SYLLABUS
for
EDU 6535
Title: Curriculum Development
Professor: Dr.
Semester:
John D. Hunt
SPRING 2016
Credit Hours: 3 semester hours
Box 4009
Clinton, Mississippi 39058
601-925-3226
1
I. Course Title:
EDU 6535 Curriculum Development (3 semester hours)
II. Prerequisites:
Graduate standing.
III. Course Description:
This course is designed to provide students with skills essential to teachers,
curriculum coordinators, department directors, principals and other administrators
that will enable them to plan, develop, revise and implement curriculum content
and learning strategies.
Emphasis is on components of the instructional management plan: goals,
objectives, methodology, use of appropriate resources/materials and evaluation.
IV. Rationale:
Wiles and Bondi state, “A curriculum is a plan for learning. All such plans contain
a vision of what should be, as well as a structure that translates those visions into
experiences for learning. Curriculum development, then, is a process that
organizes learning...” Several forces have influenced school programs. These
forces are social, treatment of knowledge, human growth and development, the
process of learning, and technology.
Teachers, principals, directors, superintendents and other administrators must
take the lead in curriculum development/school programs. They must stay
abreast with what is important and promote change when they feel it will
strengthen the local educational program. At the same time, they must be able to
defend the desirable portion of the curriculum and help what is best for the K-12
student. Completion of this course should provide graduate students with ample
skills and knowledge to actively participate and/or even lead in the
development/revision of curriculum in their school districts.
V. Learner Objectives and Outcomes:
The learner objectives in this course are:
A.
To understand education reform and issues confronting educational
planners. (Chapter 2)
B.
To know the definition of “curriculum” and key curriculum terms. (Chapter 1)
C.
To learn the principles used in curriculum planning.
D.
To be aware of problems/options associated with curriculum
development.
E.
To understand the role of philosophy in curriculum planning. (Chapter 3)
F.
To understand the basic tasks of curriculum development. (Chapter 4)
G.
To develop a curriculum management plan (AIM). (Chapter 5)
H.
To understand instruction in a technological era. (Chapter 6)
2
I.
To understand and use the Mississippi Curriculum Structure and the
importance of including all of the core skills of the state curriculum in the local
school district’s curriculum. (NBPTS – II MC)
J.
To understand elementary, middle, and high school programs and issues.
(Chapters 7, 8, 9), NBPTS – III MC & IV EC)
K.
To identify and use different teaching/learner domains for diverse
students. (INTASC – 3, NBPTS –IV + VI MC, II + VI EC, )
L.
To write challenging learner objectives in your lessons that meet the
learning styles of ALL students. (INTASC – 3, NBPTS – V +IV + VI EC, II + III =
VI MC)
M.
To understand the basic components of curriculum design and the
importance of these components in assuring students with varying learning styles
and abilities are accommodated. (NBPTS – II MC, IV EC)
N.
To understand how to code curriculum to ensure that it includes all of the
required components as well as those optional to the developer. (NBPTS – II
MC, Iv + V EC)
O.
To understand your role and responsibility as a curriculum developer in
fostering relationships with school colleagues, parents, and the Department of
Education. (INTASC -10, NBPTS – IV + VII + VIII EC, II + IX + XI MC)
P.
To understand the major tasks associate with the various levels of
curriculum design and development. (NBPTS –IV + V + VI +I EC,
I+II+III+IV+V+VI+VII MC)
Q.
To understand student assessment/evaluation and its importance in
determining the effectiveness of the instructional program. (INTASC – 8, NBPTS
– III EC, VIII MC)
R.
To design and develop a curriculum module program for a specific course
of study to include: Mississippi State competencies, Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS): Science-2013, Common Core State Standards: Math,
Language Arts – 2010, benchmarks, objectives (all levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy),
activators, instructional procedures, resources/materials, technology,
summarizers, reflection, and assessments. (INTASC - 4, 7, NBPTS – I + II + III + IV
+ V + VI + IX EC, I + II + III + IV + V + VI + VII + VIII MC)
S.
To share research information on course related topics with others.
(NBPTS – IX EC, X MC))
T.
To design and develop a black-line story line on a specific topic (UbD) in a
specific grade to include:
Stage 1: Desired Results (Established Goals- Mississippi State
Framework; Understandings using one or all Six Facets, Explain,
Interpret, Apply, Perspective, Empathy, or Self-Knowledge; Essential
Questions; Students will know …, Students will be able to…)
Stage 2: Assessment Evidence (Performance tasks, Other Evidence)
Stage 3: Learning Plan (Learning Activities). INTASC – 1, 2, NBPTS – I
+ II + III + IV + V + VIEC, I + II + III + IV + V + VI + VII + IXMC, or
To design and develop a 5E learning unit.
U.
To present a chapter summary using POWER POINT. (INTASC - 5, 6)
V.
To write answers to questions posted at the blog site
http://jhuntmc.edublogs.org at the end of each session. INTASC - 6, 9
(NBPTS – IX EC, X MC)
Key: INTASC –Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
NBPTS – National Board Professional Teacher Standards:
EC = Early Childhood, MC = Middle Childhood
3
VI. Academic Integrity:
Mississippi College students should display academic integrity in all situations.
Honesty is expected from all students at all times. Dishonesty, such as cheating,
plagiarism, and falsifying information, is a serious offense and is subject to
severe penalty. See the 2002-2003 Graduate Catalog p.13, or the Mississippi
College Tomahawk or Policy 2.19 for specific information regarding penalties
associated with dishonest behavior at Mississippi College. Copies of the
Tomahawk are available in the Office of Student Affairs, Nelson 212 or at
www.mc.edu/publications/tomahawk/academicregs.html#plagiarism .
VII. Course Topics:
 Curriculum and Technology
 Education Reform
 Role of Philosophy in Curriculum Planning
 Basic Tasks of Curriculum Development
 Curriculum Management Planning (A. I. M.)
 Instructional Concerns
1.
Instruction in a Technological Era
2.
Elementary School Programs and Issues
3.
Middle School Programs and Issues
4.
High School Programs and Issues
 Selection of Content and Activities to meet ALL needs of ALL students
 Assessment and Evaluation
Traditional
Authentic
Lesson Planning
Unit Planning
Curriculum Mapping
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 1: Desired Results
Stage 2: Assessment Evidence
Stage 3: Learning Plan



Differentiated Instruction (DI)
Cubing
ThinkDOTS
Triarchic Theory (Sternburg)
Tiered Tasks
RAFTS
Learning Contracts
Multiple Intelligence
Rubrics
Holistic
Analytical
Performance
Depth of Knowledge
DOK 1
4
DOK 2
DOK 3
DOK 4
VIII. Instructional Methods:
A combination of direct instruction, class discussion, and teamwork will be used
in class. All students will make power point presentations on their
Understanding by Design and Differentiated Instruction lesson or 5E Lesson
Unit. Some sessions will include the use of computers, debates, role-playing,
activators, and summarizers.
IX. Department of Teacher Education and Leadership
Mission Statement:
The mission of the Department of Teacher Education and Leadership at
Mississippi College is to provide collaborative, integrated professional educator
preparation which is field-connected and focused on teaching and learning:
based on best practice which is driven and assessed by high national, state and
local standards which will develop reflective practitioners with the appropriate
knowledge, dispositions and skills to lead the 21st Century educational enterprise
in America. (Conceptual Framework page 2 paragraph C.)
Information Literacy: What is information literacy?
Mississippi College has adopted the definition of information literacy put forth by the American
Library Association.
“To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when
information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use
effectively the needed information.” (ALA Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy, Final Report, 1989).
In addition, “information literacy forms the basis for lifelong learning. It is common
to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. It
enables learners to master content and extend their investigations, become more
self-directed, and assume greater control over their own learning.” An information
literate individual is able to:
1. Determine the extent of information needed
2. Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
3. Evaluate the information and its sources critically and incorporate
selected information into one’s own knowledge base.
4. Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
5. Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of
information, and access and use information ethically and legally.
(Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, Association
of College and Research Libraries, 2000.)
At Mississippi College our information literacy program – U-Research –
progresses from basic handling of information to increasingly complex initiatives
that exhibit a command of a subject. Information literacy skills and
competencies can be transferred across disciplines and applied throughout life.
