SYLLABUS
for
EDU 7503
Title: Instructional Design for the Elementary
Classroom
Professor: Dr. John D. Hunt
Semester:
Spring 2016
Credit Hours: 3 semester hours
Box 4009
Clinton, Mississippi 39058
601-925-3226
1
I. Course Title:
EDU 7503 Instructional Design for the Elementary Classroom
(3 semester hours)
II. Prerequisites:
Graduate standing.
III. Course Description:
This course is designed to provide students an advanced study of the planning,
design, implementation, and evaluation of the modern elementary school
curriculum. Theories of curriculum and curriculum construction are evaluated for
their practical application to current school programs.
IV. Rationale:
The role of the elementary teacher in the development of the elementary
curriculum has become more complex during the last decade. More school
districts are looking toward master teachers for leadership in the area of
instructional design. Teacher leaders need to understand the issues involved in
new federal initiatives in school reform, the development of a multicultural
curriculum, the use of standards-based curriculum, and the connection between
curriculum and assessment.
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 at the district level.
V. Learner Objectives and Outcomes:
At the end of this course, the learner should be able to:
A. Design appropriate curricula for school reform efforts.
B. Provide professional development/learning for school districts in the area
of curriculum development.
C. Conduct student needs assessments to determine curriculum needs.
D. Develop standards-based curricula in a variety of content areas.
E. Design diverse assessment strategies.
VI. Academic Integrity:
2
It is expected that a student attending Mississippi College will be scrupulously
honest. Dishonesty, such as cheating, plagiarism, and falsifying information, will
be regarded as a serious offense subject to penalties outlined in the Mississippi
College Tomahawk or Policy 2.9. Copies of the Tomahawk are available in the
Office of Student Affairs, Nelson Hall room 212 or can be viewed on
www.mc.edu/publications/tomahawk/academicregs.html#plagiarism .
VII. Course Topics:
A. Instructional Strategy Design
B. Analyzing the Learner
C. Analyze the Learning task
D. Assessing Learning from Instruction
E. Declarative Knowledge Instruction
F. Instruction Leading to Concept Learning
G. Instruction Leading to Learning Procedures
H. Instruction Leading to Principle Learning
I. Project-Based Learning: STEM
J. Cognitive Strategy Learning
K. Attitude Learning
M. Psychomotor Skill Learning
N. Integration of Types of Learning
O. Putting Design into Practice
VIII. Instructional Methods:
This is an on-line class. Students will be expected to individually write report on
research papers, to discuss in writing these papers with their peers on-line, and
to defend in writing what they have written, and react in writing to what their
peers suggest.
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
3
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.
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 (100 points):
Each student is required take a final exam at the end of the course. The
exam is worth 100 points. If a student must miss the final exam, he/she
must notify the instructor before the exam is given.
B. Enrollment in www.nicenet.org

Each student will join Spring 2016, Instructional Design by adding your
name to the class roster. The class key is:
N3725ZZX36

Each student will use Internet Classroom Assistant (ICA) to send work
to me. Check my name in the ICA account to send your work directly to
me.

Each student will organize all class assignments in WORD not WORD
PERFECT. If you have any questions you may reach me on Tuesday
4
evening between 5:30 pm – 8 pm on-line through
http://www.nicenet.org or call me 769-232-1976
C. Report on Curricular Topic Research (130 points):
Each student is required to write a 2-3 page report from research on a
relevant curricular topic. Topics will be selected from the list found on
page 32. Papers should present a review of the literature regarding the
topic and should cite at least 5 different sources throughout the body of
the paper. Papers must include your name/date, a title page and a
bibliography (these pages are not included in the 2-3 page requirement).
Please do not include an abstract. APA style is the writing style required
for the paper. Points will be taken off for not adhering to the requirements
of 5th or 6th Edition APA.
Please send the report on curricular research to Jhunt@mc.edu as an
attachment.
D. Position Paper- 100 points/ position paper:
 Every two weeks each student will write a concise paper on Nicenet.org
about a topic listed on page 33. Defend the position you take. Use the
objectives on pages 35 & 36 under the topic you choose to guide you in
the development of your position. Send each completed paper to a
different classmate (Check on bulletin board of Nicenet to see who you
send your paper too.) and to me through Nicenet.org
E. Reaction Paper- 100 points/reaction paper:
 Every other 2nd week each student will write a reaction statement to the
position paper you received from your classmate and either defend what
they have written or contradict the position the writer took. Whatever
position (pro or con) taken, explain briefly why you took the position you
did. When possible, cite examples from your classroom experience.
When the reaction statement is complete, send this statement to me
through Nicenet.org
 Every Tuesday a position paper or a reaction paper will be due.
F. Participation- 100 points/night
The student is required to read outside readings prior to class each week.
Active participation is expected through Nicenet.org and emails to the
instructor.
The student is expected to actively participate, each Tuesday night online in class discussion/informed comments by exchanging
information/papers with classmates and instructor.
XII. Evaluation:
Grades will be assigned on the following basis:
5
A
B+
B
C+
C
D
F
95% - 100%
90% - 94%
85% - 89%
80% - 84%
77% - 83%
70% - 76%
Below 69%
A student must master 14 papers (7 position and 7 reaction papers)
B student must master 12 papers (6 position and 6 reaction papers)
C student must master 10 papers (5 position and 5 reaction papers)
F any less than 10
XIII. Additional Course Information:
A. Late Assignments:
All assignments must be submitted as scheduled. All grades on papers
received through Nicenet.org after the due date, will be lowered by
ONE letter grade.
