TEAC 995: Challenges and Opportunities
Spring 2009
Classroom: Henzlik 35 / Office: Henzlik 44B
Wednesdays 6 PM to 8:50 PM
Professor: Ted Hamann, Ph. D.
Office hours: Wed. 4-5 PM or by appointment
472-2285/ehamann2@unl.edu
“[F]or the good of ourselves and our students, I believe that teachers must become part of the
research conversations and policy creation surrounding education. Teacher research makes
what we do, why we do it, and how it works visible and justifies it to ourselves and to others.
It provides specific and situated cases. Without teacher voices, grounded in experience and
clear-eyed interpretations of the data in our classrooms, policies will not be fully informed,
and implementations will be inefficient.” (Wilhelm, 2008: p. 55)
The simplest way to describe the purpose of this class is to say that it is devoted to the
understanding of the following four words as they relate to the work, orientation, purpose,
and consequence of our work as educators:
 Epistemology
 Praxis
 Efficacy
 Reflectivity
A slightly longer description would note that this class is intended concurrently to identify
problems of educational practice, locate educators and other education stakeholders in
relation to these problems, illustrate ways that our understandings of those problems (and
their remedy) can become more nuanced and/or empirical, consider what schooling should
accomplish (according to whom), strategize about what we need to know to speak
persuasively to various educational stakeholder audiences, initiate a discussion of research
design, and build a sense of camaraderie among the CPED cohort.
To accomplish all these we will pursue various strategies, among them are reading, online
discussion, individual projects, group projects, and peer review. We will also consider your
concurrent work with Dr. Guy Trainin in TEAC 991. A core premise of the CPED cohort
writ large, as well as of this class, is that each of us brings relevant personal and
professional knowledge and experience to this class and one of my tasks as professor is to
prompt the sharing and constructive use of this joint wisdom. Another premise of this class
and the CPED cohort writ large is that we are going to learn and adapt as we go along. That
is, our assumption is that the current design of this class and the cohort is our best
estimation at this stage of things can/should be structured. However, as we gain joint
experience through the process of implementation, what we know about what can/should
be should change.
For this reason, this syllabus is consciously labeled like software (in this instantiation
Syllabus 1.2) with the presumption that newer, more refined versions will be developed.
(So in March we may preempt this syllabus with a new 1.3 version.) Lest you worry too
much, it is neither fair nor necessary to massively change course mid-stream, so we won’t
(I won’t pull a book you’ve already purchased off of the syllabus, for example). Any really
large changes would be put in place for the next CPED cohort (Cohort 2.0?). Nonetheless,
particularly for the summer segment of this course, there is much still to flesh out in detail
that is here only in broad strokes.
In noting this prospect for change, I am intentionally trying to model one version of what is
sometimes called design research. Borrowed from engineering, design research is the
vaguely fancy term for a product or program that one designs, implements, gathers data
regarding the implementation, redesigns per that data, re-implements, again records and
studies the implementation, and again redesigns. In other words it is an iterative process
of intended continual improvement. We will consider design research in three other ways
this semester: We have a series of readings about design research (from a 2003 special
issue of Educational Researcher that was devoted to the topic); we will make some design
decisions around a design task I am pursuing (development of a curriculum for two travelstudy courses in Mexico this summer); and we will engage in a three-part analysis of each
of three examples of action research projects. (To clarify, the different terminology of
action research vs. design research is, I think, an artifact of the different traditions from
which two very overlapping ways of engaging in research have emerged; teacher action
research is the more common term in the education literature.)
II. Grading and Graded Assignments
Blackboard (20 points [10 points for words; 5 pts. each for Blackboard Reports])
Taking Notes on Reading (15 points [5 pts each X 3])
Extended Free-Write Paper (14 points [10 points for writing; 4 points for peer review])
Short Paper RE: Selected article and its relevance to Dr. Hamann’s Summer 2009 Mexico
Travel-Study Courses (14 points; 4 points for peer review]))
Group project presentation (10 points)
Group project paper (27 points)
Per convention of a 100-point scale, students with final scores between 90-100 will receive
“A’s”; those with final scores of 80-89.9 will receive “B’s”; those with final scores of 70-79.9
will receive “C’s”, and so on. Numeric scores ending in 0, 1, or 2 (e.g., ’92’) will be marked
with a ‘minus’ (except for ‘100’); scores ending in 7, 8, or 9 (e.g., ‘88’ will be marked ‘plus’),
and 3s, 4s, 5’s, and 6s won’t be further marked. Excepting the participation grade, I do not
grade on a bell-curve or any other scaling mechanism that compares you to your
classmates. It is possible for all to get ‘A’s’ or none to do so.