5
Mastery of the competencies enables a user to employ discipline appropriate
methodologies to conduct research and scholarly inquiry effectively and to
discriminate that information appropriately.
Adopted by the Mississippi College QEP Development Committee March 23,
2010.
X. Assignments:
A. Exam (200 points):
A final exam will be administered at the end of the course. The exam is
worth 200 points. If a student must miss the final exam, he/she must
notify the instructor before the exam is given. The final exam will count
20% of the course grade.
B. Write responses to questions posted each week on the edublog site.
The edublog is found at http://jhuntmc.edublogs.org (500 points)
C. Report on Research paper on Curricular Aspect (390 points):
Each student is required to write 3-4 page report on research paper on a
relevant curricular aspect. The topics suggested are found on page 24.
Papers should present a review of the literature regarding the topic or
aspect and should utilize at least 10 different research sources
throughout the body of the paper. Paper should also include your
name/date, a title page and a bibliography (these pages are not included
in the 3-4 page requirement). Please do not include an abstract. APA
style is the writing style required for the paper. Credit will be taken off for
not adhering to the requirements of 5th Edition APA.
D. Read the Curriculum Textbook –
Data Driven Differentiation in the Standards-Based Curriculum:
Each week you are responsible for reading a chapter and taking notes. Many of
the edublogs will address the content found in these chapters.
Ch. 1 Collecting Data to Create a Positive Climate
Ch. 2 Collecting Data to Know the Learner
Ch. 3 Collecting and Using Assessment Data for Diagnostic Teaching
Ch. 4 Curriculum Approaches for Data Driven Instruction
Ch. 5 Adjustable Assignments for Differentiated Learning
Ch. 6 Instructional Strategies that Increase Student Learning
Ch. 7 Data Driven Lesson Planning for Differentiated Learning
E. Integrated Teaching/Learning Program (1000 points) –
Program Design (200)
Program Description (800) – Understanding by Design (UbD)
& Differentiated Instruction (DI)
6
Each student is required to design an integrated teaching/learning
program. Each program will contain: 1) a program design, and 2) a
program description.
The program design is an outline and contains major content areas plus
competencies, sub-areas, and sub-sub-areas. Is clearly written for
communication and has a system for categorizing elements.
The program description contains Mississippi State Framework content
competencies, benchmarks/competencies, activators, objectives,
instructional procedures for the teacher and the student (Bloom’s
Taxonomy), resources (include resource samples), technology (Internet
Web addresses), summarizers, reflection, and meaningful assessment
(use assessment strategies other than paper/pencil tests). The objectives
for the program design include identifiable learner behavior that can be
measured. The teacher/learner processes must be aligned with the
learner objectives, contain specific teaching activities, contain learner
activities, and processes. All of these components must be organized to
communicate effectively. The teacher/learner resources reflect quality
instructional interventions that are specifically identified. The evaluation
component is aligned to the objectives, yields collectable program data,
and is specifically written.
Design and develop a UbD/DI on a specific topic for ONE WEEK of
INSTRUCTION. Use the assigned TEMPLATE.
The template will include one lesson. Use a black-line box outline.
Please include your name and date.
Each student will develop a detailed template, which includes the
following criteria:
Stage 1: Desired Results
This includes: Established Goals (Mississippi State Framework);
Understandings: Students will understand that…Essential Questions;
Students will know…Students will be able to…
Stage 2: Assessment Evidence
This includes: Performance tasks; Other Evidence
Stage 3: Learning Plan and DI strategies for 25 students found on
Pages 36 – 38 of this syllabus and include student DI learning
experiences,
F. Presentation of UbD/DI Unit (100 points)
Each student will be required to make a presentation of their UbD/DI to
the class. Each student will have 15 minutes to present his/her lesson to
the class. Transparencies, handouts, cubes, templates, and other visuals
are encouraged. Credit will be taken off for reading notes to the class.
7
G. Curriculum/Instruction Case Project (400 points)
The Case Study is found on pages 27, 28, 29, & 30 of this syllabus. In
your class, you have 36 students with the characteristics listed. Your task
is to accommodate “T” your teaching/instruction to meet needs of 36
students and all students show mastery of content. Write a UbD/DI
unit for one week of instruction.
H. Develop a Venn diagram for Common Core Standards in Math and
Language Arts, and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for a
chosen grade level. (200 points)
I. Participation (70 points)
1. The student is required to read chapter and outside readings prior to
class. Active participation is expected and required through Q & A,
discussions, class activities, and presentations.
2. The student is expected to actively participate in the discussion of class
readings and topic presentations.
3. The student is expected to participate and make informed comments
during class discussions, debates, and mock meetings.
4. The student is expected to be present and on-time.
XI. Evaluation:
A. Final grades will be determined based on the following points system:
Exam
200 points
Report on Research Paper on Curricular Aspect
390 points
Program Design
200 points
Program Description – UbD/DI Learning Unit
800 points
Participation
70 points
Reflections (5) edublog
500 points
Curriculum/Instruction Case Project
400 points
Presentation of UbD/DI lesson
100 points
Venn Diagram
200 points
B. Final grade determined by using the rubric found at the end of the
syllabus.
XII. Additional Course Information:
A. Late Assignments:
All assignments must be submitted as scheduled. Assignments submitted
late will result in lowering of points/grade (20 points per day, not class
meeting). Assignments turned in later than 5 days after the due date
will not be accepted.
8
B. All Assignments:
1. All assignments must be stated in Standard English, with proper
punctuation and correct spellings. Also I would like you to type, in the top
right hand corner of the assignment your name, and date. In the center of
the paper place the title.
2. Assignments must be typed, stapled in the left corner, and double
spaced (use a 10 FONT size).
3. All assignments must adhere to the 4th or 5th edition APA manual for
writing style (no exceptions).
4. Failure to satisfactorily complete any of the course requirements will
result in a failing grade regardless of the student’s grade on the final
examination and written and oral assignments.
C. Attendance and Participation:
In the Mississippi College General Bulletin: “Class attendance is an essential part
of college education, and students are expected to attend regularly and
punctually all classes and laboratories for which they are registered” (Graduate
Bulletin, 2003-2004, p. 32). Students are expected to attend class, to carry out all
assigned work on time, and to complete all written exams in the time period
designated. College policy regulates class absences and no credit can be given
for a course in which a student misses more than 25% of the class periods. See
the 2003-2004 Mississippi College Graduate Bulletin p. 32 for specific
information regarding penalties associated with attendance regulations at
Mississippi College. If you miss four (4) classes meeting one (1) time per
week a student will receive a grade of “F” (p. 32). I will record the absences
in banner each week and after four absences banner will record an “F”
grade. Excused absences include funerals of relatives, personal illness as
verified in writing by a medical doctor, and prior permission from instructor.
Tardies and early class departures count toward the number of absences so
students should plan to arrive on time and remain until the end of the class
period. If a student does arrive late, it is his/her responsibility to tell the instructor
at the conclusion of the class period to be sure records are changed. Two (2)
tardies will be counted as one unexcused absence.
If the student misses more than the number of class periods specified in
university policy and believes that there are reasonable explanations for the
absences, he/she may appeal the absences to the Dean of Education. Students
may obtain a Student Absence Appeal Form from the Dean’s Office.
D. Special Accommodations:
You will find below the statement that needs to be used in your syllabi to let your
students know the protocol that needs to be followed for disability
accommodations at Student Counseling Services. Disabilities under the ADA are
categorized as physical, mental, and learning disabilities.
9
In order for a student to receive disability accommodations under Section 504 of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, he or she must schedule an individual
meeting with the Director of Student Counseling Services immediately upon
recognition of their disability(if their disability is known they must come in
before the semester begins or make an appointment immediately upon receipt
of their syllabi for the new semester). The student must bring with them written
documentation from a medical physician and/or licensed clinician that verifies
their disability. If the student has received prior accommodations, they must bring
written documentation of those accommodations (example Individualized
Education Plan from the school system). Documentation must be current (within
3 years).The student must meet with SCS face-to face and also attend two (2)
additional follow up meetings (one mid semester before or after midterm
examinations and the last one at the end of the semester). Please note that the
student may also schedule additional meetings as needed for support through
SCS as they work with their professor throughout the semester. Note: Students
must come in each semester to complete their Individualized Accommodation
Plan (example: MC student completes fall semester IAP plan and even if student
is a continuing student for the spring semester they must come in again to
complete their spring semester IAP plan).
