KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDL 7205/Master of Education in Educational Leadership
Department
Educational Leadership
Degree Title (if applicable)
Master of Education
Proposed Effective Date
August 1, 2008
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate Studies
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
1
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number _EDL 7205______________________
Course Title ____ Leading Teaching & Learning in the 21st Century________
Credit Hours
3
Prerequisites
Admission to M.Ed. Program or Permission of Instructor
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course will focus primarily on the BOR performance strands of “curriculum,”
“instruction,” and “assessment,” and PSC Standards for “school culture, instructional
program, best practices, professional growth plans.” In this course, future educational
leaders will apply current research and instructional design principles to design a 21st
century learning experiences for students. Educational leaders must be able to promote
and support learning environments that best prepare students for life and work in the 21st
Century. The ultimate goal of this course is to prepare educational leaders to understand
the needs of 21st Century learner, review teaching practices and tools best suited to
meeting the needs of 21st Century learners, and facilitate the design and delivery of 21st
Century instruction. In this course, future educational leaders will learn to engage
teachers in cooperative work to design, monitor and revise instruction to improve student
achievement; lead others in research-based learning strategies and processes; promote the
use of technology to support student mastery of Georgia performance standards; and to
design and implement assessments for student learning.
III.
Justification
In an era when the needs of students are rapidly changing, schools are not providing 21st
century learners with the types of environments that parallel the connectivity and social
interaction patterns that they are accustomed to outside of school. This disparity
threatens to further alienate youth and encourage the already-growing student perceptions
that schools are outdated and irrelevant to their interests and goals. In a similar vein,
current instructional practices and academic curricula are not producing students who
have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for twenty-first century work and
citizenship. While students may be skilled in using technology to pursue their own social
and entertainment purposes outside of school, they are still unprepared to use technology
to pursue post-secondary studies, daily work in various professional and technical fields,
life-long learning, and civic engagement. Moreover, many principals and assistant
2
principals are failing to fulfill their role as “lead teacher” in modeling appropriate
instructional skills for their faculty (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hess, 2005), which is both
an effective and appropriate responsibility of an administrative position in a school.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: To be determined.
Text(s):
Roblyer, M.D. (2004). Integrating Technology into Teaching, (4th ed) ,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding By Design (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Required Readings:
21st Century learner articles as assigned by instructor
Objectives:
As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the candidate will be
able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Integrate curricula to make connections within and across subject areas.
Engage teachers in cooperative planning for curriculum implementation to ensure.
agreement on core content and required student performances.
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of a standards-based curriculum.
Engage teachers in cooperative work to design, monitor, and revise instruction to ensure
that students achieve proficiency on state curriculum standards and system expectations
for learning.
Lead others in the use of research-based learning strategies and processes.
Use techniques such as observation protocols to document that teachers use:
 Student work that reflects achievement of the state curriculum standards.
 Differentiated instruction to accommodate student learning styles, special needs
and cultural backgrounds.
 Strategies to elicit higher-order thinking skills and processes, including critical
thinking, creative thinking, and self-regulation.
 Flexible grouping based on diagnosis and formative assessment.
 Innovative strategies to address individual learning needs.
Promotes the use of technology to support mastery of Georgia performance standards.
Lead others in a collaborative process to set high expectations for all learners
Lead others in a collaborative process to set and use benchmarks and rubrics to generate
student efficacy and responsibility.
Use protocols to engage teachers in collaboration to determine desired results and to
design assessment practices which are consistent, balanced and authentic.
3
11.
Promote the use of formative assessment to provide effective and timely feedback on
achievement of curriculum standards.
Engage teachers in the use of formative assessment to provide effective and timely
feedback on achievement of curriculum standards.
12.
Instructional Method:
Course activities will include, but are not limited to:
1.
Lecture
4.
Class and group discussions
2.
Student research projects
5.
Reading assignments
3.
Class exercises
6.
Presentations
4.
Field Experiences
V. Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
* The resources and funding of this course are figured in as part of the budget of the
entire Master of Education Program.
4
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
Educational Leadership
COURSE NUMBER
EDL 7205
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
Leading Teaching & Learning in the 21st Century
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
3__________________________________
Approval, Effective Term
August 1, 2008.
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
Regular
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
N.A.
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
N.A.
