Elementary and Early Childhood Education
M.Ed. Program
Syllabus
Summer Semester 2009
I.
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospestus (3 hrs)
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
Dr. Mark Warner—Cohort (02)
e-mail mwarner8@kennesaw.edu
website: http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~mwarner8/
III.
CLASS MEETINGS: Mondays 9am-5pm
IV:
TEXTS (for ECE 7511)
Required:
Glanz, J. (2003) Action Research. Norwood, MA. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc..
Optional:
Mills, G. (2003). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. (ISNB 0-13-042254-1)
Urdan, T. (2001). Statistics in plain English. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association
Galvan, J.(2004). Writing Literature Reviews A guide for students of theSocial and Behavioral
Sciences (2nd ed) Glendale, CA:. Pyrczak Publishing.
Lyne, L. (2003). A Cross Section of Educational Research Journal Articles for Discussion and
Evaluation (2nd ed). Los Angeles, CA:. Pyrczak Publishing.
Those students who own laptop computers are welcome to bring those to class, too.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 1 of 7
V.
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTIONS:
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus
Through the exploration of quantitative and qualitative educational research, and the interpretation
of formal and authentic assessment measures, candidates will develop strategies to make informed
decisions for intervention, as well as appropriate assessment for diverse student populations.
Action research will be a major focus in preparing candidates for planning and writing their
prospectus of applied research that will be carried throughout the M. Ed., program.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE: The purpose of this course is to prepare current kindergarten through fifth
grade teachers to use action research to improve their effectiveness as educators. The course will assist
teachers in becoming familiar with the methods used in action research and ways to examine major factors
which should be considered in the planning, implementing, and evaluation of classroom practice. The
prospective teachers will explore ways to integrate student needs and characteristics, curriculum and
classroom management and evaluation into strategies which can improve instruction.
VII.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
1
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who
possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students
through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that
support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through
stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework,
expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and
educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through
the implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of
learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU
recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university and extends
collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university,
the public and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal
of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
VIII.
DIVERSITY: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment
within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region,
giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on
cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as
disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic
program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 2 of 7
IX.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Integrated Use of Technology: The Bagwell College of Education recognizes
the importance of preparing future educators and K-12 students to develop technology skills that enhance
learning, personal productivity, decision making, their daily activities in the 21st century. As a result, the
ISTE NETS*T Technology Standards for Teachers are integrated throughout the teacher preparation
program enabling teacher candidates to explore and apply best practices in technology enhanced
instructional strategies.
Specific technologies used within this course include: Students in ECE 7511 are expected to examine
uses of instructional technology, including calculators, projected visual technology, audio and video
technology, computer technology, and Internet resources in the teaching and learning of science. They are
expected to incorporate technology into their lessons when appropriate—development of lesson,
implementation of lesson, assessment of lesson, analysis of teaching, etc.
X.
IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSIS: It is our assumption that you are already assessing
the influence of your instruction on your students’ learning and that you are considering what factors, such
as student diversity, might affect your students’ achievement. For this assignment, you will select a lesson,
activity, unit, or skill that you plan to teach this semester and analyze its impact on your students’ learning.
Then, you will reflect on the impact on your students’ learning on that particular lesson, activity, unit, or
skill using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide. You will want to consider how
the differences that every student brings to the classroom setting may have influenced learning (see
definition of “every student” at the top of attached “Impact on Student Learning” rubric). Unless your
program area tells you differently, the length of the reflection is up to you, but it should be concise. (See
Directions for “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” that accompanies the Rubric for greater detail.)
XI.
FIELD EXPERIENCE STATEMENT: While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged
to be involved in a variety of school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.
Activities may include, but are not limited to, tutoring students, assisting teachers or other school
personnel, attending school board meetings, and participating in education-related community events. As
you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.
XII.
PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE: A required element in each portfolio for TOSS,
Student Teaching, and the Graduate Program is the portfolio narrative. The purpose of the portfolio
narrative is to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI with regard to
what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need to include a
brief narrative in which you reflect on each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence you
have selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a
guide. Unless you are told differently by your program area, the length of the reflection is up to you, yet it
should be concise.
XIII.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the
Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the
Student Code of Conduct addresses the University’s policy on academic honesty, including provisions
regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention or
destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and
misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through
the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an “informal”
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may
subject a student to the Code of Conduct’s minimum one semester suspension requirement.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 3 of 7
VII.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators
who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply
these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of
the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, the candidate will demonstrate the
following outcomes:
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus
(3 semester hours)
Through the exploration and interpretation of formal and authentic assessment measures,
candidates will develop strategies to make informed decisions for intervention, as well as
appropriate assessment for diverse student populations. Action research will be a major focus in
preparing candidates for planning and writing their prospectus in Module II of the M.Ed. program.
1. Identify characteristics of valid research, including action research, and evaluate research
samples for their adherence to these characteristics (CPI 1.1, 1.2).
2. Explain the difference between quantitative and qualitative methodologies (CPI 1.1, 1.4)
3. Examine basic statistical analyses including measures of central tendency, variability,
relationships, and group comparisons to read research, develop research and interpret research
data (CPI 1.2, 1.3).