Student Counseling Services is located in Alumni Hall Room #4 or they may be
contacted via email at christia@mc.edu or rward@mc.edu. You may also reach
them by phone at 601-925-7790.
Amy M. Christian, Ph.D., LPC, CRC
Director of Student Counseling Services
Alumni Hall Rm #4
(601) 925-7791
(601) 925-7793 -fax
E. Speed Library Hours
Monday – Thursday 7:45 AM – 12:00 PM
Friday 7:45 AM – 5:00 PM
Saturday 12:00 Noon – 5:00 PM
Sunday 5 PM – 10:00 PM
F. Class Communications:
John D. Hunt
Office: Room 400A, Lowrey Hall
Cell Telephone: (729) 232-1976 (Call me, anytime, I always have my cell phone with me.)
E-mail: Jhunt@mc.edu
G. Tutoring Information
If you need tutoring, my tutoring schedule is posted on my office door. I
have a tray mounted on my door for any information or requests you
need, just place your request in the tray and I will attend to your concern.
H. Tuition Refunds
This is from Dr. Howard, VP at MC, “Tuition refunds will not be made to
students who drop a class after the first week.”
10
I.
All students enrolling as a Master of Elementary Education (MED) student
beginning in the Fall, 2015 semester and beyond will be required to
purchase a TK20 account if they do not already have one. Some of the
things to be collected in each class/course for the MED portfolio are:
 Information Questionnaire
 Graduate Disposition and Progress Monitoring Instrument
 End of the semester Key Assessments and Attachments for each
of the 5 Core Course subjects, EDU 6522 (Methodology) and EDU
6535 (Curriculum Development).
 Case Studies
 Record of Field Experience
 Reflection of Field Experience
 Graduate Student (MED) Exit Questionnaire
Dr. Hilda White is the TK20 Coordinator and is available for questions.
TK20 can be accessed by going to
https://mc.tk20.com/campustoolshighered/start.do
XIII. Instructional Materials and Bibliography:
A. Required Textbooks:
Hunt, J. ed (2014). Planning Book: Understanding by Design and
Differentiated Instruction. PEARL LLC (purchase from Dr. Hunt)
B. Supplemental Text:
The Mississippi Curriculum Framework, a publication by the State Department of
Education, lists the core skills in each subject area in all elementary and
secondary grades. (Download your grade or subject curriculum framework from
the DOE website), and
Make a hard copy of Common Core in Math or Language Arts, or
Make a hard copy of the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS)
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, V. (2004). Data Driven Differentiation In The
Standards-Based Curriculum. Corwin Press. (purchase from book store)
C. Current References:
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Becoming a teacher leader. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking (Eds.) (2000). How People
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student
Achievement: Success Stories from Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11
Carr. J. C., & Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with Standards: Linking
Curriculum, Assessment, and Action Planning. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doran, R., Chan, F., & Tamir, P. (1998). Science Educator’s Guide to
Assessment. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of
research in curriculum (pp. 486-516). New York: Macmillan.
Farenga, S. J., and B. A. Joyce (2002). Teaching youngsters science in a
culturally diverse urban classroom. In Commitment to excellence: Transforming
teaching and teacher education in inner-city and urban settings, eds. A. C. DiverStammers and L. A. Catelli, 149-170. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Farenga, S. J., B. A. Joyce, and D. Ness (2002). Reaching the zone of optimal
learning: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In Learning science
and the science of learning, ed. R. Bybee, 51-64. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.
New York: Bantam Books.
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring Active Learning: A Handbook for Teachers.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Harris, D. & Carr, J. (1996). How to use standards in the classroom. Alexander,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hug, B. and the Center for Highly Interactive Computing in Education. (2002).
How can my good friends make me sick? Curriculum materials. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and
assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New
haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lewis, Catherine C. (2002). Lesson Study: A handbook of Teacher-led
Instructional Change. Philadelphia, PA: research for Better Schools, Inc.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mintzes, J. J., J. Wandersee, and J. Novak. (2000). Assessing science
understanding. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12
Mestre, J. P., & R. R. Cocking. (2000). The Science of Learning. Special Issue of
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21: 1 - 135.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps
as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mawah, N. J: Lawrence
Erbaum Associates
Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage To Teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from
Dramatically Improved Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Sornson, R., & Scott, J. (1997). Teaching & Joy. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stearns, C. (1999). An Assessment Sample: A Resource for Elementary School
Teachers, Administrators, and Staff Developers. Rahway, NJ: Merck Institute for
Science education.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Summit Books.
(Ch. 7. Provides an introduction to lesson study and makes a “something like
lesson study” needs to be developed in the U.S.)
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How To Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability
Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs
of all Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wiggins, G. (1995). Curricular coherence and assessment: Making sure that the
effect matches the intent. J. A. Beane (Ed.), 1995 Yearbook of the Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 101-119). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding By Design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, R. B. (1997). Twelve Roles of Facilitators for School Change. Arlington
Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
D. Classic References:
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a Brain-Based Approach to
Learning and Teaching. Education Leadership, 48 (2), 66-70.
Fogarty, R. (1991). The Mindful School: How to Integrate the Curricula. Palatine,
IL: IRI/Skylight.
13
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. NY:
Basic Books.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current
cognitive research. In 1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (pp.1-18), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the Twenty-first Century: leadership
Imperatives for Educational Reform. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Strong, M. (May 1985). The seven kinds of smart. Readers Digest, 193-202.
E. Journal References
Aubusson, P., Steele, F., Dinham, S. K., & Brady, L. (2007). Action learning in
teacher learning community formation: Informative or transformative? Teacher
Development, 11(2), 133-148.
Alley, L., & Jansak, K. (2001). The ten keys to quality and assessment in online
learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(3), 3-18.
Balfantz, R., & MacIver, D. (2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle
schools into strong learning institutions: lessons from the first five years of the
Talent Development Middle School. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk (JESPAR), 5(1), 1532-7671.
Barman, C. N., Cox, M. L., Newhouse, K., & Goldston, M. (2000). Assessing
students’ ideas about animals. Science and Children, 37(1), 44-49.
Barron-McKeagney, T., Woody, J.D., & D’Souza, H. J. (2002). Mentoring at-risk
Latino children and their parents: Analysis of the parent-child relationship and
family strength. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human
Service, 83, 285-293.
Barros, R. M., Silver, E. J., & Stein, R. E. (2009). School recess and group
classroom behavior. Pediatrics, 123(2), 431-436.
Barton, A. C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of
praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38
(8); 899-917.
Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational
Leadership, 5, 32-36.
Boman, E., & Enmarker, I. (2004). Factors affecting pupils’ noise annoyance in
schools: The building and testing of models. Environment and Behavior, 36(2),
207-228.
Carlson, L. E. and J. F. Sullivan (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in
engineering across the K-16 curriculum. International Journal of Engineering
Education 20: 372-378.
14
Chinn, C., and B. Malhotra. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry for
schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education
86: 175-218.
Christenson, D. D. (2001, December). Building state assessment from the
classroom up: Why Nebraska has forsworn high-stakes testing in favor of districttailored measures. The School Administrator, 58(11), 27-31.
Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the “game” of
science is played. The Clearing House, 74,13-17.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School Journal,
100, 529-548.
Cummins, J. (2001). Empowering minority students: A framework for
intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 656-676.
Mertler, Craig A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation 7 (25). Available on-line:
http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000c). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
Darling-Hammond. L., Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly-qualified teachers”:
What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational
Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what
leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 8-13.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher
preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal
of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
DeFour, R. (2001). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development, Winter, 1417.
deGarcia, J. L. J. F. Sullinam, L. E. Carlson, and D. W. Carlson (2001). A K12/university partnership: Creating tomorrow’s engineers. Journal of Engineering
Education 90: 557-563.
Dodge, T., & Jaccard, J. (2006). The effect of high school sports participation on
the use of performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 39(3), 367-373.
Downer, J.T., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., & Pianta, R.C., (2007). How do classroom
conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s
engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 36, 413-432.
Driscoll, A. K., Russell, S. T., & Crockett, L, J. (2008). Parenting style and youth
outcomes across immigrant generation. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 185-209.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
15
Eccles, J.S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities
and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865-889.