Blackboard
On Blackboard, each student is expected to post 2,500 words worth of entries over the
course of the semester (approximately 200 words for every time we meet). Those 2,500
words can be from a few expansive postings or many smaller ones, but all students are
expected to make at least six postings to our Blackboard discussion boards over the
semester. Postings that respond to other classmates’ postings are particularly welcome.
On two occasions (Feb. 25 and Apr. 22) you will need to submit to me a brief ‘Blackboard
report’. It is expected that you will have made several Blackboard postings by Feb. 25 (in
time for the first report). Postings after April 29 will not be counted toward your final
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 2
word tally (for your spring grade). For both Blackboard reports you will do the following
four things:
 Select (and cut-and-paste) a favorite Blackboard posting by a classmate.
 Write three or four sentences about why you are particularly impressed/intrigued
by your classmate’s posting
 Select (and cut-and-paste) one of your own favorite Blackboard postings.
 Write three or four sentences about why you are particularly proud of your posting.
Please use email to submit your reports. Note, each Blackboard report will count for 5
points, while completing expected number of postings and words worth of postings will
count for another 10. Please note, any Blackboard postings that are posted within any
small group forums set up for the final project do not count towards the 2,500-word
Blackboard requirement.
Taking notes on reading
For each homework reading two students will be selected to complete a Reading Notes
summary that will be emailed to me in advance of the class session for which it is due and I
then will post it as a course document. (Note the series of short articles for Feb. 25 have
been assembled into three bundles, so Feb. 25 Reading Notes will each look across several
short pieces.) Everyone must be a ‘note preparer’ at least 3 times. Notes should answer
each of the following four questions:
(Author’s view) What is the author saying? (Summary, plus ‘nuggets’
(Reader’s view) How do I feel about what the author is saying? What does this remind me
of? Do I agree? How does this help me?
(Field’s view) How do I place this article in context of the time and venue it was published?
What do I know about this author? This journal? The audience the author would have
expected?
(Synthesis) How does this connect to other readings we have done?
Mexico Travel-Study Article
As a joint design research project this spring we are going to craft a design research
research design related to Dr. Hamann’s two June 2009 course to be taught to UNL students
in Mexico. As one piece of this work, each of you are to find an article relevant to the topic
of travel-study and/or teacher preparation for transnational students. (These could
include readings that might fit on the summer syllabi, research methods readings that can
inform the design of this summer’s data collection, studies of extant attitudes of American
views of Mexico [e.g., paternalistic, threatened, or hedonistic], or others.) After finding
your article, you are to write a three-page essay explaining how the identified article is
germane to Dr. Hamann’s design research challenge. This paper is due first to peers and
then to me.
Extended Free-write paper
At the end of each of the first six class sessions (i.e., through Feb. 18), I am going to ask you
to craft a ‘free-write’ in response to one of two prompts. After your 10-minute free-write,
two classmates will offer 5-minute, ‘low-tech Blackboard’ responses/continuations to your
free-write. From one of the six free-writes you craft this way (or in an altogether new
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 3
response to a free-write prompt that you previously skipped). This paper is due first to
peers and then to me.
Peer review of writing
In this class peer review is an intentional vehicle to enhance your subject area
understanding, increase your awareness of the writing process, and to have you interact
collegially and professionally with a classmate. The way peer review will work is that we
will arrange double pairings in our class and in those pairings you will exchange your
paper with two classmates in advance of the final due date. You are then to comment on
your classmates’ drafts (using Microsoft Word’s track changes function would be a good
way) and email it back.
In the peer review cycle you will review two classmates’ papers and the authors will then
review your review. Each ‘review of the review will be worth up to two points (so 4 points
total are in play). Peer reviewers will be expected to read and offer formative feedback.
(Note formative feedback is feedback intended to help the client, in this case your
classmate, as compared to summative feedback which judges the quality of an effort for a
third party.) I recommend using the ‘new comments’ function that is built in to Microsoft
Word. In addition to any comments inserted in the draft document, be sure that your
review explicitly answers the following three questions:
(1) Write a narrative response to whatever the author asked you.