4. Conduct a research review and critique on a topic of his/her choice (CPI 1.1, 1.2)
5. Describe the nature of professionalism in terms of continued professional growth and
development, contribution of the profession, and responsibility for leadership (CPI 3.1, 3.2,
3.3)
6. Demonstrate the understanding of the principles of multiple assessment (CPI 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
7. Discuss legal issues inherent in contemporary systems of education (CPI 1.2, 3.2, 3.3)
8. Utilize technology to enhance learning (CPI 2.4, 2.6, 3.1)
9. Discuss and debate the nature of educational reform efforts and the roles individual teachers can
play in reform movements (CPI 3.2, 3.4)
The graduates of advanced programs, in addition to being effective classroom teachers, also develop expertise as
effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all students; they
are:
**********************************
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
IX.
Precis on readings to be assigned - 2 x 50 pts - 100
Action Research Quiz - 50 points
Literature Review 150 points
Reflections (4) – 100 pts
Total = 400 points
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
A:
B:
C:
F:
92% - 100%
84% - 91%
75% - 83%
75% or lower
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 4 of 7
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of investigation
associated with college-level studies. Papers should be typewritten, on 8 1/2 x 11 in. paper. Action research work
submitted should follow APA format.
X.
ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT:
The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic
programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in fulfillment of program or
course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized
assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary
action.”
XI.
CLASS ATTENDANCE POLICY:
Attendance is required for all class sessions, and candidates are expected to be on time. However,
it is recognized that emergencies do occur. Candidates are expected to discuss any
emergencies/absences with the instructors. We will be learning how to use electronic equipment,
evaluating our own learning, and providing feedback to each other. Class discussions, group work,
and peer evaluation activities require that everyone be present.
XII.
COURSE OUTLINE
XII.
COURSE OUTLINE
(Tentative and Subject to Change)
The goal of these courses is for candidates to construct their own conceptualizations of best instructional,
curricular, and assessment practice. To this end, the courses are arranged from an inductive point of view
and contain regular hands-on inquiry activities based on candidates’ own experiences in their classrooms to
aid in their construction of the conceptualizations.
Class # and
Date
June 8
June 15
Topics/Activities
Assignments
Assignments
Due
General Overview of
Program
Syllabus
Educational Issues
How Concepts
Action Research
Read Gifted
Hispanics Action
Research
Write Precis on
Paper
Read Glanz Ch 1
Class Website
On-line Resources
On-Line Rubrics
Literature Review
Ideas for Action
Research
Reflection # 1
Read Glanz Ch 3
and Ch 4
Precis #1
Quantitative Research
Overview of basic
statistics
Measures of Central
Tendency
Descriptive Statistics
Quantitative Research
Designs
Read Glanz Ch 7
Read Reader’s
Theatre Research
Write Precis on
Paper
Reflection 1 Due
Reflection # 2
Literature Reviews
Precis #2
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Proficiencies
Page 5 of 7
The Literature Review
June 22
Collecting and
Analyzing
Quantitative Data
The T-test
Correlations
Qualitative Research
Overview of
qualitative methods
June29
July 13
Analyzing Qualitative
Data
Developing codes,
categories, and
assertions
Summary of Action
Research
Action Research Quiz
Discuss Literature
Reviews
Course Evaluations
XIII.
Rev. I Due
Reflection #2
Reflection # 3
Read Glanz Ch 5
Read Computer
Math Action
Research
Reflection #4
Read Glanz Ch 7 &
9
Reflection # 4
Action Research
Quiz
Literature Reviews
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, R. & Speck, B. (2001). Using technology in K-8 literacy classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers
the use of the learning cycle with science textbooks. School science and mathematics. 92(2), 59-63.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Benjamin, R. "Case Study 12 - Grant High School" In Hessle, K. and Holloway, J. Case Studies in School
Leadership, School Leadership Series Volume 2. (2003) Educational Testing Service.
Borich, G. (1992). Effective teaching methods. New Jersey: Merrill.
Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G. (1999). The case for constructivist teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brownell, G., Youngs, C., & Metzger, J. (1999). A PC for the teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios: Questions for design. Science scope, March, 1992.
Collins, J. (2001) From Good to Great. Harper Business
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
DePorter, B. (1998). Quantum Teaching. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Duckworth, E., Easley, J., Hawkins, D., & Henriques, A. (1990). Science education: A minds-on approach for the
elementary years. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 6 of 7
Easley, J. (1990). Could we make a breakthrough for an at-risk nation? Journal of research in science teaching,
27(7), 623-624.
Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational review, 66(1), 1-26.
Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, April 1997, 597-602.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Hessle, K. and Holloway, J. (2002) A Framework for School Leaders: Linking The ISLLC Standards to Practice.
Educational Testing Service
Hirshulhl, J. & Bishop, D. (2000). Computers in education 00/01. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership Development for teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kellogg Foundation (1996). Celebrations & challenges: A report on science education improvement. W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, One Michigan Avenue East, Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Martin, D. J. (1994). Concept mapping as an aid to lesson planning: A longitudinal study. Journal of elementary
science education, 6(2), 11-30.
Martin, D. J. (2000). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach, 2nd Ed.. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning
Martin, D.J. (2001). Constructing Early Childhood Science. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thompson Learning.
Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. RFT Publishing Co.
Piaget, J. (1959). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world. New York: Random House.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
75(1), 1-22.
Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The reading teacher, March, 1990.1605
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The science teacher, September, 1991.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 7 of 7