instructional

optional) Support

Wed (5 hrs) Math Support – Early Arithmetic Hands-On Training

Mathematics Problem Solving Support –

Upper Elementary Arithmetic

Hands-On Training

Wednesday

open lab (1

hour, optional)

TRY-OUTS Independent Time on

Computers with Instructional

Support

Thurs (5 hrs) Multi Media Support for Language Arts &

Math: Hyperstudio, Power point basics

Hands-On Training

Alternate forms

of student

expression:

multi media

Incorporating visual & auditory media: digital

photograph & video scanning; auditory media

Hands-on Training

Thursday open

lab (1 hour,

optional)

Review of concepts/TRY-OUTS Independent Time on

Computers with Instructional

Support

Friday (5 hrs) Putting it all together individual project

support

Lab Workshop

Individual Conferences

Preliminary project sharing

Post Conference Support:

Listserv Website

Review of Software

Friday open lab

(1 hour,

Open for problem solving Independent Time on

Computers with Instructional

optional) Support

Modeling appropriate teaching behaviors and practices

Researchers who monitor changes in teacher behavior when using technology report

(1) instructors who model the use of technology are considered the best teacher trainers

(Handler, 1992; Wetzel, 1993), (2) the greatest impediment to infusion of technology into

curriculum is the lack of vision as to how to use technology in the classroom (Sprague,

Kopfman, and Dorsey, 1998; Wetzel, 1993), and (3) technology integration must be an active

process with participants being exposed to hands-on training that focuses on how to use

technology as a resource for instruction (Roblyer and Edwards 2000). The instructional plan

of Project ACCESS addresses all three concerns. The instructors selected for this project are

individuals who model the use of technology in university and classroom settings. All

instruction will be conducted in a hands-on format, with a follow-up project designed for

classroom use. Furthermore, as a further incentive for Project ACCESS to implement skills

that have been modeled, the participants will receive a copy of each of the software used in

the workshop for use with students in the schools.

Management PlanTimeline

December 2001 Notify Districts and ask for their preliminary notification of potential participantsSet up accounts

January 2002 Order MaterialsRecruits Hire GA SupportRecruit SET from target school districtsDevelop Set Requirements

February 2002 Develop “DO-ITS” – STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARESelect Special Education TeachersSet workshop dates and confirm with SETDevelop Website

March 2002 Notify private and parochial schools with special education programs of any available spaces for special education

participation. Select alternate participantsBegin Preliminary InstructionInstruction of Participants with on-line supportComplete Special Education Teacher Pre-conference survey/pre-test

April 2002 Score survey pre-test Revise Syllabus and Instructors’ Assignments based on pre-conference surveyFinalize workshop curriculumComplete “do-its”Continue to support on-line Preliminary Instruction of ParticipantsLoad AT Software in curriculum lab and test for stability

May 2002 Support on-line preliminary instruction of participantsFinalize Workshop PlansDuplicate MaterialsDigitize for Website

June 2002 Conduct WorkshopConduct post conference evaluation

July 2002 Follow up on ProjectsPost conference evaluations analyzed.

September 2002 Implement projects and post results

Institutional resources, actions, and commitments to support Project ACCESS. The

University of Tennessee will commit the following resources to this project. The

workshop will be conducted in the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab located in the

College of Education at the University of Tennessee. This lab contains 15 state of the art

computer stations, scanners, appropriate office based software, multi-media software, as

well as software used by most general education classrooms, and a data base of additional

programs. In addition to these resources, the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab

serves as a repository for all State adopted curriculum materials. Project ACCESS

participants will have access to all general classroom materials and standards during the

workshop sessions conducted in this center. The University will also provide

infrastructure support for this project in the development and hosting of a website, and a

listserv. Finally, the University will provide services as fiscal agent to assure that the

funds allocated to this project are accounted for appropriately.

Evaluation Plan

Evaluation strategies and activities will serve as diagnostic, formative and

summative tools. They will be diagnostic in that they will help project staff determine

specific needs of the special education teachers and their students in implementing

Project ACCESS activities. They are formative in that they will help project staff revise

the workshops and summative in that they will serve to determine the success of the

project. Outcomes will be assessed using evaluator-developed surveys (Appendix 1). A

proposed evaluation plan follows.