(2) Compare the answer to a checklist of topics that needed to be covered, based on the
prompt
(3) Write one or at most two sentences offering your version of what you think the
author’s thesis is.
More generally, remember these two guidelines:
(4) Offer any other comments you want…Remember warm feedback is received more
happily than cool feedback, but also that your peer has an interest in improving
his/her paper. Comments like, “I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say here,” or
“I don’t see the link between what you’re saying here and what you said earlier,” or
“I can read this two ways [offer ways], which did you intend?” can be quite useful.
(5) It can be helpful to catch typos (especially spell-check typos like ‘barley’ when you
meant to say ‘barely’), but the point here is peer review, not copyediting, and
remember you’re looking at a draft.
Notes for authors: At the beginning of the paper draft that you share with your peers,
please list at least one and up to three questions that you want your peer reviewers
feedback on. (E.g., ‘In my original free-write my thoughts were pretty jumbled, although I
liked what I was getting down on paper. Does this expanded draft still feel jumbled?’ or ‘As
you’ll see, I use three main arguments to support my thesis, do you think I make these three
points in the most effective order?’)
You should remove these questions to peers from your final paper drafts and have your
final paper instead start with the free-write prompt that your paper is responding to.
However, at the end of your final paper, please append brief answers to the following six
questions (they will determine the peer review grades and give me feedback on the
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 4
effectiveness of using peer review for this assignment). Your answers do not count for the
word limit:
(1) How did your draft change from start to finish? Please explain the rationale for the
changes you made.
(2) To what concerns did you pay particular attention as you revised your draft? (Ideas?
Structure? Use of research? Grammar and usage?)
(3) How did you integrate your peers’ feedback into your revision? Which feedback
(and by whom) was especially helpful and why? Which feedback did you decide to
reject and why?
(4) What do you see as the strengths in your paper? What were your key challenges as
you wrote? With more time and energy, what would you continue to develop?
(5) Do you think you would want to work with the same peers as peer reviewers for
your next paper? If not, offer a brief explanation.
(6) Rate both of your peer reviewers on the following scale: 0-didn’t do anything; 1tried to help, but didn’t really; 2-quite helpful. Write a sentence or two to explain
each of your ratings.
Group Project
The class will be divided up into three groups. Each group will have the task of reading
Heaton (2000), Wilson (2007), or Wilhelm (2008). The group will then prepare a
presentation and a paper that answer the following questions:
 What is the problem(s) that the author is attempting to solve?
 What appears to be the author’s sense of what should be (i.e., their philosophical
posture)?
 How does the author collect data germane to the identified problem?
 Do you find the research strategy compelling? Why or why not?
 If you were studying this problem, would you pursue it the same way?
 Are there relevant problems in play that the author is not acknowledging?
Note, in the summer you will read the two other books that you did not read for this spring
final project.
III. Attendance Policy
As has been noted elsewhere in this syllabus and in our discussions about the CPED cohort,
this class and program are both premised upon the idea that we have much to give/share
with each other to support each other’s learning. As such, absences work against the whole
logic of being present and supportive of each other. That said, it is also true that most of us
are negotiating family lives, full-time professional responsibilities, occasional health
contingencies, commutes to UNL that can be affected by weather, and so forth. Given these
dynamics and respecting the idea that if you need to be away from class it is not my place
to agree or disagree with the ‘acceptability’ of your rationale, it is the policy for this class
that everyone can miss one class without needing to develop a compensatory strategy for
helping your classmates (although you’re still responsible when absent for assignments
that were due). If you need to miss more than one class, you and I can develop an
alternative strategy through which you still contribute to your classmates’ learning (most
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 5
likely this will mean drafting additional Blackboard postings and/or sharing more Reading
Notes).
IV. Weekly Assignments
Jan. 14
Orientation / Review of Blackboard
Jan. 21
Who Am I? / Identifying the Problem or Challenge
In-class: Freewrite question I and II
Reading: Hamann, et al. (2006), Hamann (2008) Wolcott (1988), Zúñiga, et al.