Assignments turned in later than one week after the due date will not
be accepted.
B. All Assignments:
1. All assignments must be stated in Standard English, with proper
punctuation and correct spellings. In the top right hand corner of the
paper place 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 5th or 6th 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. Student Assistance
Early Alert System
Mississippi College has adopted the practice of finding students early in
the semester who may be exhibiting behaviors that could ultimately have
a negative impact on their academic progress. These behaviors are often
called “red flag” behaviors and include, but are not limited to, excessive
6
absences, poor test grades, and lack of class participation or evidence of
non-engagement. Identifying these behaviors early gives the instructor
the opportunity to raise the “red flag” on behalf of a particular student so
that the student can take the appropriate action to redirect his/her
progress. The system alerts the student, the student’s advisor, and the
Office of Student Success.
These messages are intended to help a student recognize an area of
concern and to encourage him/her to make some choices to improve the
situation. When a student receives an Early Alert message, the student
should quickly make an appointment to talk with his/her professor about
the situation. Also, students can make full use of the Office of Student
Success to set academic goals and connect to campus resources.
D. Students with Disabilities
I
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 on the 4th floor of Alumni Hall) or
they may be contacted via email at mbryant@mc.edu . You may also
reach them by phone at 601-925-7790. Dr. Morgan Bryant is director
of MC Student Counseling Services.
E. Speed Library Hours for fall
Monday – Thursday 7:45 AM – 12:00 PM
Friday 7:45 AM – 5:00 PM
Saturday 12:00 Noon – 5:00 PM
7
Sunday 5 PM – 10:00 PM
F. Class Communications:
John D. Hunt
Office: Room 400A, Lowrey Hall
Cell phone: 769-232-1976
E-mail: Jhunt@mc.edu
XIV. Instructional Materials and Bibliography:
A. Required Textbook:
Gagne, R. M, Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C. & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of
Instructional Design, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomas Learning
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.
C. Current References:
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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.) (1999). How People
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Bridges, L. (1995). Assessment: Continuous Learning. York, ME: Stonehouse.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student
Achievement: Success Stories from Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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.
Fullan, M. G. (February, 1996). Turning Systemic Thinking on its Head. Phi Delta
Kappa, 402-423.
Gardner, H. (November, 1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and
messages. Phi Delta Kappa. 200-209.
.
8
Glatthorn, A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glatthorn, A. (1995). Content of the curriculum (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glatthorn, A. A., (1998). Performance Assessment and Standards-Based
Curricula: The Achievement Cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Glasser, W., M.D. (April, 1997). A new look at school failure and school success.
Phi Delta Kappa, 597-602.
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.
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.
Jones,B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic
Teaching and Learning Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lewis, Catherine C. (2002). Lesson Study: A handbook of Teacher-led
Instructional Change. Philadelphia, PA: research for Better Schools, Inc.
Lezotte, L. (1997). Learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective School Products.
Lieberman, A. (1995). The work of restructuring schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McClay, J. L. (1996). The multi-age classroom. Westminster, CA: Teacher
Created Materials.
Hibbard, M. K., (1995). Performance Assessment in Middle School
Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw - Hill
Science.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9
Payne, R. P. (1998). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Highlands, TX:
RFT Publishing Co.
Martin, D. J. (1997). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist
Approach. New York, NY: Delmar.
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.
Pate, P. E., McGinnis, K., & Homestead, E. (1995). Creating coherence through
curriculum integration. In Beane, J. A. (Ed.), 1995 Yearbook of the Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 62-70). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pogrow, S. (June, 1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers: Why education
reform always end up making things worse. Phi Delta Kappa. 77(10), 653.
Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to
Know. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Post, T. R., Ellis, A. K., Humphreys, A. H., & Buggey, L. J. (1997).
Interdisciplinary approaches to curriculum: Themes for teaching. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Reinhartz, J., & Beach, D, (1997). Teaching and Learning in the Elementary
School: Focus on Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Sanders, W. L. & J. C. Rivers. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of
Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center
Saphier, J., & Gower, R. (1987). The Skillful Teacher: Building Your
Teaching Skills. Carlisle, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for education
reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Serim, F., & Koch, M. (1996). Netlearning: Why Teachers Use the Internet.
Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from
Dramatically Improved Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
10
Sornson, R., & Scott, J. (1997). Teaching & Joy. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and Memory: the Brain in Action. 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.)
Stunard, E. A. (June, 1997). The Chicago Forum. Phi Delta Kappa, 774-776.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The Thinking Classroom:
Learning and Teaching in a Culture of Thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
Zorfas, J. M. (1998). Teaching Middle School Students to be Active Researchers.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
D. Classic References:
Barth, R. (1990). Improving Schools from Within. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search for Understanding: The Case for
Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and the Human
Brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a Brain-Based Approach to
Learning and Teaching. Education Leadership, 48 (2), 66-70.
11
Fogarty, R. (1991). The Mindful School: How to Integrate the Curricula. Palatine,
IL: IRI/Skylight.
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
Abdi, S. W. (1997). Motivating students to enjoy questioning. The Science
Teacher, 64(6), 10.
Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational
Psychologist, 38, 2, 85-94.
Alevan, V. et al. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning
environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277-320.
Alley, L., & Jansak, K. (2001). The ten keys to quality and assessment in online
learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(3), 3-18.
Ali, A. M. (1981). The use of positive and negative examples during instruction.
Journal of Instructional Development, 5(1), 2-7.
Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student
motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-37.