Evaluation will have three phases: pre-conference, workshop immediately post-

conference, and follow-up phase. Each phase is described as follows:

Pre-conference assessment phase: The pre-conference evaluation phase consists of a

self-analysis by participants of their levels of existing knowledge and classroom use of

assistive technology to make the general curriculum accessible to special education

students. This pre-conference assessment will be in the form of questions related to the

workshop objectives in which participants rate their levels of skill and knowledge using a

Likert-type scale. The pre-assessment instrument will establish a baseline of each

participant’s knowledge and classroom use. It will also be used to make revisions to the

proposed workshop curriculum and to identify areas of individual need. The preliminary

pre-assessment instrument is found in Appendix 1.

Post-workshop assessment phase: The post-workshop assessment phase will measure the

effectiveness of the workshop training events. This assessment asks questions similar to

those of the pre-assessment and asks participants to rate the potential for use of the new

skills. The preliminary post-assessment instrument is found in Appendix 1.

Follow-up assessment phase: The follow-up assessment will be conducted after the

participants implement their project in their classroom with the target students. It will be

used to identify further training and needs assessment of the teachers. The primary

activity of the follow-up assessment phase is submission of classroom implementation

activities through the individual lesson projects as posted to Project ACCESS website.

This activity will confirm attention to state and district standards and use of general

curriculum materials. Additional questions will be offered to the participants to

determine what should be done to enhance further efforts in future projects.

The aim of Project ACCESS is to make the general curriculum, with its

curriculum content and performance expectations, accessible for special education

students. We acknowledge that the ultimate intended outcome of all these efforts is that

as a result of general curriculum access, performance assessment scores will improve for

special education students. A summative evaluation that seeks to show exact

improvement in district scores would be ideal, but is beyond the scope of the time frame

and the resources of this proposal. However, the activities listed within the scope of this

project reflect best practices and good faith effort to ultimately achieve those aims, and

could be the focus of future efforts. The evaluation data collected during Project

ACCESS will greatly influence the direction of educational practice and special

education student progress.

FORM 3 – Statement for Non-Profit Organizations

STATEMENT OF DEMONSTRATION OF PROVISION OF QUALITY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN COVERED DISCIPLINES

Years of existence of NPO:

Please note that through the signature of the authorized official on the cover page to this submission, the applicant NPO is stating that, to the best of its knowledge, it is financially stable and capable of providing on-going assistance to teachers trained, as needed.

Dates, titles, school system where services were rendered, numbers of recipients of quality teacher training programs by NPO:

For at least 1 program, attach a 1 to 2 paragraph description of services provided. For each program described, attach a letter of recommendation on each, from a school management official, commenting on the quality of services delivered, including the long-term effect of the training on the teachers’ ability to instruct. Please make certain that each letter appears on the official letterhead of the local school or system and shows clearly the name of the person writing the recommendation, and address, and an accurate telephone number where the person writing the recommendation can be reached.

FORM 4- BUDGET SUMMARY

Project Budget Summary

I. Salaries $10,700

II. Fringe Benefits (28% of Salaries) $2,996

III. Staff Travel

IV. Consultant Services $1,495

V. Participant Stipend $3,750

VI. Participant Travel and Subsistence $3,168

VII. Equipment Rental

VIII. Materials and Supplies $45,335

IX. Communications $1,000

X. Printing and Duplicating $1,000

XI. Other (Itemize)

XII. Gross Operating Expense (subtotal of I. Throught XI.) $69,444

XIII. Indirect (8% maximum applied to XII.) $5,556

XIV. Total Grant Request (Sum of XII. And XIII.) $75,000

Budget Description

I. Salaries 10,700

Salaries for the project include the following: Dr. Kathleen Puckett, Project

director, $4,000 for 14 days dedicated to this project. Dr. Puckett will be responsible for

recruiting participants, facilitating the pre-workshop information gathering phase with the

project participants, helping to conduct the training, conducting post-training follow-up,

and general project management. Dr. Aileen Nonis, project trainer, $2,000, for 7 days

devoted to the project. Dr. Nonis will assist in developing training modules and in

conducting training sessions. Dr. Blanche O’Bannon, project trainer, $2,000, for 6 days

devoted to the project. Dr. O’Bannon will assist in developing training modules and

coordinate the functions of the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab with the activities

of the project. Graduate assistants: 2,700. Three graduate assistants will be employed to

assist the participants during training in the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab. The

graduate assistants will also develop a web page for this project and post competed lesson

plans of the participants to this site.

