Elementary and Early Childhood Education
M.Ed. Program
Summer Semester
I.
II.
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Multiple Assessment Strategies, Research I (3 hrs)
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education
III.
INSTRUCTOR: Gwen McAlpine
e-mail: gwn.mcalpine@gmail.com
work phone: 770-499-3570
cell phone: 404-375-9812
office: Kennesaw Hall 2320
office hours: By appointment. Office hours Tuesdays from 1:00-3:00
Please schedule an appointment with me if you wish to see me in the office.
IV.
CLASS MEETINGS: Mondays and Wednesdays, 1-4:45 p.m. in University College Room
205
V.
TEXTS for ECE 7511 and future research courses in this program; texts available through the KSU
Bookstore in person and online:
Mertler, C. A. Action Research: Improving Schools and Empowering Educators. (3rd Ed.) Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA. (2012).
Students must also purchase the latest (6th) edition of the APA manual or purchase the APA CD. This is
the book reference: American Psychological Association. (2011). Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association (6th ed). Washington, DC.
.
Films assigned by the instructor, as announced
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 1 of 10




V.
Optional:
Those students who own laptop computers are welcome to bring those to class, too.
Urdan, T. (2001). Statistics in plain English. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. [Required for
students conducting mixed or quantitative research]
Galvan, J. (2004). Writing literature reviews A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd
ed) Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. [Strongly recommended for students who have difficulty writing the
literature review: purchase any edition of this text]
Holosko, M. J. (2006). Primer for critiquing social research: A student guide. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole. [If the student needs additional information on research]
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTIONS:
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus
Through the exploration of quantitative and qualitative educational research, candidates will
develop strategies to make informed decisions for intervention, as well as appropriate assessment
for diverse student populations. Action research will be a major focus in preparing candidates for
planning and writing their prospectus of applied research that will be carried throughout the M.Ed.
program.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning” is the basis for all of
Kennesaw State University’s teacher education programs. Working from a solid content background, the
teacher as facilitator demonstrates proficient and flexible use of different ways of teaching to actively
engage students in learning. Teachers as facilitators are well versed in the characteristics of students of
different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds. They are skilled in integrating technology into instruction
and create an environment in which students can be successful and want to learn. Teachers as facilitators
know when and how to assess learning by means of various forms of traditional and authentic assessments.
They are well prepared for successful careers in teaching and are expected to act in a professional manner
in all circumstances with colleagues, parents, community members and their own students. As a
professional educator, the teacher facilitator values collaboration and seeks opportunities to work with
other professionals and community members to improve the educational experiences for children and
youth. This course contributes to the candidates’ understanding of their developing role as a professional
facilitator by supporting their educational growth as they learn to effectively teach students.
VII. USE OF TECHNOLOGY:
Integrated Use of Technology: The Bagwell College of Education recognizes the importance of
preparing future educators and K-12 students to develop technology skills that enhance learning,
personal productivity, decision making, their daily activities in the 21st century. As a result, the
ISTE NETS*T Technology Standards for Teachers are integrated throughout the teacher preparation
program enabling teacher candidates to explore and apply best practices in technology enhanced
instructional strategies.
Specific technologies used within this course include:
PowerPoint presentations, involving use of a laptop & LCD
Internet research
Email
Kidspiration/Inspiration
Word software
GeorgiaView Vista [GV Vista]
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 2 of 10
Films
VIII. PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE: A required element in each portfolio for
TOSS, Student Teaching, and 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 brief narrative 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. Unless you are told differently by your program area, the
length of the reflection is up to you, yet it should be concise.
IX.
Diversity
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and
assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how
multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods
and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic
status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation,
and geographic region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for
the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must
visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information
contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.
X.
The KSU Writing Center is a free service offered to all KSU students. Experienced, friendly
writing assistants work with you on thesis development, organization, research documentation,
grammar, and much more. They help you improve your paper AND teach you strategies to
become a better writer on your own. For more information or to make an appointment, visit
http://www.kennesaw.edu/english/WritingCenter, or stop by Room 242 in the English
Building
XI.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. 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 either an “informal”
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 3 of 10
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
XII. ATTENDANCE POLICY: Expectations for attending class are in accordance with the
statement on attendance set forth in the Kennesaw State University Graduate Catalog. Every
student is expected to attend all class sessions. The instructor may deduct points for tardiness
or absence, possibly entailing the loss of a grade point(s).