Amsein, A. A. & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on
student motivation and learning: A research report. Educational Leadership,
60(5), 32-39.
Anderson, O. R. (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learning theory
and science instructional strategies. Science Education, 81(1), 67-89.
Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992, Spring). Using portfolios of student work in
instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices,
36-43.
Atkins, J. T., & Ellsesser, J. (2003). Tracking: the good, the bad, and the
questions. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 44-49.
Avery, P. (1999). Authentic assessment and instruction. Social Education, 65,
368-373.
Barman, C. N., Cox, M. L., Newhouse, K., & Goldston, M. (2000). Assessing
students’ ideas about animals. Science and Children, 37(1), 44-49.
12
Becker, H. L. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other
teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321.
Berkey, T. & DuFour, R. (1995). The principal as staff developer. Journal of Staff
Development, 16(4), 2-6.
Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational
Leadership, 5, 32-36.
Boreham, N. C., Ellis, M. R., & Morgan, C. H. (1985). The effect of sequence of
instruction on students’ cognitive preferences and recall in the context pf a
problem-oriented method of teaching. Instructional Science, 13, 329-345.
Brent, R., Wheatley, E., & Thomson, S. (1996). Videotaped microteaching:
Bridging the gap from the university to the classroom. The Teacher Educator, 31,
238-247.
Bradford, D. J. (1999). Exemplary urban middle school teachers’ use of five
standards of effective teaching. Teaching and Change, 7 53-78.
Brant, G., Hooper, E., & Sugrue, B. (1991). Which come first, the simulation or
the lecture? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 74(4), 469-481.
Brien, R., & Duchastel, P. (1986). Cognitive task analysis underlying the
specification of instructional objectives. Programmed Learning and Educational
Technology, 23(4), 363-370
Bromage, B. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of
repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology,
78(4), 271-278.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training
students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 12-14.
Brown, D. (2002). Self-directed learning in an 8th grade classroom. Educational
Leadership, 60(1), 54-59.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21.
Bruner, J. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5-8.
Bryk. A. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 40-44.
Bull, S. G. (1973). The role of questions in maintaining attention to textual
material. Review of Educational Research, 43(61), 83-87.
Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for
transfer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 5-38.
13
Cabello, B., & Terelle, R. (1994). Making students feel like family: How teachers
create warm and caring classroom climates. Journal of Classroom Interaction,
29, 17-23.
Carter, K. (1999). Stretching your technology resources. Technology and
Learning,19(7), 22-30.
Case, R. (1972). Validation of a neo-Piagetian mental capacity construct. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 14, 287-302.
Chambers, L. (1999). Does technology improve student learning? Changing
Schools, 1-2, 8.
Chapman, V. G., & Sopko, D. (2003). Developing strategic use of combined-text
trade books. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 236-241.
Chiappetta, E. (1997). Inquiry-based science: Strategies and techniques for
encouraging inquiry in the classroom. Science Teacher, 64(7), 22-26.
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.
Clark, F. T. (1998). Integrating technology into the classroom: A teacher’s
perspective. TechTrends for Leaders in Education and Training, 43(20), 45-46.
Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the “game” of
science is played. The Clearing House, 74,13-17.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for constructive small
groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
Conyers, J. G., Kappel, T., & Rooney, J. (1999). How technology can transform a
school. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 82-85.
Cope, P., & Simmons, M. (1994). Some effects of limited feedback on
performance and problem solving strategy in a Logo microworld. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86(3), 368-379.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School Journal,
100, 529-548.
Curda, S. K., & Curda, L. K. (2003). Advanced distributed learning: A paradigm
shift for military education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(1), 1-14.
Daisey, P., & Shroyer, M. G. (1995). Parents speak up: Examining parent and
teacher roles in elementary science instruction. Science and Children, 33(3), 2429.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How teachers for
America hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21-34.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every
child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-200.
14
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. (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. (1998). Why look elsewhere: Improving schools from within. The
School Administrator, 2 (55), 24-28.
DeFour, R. (2001). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development, Winter, 1417.
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of
knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. R. (1994). Capturing teachers’ knowledge:
Performance assessment. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 11-18.
Derry, S. J., & Kellis, A. (1986). A prescriptive analysis of low-ability problemsolving behavior. Instructional Science, 15, 49-65.
Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Systems that train learning ability. Review of
Educational Research, 56, 1-39.
Derry, S. J., Hawkes, L.W., & Tsai, C. (1987). A theory for remediation problemsolving skills of older children and adults. Educational Psychologist, 22(1), 55-87.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ view of
computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of
Research on Computing in Teacher Education, 31(3), 221-239.
Dick, W. (1986-1987). Instructional design and the curriculum development
process. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 54-56.
Dick, W. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the critics.
Educational Technology, 35(7), 5-11.
Dillon, C., & Greene, B. (2003). Learner differences in distance learning: Finding
differences that matter. In M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of
distance education (pp. 235-244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DuFour, R. (1995). Restructuring is not enough. Educational Leadership, 52(7),
33-36.
DuFour, R. (1997a). Make the words of mission statements come to life. Journal
of Staff Development, 18(3), 54-55.
DuFour, R. (1997b). Moving toward the school as a learning community. Journal
of Staff Development, 18(1), 52-53.
15
DuFour, R. (1997c). Seeing with new eyes. Journal of Staff Development, 18(4),
38-39.
Duffy, T. (2004). Theory and the design of learning environments: Reflections on
differences in disciplinary focus. Educational Technology, xx, 44(3), 13-15.