II. Fringe Benefits (28% of Salaries) $2,996

Fringe Benefits are calculated on .28% of salary.

III. Staff Travel

No staff travel is necessary in this project.

IV. Consultant Services $1,495

Two consultants in assistive technology will be employed for two days each by this

project. Consultant services are determined at the rate of $300 per day. One consultant,

Ms. Molly Littleton, of Signal Centers, Inc. in Chattanooga, will require one night

lodging, travel from Chattanooga, and two days of meals. The second consultant, Mrs.

Alice Wershing of the East Tennessee Technology Access Center, will require local

travel and two meals.

V. Participant Stipend $3,750

Participants’ stipend is calculated at the rate of $50 per day for 5 days, for a total of 15

participants.

VI. Participant Travel and Subsistence $3,168

Participant travel for 15 special education teachers is estimated to be $1,668, in the form

of mileage reimbursement at the rate of .32 per mile. Subsistence is estimated for

continental breakfast and luncheon using rates provided for catering prices provided by

Food Services at the University Center at UT. The budgeted figure was calculated at the

rate of $7.50 per meal, 2 meals per day, for 5 days, 20 persons (15 participants, 5 trainers

or assistants).

VII. Equipment Rental

No equipment rental is required. All major equipment will be provided by the

Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab at the University of Tennessee.

VIII. Materials and Supplies $45,335

Materials and supplies are calculated for assistive technology that participants will use

during training in the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab and during follow up in

their respective schools. Software and materials are chosen specifically for features that

provide support for any general curriculum material. For example, Intellitools products

provide text to speech word processing with the capacity to accept digitized text in most

formats, speech enhanced spell check, rebus symbols, and alternate keyboards that can be

adapted for specific disabilities by the teacher. Kurzweil Programs provide a controllable

text reader with study skills support, including a text to speech dictionary that works with

any scanned text, and are designed as a support for reading disabilities. Other materials

provide math assistance in problem solving and use of appropriate algorithms, concept

mapping, speech to text word processing, and hypermedia. The project will provide

$22,068 in materials and software for the Technology Enhanced Curriculum Lab that will

be used in the training. Participants will receive one set of each of the materials and

software used in the training (a total of $23,267) for their respective classrooms or for use

with their targeted students. .

IX. Communications $1,000

$1,000 is estimated for postage, shipping charges for materials and supplies, long

distance, fax services, etc.

X. Printing and Duplicating $1,000

Printing charges for workshop materials, instructions, and follow up services are

estimated at $1,000.

XI. Other (Itemize)

No other expenses are listed.

XII. Indirect (8% maximum applied to XII.) $5,556

Indirect costs are calculated at the rate of 8% on a subtotal of $69,444.00.

FORM 5 – Alignment with State Standards

STATE CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS

In each of the subject areas the proposed project will address,Please identify at minimum one of the state curriculm content

standards that will be addressed.

Mathematics

____ Problem Solving

____ Communications

____ Reasoning

____ Connections

Science

____ Process of Science

____ Unifying Concepts of Science

____ Habits of Mind

____ Science in Society

Foreign Language

____ Communicate in languages other than English

____ Gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures

____ Connect with other disciplines and acquire information

____ Develop insight into the nature of language and culture

____ Participate in multicultural communities and global society

For projects that address the special categories of reading or special education, please describe how the project will address state standards for the subject areas addressed in the proposal. (Limit one page doublespaced, 12 font)

The project will address state standards for Language Arts and Math in the following ways.

