KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name: EDL 9884 Emerging Trends in Instructional
Leadership, Curriculum & Evaluation
Department:
Department of Educational Leadership
Degree Title (if applicable)
EdD in Leadership for Learning
Proposed Effective Date
Fall 2011
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
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
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
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 9884
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
for Learning
Emerging Trends in Instructional
Leadership, Curriculum & Evaluation
Three (3) credit hours
Admissions to the Doctoral Program in Leadership
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course explores different strategies for bringing about change leading to curriculum,
institutional improvement, evaluation, and reform. The focus is on guiding doctoral
candidates toward understanding trends issues with an emphasis on curriculum,
instructional methods, and effective assessments. Candidates will engage in research that
identifies political, ethical, and societal changes that impact curriculum, instruction and
assessment. Special attention is given to the educational leader’s role in building a strong
collaborative culture and increasing systems capacity to change. This course includes a
performance-based field experience.
III.
Justification
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the
Leading authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago,
Illinois. Early in 2006, Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was
either the act of a heroic individual or of several individuals who shared leadership
responsibilities. In his book, Distributed Leadership, Spillane postulates that
“…leadership…is a practice…that is the product of joint interactions of school leaders,
followers and aspects of their situation such as routines and tools” (p. 3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and
diversity. Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is
seen as whole school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark
(Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School
Leadership Practice (Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor:
TBA
Text:
Armstrong, David (2003). Curriculum Today (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Henderson, Kenneth T. (2006). Curriculum Planning: Integrating Multicultural,
Constructivism, and education reform. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, IL.
Oliva, Peter F. (2005). Developing the Curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Prerequisites:
Admissions to the EdD in Leadership for Learning
Objectives:
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
Develop an understanding of the social forces
that impact curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. (KS)
EdS/EdD GLISI Leader
ELCC/
BOR
Performance
Roles
PSC
Strands
Outcomes
Standards
1, 2
Process
1, 6
1 -3
Improvement
Leader
Change Leader
Use research-based strategies to identify and
2, 4
build systems that bridge theory to practice
through professional learning, and promote
effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment
development. (KS0
Data Analysis 2
leader
Curriculum,
Assessment, &
Instructional
Leader
4
Develop skills in using and interpreting
7
qualitative and quantitative data in assessing
system/district level curriculum, instruction, and
assessment effectiveness. (KS)
Data Analysis 2
leader
4
Develop and promote organizational and systems 1, 4, 6, 8
strategies for using differentiated instruction to
meet the needs of all students to include those
with special learning needs and those from
various socio-linguistic backgrounds. (KSD)
Learning &
Performance
Development
Leaders
2, 5, 6
Process
Improvement
Leader
Relationship 2
Leader
9
Develop plans and strategies for evaluating the
effectiveness of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment models making adjustments when
necessary. (KS)
Develop the tools to research and analyze
system/school level data. (KS)
2
1, 2, 4
Data Analysis 2
leader
4
Recognize the importance of awareness and
reflection in team building and collaboration.
(KSD)
4
Relationship
Leader
10
1&2
1-3
Instructional Method
The candidates and university supervisor may use GeorgiaVIEW Vista for communication and
course management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and announcements. Instructional
methods may include, but are not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Problem-Based Learning
Proficiency Examination
Cooperative Learning
Document-Based Inquiry
Case Study Analysis
Method of Evaluation
-Attendance
and participation
Organizational Patterns Matrix
Presentation
Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment Model
Theory Practice
Reflective Journal
10 %
20 %
10 %
30 %
15 %
15 %
Grading:
A= 90% -100% B= 80% - 89%
C= 70% - 79%
F= 69% or lower
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
n/a
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
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
I.
Course: EDL 9884 Emerging Trends in Instructional
Leadership, Curriculum & Evaluation
Credit: 3 Credit Hours
II
III
VI
INSTRUCTOR:
Office:
Phone:
E-Mail:
Office Hours:
CLASS MEETINGS
Dates: TBA
Day/Times: TBA
Bldg/Room: TBA
TEXTS & READINGS:
Required Text:
Armstrong, David (2003). Curriculum Today (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Henderson, Kenneth T. (2006). Curriculum Planning: Integrating Multicultural,
Constructivism, and education reform. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, IL.
