KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Summer Semester, 2005
I.
ECE 7850 Prospectus Completion
II. INSTRUCTORS:
Dr. Linda B. Akanbi
Kennesaw Hall, Room 2333
Office Phone: (770) 423-6481
e-mail: lakanbi@kennesaw.edu
Office Hours: By appointment
Dr. Rick Breault
Kennesaw Hall, Room 2329
Office Phone: (770) 423-6958
e-mail: rbreault1@kennesaw.edu
Office Hours: By appointment
III. Class Sessions: Monday, 4:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m., Baker Elementary School
IV. Recommended Texts:
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (2002). Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Urdan, Timothy. (2001). Statistics in Plain English : Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Association.
Glanz, J. (2003). Action Research: An educational leader’s guide to school
improvement. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Holly, M. L., Arhar, J., & Kasten W. (2005). Action Research for Teachers: Traveling
the Yellow Brick Road. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Galvan, J. L. (2004). Writing Literature Reviews. Glendale, CA: Pyrzak Publishing.
Catalog Description:
Candidates will complete a prospectus based on action research achievement. In
preparation for the following school year, candidates will develop a second prospectus
describing how they plan to enhance student achievement for future success and
leadership in the classroom
1
Purpose/Rationale:
Through the application of reflective teaching, action research, and continuous
assessment, candidates will present justification for instructional decisions to increase
student achievement. A description of a plan developed collaboratively to enhance
student achievement for the following school year will bring culmination to the portfolio
and full cycle to their M. Ed. Program. Selected cohort members will be utilized to
provide mentoring for the new M. Ed. Cohort group.
Conceptual Framework Summary:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning” is the
basis for all of Kennesaw State University’s teacher education programs. Working from a
solid content background, the teacher as facilitator demonstrates proficient and flexible
use of different ways of teaching to actively engage students in learning. Teachers as
facilitators are well versed in the characteristics of students of different ages, abilities and
cultural backgrounds. They are skilled in integrating technology into instruction and
create an environment in which students can be successful and want to learn. Teachers as
facilitators know when and how to assess learning by means of various forms of
traditional and authentic assessments. They are well prepared for successful careers in
teaching and are expected to act in a professional manner in all circumstances with
colleagues, parents, community members and their own students. As a professional
educator, the teacher facilitator values collaboration and seeks opportunities to work with
other professionals and community members to improve the educational experiences for
children and youth. This course contributes to the candidates’ understanding of their
developing role as a professional facilitator by supporting their educational growth as
they learn to effectively teach students.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four
phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny,
2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to
analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU
believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom
teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms
toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like
Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of
continued development.
Professional Portfolio Narrative
A required element in each portfolio for the Graduate Program is the portfolio
narrative. The purpose of the portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate
reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI with regard to what evidence the
candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need to include
2
a narrative which includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which
you reflect on each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence you
have selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the
Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative should be comprehensive,
documenting research-based best practices.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards
Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use
technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and
feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and
complete the capstone project: Action Research.
Diversity Statement:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of
the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge
as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing
effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of
course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second
element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural
populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender,
geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background
for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for
persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support
students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements
for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services
(ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of
disability is required.
VII. Goals and Objectives:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years
has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must
work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful
learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development.
ECE 8850 Prospectus and Portfolio Completion
3
Goal : The candidate will complete a final portfolio representing an in-depth
understanding of instructional inquiry and teaching excellence in his/her own situational
context. The portfolio will present evidence of skills in subject matter expertise,
facilitator of learning, and collaborative professional evidence.
Objectives:
As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, the
candidate will:
1. Complete a prospectus based on action research achievement outcomes and
modifications (CPI 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4).
2. Complete the capstone project-action research based on work throughout the program
(CPI 1,1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
VIII. Course Requirements/Assignments*
ECE 8850
The candidates will develop materials and activities to answer the following questions:
How will I demonstrate the content knowledge and professional expertise in action
research?
Have I successfully completed all sections of my action research report?