Edwards, C. H. (2001). Student violence and the moral dimensions of education.
Psychology in the Schools, 38, 249-257.
Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., & Jones, M. T. (2004). Coteaching in a secondary
science methods course: Learning through a coteaching model that supports
early teacher practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(3), 197-209.
Essex, N. L. (2000). Zero tolerance approach to school violence: Is it going to
far? American Secondary Education, 29(2), 37-40.
Fieman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: lessons from an
exemplary support teacher, Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.
Fetterman, D. (2002). Web surveys to digital movies: Technology tools of trade.
Educational Researcher, 31(6), 29-37.
Forester, K. (2000). Homework: A bridge too far? Issues in Educational
Research, 10, 21-37.
Flick, L., and M. Tomlinson. (2001). The role of reading in teaching science
inquiry. The Oregon Science Teacher 42: 9-12.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000a). How teaming influences
classroom practices. Middle School Journal, 32(2), 52-59.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000b). What makes
interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Journal, 31(4), 53-56.
Frank, C., Uy, F. L., & Adenika-Morrow, J. (2000). Observing science and
mathematics instruction with “insider eyes.” National Forum of Teacher
Education Journal, 11(1), 31-42.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). Student engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research,
74(1), 59-109.
Futrell, M., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new
America. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 381-385.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-954.***
Garthwait, A. & Verrill, J. (2003). E-Portfolios: documenting student progress
(Digitally capturing students’ growth throughout the year provides opportunities to
assess learning and a whole lot more.) Science and Children, 40(8), 22-27.
Gaskill, P. E. (2002). Progress in the certification of middle-level personnel.
Middle School Journal, 35(5), 33-40.
Geenan, S., Powers, L. E., & Lopez-Vasquez., A. (2001). Multicultural aspects of
parent involvement in transition. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 265-282.
16
Geringer, J. (2003). Reflections on professional development: Toward highquality teaching and learning, Phi Delta Kappan, January, 373
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000, summer). Does teacher certification
matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 129-145.
Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement:
Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review,
31(3), 328-349.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, June, 748
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Scooping up meaningful evidence. Journal of Staff
Development, 24(4), 27-30.
Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers’ coaching of
learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 342-348.***
Havens, J. (2003).Student web pages-a performance assessment they’ll love.
Phi Delta Kappan, May, 710
Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2000). When victims turn aggressors: Factors in
the development of deadly school violence. Professional School Counseling, 4,
105-112.
Hogan, M. P. (2000). Chickscope realized: A situated evaluation of a sixth-grade
classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1). Available at
http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/hogan/index.html
Hunter, L., Elias, M. J., & Norris, J. (2001). School-based violence prevention:
Challenges and lessons learned from action research project. Journal of School
Psychology, 39, 161-175.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003, January 7). To close the gap, quality counts. Education
Week, 7-18.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003, May). The wrong solution to the teacher
shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Jacobs, D. & Reyhner, J. (2002, January). Preparing teachers to support
American Indian and Alaska Native student success and cultural heritage. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service N. ED 459 990)
James, R., Lamb. C., Householder, D., & Bailey, M. (2000). Integrating science,
mathematics and technology in middle school technology rich environments: A
study of implementation and change. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1),
27-35.
Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2002, March). Keep new teachers in mind.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 12-16.
17
Jones, R. (2000). Textbook troubles. American School Board Journal, 187 (12),
18-21.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience
into design of multimedia experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
126-136.***
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and
efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5-23.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem
solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 579-588.
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2003). No child left behind: The politics of
teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 687-692.
Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development.
Phi Delta Kappan, June, 751.
Kelly, K. (2001, May/June). Teachers helping teachers. Harvard Educational
Letter, 17,5
King, M. B. & Newmana, F. M. (2000, April). Will teacher learning advance
school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 32.
Klahr, D., and M. Nigam. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early
science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning.
Psychological Science 15(10): 661-667.
Ku, H.-Y., & Sullivan, H. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computerbased instruction under personalization of mathematical word problems in
Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 49-60.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). In harm’s way: How undercertified
teachers hurt their students. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 34-39.
Lane-Garon, P. (2001). Classroom and conflict management. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Denver, CO,
February 2-6, 2002. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 716).
Levin, M. (2002, March). Why invest in professional development schools?
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 65-67.
Linn, M., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. (2000). Science lessons and
beyond: Why do U.S. and Japanese students diverge in science achievement?
Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14.
Margerum-Leys, J., B. Fisman, and D. Peek-Brown. (2004). Lab partners:
research university and urban district join forces to promote standards-based
student learning in science. Journal of Staff Development 25 (4): 38-42.
Margerum-Leys, J. and R. W. Marx. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational
technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational
Computing Research 26 (4): 427-462.
18
Martin, D., Martin, M., Gibson, S., & Wilkens, J.(2007). Increasing prosocial
behavior and academic achievement among adolescent African-American males.
Adolescence, 42(168), 689-698.
Mathis, W. J. (2003). No child left behind: costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan,
May, 679.
Matkins, J. J. & Sterling, D. R. (2003). Designing assessments: science test
questions from National Assessment of Educational Progress tests can be
helpful model when creating assessments for your lessons. Science and
Children, 40(8), 34-37.
Mautone, P., & Mayer, R. (2001). Signal as a cognitive guide to multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S., (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia
learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.***
McEwin, C. K., Dickenson, T. S., & Hamilton, H. (2000). National board certified
teachers’ views regarding specialized middle level teacher preparation. The
Clearing House, 73(4), 211-213.
Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. F. (2003). Should middle grades
students be left alone after school? Middle School Journal, 5, 57-61.
Moll, M. (2003). Computers and kids: pulling the plug can protect the planet. Phi
Delta Kappan, April, 600.
Morrison, G. M., & Skiba, R. (2001). Predicting violence from school misbehavior:
promises and perils. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 173-182.
National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. (2002). Our vision
statement. Retrieved November 15, 2002, from
http://www.mgforum.org/vision.asp
National Middle School Association (2002). National Middle school Association/
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education- Approved middlelevel teacher preparation standards. Available on-line at
http://www.nmsa.org
Negroni, P. (2003). A network of relationships. Phi Delta Kappan, December,
284.
Paez, M. (2003). Gimme that school where everything’s scripted! – One
Teacher’s journey toward effective literacy instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, June,
757.
Paris, S., & Paris, A. (2001). Classroom applications of research on selfregulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.***
Patrick, B., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited
about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and
vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 217-236.***
19
Phelps, A. J. & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: what students learn from
how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 829-832.
Pierce, M. (2000, September/October). Portrait of the “super principal.” Harvard
Education Letter, 16, 6-7.
Putnam, R. and H. Borko (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29: 415.
Reeves, D. B. (2001b, June 6). If you hate standards, learn to love the bell curve.
Education Week, 48.
Rex, L. A. (2001). The remaking of a high school reader. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(3), 288-314.
Romance, N. R., and M. R. Vitale, 2001. Implementing an in-depth expanded
science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and
policy implications. International Journal of Science Education 23: 373-404.
Routman, R. (2002, March). Teacher talk. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 32-35.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., R. J. Shavelson, L. Hamilton, and S. Klein (2002). On the
evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional
sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (5): 369-393.
Russo, A. (2002, November/December). Beefing up professional development.
Harvard Educational Letter, 18, 1-3.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific
explanations. Journal of Learning Sciences 12 (1): 5-51.
Schwartz, W. (2001). School practices for equitable discipline of African
American students. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455 343).
Searson, R. & Dunn, R. (2001). The learning style teaching model. Science and
Children, 38(5), 22-26.
Sheets, R. (2002). You’re just a kid that’s here: Chicago perception of disciplinary
events. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 105-122.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational
Researcher, 29 (7), 4-14.***
Siegel, M. A. and M. A. Ramney (2003). Developing the Changes in Attitude
about the Relevance of Science (CARS) questionnaire and assessing two high
school science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (8): 757775.
Simpson, J. O. (2003, January). Beating the odds. American School Board
Journal, 190(1), 43-47.
Singer, J. R. W. Marx, J. Krajcik, and J. C. Chambers. (2000). Constructing
extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform.