Duffield, J. A. (1991). Designing computer software for problem-solving
instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 17-29.
Dukewits, P., & Gowin, L. (1996). Creating successful collaborative teams.
Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 12-16.
Duncan, J. (1980). The demonstration capacity limitation. Cognitive Psychology,
12, 75-96.
Dyrli, O., & Kinnaman, D. (1995). Teaching effectively with technology.
Technology and Learning, 15(6), 52-57.
Edwards, C. (1997). Promoting student inquiry. The Science Teacher, 64(5), 1822.
Edwards, C. H. (2001). Student violence and the moral dimensions of education.
Psychology in the Schools, 38, 249-257.
English, R. E., & Reigelruth, C. M. (1996). Formative research on sequencing
instruction with the elaboration theory. Educational Technology and Research
Journal, 44, 23-41.****
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L.C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil
control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy. Science Education, 70(1), 63- 75.
Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance
instructional design. Educational Technology, 35(7), 23-31.
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.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five
research-based outcomes of teaming. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57-60.
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.
16
Foster, G. W., & Penick, J. E. (1985). Creativity in a cooperating group setting.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 89-98.
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.
Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem
solving. Review of Educational Research, 15, 84-92.
Friedlander, P. (1996). Competency-driven, component-based curriculum
architecture. Performance & Instruction, 35(2), 14-21.
Futrell, M., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new
America. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 381-385.
Gagne, R. M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem-solving. Educational
Psychologist, 15, 84-92.
Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of
human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377-385.
Gagne, R. M., & Merrill, M.D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(10), 23-30.
Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational
research, 40(5), 707-721
Gardner, D. H. (1996). Bringing families and science together. Science and
Children, 34(2), 14-16.
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.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies:
Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517-530.
Gaskill, P. E. (2002). Progress in the certification of middle-level personnel.
Middle School Journal, 35(5), 33-40.
Geerligs, T. (1995). Students’ thoughts during problem-based small-group
discussions. Instructional Science, 22, 269-278.
Geringer, J. (2003). Reflections on professional development: Toward highquality teaching and learning, Phi Delta Kappan, January, 373
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 &
2), 99-120.
17
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.
Gopalakrishnan Jayasinghe, M., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1997). The
effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational
Technology, research, and Development, 45, 5-19.
Gorrell, J. (1992). Outcomes of using computer simulations. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 24(3), 359-366.
Gray, P. & Charnoff, D. (1986). Democratic schooling: What happens to young
people who have charge of their own education? American Journal of Education,
5 (2), 182-214.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals,
perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational
Psychologist, 21, 181-192.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V. & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effects of school
resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415435.
Grolnick, W., Benjet, C.,Kurowski, C., & Apostoleris, N. (1997). Predicators of
parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 538-540.
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.
Hamilton, R. (1989). Role of concept definition, teaching examples, and practice
on concept learning from prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 357365.
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
Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teacher professional
development: A study of two mentoring relationships. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 14(4). 657-670.
Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Good teaching matters…a lot. Thinking K-16, 3-14.
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.
18
Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology (pp. 143-168). Mahwan, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al.
(1996). Problem-solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The
case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 23, 12-21.
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
Howe, A. C., & Bell, J. (1998). Factors associated with successful
implementation of interdisciplinary curriculum units. Research in Middle Level
Education Quarterly, 21 (2), 39-52.***
Hudspeth, D., & Knirk, F. G. (1989). Case study materials: Strategies for design
and use. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(4), 30-41.
Hunsader, P. D. (2004, April). Mathematics trade books: Establishing their value
and assessing their quality. Reading Teacher, 57, 618-629.
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.
Huntley, M. A. (1999). Theoretical and empirical investigations of integrated
mathematics and science education in the middle grades with implications for
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 57-67.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American
secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
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.
Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. Science and
Children, 35(1), 42-46.
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)
Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Creating a timely curriculum. Educational Leadership, 6(4),
12-18.
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.
Jegede, O. J. (1995). An investigation of student’s disposition to the use of
objectives in distance learning materials. Educational Research, 37, 293-304.
19
Jelmberg, J. R. (1996). College based teacher education versus state sponsored
alternative programs. Journal of Teacher education, 47, 60-66.
Jenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr, A. A., & Nelson, L. M. (1998). Guidelines
for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 15(3), 217-233.
Jih, H. J. & Reeves, T. C. (1992). Mental models: A research focus for interactive
learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3),
39-53.
Jonassen, D. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technologies: A
vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational
Technology, 35(4), 60-63.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured problemsolving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development,
45(1), 65-94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Instructional design for learning to troubleshoot.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 42(4), 34-38.
Jonassen, D. H. & Hannum, W. H. (1986). Analysis of task analysis procedures.
Journal of Instructional Development, 9, 2-12.
Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2002, March). Keep new teachers in mind.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 12-16.
Jones, R. (2000). Textbook troubles. American School Board Journal, 187 (12),
18-21.
Kain, J. F., & Singleton, K. (1996, May/June). Equality of educational opportunity
revisited. New England Economic Review, 87-111.
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.
20
Kelly, K. (2001, May/June). Teachers helping teachers. Harvard Educational
Letter, 17,5
Kenny, R. F. (1995). The generative effects of instructional organizers with
computer-based interactive video. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
12(3), 275-296.
Kersting, K. (2003). What exactly is creativity? Monitor on Psychology, 40-41.
Kim, K. (2002). The effect of reality therapy program on the responsibility for
elementary school children in Korea. International Journal of Reality Therapy,
22(2), 30-33.