(2008)
Jan. 28
The Four Questions and the Creation of Public Education
In-class: Freewrite question III
Reading: Proefriedt (2008) pp. 1- 62
BRING ARTICLE RELATED TO TEACHER TRAVEL-STUDY AND/OR READINESS FOR
TRANSNATIONAL STUDENT POPULATIONS
Feb. 4
Refining and Rethinking Public Education
In-class: Freewrite question IV
Reading: Proefriedt (2008) pp. 63-176
DELINEATE ACTION-RESEARCH READING GROUPS; USE GROUPS TO DIVVY UP 2/11 READING
Feb. 11
From Whence They Speak
In-class: Freewrite question V
Reading: Wolcott (1992); Glickman (2009)
PAPER RE: ARTICLE FOR SUMMER 2009 MEXICO CLASS DUE TO PEERS
Feb. 18
Continuing the School Change Conversation
In-class: Freewrite question VI
Reading: Coburn (2003), Cuban (1998), Marshall (1991), McLaughlin (2006)
PEERS RETURN PAPER RE: ARTICLE FOR SUMMER 2009 MEXICO CLASS
Feb. 19
(optional) “The Challenge of U.S. / Mexico Transnationalism to the Linkage
Between Schooling and Democracy” (by Dr. Hamann)
Presentation 7PM Nebraska Union (City Campus) Auditorium
Feb. 25
Design Research
Reading: Educational Researcher (2003) Design Research (3 bundles: [A] Kelly,
Design Research Collaborative, and Cobb, et al.; [B] McCandliss, et al., Lobato,
and Bannan-Ritland; [C] Shavelson, et al., Sloane & Gorard, and Zaritsky, et al.)
FIRST BLACKBOARD REPORT DUE
PAPER RE: ARTICLE FOR SUMMER 2009 MEXICO CLASS DUE TO PROFESSOR
Mar. 4
The Role of Theory
Reading: Horton and Freire (1990) pp. vii – 95
FREE-WRITE PAPER TO PEER REVIEWERS
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 6
Mar. 11
Ideas
Reading: Horton and Freire (1990) pp. 97-143
Note, this week our class will meet on-line and your face-to-face class will be
TEAC 991 (See Dr. Trainin’s syllabus)
PEER REVIEWERS RETURN FREE-WRITE PAPER
Mar. 18
UNL Spring Break (no class)
Mar. 25
The Ethics and Intentionalities of Action Research and Changing Practice
Reading: Horton and Freire (1990) pp. 145-248; Deyhle, et al. (1992)
EXTENDED FREE-WRITE PEER REVIEW PAPER DUE
DIVVY UP APRIL 1 READINGS
Apr. 1
What Counts As Knowing
Reading: Hamann (2003)+One of: Coburn & Stein (2006), Lave (1996),
Schweitzer (1998)
Apr. 8
Culture of School and the Problem of Change
Reading: Sarason (1996) ix-x, 1-298.
Apr. 15
Meet in Groups (i.e., no class)
Reading: Heaton (2000), Wilhelm (2008), or Wilson (2007)
Apr. 22
Revisiting the Culture of School and The Problem of Change
Reading: Sarason (1996) 309-387
SECOND BLACKBOARD REPORT DUE
SHARE ANY READINGS (UP TO 15 PAGES FOR 4/29)
Apr. 29
Action Research Book Project – Part I
Readings: As assigned by presenting groups
Summer Action Research Book Project Parts II and III; Read Noguera (2008)
May 30 Half-day meeting (10 to 1) Book Project Part II presentation
July 11
Half-day meeting (10-1) Book project Part III presentation
V. Bibliography
Articles/Chapters (Available as course document or by internet if url is included)
Bannan-Ritland, Brenda
2003 The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework.
Educational Researcher, 32(1): 21–24.
Cobb, Paul , Jere Confrey, Andrea diSessa, Richard Lehrer, and Leona Schauble
2003 Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1): 9-13
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 7
Coburn, Cynthia
2003 Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change.
Educational Researcher 32(6): 3-12
Coburn, Cynthia and Mary Kay Stein
2006 Communities of Practice Theory and the Role of Teacher Professional Community
in Policy Implementation. In New Directions in Education Policy Implementation.
Meredith Honig, Ed. Pp. 25-46. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cuban, Larry
1998 How Schools Change Reforms: Redefining Reform Success and Failure. Teachers
College Record, 99(3): 453-477.
Design-Based Research Collective
2003 Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1): 5-8.
Deyhle, Donna L., G Alfred Hess, and Margaret D. LeCompte
1992 Approaching Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers in Education. In The
Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. Margaret LeCompte, Wendy Millroy,
and Judith Preissle, Eds. Pp. 597-641. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hamann, Edmund T.,
2003 Reflections on the Field: Imagining the Future of the Anthropology of Education If We
Take Laura Nader Seriously. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 34(4): 438-449.