Educational Psychologist 35: 165-178.
20
Solomon, D., Battistich, D., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A sixdistrict study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child
development project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3-51.
Speaker, K. M., & Petersen, G. J. (2000). School violence and adolescent
suicide: Strategies for effective intervention. Educational Review, 52(1), 65-73.
Stevens, B. A. (2003). Creating comfortable and productive parent/teacher
conferences. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 521.
TIMMS Video Mathematics Research Group. (2003). Understanding and
improving mathematics teaching: highlights from the TIMMS 1999 video study.
Phi Delta Kappan, June, 768.
Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated
with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology
91 (2): 334-341.
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African-American
learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children,
66(3), 381-391.
Treagust, D. R., Jacobowitz, J. Gallagher, and J. Parker. (2001). Using
assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle
school science class learning about sound. Science Education 85: 137-157.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy:
Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202 – 248.
Van Gerven, P.W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt,
H. G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on
training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 87-105.
Volkmann, M. J. & Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment: using the 5E
learning model, the authors describe their strategies for embedding assessment
throughout a unit teaching pre-service teachers about the phases of the moon.
Science and Children, 40(8), 41-45.
Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study. Educational
Leadership, 59:6, 36-39.
Watt, T. T. (2003). Are small schools and private schools better for adolescents’
emotional adjustment? Sociology of Education, 76, 344-367.
Warren, L. L., & Muth, K. D. (1995). The impact of common planning time on
middle grade students and teachers. Research in Middle Level Education, 18(3),
41-58.
White, B. Y., and J. R. Frederickson (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and
metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and
Instruction 16 (1): 3-117.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources:
Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
21
Willert, J., & Willert, R. (2000). An ignored antidote to school violence:
Classrooms that reinforce positive social habits. American Secondary Education,
29 (1), 27-33.
Wilson, L. M., & Horch, H. W. (2004). Implications of brain research for teaching
young adolescents. Middle School Journal, 34(1), 57-61.
Wilson, S. M., & et al. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view
from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190-204.
Wilson, M. and K. Sloane (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded
assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education 13 (2): 181-208.
Wise, A. E. (2003, April 9). What’s wrong with teacher certification? Education
Week, 22(30), 56, 42-43.
Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative
interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge
and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 79-80.
Wong, H. (2002, March). Induction: The best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52-54.
Zenger, S. K. (2002). Why teach certain material at specific grade levels? Phi
Delta Kappan, November, 212.
Zhao, Y., Pugh. K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
When you do your report on research paper, choose a research article from a research
journal. Examples of research journals are listed below:
American Educational Research Journal,
American Journal of Education,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
Journal of Teacher Education,
Journal of Elementary Science Education,
Journal of Educational Measurement
Journal of Psychology,
Research in Middle Level Education,
Science Education, and
School Science and Mathematics, and others.
Report on research MUST be articles where a research study (data) was made,
analyzed, and reported/written!
22
F. Electronic References
Assessment
Collaboration Rubric
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/triton/tidepoolunit/Rubrics/collrubric.html
Constructivism and Related Topics
Classroom Compass, 1(3) ( Winter 1994).
http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass
Constructivism, Instructivism, and Related sites
http://www.emtech.net/links/construc.htm
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html
Concept Mapping
CmapTool
http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu
http://www.inspiration.com
Collaborative Research Projects
Links to Telecollaboration Projects
http://teaparty.terc.edu/research/resources/tele-rsrc.html
Interdisciplinary Design Curriculum
Across The Curriculum
http://www.enc.org/topics/across
Using Children’s Literature in Math and Science
http://enc.org/focus/lit
Inquiry-Based Projects
Inquiry Page
http://inquiry.uiuc.edu
Journaling
Journal Zone
http://www.microworlds.com/jz_solutions
ScI-Journal
http://www.sci-journal.org
Project-Based Curriculum
Assessment and Rubrics
http://www.suelebeau.com/assessment.htm
Project-Based Science
http://www.umich.edu/~pbsgroup/index.html
Problem-Based Learning
Center for Problem-Based Learning
http://www.imsa.edu/team/cpbl/cpbl.html
Problem-Based Learning Resources
http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/ctl/proj.html
Projects That Use Multimedia
http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/projects/24views/hokusai/photos/index.htm
Rubric (Guidelines for Creating Rubrics)
Rubistar
http://rubistar.4teachers.org
iRubric
www.rcampus.com/indexrubric.cfm
Teacher Planet
http://rubrics4teachers.com
University of Wisconsin-Stout
www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/rubrics.cfm
Jon Mueller’s Authentic Assessment Toolbox
http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/index.htm
Mueller differentiates between analytical and holistic rubrics.
23
Suggested Topics for Papers on Curricular Research –
REPORT on
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RESEARCH topics!!!
D
Topic
Differentiating for student readiness
Assessment OF learning
Assessment FOR learning
Interactive Learning using the Internet
Cross Curriculum Instruction
Effectiveness of “hands-on” learning activities
Lesson Study curriculum
Effectiveness of remotely operated science
experiments
Content-Based instruction Curriculum
Mastery Learning (What is it? Why?)
Project-Based Curriculum
Kit-based curriculum programs
Concept mapping and assessment
Performance assessments
Wireless devices for learning (WiMAX)
Skill-based Design Curricula
Conceptual Design Curricula
Problem-Based Curriculum
Effectiveness of mobile learning
Effectiveness of after school STEM programs
World-wide education doctorates in STEM
Blogging in the Classroom and It’s Effects
Effectiveness of multimedia learning
Effectiveness of gamification for motivating learners
Effectiveness of stimulation-based learning
Effectiveness of quick response codes and learning
What is design thinking and why is it important?
What is a DNA physician? Why are they important?
What is an asteroid mining engineer? Why is this
field important?
What is a virtual reality image tuning and quality
evaluation engineer? Why are they important?
What is a nanosystems engineer?
What is a galactic architect? We will need buildings and
vehicles. Why is this important?
What is a teleportation engineer? This engineer will
teleport matter from one point to another, breaking
objects down into their atomic particles. Why is this
important?
What is an additive manufacturing (3D Printing)
engineer? You will think up and design new
innovative ways to use 3D printing known as
additive manufacturing.
Why space pilots? They will fly from planet to planet.
How is this important?
24
Critique/Assessment of Curricular Report on Research Paper
Name: ___________________ Date:________ Topic____________________________
Part
1
Paper Analysis
Score
Title Page (5 points)
No specific Format- includes: name, date, course, instructor, title of research
paper
2
3
4
5
6
Introduction (10 points)
Paper begins with an introduction to the research.
Introduction is brief, yet descriptive and provides a rationale or need
for study.
Body of Research Paper (60 points)
Body of paper presents a review of existing (current) literature that
pertains to the curricula aspect.
Sources are presented in the body of the text to reference or discuss
the topic.
At least 10 sources are cited in the body of the paper according to 5th
edition APA.
Review of literature is up-to-date and discusses critical aspects of the
issue.
Text is detailed, organized and presented in a clear manner that flows
for the reader.
No opinions are presented on behalf of the student- only
presentation of research literature.
Conclusion (10 points)
Paper ends with a summary of overall points discussed in the
paper.
Conclusion is brief, yet descriptive and provides closure to the topic
researched.
Reference List (25 points)
Reference list is included in the back of the paper and is current.
APA (5th edition) is used to reference each source in the reference
list.
Each entry in the reference list is cited in the body of the paper.
Overall Mechanics (25 points)
Paper is written in third person.
Grammar, punctuation and sentence structure present no problems.
Transitions are provided from paragraph to paragraph.
Paper is neat, double-spaced and presented in 3-5 pages of text (10
font).
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
5
5
10
5
5
TOTAL
25
Critique/Assessment of Presentation for the UbD and DI unit (50 points)
Name:____________________ Date:___________
Part
1
2
3
4
Topic: ___________________________
Analysis
Score
Introduction to Unit (15 points)
Introduction and explanation of UbD/DI unit.
Explanation of relevancy of each UbD stage.
Evidence standard has been analyzed.
Substantive (15 points)
Bullets are parallel, color fonts, and big ideas
evident.
Clear, concise informative explanation of
UbD/DI unit.
Evidence that learner profile, readiness and
creativity are included in the DI component.