Oliva, Peter F. (2005). Developing the Curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Supplemental Readings:
Readings as assigned
V
VI
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION
This course explores different strategies for bringing about change leading to curriculum,
institutional improvement, evaluation, and reform. The focus is on guiding doctoral
candidates toward understanding trends issues with an emphasis on curriculum, instructional
methods, and effective assessments. Candidates will engage in research that identifies
political, ethical, and societal changes that impact curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Special attention is given to the educational leader’s role in building a strong collaborative
culture and increasing systems capacity to change. This course includes a performancebased field experience.
JUSTIFICATION
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the
leading authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago,
Illinois. Early in 2006, Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was
either the act of a heroic individual or of several individuals who shared leadership
responsibilities. In his book, Distributed Leadership, Spillane postulates that “…leadership…is
a practice…that is the product of joint interactions of school leaders, followers and aspects of
their situation such as routines and tools” (p. 3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and
diversity. Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is
seen as whole school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark
(Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School
Leadership Practice (Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
Emerging Trends in Instructional Leadership, Curriculum & Evaluation
Course design supports team building and connections among school districts (building
and system), universities, and students. This design is consistent
with the Bagwell College of Education goal of providing a collaborative framework
for developing expertise in teaching, learning, and leadership within the EdS and EdD
program. It is anticipated that participants will mirror this expectation in their
future organizational settings. Course activities are problem-based and assist individuals in
developing an internal focus and disposition to meet the challenges and opportunities within
leadership practice in their respective career paths and organizational settings.
VII
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning & 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 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.
Use of Technology: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional
Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the 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 they will develop the confidence to design multimedia instructional
materials, and create WWW resources.
The students will be linked through GeorgiaVIEW Vista and via a listserv that will be
utilized in processing the comprehensive experiences of the doctoral program. The members
of each cohort will be linked in a similar way as they move through the program. The
emerging technologies will be utilized with the parallel expectation that participants
demonstrate a high degree of technological literacy in retrieving and sharing information
and resources
Doctorate of Education
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the Doctorate of
Education program in 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.
VIII
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PTEU PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares school leaders who understand
their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and
who apply these understandings to making decisions that foster the success of all
learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these
courses, participants will demonstrate outcomes that embody the constructs of
DSLP, the ten BOR Performance Strands, the ELCC standards, the PSC standards
for Residency, and the roles recommended by Georgia’s Leadership Institute for
School Improvement (GLISI). As this course is outcomes-driven, successful
individuals must provide evidence of meeting the following complementary
PTEU EdS/EdD Performance Outcomes:
1. Fosters an organizational culture that facilitates development of a shared
vision, school improvement and increased learning for all students.
2. Implements sustainable educational change and process improvement.
3. Creates 21st century learning environments that advance best practices in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
4. Engages in applied research that supports data-driven planning and
decision making for the improvement of schools and learning.
5. Builds collaborative relationships, teams and community partnerships that
communicate and reflect distributed leadership for learning.
6. Embraces diversity by demonstrating intercultural literacy and global
understanding.
7. Facilitates professional learning and development that enhance and
improve professional practice and productivity.
