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