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
5
VII Attach Syllabus
EDL 7205 Leading Teaching & Learning in the 21st Century
Department of Educational Leadership
Kennesaw State University
__________ Semester, 200__
Instructor: (Name)………
(Title)……….
(Address)……….
(Phone)……….
FAX: (770) 423-6910
(E-mail)……….
Class Session: (Day and Time)………..
(Place)……….
Text(s):
Roblyer, M.D. (2004). Integrating Technology into Teaching, (4th ed) ,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding By Design (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Required Readings:
21st Century learner and technology and learning research articles as assigned by
instructor
Referenced Journals:
AACE Journal (AACEJ), http://www.aace.org/pubs/aacej/
Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education (CITE), http://www.aace.org/pubs/cite/default.htm
Information Technology in Childhood Education (ITCE) Annual, http://www.aace.org/pubs/itce/
International Journal on E-Learning (IJEL) http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel/default.htm
Journal of Educational Technology and Society http://www.ifets.info
Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE), http://www.iste.org (choose publications)
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education (JCTE), http://www.iste.org (choose publications, SIG publications)
Journal of Technology Education (JTE), http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE
Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCETJ), http://rcetj.org/
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (JEMH) http://www.aace.org/pubs/jemh/default.htm
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE) http://www.aace.org/pubs/jtate/default.htm
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching (JCMST), http://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst/default.htm
Journal of Interactive Learning Research (JILR) http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/default.htm
6
Catalog Description:
Prerequisite: Admission to the M.Ed. Program in Educational Leadership
This course will focus primarily on the BOR performance strands of “curriculum,”
“instruction,” and “assessment,” and PSC Standards for “school culture, instructional
program, best practices, professional growth plans.” In this course, future educational
leaders will apply current research and instructional design principles to design a 21st
century learning experiences for students. Educational leaders must be able to promote
and support learning environments that best prepare students for life and work in the 21st
Century. The ultimate goal of this course is to prepare educational leaders to understand
the needs of 21st Century learner, review teaching practices and tools best suited to
meeting the needs of 21st Century learners, and facilitate the design and delivery of 21st
Century instruction. In this course, future educational leaders will learn to engage
teachers in cooperative work to design, monitor and revise instruction to improve student
achievement; lead others in research-based learning strategies and processes; promote the
use of technology to support student mastery of Georgia performance standards; and to
design and implement assessments for student learning.
Purpose/Rationale:
In an era when the needs of students are rapidly changing, schools are not providing 21st
century learners with the types of environments that parallel the connectivity and social
interaction patterns that they are accustomed to outside of school. This disparity
threatens to further alienate youth and encourage the already-growing student perceptions
that schools are outdated and irrelevant to their interests and goals. In a similar vein,
current instructional practices and academic curricula are not producing students who
have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for twenty-first century work and
citizenship. While students may be skilled in using technology to pursue their own social
and entertainment purposes outside of school, they are still unprepared to use technology
to pursue post-secondary studies, daily work in various professional and technical fields,
life-long learning, and civic engagement.
7
Conceptual Framework:
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTISE IN
TEACHING, LEARNING and LEADERSHIP
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 are 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.
Use of Technology
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher
preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning
and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided
with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching.
They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel
confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic
learning portfolio.
Diversity Statement
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding
of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within
multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic
region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An
emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as
disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic
program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
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.
8
Statement for Field-based Activities
While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved
in a variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and
learning. Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at
professional conferences, actively serving on or chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school
board meetings, leading or presenting professional development activities at the school or district level,
and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your educational experiences,
you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.
Professional Portfolio:
A required element in each portfolio for the Graduate Program is the portfolio narrative. The purpose of
the portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI
with regard to what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need
to include a narrative that includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you reflect on
each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence you have selected in your portfolio
supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative should be
comprehensive, documenting research-based best practices.
Course Objectives:
As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will be
able to:
Course Objective
Course Contents
1.
Integrate
curricula to
make
connections
within and
across subject
areas
Models to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration; Technology
and the Disciplines
2.
Engage teachers
in cooperative
planning for
curriculum
implementation
to ensure
agreement on
core content and
required student
performances.
Monitor and
evaluate the
implementation
of a standardsbased
curriculum
Engage teachers
in cooperative
work to design,
monitor, and
revise
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment;
Technology in the
Disciplines
EL Project:
EL Video
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models to
Support and Evaluate
Technology Integration
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models to
Support and Evaluate
Technology Integration
3.