Conclusion (10 points)
Summary of UbD/DI unit in the presentation.
Supporting material (program design, rubric,
legend, DI plate/cards, etc.) in completed
UbD/DI unit
Overall (10 points)
Complete power point presentation
*Confident and prepared – NO READING TO THE
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
CLASS
TOTAL

Credit is awarded for the use of visual aids/power point. The use of visuals shows
evidence of preparation and relays confidence of the presenter to the audience.
26
Understanding (U) by (b) Design (D) - UbD
Differentiated (D) Instruction (I) - DI
STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASS!
Write a UbD/DI unit for any grade level and include in the unit (lessons for one week).
All lessons must be tailored made (DI) for all 36 students and their needs/characteristics
listed below. Pretend you are teaching in the United States of America.
These are the students in your class:
Kawthar
Good reader on grade level
Likes to be the center of attention
Works well in groups
Never in trouble always wants to please the teacher
Likes science and mathematics
Njlaa
Not a good reader two grades below in reading
Likes to do hands-on work
Does not like to read
Is an artist
Works well alone
Likes mathematics
Dalal
Average reader one grade level below
Does not work well in groups, is a loner
One adult at home, does not like to be at home or school
Always in trouble
Never challenged
Does not like mathematics
Anas
Loves school! Will doing anything the teacher asks.
An average reader
Works well in groups
Likes to learn by doing hands-on activities
Loves to sing and writes songs
Likes mathematics
Is a leader
Emam
Has trouble with reading
Gets into trouble at school
Likes to be alone and does not like school
Does not like to do any school work in school or outside of school
Likes to hang out with his friends- Jose is one of them
Weam
Has trouble with reading
An average student in school
Gets into trouble some time
Likes to be challenged
Likes mathematics and science
Friend of Jiena
Hind
Tries hard in school and likes school
She has just arrived in US and has trouble with reading
Loves mathematics
Likes to work in groups and do group work
She is an artist
Hanan
Has travelled all over the world and likes people
Likes school and can make friends easily
Enjoys reading and does well reading
27
Never a discipline problem
She is a leader
Ohaud
Has trouble getting to school on time
Lives with his grand parents
Has trouble with all school subjects
Is a super athlete! Enjoys basketball and football
Works well in groups
Nidaa
Top of her 4th grade class! Likes to be first in everything!
An excellent reader and excels in all subjects
She does not like P.E.
She would rather spend her time reading
She does not like group work
Amal
Lack of trust in schools and teachers*
Rigidly high need to know how each lesson benefits her*
Experience of previous failures that could lead her to fail again*
Verbal quickness adults find disrespectful*
Must construct high expectations for her*
Fayz
Slow language processing*
Unsuccessful academic history*
Many experiences of conflict with school authorities*
Depression*
Lack of goals*
She needs high expectations with considerable scaffolding*
Ebony
Substance abuse*
Difficulty asking for help*
Trauma and depression*
Violence in the community where he lives*
Likes to work in a team*
Tira
Trauma history*
Substance abuse*
Learning disabilities and diminished skill set*
History of school failure*
Lack of trust*
Racial isolation*
Explosive outbursts*
Likes structure
Likes to work in a team and is able to communicate
Kelly
Sensory overload*
Impatience*
Impulsiveness and ineffective coping strategies*
Rigidity*
Minimal peer relationships…*
Needs intervention from time-to-time
Christina
Dyslexia*
Moodiness*
History of school failure and retention*
Trauma history*
Needs time to process*
Needs praise
Aqeel
History of trauma and loss*
Distrust of adults and school*
Involvement in the drug culture*
Impatience with process*
Needs assistance with school work
28
Mashhour
History of trauma and loss*
Likes school and his teachers
Super organized
Loves people, animals and books
Musician
Artist
Abrar
Disorganization*
Alienation from adult expectations*
Nonverbal learning disability*
Substance abuse*
Persistence
Abdullah
Fragmented academic skills*
Abstract thinker
Limited knowledge
Trauma history*
Needs differentiated lessons
Fahad
Trauma and self-abuse history*
Ability to hide in a crowd*
Minimal confidence*
Needs reflecting time
Needs high expectations
Saad
Limited peer connections*
Fragmented skills*
Lack of ambition
English as a second language and cultural isolation*
Tasks have to be just right
Yossra
Strong emotional reactions*
Depression
Fear of adults
Needs consistency
Likes to work in groups
Khaled
Perfectionism*
Likes to work in groups
Performance anxiety*
Needs structure
Noha
Excellent student
Excellent reader
A leader
Maaali
Super Organized
Loves to work with others
A leader
A good student
Hanaa
Has trouble working in groups
Has difficulty in school
Poor reader
Tries to please teachers
Minimal confidence
Sarah
Organized
Self learner
29
Reads well
Does not need structure
Yasir
Not organized
Needs structure
Poor reader
Likes to work in groups
Azzam
Fear of adults
Trouble maker
Must have structure
Poor reader
Aeshah
Excellent reader
Self motivated
Likes to work alone
Perfectionist
Khalid
Poor reader
Must have structure
Troublemaker
Loner
Mona
Excellent student
Excellent reader
Likes to assist others
Saeed
Poor student
Has trouble learning
Must have structure
Often gets into trouble
Abir
Likes school and teachers
Eager to learn
Excellent reader
Good student
Turki
Excellent student
Excellent reader
Excels on all assignments
A leader

Benson, J. (2014). Hanging-In: Strategies for Teaching the Students Who Challenge Us Most. ASCD(Alexandria, VA)
30
IV. EDU 6535: Curriculum Development, Tentative Schedule: Spring 2016
#
Date
Topic
Assignment
B
l
o
g
Due Date
31
1
1/13/16
Syllabus
Read Ch. 1 Collecting Data to Create a Positive
Classroom Climate
Report on Research Paper due
October 5, 2015 (hard copy)
2
1/20/16
What is curriculum?
Complete Edublog on class discussion.
Go to http://jhuntmc.edublogs.org
Read Ch. 2Collecting Data to Know the
Learner
Program Design (AIM) due
October 5, 2015 (hard copy)
Activators (Research for Better Teaching)
3
1/27/16
4
2/03/16
5
2/10/16
6
2/17/16
7
2/24/16
8
3/02/16
9
Activators/Summarizers (Research for Better
Teaching)
Curricula Template Topic
(UbD) example
Summarizers (Research for Better Teaching)
Curricula Template Topic
(UbD) example
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 1: Desired Results-Design
Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 1: Desired Results-Design
Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Read Ch. 3Collecting and Using Assessment
Data for Diagnostic Teaching
X
Edublog #1
Activators
X
Edublog #2
Summarizer
X
Edublog #3
Read Ch. 4 –
Curriculum Approaches for Data
Driven Instruction
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 1: Desired Results-Design
Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 2: Evidence
Design Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Read Ch. 5Adjustable Assignments for
Differentiated Learning
3/16/16
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 2: Evidence
Design Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Read Ch. 7
Data Driven Lesson Planning for
Differentiated Learning
X
Edublog #4
10
3/23/16
Venn Diagram on Language Arts,
Math Common Core, and Next
Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) due 04/22/15 (hard copy)
X
Edublog #5
11
3/30/16
12
4/06/16
Research paper presentations
Understanding by Design (UbD)
Stage 3: Learning Plan
Design Tools & Examples
Small subject group work
Back-end loading vs Front-end loading &
different DI activities and examples
•
Bloom’s Taxonomy •
Facets of Understanding
•
Sternberg’s Model
UbD/DI Presentations
13
14
4/13/16
4/20/16
15
4/27/16
UbD/DI Presentations
Curriculum alignment& mapping
Final Examination Review and discussion
Final Examination at Dr. Hunt’s, 732 Spring
Lake Dr., Pearl, MS 769-232-2976
Read Ch. 6Instructional Strategies that Increase
Student Learning
ALL UbDs and DI units with
rubric due- bring to Dr. Hunt’s
home
32
ORAL PRESENTATION RUBRIC: ORAL REPORTS ON RESEARCH/DI ACTIVITIES
CATEGORY
Enthusiasm
Expert - 4
Student's facial
expressions and
body language
generate a strong
interest and
enthusiasm about
the topic in others.
