BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.D. Program
EDL 9520 Evaluation of K-12 Technology Programs
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department: Educational Leadership
Department phone number:
Semester: XXXX
Credit Hours: 3
INSTRUCTOR:
e-mail:
Web page:
Office Phone:
TEXTS:
Haertel, G. D., & Means, B. (2003). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research
designs for improving learning. New York: Teachers College Press
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership or approval of the
Educational Leadership Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
EDL XXX Advanced Study of Learning
This course will provide candidates with several frameworks and approaches to high-quality
program evaluation appropriate for the many facets of K-12 educational technology programs,
including but not limited to infrastructure, technical support, instructional programs, professional
learning, and procurement. Students will review the strengths and weaknesses of each design
and be able to choose appropriate evaluation methods for specific types of program goals. As a
culminating project students will develop and implement an evaluation plan related to a specific
K-12 technology plan or program.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Program evaluation is critical to the continuous improvement in K-12 technology programs.
Successful programs must be identified and weak programs must be strengthened or eliminated.
Evaluating the effectiveness of technology programs has been difficult for educators and must be
emphasized in order to capitalize on the power of technology to enhance education.
KSU CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 11
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and facilitators of the
teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values, and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public
and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
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 believe 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.
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. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel
confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
Field Experience:
While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a variety of
school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may
include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating
in leadership activities, attending PTA/school board meetings, and participating in educationrelated community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore
every opportunity to learn by doing.
Diversity:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and
assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 11
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 ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure,
sexual orientation, and geographic region. 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 (770-423- 6443) and develop an
individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information
contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.
Doctorate of Education (EdD)
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the The Kennesaw
State University Doctorate of Education program of the Bagwell College of Education reflect the
unique aspects of this degree. Collaboratively developed by faculty from across the university
and in consultation with community/school partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate
the high expectations we have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly, the
proficiencies reflect the complex nature of student learning in advanced degree programs leading
to a terminal degree. Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed below incorporate aspects
of knowledge, skills and dispositions within a single proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly
linked to our conceptual framework, The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching,
Learning and Leadership.
Graduates from the Doctorate of Education Program at Kennesaw State University
1. Demonstrate leadership as advocates for students and education. Candidates
a. synthesize and apply the latest research on learning, leadership, developmental theory
advocating the implementation of best practices and assist colleagues to do the same to
ensure all students learn.
b. are knowledgeable, articulate and think critically about educational practice, policy and
issues on national and international arenas.
c. understand, respond to , and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context in matters related to education.
d. are knowledgeable about the factors contributing to safe physical environments for
education.
e. develop, articulate, implement, and steward a vision of learning supported by the
school community
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 3
of 11
2. Demonstrate leadership as agents for change, collaboration and collegiality. Candidates
a. understand the complexity of schools and the ambiguous nature of educational issues.
b. act in concert with and/or on behalf of colleagues to improve teaching and learning in
the classroom as supported by effective school, district, state level policies and
operations.
c. facilitate shared-decision making and teamwork.
d. improve teaching and learning by intentionally and systematically building networks of
influence at local, state, national and international arenas.
e. impact student learning for all and mentor other educators to do the same by effectively
working within the structures and culture of schools, families and communities.
f. support the teaching and learning process by soliciting all sources of funding and
educational resources.
3. Demonstrate leadership as mentors. Candidates
a. support and guide teachers to improve teaching and learning for all.
b. are committed to improving student learning by improving teaching and the learning
environment.
c. model routine, intentional, and effective use of technology while mentori8ng and
encouraging others to do the same.
4. Demonstrate leadership as expert teachers and instructional leaders. Candidates
a. are creative and flexible in their thinking and in seeking solutions to educational
challenges.
b. are knowledgeable of assessment, evaluation and accountability practices and critically
synthesize and utilize the data to improve student learning.
c. are master-teachers and instructional leaders possessing and demonstrating content and
pedagogical expertise who are able to make international comparisons in both areas.
d. develop and/or support appropriate, meaningful curricula that positively impact student
learning for all and assist others to do the same.
e. facilitate and support curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning
environments that integrate appropriate technologies to maximize teaching and
learning.
f. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings
to improve instructional practice and student learning.
