BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.D. Program
Instructional Technology - ITEC 9400
Research & Theory in Instructional Technology
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department: Instructional Technology
Department phone number:
Semester: XXXX
Credit Hours: 3
INSTRUCTOR:
TEXTS:
e-mail:
Web page:
Office Phone:
Kozma, R. (2004). Technology Innovation and Educational Change: A Global
Perspective. Eugene, OR: ISTE
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program Instructional Technology or approval of the
Educational Leadership Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
Candidates will explore landmark research findings and theoretical perspectives that have shaped
the instructional uses of technology for the last two decades. Candidates will also review current
research and explore the questions that are influencing current inquiry in the instructional
applications of technology.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Researchers consistently have determined that technology use is most effective when it is
integrated into high-quality teaching and learning practices in the classroom. Yet, research also
shows that technology use in K-12 schools often falls short of this ideal. Unfortunately, much
technology use remains infrequent, peripheral to primary learning activities in the classroom,
disconnected from state and national learning standards, and/or focused on lower-level cognitive
tasks. Through this course, leaders will develop the skills necessary to reverse these trends.
Candidates will also strengthen their ability to construct a conceptual framework for their own
research in instructional technology.
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 improve their ability (1) to apply current research to improve instructional
technology practice in their own schools/districts, and (2) to conceptualize and conduct research
that will help explain how technology can improve teaching and learning in K-12 schools.
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Model strategies reflecting current research on teaching and learning with technology
when planning learning environments and experiences (TF II)
2. Summarize major research findings and trends related to the use of technology in
education to support integration throughout the curriculum (TF III)
3. Summarize and disseminate major research findings and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support integration throughout the curriculum (TF III)
4. Use examples of emerging programming, authoring or problem solving environments
that support personal/professional development (TF V)
5. Research specifications for purchasing technology systems (TF VIII)
6. Locate and disseminate current research in educational technology (TF VIII)
7. Develop and implement activities that focus on the history of technology use in schools
(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. Model strategies reflecting current
research on teaching and learning with
1a, 4e
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Learning &
Development
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.2, 1.5
Page 5
of 11
technology when planning learning
environments and experiences
2. Summarize major research findings
and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support
integration throughout the curriculum
Leader
1a
3. Summarize and disseminate major
research findings and trends related to
the use of technology in education to
support integration throughout the
curriculum
1a
4. Use examples of emerging
programming, authoring or problem
solving environments that support
personal/professional development
5. Research specifications for
purchasing technology systems
6. Locate and disseminate current
research in educational technology
3c, 5f
7. Develop and implement activities that
focus on the history of technology use in
schools
1b
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment,
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment,
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5
4e
Operations
1.2, 1.5
1a
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Theoretical traditions in curriculum, instruction, and technology research
2. Examples of research methodologies common to curriculum, instruction, and technology
research
3. Research topics in curriculum, instruction, and technology research in K-12 settings
4. Current issues in curriculum, instruction, and technology research.
5. Technologies for facilitating the research process and the productivity of the researcher
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 6
of 11
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 submit one-page summaries and reflections on a minimum of 2 books
and 10 articles. Selected publications should be focused on theories and/or research in
educational technology. Reflections should center on how this source is relevant to their
own doctoral research project. Summaries will be accompanied by an annotated
bibliography suitable for posting on a public web site. Reviewed articles and books
should be current (within the last two-five years) unless it has significant historical merit
to a particular topic.
3. Candidates will submit a three-five page paper identifying a critical question suitable to
guide future research/development in the field of educational technology. The paper
should also build a rationale of why this research would add to the theoretical knowledge
in the field and how the results might serve to improve operations or practice in K-12
schools.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (40% of grade)
Summaries of Books/Articles (20% of grade)
Critical Question/Rationale Paper (20% 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.”
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 7
of 11
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:
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., Mehan, H. (1998). Education reform implementation: A coconstructed
process. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Dede, C. (2001). State policy framework for assessing educational technology implementation.