4.
Course
Activity/
Assignment
EL project;
Core Content
Report
Assessme
nt.
BOR
PSC/
ELCC
NETS
-A
TF
EL Project
Rubric;
Instructor
and Peer
Review of
Content
Report,
Rubric
EL Project
Rubric
1b
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II
TF
II, III
1d
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II
TF II
Tech
Integration
Analysis
Instructor
and Peer
Review of
Project,
Rubric
1e
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II
TF
III
EL Project
EL Project
Rubric
2a
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II
TF II
9
5.
6.





7.
instruction to
ensure that
students achieve
proficiency on
state curriculum
standards and
system
expectations for
learning.
Lead others in
the use of
research-based
learning
strategies and
processes
Use techniques
such as
observation
protocols to
document that
teachers use:
Student work
that reflects
achievement of
the state
curriculum
standards
Differentiated
instruction to
accommodate
student learning
styles, special
needs and
cultural
backgrounds.
Strategies to
elicit higherorder thinking
skills and
processes,
including critical
thinking,
creative
thinking, and
self-regulation.
Flexible
grouping based
on diagnosis and
formative
assessment
Innovative
strategies to
address
individual
learning needs.
Promotes the use
of technology to
support mastery
of Georgia
performance
standards.
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration;
Technology and the
Individual Learner;
Technology and
Assessment
EL Project :
EL Video
EL Project
Rubric
2b
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II, IV
TF
II,
III,
IV
EL Project
EL Project
Rubric
2c
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II, IV
TF
III,
IV
Models to Support
and Evaluate
Technology
Integration;
Technology and the
Individual Learner;
Technology and
EL Project;
Tech
Integration
Analysis;
Core Content
Report;
Special
EL Project
Rubric;
Instructor
and Peer
Review of
Projects w/
Rubric
2d
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II, IV
TF
II,
III,
IV
10
8.
Lead others in a
collaborative
process to set
high
expectations for
all learners
9. Lead others in a
collaborative
process to set
and use
benchmarks and
rubrics to
generate student
efficacy and
responsibility.
10. Use protocols to
engage teachers
in collaboration
to determine
desired results
and to design
assessment
practices which
are consistent,
balanced and
authentic.
11. Promote the use
of a variety of
effective and
balanced
assessment
techniques to
control for bias.
12. Engage teachers
in the use of
formative
assessment to
provide effective
and timely
feedback on
achievement of
curriculum
standards.
Assessment; Internet
and Instruction;
Instructional
Software;
Technology and the
Disciplines
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration
Topics
Report; EL
Video
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration;
Technology and
Assessment
EL Project
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration;
Technology and
Assessment
21st Century
Curriculum and
Assessment; Models
to Support and
Evaluate Technology
Integration;
Technology and
Assessment
EL Project
EL Project
EL Project
EL Project
Rubric
2e
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
II, IV
TF
II,
III,
IV,
VIII
EL Project
EL Project
Rubric
2f
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
IV
TF
IV
3b
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
IV
TF
IV
EL Project
Rubric
3d
1b, c;
2b, c
NETS
IV
TF
IV
EL Project
Rubric
3e
1b, c;
2b, c
EL Project
Rubric
TF
III,
IV
11
Course Outline:
I. Influences on 21st Century Curriculum:
A. Theory and Research on Effective Instruction
B. Brain-based Instructional Strategies
C. Needs, interests, and beyond-school media habits of 21st century learners
D. Needs of 21st century business and citizenship
II. 21st Century Curriculum and Assessment:
A. Performance Standards
B. Performance Assessments
C. The National Education Standards for Students
III. Models to Support and Evaluate Technology Integration in Schools:
A. Meaningful Learning with Technology
B. North Central Educational Laboratories Engaged Learning Framework
C. Level of Technology Implementation Framework
IV. Technology and the Individual Learner:
A. Differentiated Instruction and Technology
B. Assistive Technology and Special Education
V. The Internet and Instruction:
A. Judi Harris’ Activity Structures
B. Evaluating WebQuests
C. Online Learning/Distance Learning/K-12 Virtual Schools
D. Selecting and Finding Online Projects
E. Web 2.0 Technologies (Blogs, Wikis, and Podcasts)
VI. Instructional Software:
A. Types of Instructional Software
B. Evaluating Instructional Software
VII.