(Available on-line at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/43/)
Hamann, Edmund T.,
2008 Advice, Cautions, and Opportunities for the Teachers of Binational Teachers:
Learning from Teacher Training Experiences of Georgia and Nebraska Teachers in
Mexico. In Second Binational Symposium Resource Book. Josué González and Kathy
Singh (Eds.). Tempe, AZ: Southwest Center for Education Equity and Language
Diversity, Mary Lou Fulton College of Education, Arizona State University. (Available
on-line at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/76)
Hamann, Edmund T., Víctor Zúñiga, and Juan Sánchez García,
2006 Pensando en Cynthia y Su Hermana: Educational Implications of U.S./Mexico
Transnationalism For Children. Journal of Latinos and Education 5(4): 253-274. (Available
on-line at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/60/)
Kelly, Anthony
2003 Theme Issue: The Role of Design in Educational Research. Educational
Researcher, 32(1): 3-4.
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 8
Lave, Jean
1996 The Savagery of the Domestic Mind. In Naked Science. Laura Nader, Ed. Pp. 87100. New York: Routledge.
Lobato, Joanne
2003 How Design Experiments Can Inform a Rethinking of Transfer and Vice Versa.
Educational Researcher, 32(1): 17-20.
Marshall, Catherine
1991 The Chasm Between Administrator and Teacher Cultures. In The Politics of Life in
Schools: Power, Conflict, and Cooperation. Joseph Blase, Ed. Pp. 139-160. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McCandliss, Bruce D., Mindy Kalchman and Peter Bryant
2003 Design Experiments and Laboratory Approaches to Learning: Steps Toward
Collaborative Exchange. Educational Researcher, 32(1): 14-16.
McLaughlin, Milbrey W.
2006 Implementation Research in Education: Lessons Learned, Lingering Questions,
and New Opportunities. In New Directions in Education Policy Implementation.
Meredith Honig, Ed. Pp. 209-228. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schweizer, Thomas
1998 Epistemology: The Nature and Validation of Anthropological Knowledge. In
Handbook of Methods of Cultural Anthropology. H. Russell Bernard, Ed. Pp. 39-87.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Shavelson, Richard J., D. C. Phillips, Lisa Towne and Michael J. Feuer
2003 On the Science of Education Design Studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1): 2528.
Sloane, Finbarr C. and Stephen Gorard
2003 Exploring Modeling Aspects of Design Experiments. Educational Researcher,
32(1): 29-31.
Wolcott, Harry
1988 “Problem Finding” in Qualitative Research. In School and Society: Learning
Content Through Culture. Henry T. Trueba and Concha Delgado-Gaitan, Eds. Pp. 1135. New York: Praeger.
1992 Posturing in Qualitative Inquiry. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Education. Margaret LeCompte, Wendy Millroy, and Judith Preissle, Eds. Pp. 3-52.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 9
Zaritsky, Raul, Anthony E. Kelly, Woodie Flowers, Everett Rogers and Patrick O’Neill
2003 Clinical Design Sciences: A View From Sister Design Efforts Educational
Researcher, 32(1): 32-34.
Zúñiga, Víctor, Edmund T. Hamann, and Juan Sánchez Garcia
2008 Book Prospectus: National Identity, Schooling, and U.S./Mexico Transnational
Students in Mexico. Unpublished.
Books
Glickman, Carl (Ed.)
2008 Those Who Dared: Five Visionaries Who Changed American Education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Heaton, Ruth M.
2000 Teaching Mathematics to the New Standards: Relearning the Dance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Horton, Myles and Paulo Freire
1990 We Make the Road By Walking: Conversation and Education and Social Change.
Brenda Bell, John Gaventa, and John Peters (Eds.). Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Noguera, Pedro A.
2008 The Trouble With Black Boys…And Other Reflections on Race, Equity, and the
Future of Public Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Proefriedt, William A.
2008 High Expectations: The Cultural Roots of Standards Reform in American
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sarason, Seymour B.
1996 Revisiting ‘The Culture of School and the Problem of Change.’ New York: Teachers
College Press.
Wilhelm, Jeffrey D.
2008 You Gotta BE the Book (2nd Edition). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wilson, Smokey
2007 “What About Rose? ”Using Teacher Research to Reverse School Failure. New
York: Teachers College Press.
995 Version 1.2 / February 3, 2009 10