BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.S./Ed.D. Program
Instructional Technology – ITEC 8440
Technology and Student Assessment
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:
Banta, T. W. (2004). Hallmarks of effective outcomes assessment: Assessment update collections.
Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0787972886.
Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning. Anker Publishing. ISBN: 1882982711
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Instructional Technology or approval of the
Instructional Technology Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
EDL XXX Advanced Study of Learning
This course emphasizes the use of technology in assessing student learning using a variety of
assessment techniques in the classroom. Technology will be used to collect and analyze data,
interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize
student learning. In addition, candidates will evaluate the appropriate use of technology for
teaching and learning.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Technology has great potential for improving student assessment techniques and frequency.
However, these practices are not widely adopted. Therefore, this course is designed to help
candidates facilitate the use of technology for assessing student learning, managing student
achievement data, and promoting informed instructional decision-making.
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
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 12
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.
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
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 12
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.
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 12
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 12
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 be able to evaluate the impact of technology on learning and to promote the use
of technology to assess student learning, to manage student achievement data, and to inform
instructional decision-making. (ISTE/NCATE TF Standards I, II, IV, VI, V, VI, VII, and VIII).
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Conducting needs assessment to determine baseline data on teachers’ knowledge, skills,
and understanding of concepts related to technology (TF I)
2. Modeling a variety of strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced
environment and support the teachers as they implement the strategies (TFII)
3. Analyze methods and facilitate the use of strategies to assess student learning of subject
matter using a variety of assessment techniques (TF IV)
4. Analyzing methods and facilitate the use of strategies to improve learning and instruction
through the evaluation and assessment of artifacts and data (TF IV)
5. Examining the validity and reliability of technology resources to collect and analyze data,
interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and
maximize student learning (TF IV)
6. Recommending evaluation strategies for improving students' use of technology resources
for learning, communication, and productivity (TF IV)
7. Analyzing data from a research project that includes evaluating the use of a specific
technology in a P-12 environment (TF IV)
8. Continually evaluating professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the
use of technology in support of student learning and disseminate findings to district
administrators (TF V)
9. Modeling the integration of advanced features of word processing, desktop publishing,
graphics programs, and utilities to demonstrate professional products (TF V)
10. Using a variety of distance learning systems to support personal/professional
development (TF V)
11. Modeling the use of appropriate tools for communicating concepts, conducting research,
and solving problems for an intended audience and purpose (TF V)
12. Communicating with colleagues and apply current research to support instruction, using
applications including electronic mail, online conferencing and web browsers (TF V)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 12
13. Investigating and disseminating online collaborative curricular projects and team
activities to build bodies of knowledge around specific topics (TF V)
14. Designing, maintaining, and facilitating the development of Web pages and sites that
support communication between teachers, school, and community (TF V)
15. Conducting research to determine effective strategies for achieving equitable access to
technology resources for all students and teachers (TF VI)
16. Analyzing software used in classroom and administrative settings including productivity
tools, information access /telecommunication tools, multimedia/hypermedia tools, school
management tools, evaluation/portfolio tools, and computer-based instruction (TF VII)
17. Creating an evaluation instrument to use to conduct an evaluation of a school technology
environment (TF-VIII)
18. Examining the impact of national, state, and local standards for integrating technology in
the school environment.