King, M. B. & Newmana, F. M. (2000, April). Will teacher learning advance
school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 32.
Klausmeier, H. J. (1992). Concept learning and concept teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 27(3), 267-289.
Klienheider, J. (1996). Assessment matters. Science and Children, 33(4), 22-25.
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.
Kyllonen, P. C., & Lajoi, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: introduction to a
special issue in honor of Richard E. Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 2, 7984.
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).
Lamb, A., Smith, N., & Johnson, L. (1997). Wondering, wiggling, & weaving: A
model for project and community-based learning on the Web. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 24(7),6-13.
Lantieri, L., & Patti, J. (1998). Waging peace in our schools. Journal of Negro
Education, 65, 356-368.
Laska, J. (1984). The relationship between instruction and curriculum: A
conceptual clarification. Instructional Science, 13, 203-212.
Laurillard, D. (1988). The pedagogical limitations of generative student models.
Instructional Science, 17, 235-250.
Leachman, G. & Victor, D. (2003). Student-led class meetings. Educational
Leadership, 60(6), 64-68.
Levin, J. R. (1986). Our cognitive principles of learning-strategy instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 21(1), 3-18.
21
Levin, M. (2002, March). Why invest in professional development schools?
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 65-67.
Lewis, C. & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift
to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Educational Policy, 12:5, 313331.
Lewis, C. & Tsuchida, I. (1998, Winter). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river:
Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American
Educator, 14-17 & 50 –52. Available at: www.lessonresearch.net
Lewis, A. C. (2004). Schools that engage children. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 483484.
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.
Linn, R. (2003). Assessment and accountability. Educational Research, 29(2), 416.
Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical
measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based
assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8),
15-21.
Long, T. W., & Gove, M. K. (2004). How engagement strategies and literature
circles promote critical thinking in a fourth-grade classroom. Reading Teacher,
57(4), 350-361.
Louks-Horsley, S. (1999). Try on strategies to get a good fit. Journal of Staff
Development, 20(3), 56-60.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Raywid, M. A. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of
reform. NASSP Bulletin, 80(580), 9-21.
Lowe, M. J., & Vespestad, K. (1999). Using technology as a tool to enhance
learning. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 30-35.
March, J., & Peters, K. (2002). Curriculum development and instructional design
in the effective school process. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 379-381.
Mason, L. (1994). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects in conceptual change by
analogy. Instructional Science, 22, (3), 267-289.
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.
22
Mautone, P., & Mayer, R. (2001). Signal as a cognitive guide to multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
Mayer, D. A. (1995). How can we best use children’s literature in teaching
science concepts? Science and Children, 32(6), 16-19, 43.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research,
59(1), 43-64.
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.***
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
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.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). School change and inclusive schools:
Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 65-72.
McLauren, P. (1998, fall). Revolutionary pedagogy in post-revolutionary times.
Educational Theory, 48(4), 431-462.
McLaughlin, D. W. (1997). School to school partnership. Science and Children,
34(5), 26-29.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist,
44(12), 1469-1481.
Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. F. (2003). Should middle grades
students be left alone after school? Middle School Journal, 5, 57-61.
Miller, K. W., Steiner, S. F., & Larson, C. D. (1996). Strategies for science
learning. Science and Children, 33(6), 24-27, 61.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D.
(1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future
consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21, 388-422.
Mills, S. C., & Ragan, T. J. (2000). A tool for analyzing the implementation fidelity
of an integrated learning system. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 48(4), 21-41.
Moll, M. (2003). Computers and kids: pulling the plug can protect the planet. Phi
Delta Kappan, April, 600.
Morrison, D., & Collins, J. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.
Morrison, G. M., & Skiba, R. (2001). Predicting violence from school misbehavior:
promises and perils. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 173-182.
23
Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional
text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning
levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37.
Munro, J. (1999). Learning more about learning improves teacher effectiveness.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 151-171.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s
beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777-805.
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.
Nelson, W. (1989). Artificial intelligence knowledge acquisition techniques for
instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development,
37(3), 81-94.
Nesbit, J. C., & Hunka, S. (1987). A method of sequencing instructional
objectives which minimizes memory load. Instructional Sciences, 16, 137-150.
Newby, T. J., & Stepich, D. A. (1990). Teaching cognitive strategies.
Performance and Instruction, 29(1), 44-45.
Newby, T. J., & Stepich, D. A. (1990). Teaching attitudes. Performance &
Instruction, 29(3), 48-49.
Nguyen-Xuan, A., Nicaud, J., & Gelis, J. (1995). An experiment in learning
algebra with an intelligent tutoring environment. Instructional Science, 23, 25-45.
Niaz, M. (1995). Enhancing thinking skills: Domain specific/domain general
strategies: A dilemma for science education. Instructional Science, 22, 413-422.
Nicaise, M., & Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technology, constructivism, and
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 205-212.
Norman, G. R. (1985). The role of knowledge in teaching and assessment of
problem solving. Journal of Instructional Development, 8(1), 7-11.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its
implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.
Padilla, M. J., & Pyle, E. J. (1996). Observing and inferring promotes science
learning. Science and Children, 33(8), 22-25.
24
Paez, M. (2003). Gimme that school where everything’s scripted! – One
Teacher’s journey toward effective literacy instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, June,
757.
Page, S. W. (2000). When changes for the gifted spur differentiation for all.
Educational Leadership, 58(10), 62-65.
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.***
Peladeau, N., et al. (2003). Effect of paced and unpaced practice on skill
application and retention: How much is enough? American Educational Research
Journal, 40(3), 769-780.