XIII. DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR:
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior which disrupts the
learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of
others, behavior which fits the University’s definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
Other General Policies and Regulations of Student Life have been developed by Kennesaw State
University. These policies (Handling Student Code of Conduct Violations at KSU) include:
1Academic Misconduct, 2) Disruptive Behavior, 3) Sexual Assault, are found in the Kennesaw State
University Graduate Catalog.
It is expected, in this class, that no professional should need reminding of any of these policies but
the policies are there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both
the spirit and the letter of these policies
XIV.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: 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:
MODULE I
ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus
1. Identify characteristics of valid research, including action research, and evaluate research
samples for their adherence to these characteristics (CPI 1.1, 1.2).
2. Explain the difference between quantitative and qualitative methodologies (CPI 1.1, 1.4)
3. Examine basic statistical analyses including measures of central tendency, variability,
relationships, and group comparisons to read research, develop research and interpret research
data (CPI 1.2, 1.3).
4. Conduct a research review and critique on a topic of his/her choice (CPI 1.1, 1.2)
5. Initiate the development if a prospectus to enhance student achievement that focuses on
improving classroom instruction. A major focus of the prospectus will include an action
research component (CPI 1.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2).
6. Describe the nature of professionalism in terms of continued professional growth and
development, contribution of the profession, and responsibility for leadership (CPI 3.1, 3.2,
3.3, 3.5)
7. Demonstrate principles of writing grant proposals (CPI 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
8. Discuss legal issues inherent in contemporary systems of education (CPI 1.2, 3.2, 3.3)
9. Utilize technology to enhance learning (CPI 2.3, 2.5, 3.1)
10. Discuss and debate the nature of educational reform efforts and the roles individual teachers
can play in reform movements (CPI 3.2, 3.4)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 4 of 10
The graduates of advanced programs, in addition to being effective classroom teachers, also develop expertise as
effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all students; they
are:
CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENT (CPI)
Outcome 1: SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS:
1. Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and
communicates this understanding to all students, and/or colleagues and parents.
2. Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and
applications to real life and accurately represents understanding through use of multiple
explanations, technologies and strategies.
3. Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the
development of powerful approaches to instructional challenges.
4. Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills,
dispositions and beliefs--integrated, flexible, elaborate and deep.
Outcome 2: FACILITATORS OF LEARNING:
1. Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for
learning.
2. Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by
respecting individual differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices
accordingly.
3. Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create
enriching educational experiences and/or environments for all students.
4. Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning
environments.
5. Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to
meet goals articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school
improvement plan.
6. Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods
and uses results to improve student learning.
7. Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data
and communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.
Outcome 3: COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS:
1. Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school
effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
2. Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional
literature to design and conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.
3. Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of
instruction and education.
4. Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations,
participating in conferences, mentoring new staff, etc.
XV. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Group Assignments
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 5 of 10
1. Class work projects involving group work,
including peer review and reacting to texts
2. Online work
Individual Assignments
1. Literature Review I
2. Homework, including readings assigned
in texts and online
3. Class work involving individual work
4. Literature Review II
XVI.
100 points
100 points
200 points
100 points
100 points
200 points
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
A:
B:
C:
F:
92% - 100%
84% - 91%
75% - 83%
75% 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 inch paper. All formal written
work submitted should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proofread to ensure accuracy in spelling,
punctuation, and grammar.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE for 12 Summer Classes and the Conference
Speakers, films, and other activities will be added to this syllabus. I will add tests, if needed, on text information
and the APA format.
Candidates may turn in work ahead of the due date if they wish. I do not plan to evaluate them early, but I’ll be
happy to accept the work early.
This syllabus is tentative and subject to change
Class # and
Date
In-class Activities
Class 1
June 6
Review syllabi and
assignments.
Introduction of
Action Research.
Film.
Film and reaction to
it. Discuss research
and your topic
possibilities and
research design.
Class 2
June 8
Assignments Due
During This Class
Period
CH 1 in Mertler,
pp. 1-8
Objectives Covered
Conceptual
Framework
#1-2
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
#1-2
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
Questions due from
students by the end
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 6 of 10
Questions due from
class for discussion
board posts.