Each participant/teacher will select one special education student as a case for an initial project

design. After an analysis of the student’s present level of academic achievement as presented in

the Individual Education Program, the teacher will design a lesson or lessons which uses general

classroom curriculum materials to address at least one learner expectation for age appropriate

state content standards in Language Arts and in Math, using technology as support for access and

achievement. For example, the content standard for Language Arts 3-5 is “…(to) develop the

structural and creative skills necessary to produce written language that can be read and

interpreted by various audiences.” Using the present level of academic achievement (as stated in

the IEP) of the selected student case, the special education teacher will design lessons using

technology that address one learner expectation associated with this state content standard. For

example, the following learner expectation, “Write to acquire knowledge, promote lifelong

communication, and gain confidence as a writer,” would be addressed in lessons using the

general classroom curriculum materials with the assistance of a specialized word processor. The

student could use (depending on ability and needs) features such as voice output, simplified

menus, text to voice spell check features, an alternate keyboard with alphabetical (instead of the

standard qwerty pattern) and/or a rebus system for unknown words. Pre-writing planning

strategies that relate to these expectations could be supported through the use of readily available

outlining software in conjunction with text to speech word processors. A similar process will be

used as a means of addressing state content standards in math. The teacher will choose a content

standard that is age appropriate for the special education student and develop a lesson from

general classroom curriculum materials using technology as a tool for access.

Appendix 1

Assessment Instrument

Project ACCESSAssessment Instrument

Name: __________________ District: ____________ Date: ___________ Pre____ Post _____

PART IPlease rate your current knowledge and skill in the following areas.

Limited Beginning Practicing Proficient

Expert

1. Knowledge of state and/or district content standards in Language Arts and Math for the age appropriate grade level of my special education students.a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

2. Consultation and use of state and/or district content standards in Language Arts and Math when describing levels of performance of special ed students in the IEP is:a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

3. Consultation and use of state and/or district content standards in Language Arts and Math when participating in the development of IEP goals and benchmarks for special ed students:a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

4. Familiarity with general curriculum and general classroom supporting materials and texts in Language Arts and Math for the age appropriate grade of special ed students a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

5. Knowledge of basic computer technology skills: word processing, spread sheets, internet research, e-mail:a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

6. Use of basic computer technology skills to support teaching: lesson planning, records management, communications, correspondence:a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5

b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

7. Use of basic computer technology to support student learning: guiding student use of word processors, internet, e-mail, etc.:a. In general, my self-evaluation in this area is: 1 2 3 4 5b. For at least one particular special education student, my self-evaluation in this area is:

1 2 3 4 5

Skills most frequently used: (list)

PART IIPlease rate your (a) knowledge, (b) classroom use, and (c) specific use with a particular special ed student, pertaining to the following assistive technology applications.

Limited Beginning Practicing Proficient

Expert

1. Text to speech word processors (examples: Intellitalk, Write Outloud, Text Help, etc.):a. My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5b. My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5c. My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

2. Voice activated word processors (examples: Naturally Speaking, Dragon Dictate):My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

3. Computer technology to support reading; scan and read programs (examples: Kurzweil 3000, Text Help):My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

4. Using multi media (digitized pictures and audio) to support language arts and math (examples: Hyper studio, Power Point, Intellipics):My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

5. ‘General’ accessibility option available in Windows and Mac (examples: screen magnification, latch keys, variable keyboard response rates, etc.):My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

6. Using alternate keyboards:My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

7. Technology to support the writing process (examples: Inspiration or other outlining software, Hyper Studio, Kidpics):My level of knowledge is: 1 2 3 4 5My level of classroom use is: 1 2 3 4 5My use with a specific student is: 1 2 3 4 5

Part III: Wish List. As part of the pre-assessment, share what you would hope to get out of this Project Access workshop. As part of the post-assessment, what areas need further development?

Bibliography

Handler, M. (1992). Preparing new teachers to use technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers in Education, 20 (2), 147-156.

O'Neill, L. (2000). Computer technology can empower students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Parent, 30 (7), 72-74.

Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58 (3), 39-43.

Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S. L. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 24-28.

Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educators use of computers in teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), 335-352.

