Elementary and Early Childhood Education

Elementary and Early Childhood Education

M.Ed. Program

Syllabus

Summer Semester 2009

1. ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospestus (3 hrs)

KennesawStateUniversity

BagwellCollege of Education

Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education

1. INSTRUCTOR:

Dr. Mark Warner—Cohort (02)

e-mail

website:

III.CLASS MEETINGS:Mondays 9am-5pm

IV:TEXTS (for ECE 7511)

Required:

Glanz, J. (2003) Action Research. Norwood, MA. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc..

Optional:

Mills, G. (2003). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (2nd ed.). UpperSaddleRiver,

NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. (ISNB 0-13-042254-1)

Urdan, T. (2001). Statistics in plain English. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association

Galvan, J.(2004). Writing Literature Reviews A guide for students of theSocial and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed) Glendale, CA:. Pyrczak Publishing.

Lyne, L. (2003). A Cross Section of Educational Research Journal Articles for Discussion and Evaluation (2nd ed). Los Angeles, CA:. Pyrczak Publishing.

Those students who own laptop computers are welcome to bring those to class, too.

1. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTIONS:

ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus

Through the exploration of quantitative and qualitative educational research, and the interpretation of formal and authentic assessment measures, 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.

1. PURPOSE/RATIONALE: The purpose of this course is to prepare current kindergarten through fifth grade teachers to use action research to improve their effectiveness as educators. The course will assist teachers in becoming familiar with the methods used in action research and ways to examine major factors which should be considered in the planning, implementing, and evaluation of classroom practice. The prospective teachers will explore ways to integrate student needs and characteristics, curriculum and classroom management and evaluation into strategies which can improve instruction.

1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:

1Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning

The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at KennesawStateUniversity 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.

VIII.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.

KennesawStateUniversity 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.

IX.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: Students in ECE 7511 are expected to examine uses of instructional technology, including calculators, projected visual technology, audio and video technology, computer technology, and Internet resources in the teaching and learning of science. They are expected to incorporate technology into their lessons when appropriate—development of lesson, implementation of lesson, assessment of lesson, analysis of teaching, etc.

X.IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSIS:

It is our assumption that you are already assessing the influence of your instruction on your students’ learning and that you are considering what factors, such as student diversity, might affect your students’ achievement. For this assignment, you will select a lesson, activity, unit, or skill that you plan to teach this semester and analyze its impact on your students’ learning. Then, you will reflect on the impact on your students’ learning on that particular lesson, activity, unit, or skill using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide. You will want to consider how the differences that every student brings to the classroom setting may have influenced learning (see definition of “every student” at the top of attached “Impact on Student Learning” rubric). Unless your program area tells you differently, the length of the reflection is up to you, but it should be concise. (See Directions for “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” that accompanies the Rubric for greater detail.)

XI.

XI.FIELD EXPERIENCE STATEMENT: While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a variety of school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may include, but are not limited to, tutoring students, assisting teachers or other school personnel, attending school board meetings, and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.

XII.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.

1. 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” 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.

1. 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:

ECE 7511 Inquiry: Educational Research and Prospectus

(3 semester hours)

Through the exploration and interpretation of formal and authentic assessment measures, 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 in Module II of the M.Ed. program.

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. 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)

6. Demonstrate the understanding of the principles of multiple assessment (CPI 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)

7. Discuss legal issues inherent in contemporary systems of education (CPI 1.2, 3.2, 3.3)

8. Utilize technology to enhance learning (CPI 2.4, 2.6, 3.1)

9. 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 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:

**********************************

VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:

Precis on readings to be assigned - 2 x 50 pts - 100

Action Research Quiz - 50 points

Literature Review 150 points

Reflections (4) – 100 pts

Total = 400 points

IX.EVALUATION AND GRADING:

A:92% - 100%

B:84% - 91%

C: 75% - 83%

F: 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 in. paper. Action research work submitted should follow APA format.

X. ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT:

The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in fulfillment of program or course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”

1. CLASS ATTENDANCE POLICY:

Attendance is required for all class sessions, and candidates are expected to be on time. However, it is recognized that emergencies do occur. Candidates are expected to discuss any emergencies/absences with the instructors. We will be learning how to use electronic equipment, evaluating our own learning, and providing feedback to each other. Class discussions, group work, and peer evaluation activities require that everyone be present.

XII.COURSE OUTLINE

XII.COURSE OUTLINE

(Tentative and Subject to Change)

The goal of these courses is for candidates to construct their own conceptualizations of best instructional, curricular, and assessment practice. To this end, the courses are arranged from an inductive point of view and contain regular hands-on inquiry activities based on candidates’ own experiences in their classrooms to aid in their construction of the conceptualizations.

Class # and Date / Topics/Activities / Assignments / Assignments Due / Proficiencies
June 8 / General Overview of Program
Syllabus
Educational Issues
How Concepts
Action Research / Read Gifted Hispanics Action Research
Write Precis on Paper
Read Glanz Ch 1
Class Website
On-line Resources
On-Line Rubrics
Literature Review
Ideas for Action Research / Reflection # 1
Read Glanz Ch 3 and Ch 4 / Precis #1
June 15 / Quantitative Research
Overview of basic statistics
Measures of Central Tendency
Descriptive Statistics / Read Glanz Ch 7
Read Reader’s Theatre Research
Write Precis on Paper / Reflection 1 Due
Quantitative Research Designs
The Literature Review / Reflection # 2
Literature Reviews / Precis #2
June 22 / Collecting and Analyzing Quantitative Data
The T-test
Correlations / Rev. I Due
Reflection #2
Reflection # 3
June29 / Qualitative Research
Overview of qualitative methods / Read Glanz Ch 5
Read Computer Math Action Research
Reflection #4
Analyzing Qualitative Data
Developing codes, categories, and assertions / Read Glanz Ch 7 & 9 / Reflection # 4
July 13 / Summary of Action Research
Action Research Quiz / Action Research Quiz
Discuss Literature Reviews
Course Evaluations / Literature Reviews

1. 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 - GrantHigh 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

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, MI49017-4058.

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.

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.

Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The reading teacher, March, 1990.1605

Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The science teacher, September, 1991.

“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning” Page 1 of 7