BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.S./Ed.D. Program
Instructional Technology-ITEC 8410
Theories and Applications of Instructional Design
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department: Instructional Technology
Department phone number:
Semester: XXXX
Credit Hours: 3
INSTRUCTOR:
e-mail:
Web page:
Office Phone:
TEXTS:
Clark, R. (2003). Building expertise (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for the
Performance Improvement. ISBN: 1-890289-13-2.
Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Instructional Technology or approval of the
Educational Leadership Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
EDL XXX Advanced Study of Learning
This course is designed to prepare candidates to apply theories, research and best practices to the
facilitation of instructional programs that integrate 21st century skills and promote relevant,
authentic, and meaningful learning for all students. This course prepares candidates to design,
evaluate and promote appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced
instructional strategies to maximize student learning.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Research has indicated that technology adoption and effective use is often embedded in complex
instructional change. Technology facilitators need to be well-versed in promoting best practices
in curriculum & instruction. They also need to help teachers choose and adapt tools for their own
purposes. Through this course, technology facilitators will develop the skills necessary to work
as instructional coaches to help teachers improve their practice.
KSU CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 13
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
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 13
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
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 3
of 13
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
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 13
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.
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
promoting the effective use of technology to support research-based, standards-based instruction.
(TF Standards II, III, V, VI, and VIII).
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Researching and disseminating project-based instructional units modeling appropriate
uses of technology to support learning (TF II)
2. 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 district/state/regional level (TF II)
3. Staying abreast of current technology resources and strategies to support the diverse
needs of learners including adaptive and assistive technologies and disseminate
information to teachers (TF II)
4. Locating and evaluating current research on teaching and learning with technology when
planning learning environments and experiences (TF II)
5. Identify technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability based on the
content standards (TF II)
6. Identifying and evaluating options for the management of technology resources within
the context of learning activities (TF II)
7. Continually evaluating a variety of strategies to manage student learning in a technologyenhanced environment and disseminate through professional development activities.
8. Identifying and evaluating instructional design principles associated with the
development of technology resources (TF II)
9. Designing methods and strategies for teaching concepts and skills that support integration
of all state and national content and technology standards in orders to promote the
academic achievement and technology literacy of all students (TF II)
10. Disseminating curricular methods and strategies that are aligned with district/region/state
/national content and technology standards (TF III)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 13
11. Investigate major research findings and trends related to the use of technology in
education to support integration throughout the curriculum (TF III)
12. Facilitating the development of a variety of techniques to use technology to assess
student learning of subject matter (TF IV)
13. Providing technology resources for assessment and evaluation of artifacts and data (TF
IV)
14. Documenting and assessing field-based experiences and observations using specificpurpose electronic devices (TF V)
15. Applying instructional design principles to develop and analyze substantive interactive
multimedia computer-based instructional products (TF V)
16. Designing and practicing strategies for testing functions and evaluating technology use
effectiveness of instructional products that were developed using multiple technology
tools (TF V)
17. Organizing, coordinating, and participating in an online learning community related to
the use of technology to support learning (TF V)
18. Communicating research on best practices related to applying appropriate technology
resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and
abilities (TF VI)
19. Communicating and applying principles and practices of educational research in
educational technology (TF VIII)
20. Describing social and historical foundations of education and how they relate to the use
of technology in schools (TF VIII)
21. Discussing issues relating to building collaborations, alliances, and partnerships
involving educational technology initiatives (TF VIII)
22. Designing and leading in the implementation of an effective group process related to
technology leadership or planning (TF VIII)