Vitae of Key Personnel

Kathleen Szczepanik PuckettUniversity of Tennessee 419 Claxton Complex

Knoxville TN 37996-3400865-974-0499 kpuckett@utk.edu

Professional Experience:2000-present: Associate Professor, University of Tennessee. Duties include directing

TRI-IT, a teacher recruitment grant, and teaching in and coordinating the Individualized Instruction Program.

1992-2000: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, UC Foundation Associate Professor. Responsibilities include teaching courses in awareness and accommodation of students with disabilities to prospective general education teachers, assistive technology, classroom use of computers, multi-media, and other technology.

1973-1989: Knoxville City and Knox County Schools: Consultant and Special Education Supervisor

1970-1973: Special Education Teacher, Anderson County (Tennessee) Schools.

Grant Administration1999-2002 Project Director: TRI-IT: Teacher Recruitment partnership grant with UT

Chattanooga and UT Knoxville to recruit teachers into high-need schools in Hamilton and Knox County, Tennessee. $1,176,343.

1999 Project Director: Assistive Technology Centers in Southeast Tennessee (ASSIST) Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Special Education, $35,000. Coordinate training and establish a lending library in assistive technology to 10 school districts in Southeast Tennessee. Obtained Assistive Technology Applications Certificate Program from California State University at Northridge, Center on Disabilities..

Education 1992 Ph.D. in Education, The University of Tennessee. Dissertation: Teacher

Thinking in Special Education: Longitudinal Differences in the Expression of Expertise.

1988 Ed. S. in Educational Administration and Supervision, The University of Tennessee. Thesis: The Knoxville City Schools Proficiency Project: An Effective Schools Approach.

1975 M.S. in Special Education, The University of Tennessee. Thesis: The Modified Dale-Chall Formula: A Statistical Comparison with Two Other Readability Formulas on Intermediate Level Basal Readers.

Selected Publications:Littleton, M. & Puckett, K. (1998) Comparing Communication Systems: Some

Important Questions to Consider. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings . October 31, 1998. Birmingham, Alabama

Puckett, K. & Littleton, M. (1997) Empowering people with disabilities for inclusion through technology today. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings. October 3-4, 1997. Birmingham, Alabama.

Puckett, K. (1996) Practice what you preach: Integrating technology into your

instruction. Paper presented to the Teacher Education Division, Council for Exceptional Children, November 8, 1996, Washington DC. ED 401 691.

Puckett, K. & Littleton, M. (1996) Creating multimedia: An effective way to demonstrate the power of assistive technology. Closing the Gap, 15(4) 9-18.

Selected Presentations:Puckett, K. (2000) Establishing Assistive Technology Service Centers for Small Rural

School Districts. Paper presented at Closing the Gap, Minneapolis, MN, October 21, 2000.

Puckett, K. (1997). Using technology to promote access to literacy: Training in software and equipment use. A workshop presented to the Southeast Regional Conference of the Orton Dyslexia Society, May, 1997.

Puckett, K. & Littleton, M. (1997) Technology for Inclusion: Hands-on training. Presented to the Tennessee Joint Conference on Children with Disabilities, February, 1997, Nashville, Tennessee.

Puckett, K. & Littleton, M. Using Ke:nx for scanning and communication. Inservice for special education faculty of Orange Grove Center, Chattanooga City Schools and Hamilton County Schools. January 17, 1997.

Puckett, K. (1996). Low tech learning strategies and aids for secondary students with learning disabilities. Presentation to Scenic Land Upper School Faculty, December 4, 1996.

Puckett, K. & Littleton, M. (1996). Using assistive technology to promote inclusion and participation: A multimedia demonstration. Presentation at MTSU K-12 Technology Conference, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro TN, November 12, 1996.

Puckett, K. and Brown. S. (1996) Using Multi-media Presentations to Empower Regular Education Teachers in the Prereferral Process. Paper presented at the International Council for Exceptional Children, April 4, 1996, Orlando, Fl.

Puckett, K. and Littleton, M. (1996) Empowering People with Disabilities for Inclusion through Technology Today. Presentation in multi-media format to Tennessee Educational Technology conference, March 25, 1996, Nashville TN.