Technology and Assessment:
A. Computer-based Testing
B. Hand-held Student Response Systems
C. e-Portfolios
D. Rubric Generators
12
VIII.
Technology in the Disciplines
A. Technology and English/Language Arts
B. Technology and Foreign Language/English Language Learning
C. Technology and Mathematics
D. Technology and Science
E. Technology and Social Studies
F. Technology and Physical Education
G. Technology and Music
H. Technology and Art
Please Note: Course Outline is subject to change. Revisions may address either pedagogical and/or logistical
conditions.
Course activities:
Course activities will include, but are not limited to:
1.
Lecture
4.
Class and group discussions
2.
Student research projects
5.
Reading assignments
3.
Class exercises
6.
Presentations
4.
Field Experiences
Course requirements:
1. ENGAGED LEARNING PROJECT: [PORTFOLIO SUBMISION] (Activity for Field experience,
minimum of 20 hours log-in.) At the Instructor’s option, this assignment may be completed individually or
in cooperative teams.
Assist a teacher in a local school in developing and then present an extended student learning experience that
meets the following criteria.
Criteria:
-Involves students for 10 or more hours of classroom instruction/outside class work.
-Models appropriate and innovative uses of technology to support Engaged Learning Indicators, especially
indicators dealing with collaboration, student roles, teacher roles, and authenticity.
- Meets criteria for LoTi Level 4a or above, which requires higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy
-Linked to Georgia Performance Standards
-Linked to National Academic Standards (NCTM, NCTE, ACFL, etc.)
-Linked to Georgia Technology Integration Standards
-Linked to ISTE NETS-Students
-Includes web or multimedia-based product that would be needed to support the implementation of the learning
experience with students in classrooms (blog, webquest, web page, sample movie, etc.)
(30%)
2. ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN LOCAL SCHOOLS: (Activity for field
experience, minimum of 20 hours log-in.) Using one of the models provided in class, analyze the current level
of technology integration in a local school and the degree to which Student Technology Standards are being
implemented and assessed. Provide strategies for improving teaching, learning and the curriculum.
(15%)
3. CORE CONTENT AREA REPORT: (Activity for Field experience, minimum of 10 hours log-in.). Draft a
five-page paper on what technologies are promising/important for supporting research-based, standardsbased instruction in a specific content areas/age groups and why. Analyze to what extent these practices are
currently being implemented in local schools. Required reference section should include URLs, articles, and
13
examples of best practice where colleagues can seek more information. Roblyer Chapters 9-15 can serve as a
resource.
(15%)
4. 21ST CENTURY LEARNERS READING (As assigned. See pp. 1-2 in syllabus): Individual assignment. Read
article/report(s) on the learning needs of 21st Century Learners as assigned by the instructor and post a onepage summary of content of your article. Keep the following questions in mind as you read/write: What is
the main message of the readings? What do 21st Century learners want and need to know? How do 21st
Century students learn best? Why does this reading or selection of readings create a rationale for computer
use in education? What cautions are raised about computer use in education? What will you take away
from these articles and what do you want us to know about the articles?
(15%)
5. ENGAGED LEARNING VIDEO ASSIGNMENT: Individual assignment. Locate and provide a video
model of the type of technology-supported, research-based instruction that you want to see in classrooms in
your school. The video should be accompanied by a one-page summary/analysis. The video must be of
classroom practice. Construct the video or choose the model from an online video source such as Intel,
Apple Learning Exchange, George Lucas Foundation, Teacher Tube, etc. See URLs in “foundations”
section on p. 4 of syllabus. Pick the BEST example you can find. Provide the following information:
a. Title and URL of Video
b. Grade level and Content Area: For what grade levels is this lesson appropriate? What content is being
addressed? What are students learning?
c. Summary of Classroom Learning Experiences: What are students and teachers doing in this video?