Proficient - 3
Student's facial
expressions and body
language sometimes
generate a strong
interest and
enthusiasm about the
topic in others.
Speaks Clearly
Student speaks
clearly and
distinctly all (95100%) the time,
and mispronounces
no words.
Student speaks
clearly and distinctly
all (95-100%) the
time, and
mispronounces one
word.
Comprehension
Student is able to
accurately answer
almost all
questions posed by
classmates about
the topic.
Presentation is 20
minutes long.
Student is able to
accurately answer
most all questions
posed by classmates
about the topic
Student uses
several props that
show considerable
work/creativity and
which make the
presentation better.
Student (99-100%)
speaks in complete
sentences.
Student remains on
topic all (100%) of
the time.
Student reports on
at least 10
research studies.
All research is from
1995-2012.
Presentation
contains slides with
the researcher,
number of
participants, and
what he/she did.
Student stands up
straight, looks
relaxed and
confident. Student
establishes eye
contact with
everyone in the
room.
Student shows a
full understanding
of the research
topic.
Student is
completely
prepared and has
obviously
rehearsed.
Student uses 1 prop
that shows
work/creativity and
which make the
presentation better.
Student uses 1
prop, which makes
the presentation
better.
Student (80-98%)
speaks in complete
sentences.
Student remains on
topic all (90-99%) of
the time.
Student reports on 79 research studies.
Most research is from
1995-2012.
Presentation contains
slides with the
researcher, including
number of
participants, and what
he/she did.
Student (70-79%)
speaks in complete
sentences.
Student remains on
topic all (75-89%)
of the time.
Student reports on
5-6 research
studies. Some
research is from
1995-2012.
Presentation
contains slides with
the researcher,
number of
participants, and
what he/she did.
Student sometimes
stands up straight
and establishes
eye contact with
everyone in the
room.
Student rarely
speaks in complete
sentences.
Student does not
stay on topic.
Student shows a
good
understanding of
parts of the topic.
Student is
somewhat
prepared but it is
clear that
rehearsals were
lacking.
C 70 - 79%
Student does not
seem to
understanding the
research very well.
Student does not
seem at all prepared
to present.
*Time-Limit
**(20 minutes)
Props
Uses
Complete
Sentences
Stays on Topic
*Report on
Research
Articles
(Used in report
on research
presentation)
Posture/Eye
Contact
Content
Preparedness
Grade Level
A 90 - 100%
Presentation is 15-19
minutes long.
Student stands up
straight and
establishes eye
contact with everyone
in the room.
Student shows a good
understanding of the
research topic.
Student seems fairly
prepared and needs
more rehearsals.
B 80 - 89%
Emergent - 2
Student's facial
expressions and
body language are
used to try to
generate
enthusiasm, but
seem somewhat
faked.
Student speaks
clearly and
distinctly all (8594%) the time, and
mispronounces no
more than one
word.
Student is able to
accurately answer
few questions
posed by
classmates about
the topic
Presentation is 10 14 minutes long.
Novice - 1
Student's uses very
little facial
expressions or body
language. Did not
generate much
interest in the topic
being presented.
Score
Student often
mumbles or cannot
be understood OR
mispronounces more
than one word.
Student is unable to
accurately answer
questions posed by
classmates about the
topic
Presentation is less
than 9 minutes long
or more than 40
minutes long.
Student uses no
props OR the props
chosen distract from
the presentation.
Student reports on
less than 5
research studies.
Little research is
from 1995-2012.
Presentation
contains slides with
the researcher,
number of
participants, and
what he/she did.
Student slouches
and/or does not look
at people during the
presentation.
D 60 - 69%
33
CATEGORY
Established
Goals
Essential
Questions
Students will
understand
that…
Students will
know…
Students will be
able to…
Performance
Task
Other Evidence
Learning
Activities
DI Activities
for 27 students
in a Class
ThinkDOTS &
Sternberg’s
Triarchic
UNDERSTANDING by DESIGN (UbD/DI) LESSON RUBRIC
Expert - 4
Proficient - 3
Emergent - 2
Student is able to
Student is able to write
Student is able to write a
write all the lesson
most of the lesson goals
few of the lesson goals and
goals, match them
and to match them with
to match them with the
with the Mississippi
the Mississippi
Mississippi
Framework/Standard
Framework/Standards
Framework/Standards and
s and code them.
and code them.
code them.
Student is able to
Student is able to write
Student is able to write a
write all essential
most essential questions few essential questions
questions correctly.
correctly. Seventy
correctly. Sixty percent of
Eighty percent of
percent of them are
them are divergent and the
them are divergent
divergent and the
remaining are convergent
and the remaining are remaining are
type questions.
convergent type
convergent type
questions.
questions.
Students are able to
Students are able to
Students are able to write a
write all the Big Idea
write some of the Big
few of the Big Idea as an
as an understanding
Idea as an
understanding statement.
statement.
understanding
statement.
Student is able to list
Student is able to list
Student is able to list a few
the things his/her
some of the things
of the things his/her
students will need to
his/her students will
students will need to know
know by the end of
need to know by the end by the end of the lesson.
the lesson.
of the lesson.
Student will be able
Student will be able to
Student will be able to list
to list and apply
list and apply Bloom’s
and apply Bloom’s
Bloom’s Cognitive
Cognitive Domain
Cognitive Domain
Domain Taxonomy
Taxonomy to most of
Taxonomy to some of the
to all of the items
the items each student
items each student needs to
each student needs to
needs to do to complete
do to complete the lesson.
do to complete the
the lesson.
lesson.
Student is able to
Student is able to create
Student is able to create
create and develop a
and develop a
and develop a performance
performance task to
performance task to
task to assess students
assess students
assess students
understanding of the
understanding of the
understanding of the
presented material. Student
presented material.
presented material.
shows a few of the
Student shows all the
Student shows some of
GRASPS steps involved
GRASPS steps
the GRASPS steps
and labels a few of them in
involved and labels
involved and labels
the task.
all of them in the
some of them in the
task.
task.
Student lists 4 other
Student lists 3 other
Student lists 2 other types
types of assessments
types of assessments to
of assessments to measure
to measure whether
measure whether
whether students are
students are learning.
students are learning.
learning.
Student develops a
Student develops a
Student develops a lesson
lesson with an
lesson with either an
with no activator or
activator and
activator and/or
summarizer and a few of
summarizer and
summarizer and uses
the WHERETO steps to
uses each step of the
some of the WHERETO design the lesson. Some of
WHERETO to
to design the lesson.
the WHERETO is labeled.
design the lesson.
Most of WHERETO is
WHERETO is all
labeled.
labeled.
Student developed 27 Student developed 24Student develops 20 -24
learning experiences
27 learning experiences
learning experiences DI,
DI, all materials are
DI, some materials are
some materials are
prepared and
prepared and
prepared and
demonstrated, and
demonstrated, and
demonstrated, and template
template hand-out
template hand-out
hand-out available for
available for
available for
participants.
participants.
participants.
Students are able to
Students are able to use
Students are able to use
use the Sternberg’s
the Sternberg’s
the Sternberg’s Triarchic
Triarchic Theory in
Triarchic Theory in
Theory in developing a
Novice - 1
Student is not able to
write most of the lesson
goals and to match them
with the Mississippi
Framework/Standards
and code them.
Student is not able to
write essential questions
correctly. Most of the
questions are
convergent type
questions.
S
Students are not able to
write the Big Idea as an
understanding
statement.
Student is not able to
list the things his/her
students will need to
know by the end of the
lesson.
Student will be able to
list and apply Bloom’s
Cognitive Domain
Taxonomy to few of the
items each student
needs to do to complete
the lesson.
Student has difficulty in
creating a performance
task to assess students
understanding of the
presented material.
Student has difficulty
in showing the
GRASPS steps
involved and labels are
not labeled in the task.
Student lists 1 other
type of assessment to
measure whether
students are learning.
Student develops a
lesson using each step to
WHERETO to design
the lesson. WHERETO
is labeled.
Student developed less
than 20 learning
experiences DI, some
materials are prepared
and demonstrated, and
template hand-out
available for
participants.