Puckett, K. and Ray, B. (1995) The possibilities of assistive technology: A multi-media demonstration for inservice teachers. Paper presented at the International Council for Exceptional Children, April 7, 1995, Indianapolis, IA.

Grants Funded:1999 Assistive Technology Center in Southeast Tennessee (ASSIST) A proposal to the

Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Special Education, $35,000.1997 Technology Innovation Fund Grant, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,

$1,500.00.1997 Attendance at Intellitools Summer Conference, San Rafael CA, August 2-4, 1997.

UC Faculty Development Grant, $830.1997 Assistive Technology Upgrade. UC Instructional Excellence Grant, $1,0001996 Attendance at 1996 Center for Applied Special Technology/Harvard University

Summer Institute, Peabody MA. UC Faculty Development Grant, $1,300.

CURRICULUM VITA

Blanche W. O’Bannon, Ed. D445 Claxton Complex College of Education The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN Phone: 865-974-0498 E-mail: bobannon@utk.eduWeb: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/default.html

EDUCATION

Ed.D., Curriculum and Instruction/ Instructional Design and Technology, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee

Editorships of Journals

2000-Present - Editorial Review Board International Journal of Educational Technology 1998-Present - Board of Associate Editors Journal of Research on Technology in Education

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Research interests include the professional development of university faculty and K-12 teachers for the integration of technology and curriculum, development of multimedia/hypermedia learning environments and course development focusing on these areas.

AWARDS

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) SIGTE Research Paper Award 2001

PUBLICATIONS

Selected Refereed Journal Articles

Vannatta, R. & O’Bannon, B.W. (in press). Beginning to Put the Pieces Together: A Technology Infusion Model for Teacher Education. . Journal of Computing in Teacher Education.

El-Amin, C., Hammond, R., O’Bannon, B & Vannatta, R. (in press).. Infusing Technology into the Elementary Classroom: A School/University Partnership Model Computers in the Schools.

O’Bannon, B. W. & Vannatta, R. A. (2001). Developing the capacity to infuse technology. National Forum of Applied Research Journal,14, (2), 9-25.

O’Bannon, B. W. & D. R. Hammond (1999). Preparing Technology Literate Social Studies Teachers. Trends and Issues in Social Studies, 6 (3), 6-9.

Smith, S.J., & O'Bannon, B. W. (1999). Faculty members infusing technology across teacher education: A mentorship model. Journal of Teacher Education and Special Education, 22 (2), 123-135.

O’Bannon, B. W. & Brownell, G. (1999). Networks for Learning: Using the Internet to Enhance Instruction. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 15 (4), 11-17.

O’Bannon, B. W., Krolak, B., Harklewood, M., & Dick, D. (1999). Awesome Graphics: Using Photoshop for Web graphics. Learning and Leading in Technology 26 (5), 54-57 & 60-61.

SELECTED RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

Funded and in progress2001-2001 Project ImPACT: Implementing Partnerships Across the Curriculum with

Technology -Implementation Grant. US Department of Education (with A. Nonis). $452,000.00. Project Director.

2000-2003 Project PICT: Preservice Infusion of Computer Technology -Implementation Grant. US Department of Education (with R. A. Vannatta). $492,600/year. Co-Project Director (Relocation to TN required change to Consultant status).

Completed2000-2001 Technology and Teacher Preparation: Creating Learning Environments for Increasing Student Involvement and Creativity . Project Get SMARTer. $2500.00. Co-Project Director.

1999-2000 Project PICT: Preservice Infusion of Computer Technology - Capacity Grant. US Department of Education (with R. A. Vannatta). $162,964.00/year. Co-Project Director.

1 Technology and Teacher Education Initiative. LEQSF. $99,037.00/year .

PAPERS READ TO PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Selected Refereed International/National Papers Read to Professional Societies

O'Bannon, B. W. & Vannatta, R. ((2001, March). Building the capacity to infuse technology in K-6 Classrooms: A training model. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, Florida .