8. Exercises professionalism and ethical practice.
Course Objectives:
These course objectives were identified to insure that candidates will be able to:
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
1 Develop an understanding of the social forces
that impact curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. (KS)
EdS/EdD GLISI Leader
ELCC/
BOR
Performance
Roles
PSC
Strands
Outcomes
Standards
1, 2
Process
1, 6
1 -3
Improvement
Leader
Change Leader
2 Use research-based strategies to identify and
2, 4
build systems that bridge theory to practice
through professional learning, and promote
effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment
development. (KS0
Data Analysis 2
leader
Curriculum,
Assessment, &
Instructional
Leader
4
3 Develop skills in using and interpreting
7
qualitative and quantitative data in assessing
system/district level curriculum, instruction, and
assessment effectiveness. (KS)
Data Analysis 2
leader
4
4 Develop and promote organizational and systems 1, 4, 6, 8
strategies for using differentiated instruction to
meet the needs of all students to include those
with special learning needs and those from
various socio-linguistic backgrounds. (KSD)
Learning &
Performance
Development
Leaders
9
2, 5, 6
Process
Improvement
Leader
Relationship 2
Leader
5 Develop plans and strategies for evaluating the
effectiveness of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment models making adjustments when
necessary. (KS)
6 Develop the tools to research and analyze
system/school level data. (KS)
2
1, 2, 4
Data Analysis 2
leader
4
7 Recognize the importance of awareness and
reflection in team building and collaboration.
(KSD)
4
Relationship
Leader
10
1&2
1-3
IX
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Portfolio
The candidate will submit the designated Field-Experience performance activity to the
portfolio developed in the EdS portion of the degree. The portfolio contains artifacts that
address skills, knowledge, and dispositions in alignment with the six PSC standards
described in the PSC Educator Preparation Rule 505.3-.58. The portfolio will describe how
the candidate has met specific criteria set out in the PSC rule (qualitative and quantitative).
Instructional Methodology
The candidates and university supervisor may use GeorgiaVIEW Vista for communication
and course management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and announcements.
Instructional methods may include, but are not limited to:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Problem-Based Learning
Proficiency Examination
Cooperative Learning
Document-Based Inquiry
Case Study Analysis
Required Activities

Attendance and Participation: Class attendance and participation are essential.
Participation means coming to class prepared to engage in all class activities/discussions.
To do so means to read all assignments and complete all required activities prior to class.
Objectives:
All objectives
Assessment:
Holistic

Organizational Patterns Matrix: (District and System Levels). Using your professional
setting as context, describe the organizational pattern for curriculum, instructional, and
assessment development. Audit systems curricula and use assessment data to design and
adjust instruction to maximize student learning and achievement.
Theoretical Framework:
Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, (2002)
Course Objectives:
2, 3, 4
Assessment:
Holistic & Rubric

Presenting Organizational Patterns Matrix: Develop a power point identifying major
aspects of the matrix and plan. See rubric for specific evaluation criteria. The strategic
plan will be presented in class participants and to groups of teachers and/or
administrators at the school site.
Theoretical Framework:
Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, (2002)
Course Objectives:
2, 3, 4
Assessment:
Holistic & Rubric

Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment Model (Field-Based Activity):
Create a model describing the relationship among curriculum, instruction, assessment.
Use a literature review to support your model. Focus the model on the following
elements:
o Supported by research, best practices, and system assessment data illustrate in
what ways the curriculum and instruction is influenced by changes in society;
and describe limitations/challenges;
o Describe the social context of the district/school focusing on evidence of
diversity and students from marginalized populations;
o Describe professional learning needs: organize and facilitate programs to
improve faculty and staff effectiveness;
o Describe the characteristics and components of the performance assessment
system.
o Develop and use appropriate qualitative and quantitative assessment data to
develop a system wide strategic plan;
o Define style, model, method, and skills of teaching and demonstrate how each
relates to the selection of instructional objectives and strategies;
o Using research theory and practice to develop a system wide process for
assessing the use and effectiveness of differentiated instruction; and
o Evaluate systems curriculum, instructional, and assessment plan to ensure
programs are aligned and carried out efficiently by leading others in a
collaborative process to set and use benchmarks and rubrics to ensure effective
teaching and learning takes place.
Theoretical Framework: Oliva (2005); Wiles & Bondi (2004)
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000).
National Policy Board for Educational Administration
(2002).