Co-sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Benton Foundation, the Council of
Chief
State School Officers, and NEIR*TEC. http://www.neirtec.org/statepolicy/forum1/
Dickard, N. (2003). Edtech 2002: Budget Challenges, Policy Shifts and Digital Opportunities. In
N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge: Taking edtech to the next level. Washington,
D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
Dickard, N., Honey, M., & Wilhem, A. (2003). Introduction: The challenge of taking edtech to
the next level. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge: Taking edtech to the next
level. Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
EdWeek (2003, May 8). Tech Counts Special Issue. http://www.edweek.com
EdWeek (2001). Tech Counts Special Issue. http://www.edweek.com
EnGauge: A framework for planning and evaluating the systemwide use of educational
technology (2000). Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory,
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/
Fatemi, E. (1999, Sept.). Building the digital curriculum. Ed Week, Tech Counts Special Issue.
http://www.edweek.com
Fitzgerald, S. (2003). Back to the Future: Total cost of ownership and other edtech sustainability
models. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge: Taking edtech to the next level.
Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
Georgia’s Statewide Study of Technology Use. (2002). Study conducted by the Georgia
Department of Education and the National Business in Education Alliance.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1999, May). The evolution of the digital divide: Examining the
relationship of race to internet access and usage over time. Working paper [Online].
Available: http://www.2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/digital.divide.html.
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility,
and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 12(5), 301-333.
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Norakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using
technology. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 8
of 11
Keane, J., Gersick, A. Kim, C. and Honey, M. (2003). Toward a sustainability framework:
Lessons from the literature and the field. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge:
Taking edtech to the next level. Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives,
handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Lemke, C. (2000). 21st Century Skills. In EnGauge: A framework for planning and evaluating the
systemwide use of educational technology. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm .
Lemke, C. & Coughlin, E (1998). Technology in America’s schools: Seven dimensions for
gauging progress. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=158 .
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., Kottkamp, R. (1999). The West Virginia Story:
Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program.
Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=155
Market Data Retrieval. (2002). “Technology in Education Survey.” As published in EdWeek’s
Tech Counts Issue, May 8, 2003. http://www.edweek.com
Moersch, C. (2001). Using LoTI as a research tool. Leading and Learning with Technology,
29(3), pp. 22-27. http://www.learning-quest.com/publicationsandresearch.html
National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. (1999). Recommendations regarding
research priorities: An advisory report (Reports-Evaluative PPB-1999-6307). Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000. As
published in EdWeek’s Tech Counts Issue, May 8, 2003. http://www.edweek.com .
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools and
classrooms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002018
National Education Technology Plan: Getting America’s students ready for the 21st Century,
(1996). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.airdc.
org/forum/goals.htm
National Leadership Institute Toolkit. (2003). Arlington, VA: State Education Technology
Directors’ Association. http://www.setda.org/nli2002/CD/index.htm
NETS Project, (2000). National educational technology standards for students—Connecting
curriculum and technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-150-2] www.iste.org
NETS Project, (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers—Preparing
teachers to use technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-173-1] www.iste.org
NETS Project, (2000). National educational technology standards for students—Connecting
curriculum and technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-150-2]
Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1993, April) Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational
Leadership, 50, 8.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 9
of 11
educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Wisconsin
Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.
Porter, B. (2002). Grappling with accountability 2002: MAPPing tools for organizing and
assessing technology for student results. Sedalia, CO: Educational Technology Planners,
Inc.http://www.bjpconsulting.com/
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth, and
impact on America's schools: Teaching, learning, and computing 1998 survey, report # 5.
Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information, Technology, and Organizations at
University of California, Irvine and the University of Minnesota.
http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/ .
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of Schools:
A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.html
Slavin, R.E. (1995) Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed).
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R.E. (1996, March/April) Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools.
Clearing House, 69, 469.
Slavin, R.E. (1999, Spring) Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into
practice, 38, 74.
Slavin, R.E. (2002, February) Mounting evidence supports the achievement effects of success
for all. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 469.
Slavin, R.E., Sharan, S., Lazarowitz, R., Webb, C., and Schmuck, R. (1985) Learning to
cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.
Survey of state departments of education (2003). As published in EdWeek’s Tech Counts Issue,
May 8, 2003. http://www.edweek.com
Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, (2001). Technology standards
for school administrators. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1999). Chart A-8: Percent of U. S. households with computers by income, 1984-1998
(Selected years). In Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C.
Available online: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide [Online]. Available:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). Home computers and Internet use in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., and Raack, L. (2000).
Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Naperville, IL:
North Central Educational Laboratory.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002, February). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
Williams, C. (2000). Statistics in brief: Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms,
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 11
1994-1999. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 11