5. Demonstrate leadership as models of professionalism. Candidates
a. effectively design and conduct educational research which positively influences
educational practice or policy.
b. exhibit ethical behavior in all professional and personal interactions.
c. respect others, value differences and are open to feedback.
d. believe that for every problem there is a solution and actualize that belief when
engaging colleagues, students, families and community partners.
e. seek out responsibility and are accountable for their actions.
f. maintain current knowledge and best practices through continued professional
development.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 11
6. Demonstrate leadership in meeting the needs of diverse constituents. Candidates
a. value and recognize the strength and power of diversity.
b. incorporate global perspectives and cultural richness in curriculum planning and
decision making.
c. address exceptionalities in planning, teaching, and assessment and respond to diverse
community interests and needs by mobilizing community resources.
d. proactively and intentionally advocate for and work to build educational environments
that are inclusive and supportive of diverse students, families and colleagues
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – aligned to Content Standards:
Candidates will support the adoption and effective use of learning technologies in education by
evaluating K-12 educational technology programs (ELCC Standard 2, NETS-A Standard I,II;
ISTE/NCATE TL Standards I, II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII).
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Assessing a variety of professional development opportunities that facilitate the ongoing
development of knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology
(ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL I)
2. Developing and assessing a variety of professional development opportunities that
facilitate the continued growth and development of the understanding of technology
operations and concepts (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL I)
3. Identifying and evaluating methods and strategies for teaching computer/technology
concepts and skills within the context of classroom learning and coordinate dissemination
of best practices at the national and international level (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL II)
4. Assessing professional development models aligning technology resources and content
standards (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL II)
5. Developing, implementing and evaluating a professional development model for assisting
teachers in the identification and application of instructional design principles associated
with the development of technology resources (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL II)
6. Developing, implementing and assessing innovative techniques, which include the use of
technology for assessing student learning (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL IV)
7. Developing, implementing and assessing innovative technology resources for assessment
and evaluation of artifacts and data (ELCC 2, 3; NETS-A V; TL IV)
8. Developing, implementing and assessing innovative technology resources to aid in
analysis and interpretation of data (ELCC 2, 3; NETS-A V; TL IV)
9. Researching and disseminating findings on the effectiveness of technology resources for
evaluating learning, communication, and productivity (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL IV)
10. Designing a research project that includes evaluating the use of several technology
resources in a p-12 environment (ELCC 2, 6; NETS-A V; TL IV)
11. Evaluating professional development activities presented at professional technology
conferences to support ongoing professional growth related to technology (ELCC 2;
NETS-A V; TL V)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 11
12. Planning, implement, and revise policies that support district-wide professional growth
opportunities for staff, faculty, and administrators (ELCC 2; NETS-A V; TL V)
13. Evaluating current information involving facilities planning issues and computer related
technologies (ELCC 3; NETS-A V; TLVII)
14. Evaluating policies and procedures concerning staging, scheduling, and security for
managing hardware, software, and related technologies in a variety of instructional and
administrative school settings. (ELCC 3, 6; NETS-A V; TL VII)
15. Conducting evaluations to determine needed modifications in technology
implementations (ELCC 2,3,6; NETS-A V; TL VIII)
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – aligned to Program Standards
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these
understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a
result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, the candidate will
demonstrate the following outcomes:
Course objective
Doctoral
KSDs
1. Assessing a variety of professional
development opportunities that facilitate
the ongoing development of knowledge,
skills, and understanding of concepts
related to technology.
2. Developing and assessing a variety of
professional development opportunities
that facilitate the continued growth and
development of the understanding of
technology operations and concepts.
3. Identifying and evaluating methods
and strategies for teaching
computer/technology concepts and skills
within the context of classroom learning
and coordinate dissemination of best
practices at the national and
international level.
5F
4. Assessing professional development
models aligning technology resources
and content standards.
5F
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Learning &
Development
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
5F
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
4b
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 6
of 11
5. Developing, implementing and
5F
evaluating a professional development
model for assisting teachers in the
identification and application of
instructional design principles associated
with the development of technology
resources.
6. Developing, implementing and
assessing innovative techniques, which
include the use of technology for
assessing student learning.
4d
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Data Analysis
Leader
7. Developing, implementing and
assessing innovative technology
resources for assessment and evaluation
of artifacts and data.
5b
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Data Analysis
Leader
8. Developing, implementing and
assessing innovative technology
resources to aid in analysis and
interpretation of data.
4B,
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Data Analysis
Leader
9. Researching and disseminating
findings on the effectiveness of
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
1a
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 7
of 11
technology resources for evaluating
learning, communication, and
productivity.
10. Designing a research project that
5a
includes evaluating the use of several
technology resources in a p-12
environment.
11. Evaluating professional development 4b, 5f
activities presented at professional
technology conferences to support
ongoing professional growth related to
technology.
12. Planning, implement, and revise
1b, 5f
policies that support district-wide
professional growth opportunities for
staff, faculty, and administrators.
13. Evaluating current information
involving facilities planning issues and
computer related technologies.