Students are not able to
the Sternberg’s
Triarchic Theory in
34
Theory
Six Facets of
Understanding
Six Facets of
Understanding –
Cubing
Activities
Blooms
TaxonomyCubing
Activities
Rubric
Grade/Level
developing ALL
THINKDOTS DI
cubing activities
Students are able to
use the 6 Facets of
Understanding in
Stage 1, Stage 2, and
Stage 3
Students are able to
use the 6 Facets of
Understanding in
developing ALL DI
cubing activities
Students are able to
use the 6 levels of
Blooms Taxonomy
(creating,
evaluating,
analyzing, applying,
understanding, and
remembering) in
developing ALL DI
cubing activities
Student is able to
develop a rubric to
measure creativity,
evaluating, and
analyzing for a
UbD/DI unit
A 90 – 100%
developing some
THINKDOTS DI
cubing activities
Students are able to use
the 6 Facets of
Understanding in some
of these stages Stage 1,
Stage 2, and Stage 3
Students are able to use
the 6 Facets of
Understanding in
developing some DI
cubing activities
Students are able to use
the 6 levels of Blooms
Taxonomy in
developing some DI
cubing activities
few THINKDOTS DI
cubing activities
Student is able to
develop a rubric with
ONE high-level skill
and two lower-level
skills ( applying,
understanding, and
remembering) for a
UbD-DI unit
B 80 – 89%
Student is able to develop
only LOWER – LEVEL
skills rubric (applying,
understanding, and
remembering) for a
UbD/DI unit
Students are able to use the
6 Facets of Understanding
in a few of these stages
Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage
3
Students are able to use
the 6 Facets of
Understanding in
developing a few DI
cubing activities
Students are able to use
the 6 levels of Blooms
Taxonomy in developing a
few DI cubing activities
C 70 – 79%
developing
THINKDOTS DI
cubing activities
Students are not able to
use the 6 Facets of
Understanding in Stage
1, Stage 2, and Stage 3
of the UbD lesson.
Students are not able to
the 6 Facets of
Understanding in
developing DI cubing
activities
Students are not able to
the 6 levels of Blooms
Taxonomy in
developing DI cubing
activities
Student has difficulty
developing a rubric for a
UbD/DI unit
D 60 – 69%
35
Final Assessment (Rubric) for EDU 6535 Curriculum Development
CATEGORY
Expert - 4
Proficient - 3
Emergent - 2
Novice - 1
Understanding Student is able to write a
by Design
UbD lesson with a Stage 1,
(UbD)
Stage 2, and a Stage 3.
In Stage 3 the steps are
easy to follow and the
lesson includes an
activator and summarizer
plus several different
learning experiences to
meet all the needs of
his/her students.
Student is able to write a
UbD lesson with a Stage
1, Stage 2, and a Stage
3.
In Stage 3 the steps are
somewhat easy to
follow and the lesson
includes an activator and
summarizer plus several
different learning
experiences to meet all
the needs of his/her
students.
Student is able to write a
UbD lesson with a Stage 1,
Stage 2, and a Stage 3.
In Stage 3 the steps are
difficult to follow and the
lesson includes an
activator and summarizer
plus several different
learning experiences to
meet all the needs of
his/her students.
Student is able to
write a UbD lesson
with a Stage 1, Stage
2, and a Stage 3.
In Stage 3 the steps
are not listed and
very difficult to
follow and the lesson
includes an activator
and summarizer plus
several different
learning experiences
to meet all the needs
of his/her students.
Differentiated
Instruction
(DI)
Student is able to write
clearly tiered cubing,
thinkDOTS lessons for 12
of his/her students to
follow. Also, has
developed some other DI
strategies to meet all the
needs of her/his remaining
students in a typical
classroom.
Student is able to write
somewhat clearly tiered
cubing, thinkDOTS
lessons for 12 of his/her
students to follow. Also,
has developed some
other DI strategies to
meet all the needs of
her/his remaining
students in a typical
classroom.
Student is able to write with
difficulty tiered cubing,
thinkDOTS lessons for 12
of his/her students to
follow. Also, has developed
some other DI strategies to
meet all the needs of
her/his remaining students
in a typical classroom.
Student is NOT able
to write clearly tiered
cubing, thinkDOTS
lessons for 12 of
his/her students to
follow. Also, has
developed some
other DI strategies to
meet all the needs of
her/his remaining
students in a typical
classroom.
Report on
Research
Paper
Student is able to write a
report on research paper
using APA 5th edition.
Student includes all six
parts - (title, introduction,
body of research,
conclusion, reference list,
and overall mechanics)
with no errors.
Student is able to write a
report on research paper
using APA 5th edition.
Student includes five out
of six parts - (title,
introduction, body of
research, conclusion,
reference list, and overall
mechanics) with no
errors.
Student is able to write a
report on research paper
using APA 5th edition.
Student includes four out of
six parts - (title,
introduction, body of
research, conclusion,
reference list, and overall
mechanics) with no errors.
Student is able to
write a report on
research paper using
APA 5th edition.
Student includes
three out of the six
parts -(title,
introduction, body of
research, conclusion,
reference list, and
overall mechanics)
with no errors.
Program
Design
Student is able to create
an A.I.M. program design
for a full/half year course of
study. Every section of the
program design contains at
least a couplet and at least
three tiers per section.
Student is able to create
an A.I.M. program design
for a full/half year course
of study. Every section of
the program design
contains no couplets and
no tiers per section.
Student is not able to
create an A.I.M. program
design for a full/half year
course of study. Every
section of the program
design contains at least a
couplet and at least three
tiers per section.
Student is not able to
create an A.I.M.
program design for a
full/half year course
of study. Every
section of the
program design
contains no couplets
and no tiers per
section.
Program
Description
(UbD’s)
Student creates a UbD
lesson, and at least two
assessment instruments
and includes these
documents in their
program description.
Student also includes a
revised copy, bold faced,
of their program design.
Student creates a UbD
lessons, and at least one
assessment instrument
and includes this
document in their
program description.
Student also includes a
revised copy, bold faced,
of their program design.
Student creates a UbD
lesson, and at lists two
assessment instruments
in their program design.
Student also includes a
revised copy, bold faced, of
their program design.
Student creates a
UbD lesson, and lists
one assessment
instrument in their
program design.
Student also includes
a revised copy, bold
faced, of their
program design.
36
Reflections
Student is able to write 9
reflections correctly, using
edublog found on
http://jhuntmc.edublogs.org
and each reflection
contains
summary/reflection and
reaction sections and
reflections are numbered.
Student is able to write 68 reflections correctly,
using edublog, and each
reflection contains
summary/reflection and
reaction sections and
reflections are numbered.
Student is able to write 3-5
reflections correctly, using
edublog, and each
reflection contains
summary/reflection and
reaction sections and
reflections are numbered.
Class
Participation
Student participates every
class period in class
discussions.
Student participates
sometimes in class
discussions.
Student only participates a Student does not
few times in class
participate in class
discussions.
discussions.
Venn Diagram Student correctly
Standard
demonstrates how to
Correlation
correlate math, language
arts and science (NGSS)
standards.
Student has some
difficulty in correlating
math, language arts and
science (NGSS)
standards.
Student has a lot of
difficulty in correlating
math, language arts and
science (NGSS) standards.
Curriculum
/Instruction
Case Study
Project
Student correctly designs
DI activities for all 25
students in a 5th grade
class.
Student correctly designs Student correctly designs
DI activities for 20-24
DI activities for 15 -20
students a 5th grade
students a 5th grade class.
class.
Student has no idea
how to designs DI
activities for a 5th
grade class.
Final
Examination
(Written)
Student actively
participates in writing
answers and the answers
submitted are correct. The
team leader codes the
answers team mates
contribute on the team's
question sheet.
Student actively
participates in writing
some answers and these
answers submitted are
correct. The team leader
codes the answers team
mates contribute on the
team's question sheet.
Student participates in
writing only a few answers
and these answers
submitted are correct. The
team leader codes the
answers team mates
contribute on the team's
question sheet.
Student does not
participate in writing
any of the answers
on the final
examination and
does not inform the
team leader.
Grade/Level
A 90 - 100%
B 80 - 89%
C 70 -79%
D 60 - 69%
Student is able to
write less than 2
reflections correctly,
using edublog, and
each reflection
contains
summary/reflection
and reaction sections
and reflections are
numbered.
Student has no idea
how to correlate
math, language arts
and science (NGSS)
standards.
37