Objectives:
All objectives
Assessment:
Holistic & Rubric

Theory and Practice: Complete six (6) curriculum warm-up activities covering,
instructional leadership, curriculum, assessment and cases. Cases are organized around
particular themes, namely problems encountered by new administrators such as student
issue, instructional leadership, school-community relations, curriculum and assessment
results, and organizational problems. The purpose of these activities is to establish
relevant leadership and allow candidates to experience what an administrator might
encounter. Candidates are required to discuss and respond, in writing, to questions and
cases at the end of each activity.
Theoretical Framework: Oliva (2005);
Lee & Keiffer (2003)
Objectives:
2, 4
Assessment:
Holistic


Portfolio: Candidates will develop and maintain a portfolio for the entire EdS and
selected courses in the EdS program. Each term, the candidate will submit one artifact
from the University assignments and one from the School/System assignments to the
university’s electronic Chalk & Wire portfolio management system.
Theoretical Framework: GLISI Guidelines
Objectives:
All
Assessment:
Rubric
Reflective Journal: Using “reflect-in” and “reflect-on” strategies, candidates will
maintain a weekly journal reflecting on their experiences and learning (Schon, 1991).
Reflective writing enables the documentation of experiences, thoughts, questions, ideas
and conclusions that signpost our learning. An effective approach to leadership requires
critical inquiry into practice and into learning; change and improvement result after
reflection, planning and action. Effective leadership involves an appreciation of the
teaching and learning process and the ability to intervene purposefully and positively in
the learning experience. Reflective writing provides an opportunity for us to think
critically about what we do and why. It provides:
1. A record of events, results and our reactions to them;
2. Data on which to base reflective discussion;
3. Opportunity for us to challenge ourselves regarding what we do and to free us to do
it differently and better;
4. Impetus to take action that is informed and planned;
5. The means to develop a ongoing personal philosophy of leadership;
6. An opportunity to view our leadership objectively and not see all problems as
personal inadequacy;
7. Increased confidence through increased insight which enables us to trust
stakeholders and enjoy them; and
8. Establishes basic documentation to support future entries in vitas and for job
applications etc.
Theoretical Framework Support:
Schön, D. A. (1991)
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001).
Assessment:
Holistic
Course Objectives:
All objectives
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
X
GLISI Guidelines.
Holistic
All objectives
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Evaluation:
Attendance and participation
Organizational Patterns Matrix
Presentation
10 %
20 %
10 %
Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment Model
Theory Practice
Reflective Journal
30 %
15 %
15 %
Grading:
A= 90% -100% B= 80% - 89%
C= 70% - 79%
F= 69% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards
of investigation associated with college-level studies. All work submitted that requires
documentation should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure
accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Rubrics will be shared with candidates as a
means of establishing an understanding of expectation of graduate study in the BCOE and at
KSU.
Every effort will be made by the instructor to be fair and equitable in the assignment of
grades through multiple processes noted above. In the final analysis, the assigned grade will
be based on the best professional judgment of instructor.
XI
TENTATIVE COURSE OUTLINE
Date
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
Week 16
Activity/Topic
Disaggregating Data.
Social Forces and Education in the U.S.
System/School Audit of Goals
Case Studies and Simulations: Issues in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Assessing System/School Goals and Outcomes
Meeting the Needs of Students from Diverse Populations. Aligning curriculum with
students' needs, and assessment instruments used are flexible and adequately and
appropriately used to measure on-going performance.
Role of Performance Standards and System/School Structures
Role of Professional Learning
Deming’s 14 points (TQM)
Case Studies and Role Play
Distinguish between Quantitative and Qualitative assessment.
Distinguishing Among Evaluation, Measurement, and Testing.
Using Qualitative Data to Determine Leaders Perceptions of their Roles in C/I/A
Using Howard Gardner’s philosophy of multiple intelligence and Differentiated
Instruction
Curriculum Alignment: What does it means that students are tested on what they have
been taught and hopefully, what they have learned.
Authentic Assessment and Meeting Standards. Is it possible?
XII
POLICIES
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 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 there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. The development
of an appreciation of diversity as a core organizational value and its use as a resource will
give direction to the activities of the doctoral seminar and of the whole doctoral program.