14. Evaluating policies and procedures
concerning staging, scheduling, and
security for managing hardware,
software, and related technologies in a
variety of instructional and
administrative school settings.
15. Conducting evaluations to determine
needed modifications in technology
implementations.
4e
1b, 4e
4b
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Change Leader
1.2. 1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Process
Improvement
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Operations
Leader
Operations
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.5
1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Operations
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 8
of 11
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Principles and models of educational program evaluation
2. Frameworks and tools for evaluation of K-12 educational technology programs
3. Technology and student achievement
4. Promoting and monitoring student technology literacy
5. Review of evaluation components of K-12 Technology Plans
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Candidates will participate in a series of online discussion forums and in-class activities
responding to assigned readings, recommended websites, and critical issues related to the
professional learning and instructional technology. Candidate responses should relate not
only to the question(s), but also to the comments made by classmates and/or instructor.
These responses should clearly demonstrate that candidates have read the required
articles, thoroughly examined recommended websites, and participated fully in course
assignments and exercises. Responses should be relevant to the topic and should serve to
move the discussion forward—not simply agree or disagree with what has already been
stated. Candidates should interact with classmates constructively and respectively,
allowing for everyone to participate. Candidates should follow the rules of netiquette to
be provided in class. (30 pts.)
2. Candidates will compile and submit a one-page summary of three scholarly articles on
program evaluation in K-12 settings (20 points).
3. As a culminating project, students will develop and implement an evaluation plan for a
district-level technology program or district-level technology plan (50 points).
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (30% of grade)
Evaluation summaries (20%)
Evaluation plan (50%)
A:
B:
C:
F:
92% - 100%
84%-91%
75%-83%
74% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of
investigation associated with college-level studies. Papers should be typewritten, on 8 1/2 x 11 in. paper.
Action research work submitted should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure
accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Written work should be attractive and neat -ESPECIALLY WITH MATERIALS INTENDED FOR STUDENT USE.
ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT:
The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 9
of 11
giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these
expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”
PROFESSIONALISM: CLASS ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION POLICY:
Attendance is required for each class session, and candidates are expected to be on time. Part of
your success in this class is related to your ability to provide peer reviews and feedback to your
group members regarding group projects. Furthermore, responding effectively and appropriately
to feedback from your peers and the professor is another measure of one’s professionalism. Since
each class meeting represents one week of instruction/learning, failure to attend class will impact
your performance on assignments and final exams. Class discussions, group work, and activities
require that everyone be present. There is no way to “make up” this class. Please be prepared
with all readings completed prior to class. You are expected to ask insightful and pertinent
questions.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Anderson, B. (1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership, 51 (1), 1418.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). (Eds.), How people learn: Mind, brain,
experience and school, Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
(Co-author).
ASCD. (1997 Yearbook). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Editor:
Andy Hargreaves, Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.
Bernhardt, R., Hedley, C., Cattaro, G., and Svolopoulos, V. (eds.). (1994). Curriculum
leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st century. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Caine, R., and Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD Publications.
Coppola, B. P., Stewart, I. S. (2002, August). Technologies for student-generated work in a
peer-led, peer-review instructional environment. In G. Reiss Romoli (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 2002 International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for Electronic
Business, Science, and Education on the Internet, L'Aquila, Italy.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Roschelle, J., Tatar, D. G., & Manley, M. (2002).
Collaboration design patterns: Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom.
Proceedings of WMTE 2002 (pp. 39-47).
Doll, R. Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. (9th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Glickman, C. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, J. & Tatar, D. (2004) Sociocultural analysis of online professional development: A
case study of personal, interpersonal, community, and technical aspects. In Barab,
S.A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.). Designing for virtual communities in the service
of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kozma, R. (Ed.) (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global
perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 11
McNeil, J. (1996). Curriculum,: A comprehensive introduction. (5th ed.).New York:
HarperCollins.
Pea, R.D., Gomez, L. M., Edelson, D.C., Fishman, B. J., Gordin, D. N., & O’Neill, D. K.
(1997). Science education as a driver of cyberspace technology development. In K. C.
Cohen (Ed.), Internet links for science education (pp. 189-220). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Ranney, M. & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific;
Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S.
Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior, pp.
245-274. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schank, P., Fenton, J., Schlager, M.S., & Fusco, J. (1999). From MOO to MEOW:
Domesticating technology for online communities. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999, pp. 518-526, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Schlager, M. S., & Schank, P. (1997). TAPPED IN: A new on-line community concept for
the next generation of Internet technology. In R. Hall, N. Miyake & N. Enyedy (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning, pp. 231-240. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc..
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning & memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum development.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 11