Pena, R. (1997). Cultural differences and the construction of meaning. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 5 (10) Online. Available:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n10.html
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.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003, Spring). Challenges and opportunities for students who are
gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 161-169.
Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of
sequencing content. Review of Educational Research, 46(4), 665-690.
Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1996). Children’s approaches to the concept of
volume. Science Education, 80(3), 341-360.
Ranzijn, F. J. A. (1991). The sequence of conceptual information in instruction
and its effect on retention. Instructional Science, 20, 405, 418.
Ray, W. E. (1961). Pupil discovery vs. direct instruction. Journal of Experimental
Education, 29(3), 271-280.
Reeves, D. B. (2001b, June 6). If you hate standards, learn to love the bell curve.
Education Week, 48.
Reid, W. A. (2004). Curriculum as institutionalized learning: Implications for
theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 29-44.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way to recognize: The elaboration
theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 6, 40-46.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 80-86.
25
Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study
to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 38, 1, 15-22.
Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks
matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
Rex, L. A. (2001). The remaking of a high school reader. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(3), 288-314.
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between
constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 40(1), 93-106.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning
environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43-58.
Ross, S. M., & Rakow, E. A. (1982). Adaptive instructional strategies for teaching
rules in mathematics. Educational and Communication Technology Journal, 30,
67-74.
Roth, W. (1990). Short-term memory and problem solving in physical science.
School Science and Mathematics. 90(4), 271-282.
Routman, R. (2002, March). Teacher talk. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 32-35.
Rowe, M. B. (1996). Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children,
34(10), 35-37.
Royer, J. M. (1979). Theories of the transfer of learning. Educational
Psychologist, 14, 53-69.
Royer, R. (2003). Web-based portfolio assessment in a graduate instructional
technology program. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2003 (1), 169-174.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of
students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583-625.
Russo, A. (2002, November/December). Beefing up professional development.
Harvard Educational Letter, 18, 1-3.
Ryder, J. M., & Redding, R. E. (1993). Integrating cognitive task analysis in
instructional systems development. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 41(2), 75-96.
Ryan, K. (2002). Shaping educational accountability style. American Journal of
Education, 23(4), 453-468.
Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (1998). An exploration of the concept map as an
interview tool to facilitate the externalization of students’ understanding about
global atmospheric change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5),
521-546.
26
Scales, P. C. & McEwin, C. K. (1996). The effects of comprehensive middle-level
teacher preparation programs. Research in Middle-Level Education Quarterly, 19
(2), 1-21.
Schaps, E. (2003). Creating a school community. Educational Leadership, 60(6),
31-32.
Schmid, R. F., & Gerlach, V. S. (1990). Instructional design rules for algorithmic
subject matter. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(2), 2-15.
Schmidt, H. G. (1995). Problem-based learning: An introduction. Instructional
Science, 22, 247-250.
Schmidt, H., Van der Arend, A., Kokx, I., & Boon, L. (1995). Peer versus staff
tutoring in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 22, 279-285.
Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standardsbased education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.
Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first: Demystifying data analysis. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 22-24.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
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.
Seaton, A. (2003). Reforming a hidden curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 22,
9-15.
Sfondilias, J. S., & Siegel, M. A. (1990). Combining discovery and direct
instruction strategies in computer-based teaching of mathematical problem
solving. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 17(4), 130–134.
Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teaching
thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face
of science that does not yet know.” Science Education, 80(5), 535-560.
Shaw, E. L., & Hatfield, M. M. (1996). A survey of the use of science
manipulatives in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 404160.)
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.***
27
Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability
grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational
Technology, Research, and Development, 43, 5-24.***
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive E-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38,
2, 105-114.
Simpson, J. O. (2003, January). Beating the odds. American School Board
Journal, 190(1), 43-47.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (1990). Designing visual analogies for instruction.
Journal of Visual Language, 10(2), 60-83.
Smith, P. L., & Tompkins, G. E. (1988). Structured notetaking: A new strategy for
content readers. Journal of Reading, 32(1), 46-53.
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.
Sneider, C. I., & Ohadi, M. M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions
about the Earth’s shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265-284.
Solvie, P. A. (2003). The digital whiteboard: A tool in early literacy instruction.
Reading Teacher, 57(5), 484-487.
Sparks, D. (1999, November). Using lesson study to improve teaching. National
Staff Development Council. Available at:
www.rbs.org/lesson_study/readings_and_resources.shtml
Speaker, K. M., & Petersen, G. J. (2000). School violence and adolescent
suicide: Strategies for effective intervention. Educational Review, 52(1), 65-73.
Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade
students’ ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 159-177
Steffes, B., & Valentine, J. (1996). The relationship between organizational
characteristics and expected benefits in interdisciplinary teams. Research in
Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(4), 83-106.
Stepich, D. A. & Newby, T. J. (1990). Teaching psychomotor skills. Performance
& Instruction, 24(4), 47-48.
Stevens, B. A. (2003). Creating comfortable and productive parent/teacher
conferences. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 521.
Stewart, J. & Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of “problem” in
problem-solving research. Science Education, 75(1), 105-120.
Strong, R., Thomas, E., Perini, M., & Silver, H. (2004, February). Creating a
differentiated mathematics classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 73-78.
Suares, M., Pias, R., Membiela, P., & Dapia, D. (1998). Classroom environment
in the implementation of an innovative curriculum project in science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 655-671.