IX. Evaluation and Grading
Class Requirements and Assignments
Class Activities
Points
Assessed
ECE 8850
Complete action research paper
Develop a school improvement based prospectus
Presentation of final action paper and prospectus
Grades will be assigned as follows:
91-100 average points
81-90 average points
71-80 average points
<70 average points
100
100
50
Course
Objectives
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Obj. 1, 2
A
B
C
F
X. Academic Honesty Statement
Page 159 of the KSU Graduate catalog (2002 - 2003) states: The high quality of
education at Kennesaw State University is reflected in the credits and degrees its students
earn. The protection of these high standards is crucial sine the validity and equity of the
University’s grades and degrees depend upon it, Any student found guilty of an infraction
of a regulation for academic honesty shall be suspended for at least on semester unless
4
evidence is provided to convince the court that substantial mitigating circumstances
existed in that student’s offense.
XI. Class Attendance Policy
Students should make every effort to attend classes as scheduled. We will be learning
how to use electronic equipment, evaluating our own learning, and providing feedback to
each other. Class discussions, group work, peer evaluation activities require that
everyone be present.
*NOTE: This course outline is subject to change at the discretion of the
professors. Expect further course assignments, e.g., additional class or committee
meetings, a speaker (s) ; and other tasks as needed. Please check your WebCT
calendar regularly for course updates.
XII.
Course Outlines:
Class #
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
J Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Activity
Review of
Summer Work
Review of
Requirements for
Ch. 1 of Report;
E-Portfolio Part I
LABOR DAY –
No Class
Workshop on
Analysis and
Interpretation of
Results
Group Work and
Lab time for the
propectus
Action research
appts. All week
Workshop for
action research
paper
Individual
appointments all
week
Topic
Facilitators
Setting the Stage for Modules V & VI Akanbi
Getting Started on the Action
Research Report
Akanbi &
Breault
How to Interpret and Write the
Research Results
Akanbi & Wilson
How to develop a school
improvement based prospectus
Akanbi
Feedback on Chapter 1 drafts
Akanbi &
Breault
Akanbi &
Breault
Integrating and Synthesizing
Information from the Literature
Review
Feedback on action paper and
prospectus
Akanbi
XIII. References/Bibliography
Conceptual Framework Summary References:
5
Odell, S. J., Huling, L., & Sweeny, B. W. (2000). Conceptualizing quality mentoring,
background information. In S. J. Odell & L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for novice
teachers (pp. 3-14). Indianapolis, IA: Kappa Delta Pi.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up.
Educational psychology review, 8(2), 175-185.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes
an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
Classic Works:
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Silberman, C. (1971). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.
Others:
Anderson, R. & Speck, B. (2001). Using technology in K-8 literacy classrooms. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
Brause, R.S. & Mayher, J.S. (Eds.) (1991). Search and research: What the inquiring
teacher needs to know. London: Falmer Press.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1986). Staffroom interchange: Portfolios as a substitute for
proficiency examinations. CCC, 37, 336-339.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms. (4th ed). New York: Harper
& Row.
Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to
empowerment. London: Falmer Press.
LaBoskey, V.K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
McIntyre, D.& Byrd, D. (Eds.) (2000). Research on Effective Models for Teacher E
ducation. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J.D., & Russell, J. D. (2000). Instructional
technology in teaching and learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
Russell, T. & Munby, H. (Eds.) (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classroom to
reflection. London: Falmer Press.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Smyth, J & Shacklock, G. (1998). Re-Making Teaching; Ideology, policy and practice.
London: Routledge.
Tabachnick, B.R. & Zeichner, K. (1991). Issues and practices in inquiry orientedteacher education. London: Falmer Press.
Zessoules, R. & Gardner, H. (1990). Authentic assessment: Beyond the buzzword and
into the classroom. Submitted for publication in Assessment in Schools, ed. Vito
Perrone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero
NOTE: This course outline is subject to change at the discretion of the
Professors. Expect further course assignments, e.g., a field trip (s); additional
class or committee meetings, a speaker (s) ; and other tasks as needed.
6