(i.e. taking a virtual trip across the country, etc.) What roles do students assume?
d. Analysis of Engaged Learning Indicators: Which indicators of EL are strong and why? Which
indicators of EL could be strengthened in this project? How might this be accomplished? Is the project
truly “authentic?” How could it be more authentic?
e. Analysis of Academic Rigor and Higher Order Thinking: Is the project academically rigorous? Are
standards being addressed? Is the project promoting higher order thinking? Where does student thinking
fall on Bloom’s taxonomy and why? How could the project be more rigorous and/or targeted toward
standards?
f. Analysis of Student Motivation Potential: On a scale of 1-10 how motivated/excited do you think the
students be to participate in this learning experience?
g. Analysis of Technology Use: Is technology use critical to the project? Could the project be completed
without technology? What would be lost? Does it model effective use of technology? Would it inspire
others to use technology? How else might technology be used to enhance the learning experience?
h. Analysis of LoTi Level: What is the LoTi level and why?
i. Analysis of Potential as a professional learning model for teachers/administrators. Why would you use
this as a model of best practice? Do you have any reservations about using it as a model? If so, explain.
(10%)
6. ONLINE/CLASS DISCUSSIONS: Participate in classroom and online discussions as assigned by instructor
(15%)
Grades will be based on the following criteria:
A: 90% - 100%
B: 80% - 89%
C: 70% -79%
F: 69% or lower
Academic Integrity Expectations:
14
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct,
as published in the Graduate Catalog. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the
University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and
cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of
University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library
materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of
student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through
the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes with an
“informal” resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing
procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester
suspension requirement.
Attendance Policy:
The Educational Leadership Program has established class attendance policy as follows:
1. Full class attendance is expected.
2. Candidates with one class absence will contact the instructor for additional make-up work.
3. Candidates with more than one class absence will be advised to drop the class.
Bibliography:
Conceptual Framework Summary References:
Odell, S. J., Huling, L., & Sweeny, B. W. (2000). Conceptualizing quality mentoring, background
information. In S. J. Odell & L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for novice teachers (pp. 3-14).
Indianapolis, IA: Kappa Delta Pi.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up. Educational
PsychologyRreview, 8(2), 175-185.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?
Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
Course References:
Arizona Department of Education. (2006). 2005-06 Student Technology Literacy Assessment. Retrieved August
25, 2007, from http://www.ade.az.gov/technology/
Ausband, L. (2006). Instructional technology specialists and Curriculum Work. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 39(1), 1-21.
Ashburn, E. & Floden, R., (Eds.) (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and
do. New York: Teachers College.
Boss, S. & Krauss, J. (2007). Reinventing Project-based learning: Your field guide to real-world projects in the
digital age. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
Bransford, J., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
CDW-G. (2005). Teachers Talk Technology survey. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
http://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/feature-08-29-05.htm
Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Consortium for School Networking. (2005). Digital Leadership Divide from
http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/index.cfm
Fishman, B. (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use In C. Dede, J. Honan & L. Peters
(Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement San Franciso:
Jossey-Bass
15
Educational Testing Service. (2006). ICT literacy assessment: Preliminary findings. Retrieved August 27, 2007,
from http://www.ets.org/Media/Products/ICT_Literacy/pdf/2006_Preliminary_Findings.pdf
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Gates Foundation. (2006). Why do kids drop out? . Retrieved August 25, 2007, from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology into meaningful learning (Fifth ed.). New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2005). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (Second ed.). Boston: Allyn
Bacon
Hitlin, P., & Rainie, L. (2005). Teens, technology, and school Retrieved 2007, August 20, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_and_schools_05.pdf
Honey, M., Fasca, C., Gersick, A., Mandinach, E., & Sinha, S. (2005). Assessment of 21st Century Skills: The
Current Landscape (Pre-publication Draft) Retrieved June 11, 2007, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/Assessment_Landscape.pdf
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using educational
technology. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory
Kaiser Foundation. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds.pdf
Ketelhut, D., McCloskey, E., Dede, C., Breit, L., & Whitehouse, P. (2005). Core tensions in the evolution of online
teacher professional development In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professinal development for teachers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development.
Journal of Research on Techology in Education 39(4), 417-433.
Means, B. (1993). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and
school reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: Using LoTI as a research tool. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 2227.
Moersch, C. (2002). Beyond hardware: Using existing technology to promote higher-order thinking Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education.
NetDay. (2006). Speak up. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/index.html
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers' perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Retrieved August 24,
2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education 33(4), 413-430.
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating Technology into Teaching (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fourth ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),
1-22.
Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (Second ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Public School Administrators involved in course redesign:
KSU ETTC Educational Technology Consortium Members
16