28
Swanson, D. B., Norman, G. R., & Linn, R. L. (1995). Performance-based
assessment: lessons from the health professions. Educational Researcher,
24(5), 5-11, 35.
Teel, K. M., Debruin-Parecki, A., & Covington, M. V. (1998). Teaching strategies
that honor and motivate inner-city African-American students: A school/university
collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 479-495.***
Tennyson, R. D., & Tennyson, C. L. (1975). Role acquisition design strategy
variables: Degree of instant divergence, sequence, and instant analysis. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 852-859.
Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional
design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 4071.
Tessmer, M., Wilson, B., & Driscoll, M. (1990). A new model of concept teaching
and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 45-53.
Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and
instructional design. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 45,
85-111.
Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1986). Academic studying: The role of
learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1), 19-42.
Tiedemann, J. (1989). Measures of cognitive styles: A critical review. Educational
Psychologist, 24(3), 261-275.
TIMMS Video Mathematics Research Group. (2003). Understanding and
improving mathematics teaching: highlights from the TIMMS 1999 video study.
Phi Delta Kappan, June, 768.
Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference?
Educational Researcher, 11(4), 4-9.
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African-American
learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children,
66(3), 381-391.
Trollip, S., & Lippert, R. (1988). Constructing knowledge bases: A promising
instructional tool. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 4448.
Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated
with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 2, 334-341.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy:
Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202 – 248.
Valentine, J. W., & Mogar, D. (1992). Middle-level certification: An encouraging
evolution. Middle School Journal, 24 (2), 36-43.
29
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.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load
off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Vars, G. & Beane, J. A. (n.d.). Integrative curriculum in a standards-based world.
ERIC Digests. May be retrieved from
http://www.nmsa.org/research/res_articles_integrated.htm
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.
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.
Weiner, B. (1991). Metaphors in motivation and attribution. American
Psychologist, 46(9), 921-930.
Weinstein, C. E. (1982). Training students to use elaboration learning strategies.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 301-311.
Weston, C. B., McAlpine, L., & Bordononaro, T. (1995). A model for
understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Theory, 43(3), 29-48.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment, authenticity, context, and validation. Phi Delta
Kappan, 75(3), 200-215.
Wiley, D. A. (Ed.). (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington,
IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Also, available
from the World Wide Web: http://reusabilityorg
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.
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, B. G. (1985). Techniques for teaching procedures. Journal of
Instructional Development, 8(2), 2-5.
Wilson, B. G. (1987). What is a concept? Concept teaching and cognitive
psychology. Performance and Instruction, 25(10), 16-18.
30
Wilson, S. M., & et al. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view
from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190-204.
Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational
Leadership, 58(1), 52-56.
Windschill, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of
dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political
challenge facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 133-175.
Wise, A. E. (2003, April 9). What’s wrong with teacher certification? Education
Week, 22(30), 56, 42-43.
Wiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational
Leadership, 61(5), 24-28.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational
Psychologist, 27(4), 531-542.
Wong, H. (2002, March). Induction: The best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52-54.
Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 107-125.
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.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(10), 2-18.
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.
31
Report on research MUST be articles where a research study (data) was collected,
analyzed, and reported/written!
C. 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
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
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
32
EDU: 7503 Instructional Design, Spring 2016
Report on RESEARCH topics!!
#
1
2
3
Name
Date
Topic
Chapter 2
Designing Instructional Systems
Chapter 3
Outcomes of Instruction
Chapter 4
Varieties of Learning: Intellectual
Skills and Strategies
4
Chapter 5
Varieties of Learning: Information,
Attitudes and Motor Skills
5
Chapter 6
The Learner
6
Chapter 7
Defining Performance Objectives
7
Chapter 8
Analysis of a Learning Task
8
Chapter 9
Designing Instructional Sequences
9
Chapter 10
The Events of Instruction
Chapter 11
Technology-Affordances
10
Textbook: Gagne, R. M, Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., and John M. Keller (2005). Principles of
Instructional Design, 5th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Use the chapter in the textbook to help you focus on the report of research
and then send a hard copy to me.
33
EDU: 7503 Instructional Design, Spring 2016
A - Position Paper Report Topics
#
1*
PP1
Name
01/19/16
Date
Analyzing The Learning Context
Topic
2*
PP2
02/02/16
Analyzing The Learners
3*
PP3
02/16/16
Analyzing The Learning Task
4*
PP4
03/01/16
Assessing learning from Instruction
5
Instructional Strategy Design
6
Declarative Knowledge Instruction
7*
PP5
03/22/16
Instruction Leading to Concept Learning
8*
PP6
04/05/16
Instruction
Procedures
to
Learning
Instruction Leading to Principle Learning
9
10* PP7
Leading
04/19/15
Project-Based Instruction: STEM
11
Cognitive Strategy Instruction
12
Attitude Learning
13
Psychomotor Skill Learning
14
Integration of Types of Learning
15
Implementation: Putting Designs into Use
*Required topics-please start with PP#1 and finish with PP#7.
34
EDU: 7503 Instructional Design, Spring 2016
B - Position Paper (PP)Objectives for Report
Topics
PP#
Name
All students
1
Date
Objectives for Topics
1/19/16
2
PP2
02/02/16
3
PP3
02/16/16
4
PP4
03/01/16
PP5
03/22/16
Describe the purpose of a needs assessment, the conditions that might
require a needs assessment, and the steps in a needs assessment
procedure.
Describe the factors that should be analyzed in the learning environment,
and discuss why these factors should be considered.