19. Use distance and online learning facilities routinely (TF VIII)
20. Examining the impact of curriculum activities or performances that meet national, state,
and local technology standards (TF 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. Conducting needs assessment to
5f
determine baseline data on teachers’
knowledge, skills, and understanding of
concepts related to technology
2. Modeling a variety of strategies to
5e
manage student learning in a
technology-enhanced environment and
support the teachers as they implement
the strategies
3. Analyze methods and facilitate the
4b
use of strategies to assess student
learning of subject matter using a variety
of assessment techniques
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Learning &
Development
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5
Learning &
Development
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 6
of 12
4. Analyzing methods and facilitate the
use of strategies to improve learning and
instruction through the evaluation and
assessment of artifacts and data
5. Examining the validity and reliability
of technology resources to collect and
analyze data, interpret results, and
communicate findings to improve
instructional practice and maximize
student learning
6. Recommending evaluation strategies
for improving students' use of
technology resources for learning,
communication, and productivity
7. Analyzing data from a research
project that includes evaluating the use
of a specific technology in a P-12
environment
4b
5f
4b
5a
8. Continually evaluating professional
practice to make informed decisions
regarding the use of technology in
support of student learning and
disseminate findings to district
administrators
4b
9. Modeling the integration of advanced
features of word processing, desktop
publishing, graphics programs, and
utilities to demonstrate professional
products
10. Using a variety of distance learning
systems to support personal/professional
3c
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
5f
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Learning &
Development
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
Data Analysis
Learning &
Development
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
1.8
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
Page 7
of 12
development
11. Modeling the use of appropriate
tools for communicating concepts,
conducting research, and solving
problems for an intended audience and
purpose
12. Communicating with colleagues and
apply current research to support
instruction, using applications including
electronic mail, online conferencing and
web browsers
13. Investigating and disseminating
online collaborative curricular projects
and team activities to build bodies of
knowledge around specific topics
14. Designing, maintaining, and
facilitating the development of Web
pages and sites that support
communication between teachers,
school, and community
15. Conducting research to determine
effective strategies for achieving
equitable access to technology resources
for all students and teachers
16. Analyzing software used in
classroom and administrative settings
including productivity tools, information
access /telecommunication tools,
multimedia/hypermedia tools, school
management tools, evaluation/portfolio
tools, and computer-based instruction
17. Creating an evaluation instrument to
use to conduct an evaluation of a school
technology environment
3c
1.2, 1.5
2b, 3c
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
2a, 5f
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
2b
Relationship
Development
Leader
1.6
5a
Operations
Leader
1.5
5e
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
4b
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
18. Examining the impact of national,
state, and local standards for integrating
technology in the school environment
1c, 4b
19. Use distance and online learning
facilities routinely
3c
20. Examining the impact of curriculum
3c, 4b
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Operations
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 8
of 12
activities or performances that meet
national, state, and local technology
standards
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
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. Technology-assisted evaluation in the classroom
1. Online Assessment Systems
2. Student Response Systems
3. Adaptive testing
4. Portfolio Assessment
6. Online “high-stakes” testing
7. Student information systems/Data management
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 compile and submit a one page summary of three scholarly articles on the
effective assessment of student learning.
3. Candidates document or construct one case study of how technology could be used to
improve student assessment in the classroom.
4. Candidates will document or construct one case study of how teachers use or could use
“high-stakes” testing results in their classrooms to inform instruction.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (30% of grade)
Effective assessment articles (20% of grade)
Case study of classroom assessment (25% of grade)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 9
of 12
Case study of “high-stakes” testing data (25% of grade)
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.”
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:
Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college
teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Applebee A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (1990). The writing report card 1984-1988:
Findings from the nation's report card. Princeton NJ: National Assessment of Educational
Progress.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing
abilities (pp. 11-18). London: Macmillan.
Chinn, C. A. & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning.
Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
Collins, A. (1992) Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity.
Science Education, 76(4): 451-463.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 12
Derry, S. J., Gance, S., Gance, L. L. & Schlager, M. (2000). Toward assessment of knowledgebuilding practices in technology-mediated work group interactions. In S. P. Lajoie, (Ed),
Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. II. (pp. 29-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215251.
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henderson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Firz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987). How to measure attitudes.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language,
inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Operationalizing mental models: Strategies for assessing mental models
to support meaningful learning and design-supportive learning environments. Proceedings
of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knight, M. E. (1994). Portfolio assessment: Application of portfolio analysis. London:
University Press of America.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhs, T.M. (1994) Portfolio assessment: Making it work for the first time. The Mathematics
Teacher, 87(5): 332-335.
Linn, R. L. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Merrill.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how?. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(3).
Moskal, B. M. & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10).
Nystrand, M., Cohen, A. S. & Dowling, N. M. (1993). Addressing reliability problems in the
portfolio assessment of college writing. Educational Assessment, 1(1): 53-70.
Roberts, L., Wilson, M. & Draney, K. (1997). The SEPUP assessment system: An overview.
BEAR Report Series SA-91-1. Berkeley CA: University of California.
Siegel, M. A. (2000). Changes in student decisions with Convince Me: Using evidence and
making tradeoffs. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty First
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 671-676. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slater, T.F. (1997). The effectiveness of portfolio assessments in science. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 26(5), 315-318.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 12
Slater, T. F. & Astwood, P. M. (1996). Strategies for grading and using student assessment
portfolios. Journal of Geoscience Education, 43(3), 216-220.
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435-502.
White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 12
of 12