Nonis, A. & O'Bannon, B. W. (2001, March). Revising an educational computing course to meet the Natinal Educational Technology Stqandards (NETS): A process of reflectve teaching.. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, Florida

Vannatta, R. & O'Bannon, B. W. (2001, March). Pilot results of a teacher education technology infusion model. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, Florida

O'Bannon, B. W. (2000, Feb). Using WebQuests to construct learning. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, California .

Brownell, G., & O'Bannon, B. W.(1999, March). Prospects and possibilities: The

capstone course in a M.Ed. in classroom technology. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Technology and Education, Edinburgh, Scotland.

AILEEN S. NONIS. PH.D University of Tennessee443 ClaxtonKnoxville, TN 37996 EDUCATION

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA– Ph.D., Instructional Technology, August 1999University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA – M.Ed., Instructional Technology, May 1998University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA – B.A., Elementary Education, May 1994 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA – B.S., Psychology, May 1994

UNIVERSITY TEACHING EXPERIENCE

College of Education, University of Tennessee, Instructional Technology, Curriculum

and Evaluation

Assistant Professor (August 2000–present)ITCE 486 Introduction to Instructional ComputingITCE 521 Computer Applications in EducationITCE 571 Desktop Publishing for EducatorsCFS 580 Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom

College of Education, Iowa State University, Curriculum and Instructional TechnologyAssistant Professor (August 1999–May 2000); Instructor (August 1998–July 1999)Courses taught: Introduction to Instructional Technology; Computer Applications in the Classroom; Instructional Technology Seminar, Introduction to Classroom Computing; Advanced Computer Applications in Education; Educational Applications of the Internet, Educational Applications of Multimedia

Curry School of Education, University of VirginiaInstructional Technology Section

Director, Technology Infusion Project (1995 – 1998)Coordinated a technology infusion project for preservice teachers that was recognized by NCATE as an exemplary model for collaborative school/university partnerships

Graduate Instructor (1995 – 1998)Courses taught: Introduction to Instructional Computing, Practicum in K–12 Computer Applications, Continuing Education technology courses

TEACHING CREDENTIALS

Permanent Certification in Elementary Education (1-6)Commonwealth of Massachusetts, April 1994

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Dawson, K. & Nonis, A.S. (2000). The impact of a field-based technology infusion project on preparing preservice teachers to use technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1); pp. 4-12.

Andre, T., Schmidt, D., Nonis, A.S., Buck, N., & Hall, S. (2000) for publication). Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers Today: Using Videos of Technology-Using Teachers to Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers' Technology Skills. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Nonis, A.S., Bronack, S. & Heaton, L. (2000). Web-based discussions: Building effective electronic communities for preservice technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1), pp. 3-11; Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Nonis, A.S., Andre, T. & Sasser, S. (1999). Revising the graduate curriculum in instructional technology: a process of change. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Nonis, A.S. (1998, spring). Teaching the teachers. CaseNET [On-line]. Available: casenet.edschool.virginia.edu (multimedia competition case study written for CaseNET).

Bull, G.L., Heinecke, W., Gansneder, B., Short, J., Dawson, K. & Nonis, A.S. (1997). Final Evaluation of Three Pilot Educational Technology Inservice Training Programs for K-12 Teachers. Richmond, VA: State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.

Nonis, A.S. (1997). Using technology as a cognitive tool. National Council of Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers, December 1997.

Bull, G.L., Nonis, A.S. & Becker, F.J. (1996). Realizing technology’s potential. Principal, 76 (3), 29–31.

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS

Dawson, K. & Nonis, A.S. (2000) The impact of a field-based technology infusion project on preparing preservice teachers to use technology. National Educational Computing Conference (NECC), Atlanta, GA SIGTE Annual Research Award Paper

Schmidt, D., Thompson, A., Willis, J., Nonis, A.S., Hargrave, C. (2000). Technology Collaboration for Simultaneous Renewal: A PT3 Project. Invited Panel presentation for the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual Conference, San Diego, CA (March 2000).

Andre, T., Schmidt, D., Nonis, A.S., Buck, N., & Hall, S. (2000). Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers Today: Using Videos of Technology-Using Teachers to Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers' Technology Skills. Society for Information

Technology and Teacher Education Annual Conference, San Diego, CA (March 2000).