Consideration will be given to diversity in developing the membership of the cohorts in the
interest of ensuring that the collaborative cohort experience contributes to the development
of such personal and organizational core values.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Faculty of the EdS and EdD
programs abide by the policies and guidelines established by the university in their
expectations for candidates’ work. Candidates are responsible for knowing and adhering to
the guidelines of academic honesty as stated in the graduate catalog. Any candidate who is
found to have violated these guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with
university policy. For example, plagiarism or other violations of the University’s Academic
Honesty policies could result in a grade of “ F” in the course and a formal hearing before the
Judiciary Committee.
Papers should be a synthesis of information reported in your own words and with
proper documentation.
Professionalism- Participation/Attendance/Submission of Assignments/Use of
Technology During Class/Seminars: Part of your success in this course is related to
providing peer reviews and feedback to your colleagues regarding course assignments;
participating and interacting in course activities; collaborating and working equitably with
colleagues; and treating colleagues and the professor with respect both in and out of class.
Furthermore, responding effectively and appropriately to feedback from your peers and the
professor/supervisor is another measure of your professionalism. Please be prepared by
bringing all materials and readings to meetings and seminars. All readings assignments must
be completed prior to meetings and seminars. We depend on one another to ask pertinent
and insightful questions.
Professionalism also includes appropriate audience behaviors during lectures and
presentations. When someone is speaking to the group or making a presentation,
professionals do not engage in conversations or other distracting behaviors that detract from
the audiences’ attention to the speaker.
Absences may be considered excused only in the case of personal or a professional
emergency and only if approved by the professor/supervisor in advance or as soon as
possible after the emergency event.
Using technology during class/seminar (laptops, cell phones, etc.) to check personal e-mail
or engage in activities not associated with course content is not acceptable and will likely
result in a reduction of course participation points. Engaging in personal conversations while
professor/supervisor or groups are presenting is not acceptable and will likely result in a
reduction of class participation points. A break will be provided for snacks and personal use
of technology.
In sum, a lack of professionalism will likely result in grade reduction.
XIII
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, R., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How leadership
emerge in a time of crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory leadership: Focus on instruction.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Creighton, T. B. (2001, November). Towards a leadership practice field: An antidote to an
ailing internship experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration at Cincinnati, OH.
Egley, R. J., & Jones, B. D. (2005). Principals' inviting leadership behaviors in a time of
test-based accountability. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3(1), 13-24.
Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement (2008). Tools for planning and
improving leader performance. Atlanta,GA. Retrieved from
http://www.glisi.org/site/default.htm
Gupton, S. L. (2003). The instructional Leadership Toolbox: A handbook for improving
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.
Hargrove, R. (2008). Masterful coaching. San Francisco, CA. Jossey Bass.
Henderson, M. (2002). Beginning principals' self-perceptions of administrative task
proficiencies in Georgia elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring
organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lee, G. V., & Keiffer, V. A. (2003, April). Leadership for school improvement: Fostering
the development of appropriate dispositions among aspiring principals. A paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association at
Chicago.
Leithwood, K., Day, D., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership. What it is and how it influences pupil learning. (Research Report 800).
University of Nottingham.
McClellan, R. (2009). Leading from the middle: Developing and sustaining success of the
assistant principal. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002). Standards for
advanced programs in educational leadership. Retrieved from http://www.npbea.org/
Oliva, Peter F. (2005). Developing the Curriculum. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA.
Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice,
New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The Principalship: A reflective practice perspective. (4th Ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2004). Supervision: A guide to practice, (6th Edition). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Websites:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1427855/k.FAA3/Welcome_to_
the_Center_for_Public_Education.htm (The Center for Public Education)
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/pea_board.aspx?PageReq=PEABoardRules (Georgia State Education
Rules and Policies)
http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherEducation/Rules/505-3-.58.pdfhttp:///www.doe.k12.ga.us
(Georgia Department of Education)
.