23. Using evaluation findings to recommend modifications in technology implementations.
24. Using national, state, and local standards to develop curriculum plans for integrating
technology in the school environment (TF VIII)
25. Comparing and evaluating the instructional vision in district-level technology plans (TF
VIII)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 6
of 13
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. Researching and disseminating
1a, 5e
project-based instructional units
modeling appropriate uses of technology
to support learning
2. 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 district/state/regional
level
4e
3. Staying abreast of current technology
resources and strategies to support the
diverse needs of learners including
adaptive and assistive technologies and
disseminate information to teachers
4. Locating and evaluating current
research on teaching and learning with
technology when planning learning
environments and experiences
5f
5. Identify technology resources and
evaluate them for accuracy and
suitability based on the content
standards
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
1a
4b
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.2, 1.5,1.8
Page 7
of 13
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
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
10. Disseminating curricular methods
1a, 3a
and strategies that are aligned with
district/region/state /national content and
technology standards
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5,1.8
11. Investigate major research findings
and trends related to the use of
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
6. Identifying and evaluating options for 4e
the management of technology resources
within the context of learning activities
7. Continually evaluating a variety of
strategies to manage student learning in
a technology-enhanced environment and
disseminate through professional
development activities
4e
8. Identifying and evaluating
4e
instructional design principles associated
with the development of technology
resources
9. Designing methods and strategies for
teaching concepts and skills that support
integration of all state and national
content and technology standards in
orders to promote the academic
achievement and technology literacy of
all students
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
1c, 4b
1a, 4e
1.2, 1.5,1.8
Page 8
of 13
technology in education to support
integration throughout the curriculum
12. Facilitating the development of a
variety of techniques to use technology
to assess student learning of subject
matter
13. Providing technology resources for
assessment and evaluation of artifacts
and data
14. Documenting and assessing fieldbased experiences and observations
using specific-purpose electronic
devices
15. Applying instructional design
principles to develop and analyze
substantive interactive multimedia
computer-based instructional products
16. Designing and practicing strategies
for testing functions and evaluating
technology use effectiveness of
instructional products that were
developed using multiple technology
tools
17. Organizing, coordinating, and
participating in an online learning
community related to the use of
technology to support learning
18. Communicating research on best
practices related to applying appropriate
technology resources to enable and
empower learners with diverse
backgrounds, characteristics, and
abilities
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Assessment
Leader
3a, e
4b
4f
4d
4b
Learning
Development
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.2, 1.5
2a, 2b, 2c,
2d, 2e
Learning
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1a
Learning
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Page 9
of 13
19. Communicating and applying
principles and practices of educational
research in educational technology
20. Describing social and historical
foundations of education and how they
relate to the use of technology in schools
21. Discussing issues relating to
building collaborations, alliances, and
partnerships involving educational
technology initiatives
22. Designing and leading in the
implementation of an effective group
process related to technology leadership
or planning
23. Using evaluation findings to
recommend modifications in technology
implementations
24. Using national, state, and local
standards to develop curriculum plans
for integrating technology in the school
environment
25. Comparing and evaluating the
instructional vision in district-level
technology plans
1a, 5a
Learning
Development
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Relationship
Leader
1.2, 1.5
2b, 2c
Relationship
Development
Leader
1.6
4b, 4e
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1c
2a, 2b, 2c,
2d, 2e
1b, 4b
4e
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.6
1.2, 1.5,1.8
1.5
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Principles of backward design
2. The role of content and technology standards in instruction
3. Technology and the Constructivist classroom
4. Levels of technology implementation
5. Matching technology tools to learning goals
6. Models of best practice
7. Processes for instructional design and technology integration
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 13
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.
2. Candidates will review and compare popular models of backward design and technology
integration. They will weigh strengths and weakness of each model and collaboratively
construct a common framework for responding to designing units of study.
3. Candidates will create a unit of instruction which can serve as a model of curricular
design, instructional practice, and technology integration. Students will make this model
available to the class.
4. Students will engage in providing constructive feedback on designed units of study to
their peers.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (30% of grade)
Response to Backward Design models (10% of grade)
Professional Development Design Project (40% of grade)
Constructive response to peers (20%)
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
giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these
expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 13
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:
Brown, P. (1998). Shaping the evaluator’s role in a theory of change evaluation, in A. FulbrightAnderson, A. C. Kubisch and J. P. Connell (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating
Community Initiatives: Theory, Measurement and Analysis, pp. 101-111. Washington,
DC: Aspen Institute.
Bullock, C. (2000). Evaluating instructional technology implementation in higher education
environment. American Journal of Evaluation. 21(3).
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donaldson, S. I. & Gooler, L. (2003). Theory-driven evaluation in action: Lessons from a $20
million statewide work and health initiative. Evaluation and Program Planning. 26(4).
Henwood, F. (2000). From the woman question in technology to the technology question in
feminism: Rethinking gender equality in IT education. European Journal of Women’s
Studies. 7(2).
Hillier, J. & Gunder, M. (2003) Planning Fantasies? An explorations of a potential lacanian
framework for understanding development assessment planning. Planning Theor. 2 (3).
Innes, J. (2004) Consensus building: Clarification for the critics. Planning Theory.3 (1).
Kellow, T. (1998). Beyond statistical significant tests: the importance of using other estimates of
treatment effects to interprest results evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation. 19(1).
Ornstein, A., and Behar, L. (eds.). (1995). Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Mackenzie, M. & Blamey, A. (2005). The practice and the theory. Lessons from the application
of a theories of change approach. Evaluation. 11 (2).
McLaughline, J. & Jorndon, G. (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your programs
performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning. 22 (1).
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 12
of 13
Menzies, T., Boetticher, G. (2002) Smarter software engineering: Practical data mining
approaches. Sew,0(1).
Ornstein, A., and Behar, L. (eds.). (1995). Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., and Taubman, P. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An
introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New
York: Peter Lang.
Robertson, J. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity. Journal of Teacher Education. 54(4).
Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation. 6(4).
Weiss, C. H. (1996). Excerpts from evaluation research: Methods of assessing program
effectiveness. Evaluation Practice 17(2).
Weitzman, B. C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K.-N. (2002). Integrating a comparison group design
into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the Urban Health Initiative. American
Journal of Evaluation..23(4).
Weston, T. (2004). Formative evaluation for implementation: Evaluating educational technology
applications and lessons. American Journal of Evaluation. 25(1).
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 13
of 13