Class 3
June 13
Reactions to text.
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
of this class for
discussion board
posts.
#1-2
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
CH 1 in Mertler,
pp. 9-34
Read 2 articles on
gender-based
education on
GeorgiaView Vista
Read 3 articles on
GeorgiaView Vista
related to Waiting
for Superman and
Diane Ravitch
Class 4
June 15
Guest Lecture on
quantitative research
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
Library/internet
research
CH 2 in Mertler
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
Reactions to texts.
Class 5
June 20
Library/internet
research
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
Class 6
June 22
Review of formal
writing skills for
research papers,
including literature
reviews
CH 3 in Mertler
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
DISCUSSION
BOARD POSTS
DUE
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 7 of 10
Library/internet
research
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
Class 7
June 27
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
Library/internet
research
Class 8
June 29
Reactions to text
Library/internet
research
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
July 4
Class 9
July 6
HOLIDAY
Bring in a rough
draft of your
literature review
with questions for
your peer reviewers
to read and evaluate.
Make an
appointment with
instructor for a
conference, if
needed
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design
Literature
Review I due
from students
working solo or
in pairs
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
Holiday
Bring in a rough
draft of your
literature review
#1, #5
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
Library/internet
research
Reactions to text
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 8 of 10
Class 10
July 11
Class 11
July 13
Discuss research and
your topic
possibilities and
research design –
your ideas should be
more focused now
Course summary and
look forward to fall
and brief overview
again of program
Reactions to
assigned articles
Class 12
July 15
CONFERENCE
REQUIRED
XIII.
Read and analyze
examples of
research papers on
GeorgiaView Vista
before coming to
this class –
discussed in class
and grade assigned
#1-2, 4-5, 9-10
Literature
Review II due
from each
student,
including
questions on
future research
#1, 5
Graduate
Conference –
attendance
mandatory: 8:3012:30 at the KSU
Conference Center
on Busbee.
Assignment due at
the end of the
conference.
All
1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.2
All
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, R. & Speck, B. (2001). Using technology in K-8 literacy classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers
the use of the learning cycle with science textbooks. School science and mathematics. 92(2), 59-63.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Benjamin, R. "Case Study 12 - Grant High School" In Hessle, K. and Holloway, J. Case Studies in School
Leadership, School Leadership Series Volume 2. (2003) Educational Testing Service.
Borich, G. (1992). Effective teaching methods. New Jersey: Merrill.
Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G. (1999). The case for constructivist teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brownell, G., Youngs, C., & Metzger, J. (1999). A PC for the teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios: Questions for design. Science scope, March, 1992.
Collins, J. (2001) From Good to Great. Harper Business
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
DePorter, B. (1998). Quantum Teaching. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
Page 9 of 10
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Duckworth, E., Easley, J., Hawkins, D., & Henriques, A. (1990). Science education: A minds-on approach for the
elementary years. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Easley, J. (1990). Could we make a breakthrough for an at-risk nation? Journal of research in science teaching,
27(7), 623-624.
Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational review, 66(1), 1-26.
Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, April 1997, 597-602.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Hessle, K. and Holloway, J. (2002) A Framework for School Leaders: Linking The ISLLC Standards to Practice.
Educational Testing Service
Hirshulhl, J. & Bishop, D. (2000). Computers in education 00/01. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership Development for teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kellogg Foundation (1996). Celebrations & challenges: A report on science education improvement. W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, One Michigan Avenue East, Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Martin, D. J. (1994). Concept mapping as an aid to lesson planning: A longitudinal study. Journal of elementary
science education, 6(2), 11-30.
Martin, D. J. (2000). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach, 2nd Ed.. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning
Martin, D.J. (2001). Constructing Early Childhood Science. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thompson Learning.
McIntyre, D. & Byrd, D. (Eds.) (2000). Research on effective models for teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Nelson, J. (2000). Positive Discipline in the Classroom. Brooklyn: Prima Publishing.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R. & Gibbson, H. (1998). Teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. RFT Publishing Co.
Piaget, J. (1959). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world. New York: Random House.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
75(1), 1-22.
Silberman, C. (1971). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.
Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up. Educational psychology review, 8(2),
175-185.
Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?
Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Von Glassersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The reading teacher, March, 1990.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The science teacher, September, 1991.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., and Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in
America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning”
10
Page 10 of