When given an instructional situation, describe the procedures you would
follow and questions you would ask in conducting an analysis of the
instructional context.
Distinguish an instructional need from a non-instructional need. Explain.
Describe the stable and changing similarities and differences among
learners.
Describe the cognitive characteristics that should be considered in
designing instruction.
When given a description of a situation, list questions regarding learner
characteristics that you would wish to know before designing instruction,
as well as techniques and procedures you would use to find the answers to
these questions.
Recognize and write an appropriate learning goal.
Write an information-processing analysis of a learning goal.
Define, write examples of, recognize examples of, and describe the
differences between different types of learning.
Recognize and write appropriate learning objectives.
Write production and recognition items for objectives of different types of
learning.
Write an appropriate assessment instrument blueprint that includes test
length, description of content domain, proportionality, directions and
administration procedures, type and number of measures, scoring
methods, weighting of items, and criterion level/cut-off score.
Recognize and write examples of the three categories of instructional
strategies: organizational, delivery, and management strategies.
Describe how a typical lesson proceeds from the standpoint of
instructional events.
Explain the differences between supplantive and generative organization
strategies and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Name the three forms of declarative knowledge.
Identify and describe three critical cognitive activities involved in
learning declarative knowledge.
Given a declarative knowledge objective, design strategy plans for that
objective.
Describe the criteral attributes of a given concept.
Describe coordinate concepts.
Develop a concept map of a given concept, indicating its relationship to
superordinate and subordinate concepts.
Determine a “best example” and a poor example for a given concept, and
justify your choices.
Explain the processes of generalization and discrimination as they apply
will write a
position
paper on this
topic
5
6
7
35
8
PP6
04/05/16
PP7
04/19/16
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to concept learning.
Explain the difference between a procedure which is simple to one that is
complex and write an example of both.
Design a strategy plan for a procedure lesson.
Explain whether a learning task requires the application of a principle.
Write a principle and identify its component concepts.
Write a project-based objective and design a 5E lesson plan for that
objective. Use ITEEA, Mathematics, Engineering, Science, &Technology
standards(STEM)
Write a cognitive strategy and then identify the cognitive process type –
organizing strategy, rehearsing strategy, or comprehension monitoring
strategy.
Write a cognitive strategy objective and design a strategy plan for the
cognitive strategy lesson.
Write an affective goal and list a hierarchy of affective objectives related
to it.
Write an attitude objective and design a strategy plan for that objective.
Given an attitude objective, describe three possible approaches to
assessment of it, select a “best approach,” and defend the selection in
terms of the fit between assessment characteristics and salient
characteristics of learners, task, and setting.
Describe techniques to promote interest and motivation in lessons for all
learning outcome types.
Write an instructional activity or instructor’s statement, categorize that
activity/statement as to motivational strategy type, attention, relevance,
confidence, or satisfaction.
Write a strategy for a psychomotor lesson.
Write whether spaced or massed practice is needed for a particular
situation.
Write whether part or whole practice is needed for a particular situation.
Write examples of world-related, inquiry-related, concept-related,
utilization-related, and learning related macro-organizational strategies.
Explain how a given content could be organized according to the
Elaboration Model.
Write an example of a situation in which an instructional design project
might need implementation work.
Given terms and definitions related to implementation-diffusion,
dissemination, adoption, integration, and stakeholders-match the term
with its definition.
36
Critique/Assessment of Curricular Report on Research Paper
Name: ___________________ Date:________ Topic____________________________
Part
1
Paper Analysis
No specific Format- includes: name, date, course, instructor, title of research
paper
2
3
4
5
Score
Title Page (5 points)
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
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
37
list.
6
Each entry in the reference list is cited in the body of the paper.
5
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
10
5
5
TOTAL
EDU 7503: Instructional Design, Schedule: Spring 2016
Session
Date
Topic
Assignment
Due Date
38
1
01/11/16
Class meets –
Syllabus discussion
Topic Report on
Research
Paper
Do this before
03/15/16
2
01/19/16
On-Line
Position Paper #1
(context)
Before 01/26/16
3
01/26/16
On-Line
Before 01/26/16
4
02/02/16
On-Line
5
02/09/16
On-Line
6
02/16/16
On-Line
7
02/23/16
On-Line
8
03/01/16
On-Line
9
03/15/16
On-Line
10
03/15/16
On-Line
11
03/22/16
On-Line
12
03/29/16
On-Line
13
04/05/16
On-Line
Reaction Paper #1
(context)
Position Paper #2
(learner)
Reaction Paper #2
(learner)
Position Paper #3
(learning task)
Reaction Paper #3
(learning task)
Position Paper #4
(assessing learning)
Report on Research
Paper
Reaction Paper #4
(assessing learning)
Position Paper #5
(concept learning)
Reaction Paper #5
(concept learning)
Position Paper #6
Before 02/02/16
Before 02/09/16
Before 02/16/16
Before 02/23/16
Before 03/01/16
Before 03/16/16
Before 03/15/16
Before 03/22/16
Before 03/29/16
Before 04/05/16
(instruction leading to
learning)
14
04/12/16
On-Line
Reaction Paper #6
Before 04/12/16
(instruction leading to
learning)
15
04/19/16
On-Line
16
04/26/16
On-Line
17
05/02/16
Monday
Final Examination
Dr. Hunt’s home
Position Paper #7
(project-based
instruction: STEM)
Reaction Paper #7
(project-based
instruction: STEM)
Before 04/19/16
Before 04/26/16
All grades on papers received through Nicenet.org after the due date, will
be lowered by ONE letter grade.
39