Syllabus

MAET Year 2: France

Instructors:

Brandon Blinkenberg

(bran at msu.edu)

Emily Bouck

(bouck at purdue.edu)
Class: June 28th-July 23rd

M-Th 8:30-3:30; Office hours 3:30-4; Lunch 12-1

F 9:00-12

* See calendar for cross-section sharing, Unclass times, and field trip

General Overview

Year 2 consists of three courses. While these are separate courses, their presentation and ideas will be intertwined through the Year 2 teaching and learning. We view Year 2 as a collection of themes: technology, leadership, innovation, creativity, research, professional development, etc.

CEP 800: Learning with Technology in School and Other Settings

  • Importance of understanding educational theories and how they influence the design and use of new technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Exploration of technology-based instructional interventions rooted in an understanding of basic education psychology and learning theories.

CEP 815: Technology and Leadership

  • Professional development strategies, project management, planning, evaluation, relationships building. Ethical and social implications of technology integration.

CEP 822: Educational Approaches to Educational Research

  • Methods of educational research within the context of educational technology. Analysis and interpretation of research data. Evaluating the use of technology in educational settings. How technology can assist in the process of school, program, and curricula evaluation. Distinguish among alternative approaches to conception, design, analysis, and use of research via case examples.

* Technology emphasis: Web-based and emerging technologies

* Teaching and learning emphasis: Educational psychology; the web as a context for teaching and learning

Course requirements:

  • Readings will be available through our site (the list is provided at the end of the syllabus)
  • The course website is: http://www.msuedtechsandbox.com/2010RouenY2/
  • Technology Requirements:
    • Notebook computer (PC or Mac)
      • Minimum 50GB hard drive, minimum 25GB free disk space, minimum 1GB RAM)
    • Headphones
    • Microphone (or headset with built-in microphone)
    • USB flash drive (minimum of 512MB)
    • Digital camera
  • Technology Recommendations:
    • Video camera

Groups

During Year 2 we will be working in groups for a variety of projects as well as for small group discussion of readings. At the beginning of the course, groups will be formed. The groups will work together on the Video Research Project, the presentations for the PLATE Conference, readings discussions, minor projects, etc. While we acknowledge there are benefits to having groups change throughout the semester, we also realize that in this time and work intensive environment having consistent groups will allow groups to maximize their in-class work time. Information on the construction/formation of groups will follow.

* Note, for quickfire challenges, group composition may or may not be changed.

Major Projects

There will be three major projects for Year 2:

TPACK Project: For this project, you will identify a problem of practice, use the TPACK framework to address the problem, and create a web-based experience that presents your problem and solution to your peers as well as explains the thinking process that led you to the solution as opposed to others.

This project can be seen from two sides. On the one side, the project is about tackling a specific problem of practice for a plan that solves (or reduces) that problem. Looking at this project from another angle, it is also about sharing your thinking and plan with a wider audience of your peers.

For this project, you will:

  • Identify a problem of practice
  • Use the TPACK framework to address the problem
  • Create a web-based experience that presents your problem and solution to your peers, and explains the thinking process that led you to this solution as opposed to others

To begin this project, focus on a specific problem of practice you want to address (e.g., teaching students to divide fractions). When relevant, integrate relevant content and technology standards applicable to your problem and solution.

Based on your problem of practice, discuss what you believe to the best solution for your problem given the reality of the contexts in which you practice. Using the TPACK framework, you’ll be defending why you’ve made the decisions you have by contrasting them against other possible decisions you would have made.

Areas you want to address:

  • Content: What is it you want your students (or others) to learn and be able to do? What are the problems different students might have learning this content?
  • Context: What is the specific context in which you are working? What are the affordances and constraints of this context?
  • Technology: What technology seems best suited for your problem? What this is the best as opposed to other options?
  • Pedagogy: What pedagogies do you think will work best given your choice of content and technologies? Why this choice over others?
  • Interrelatedness: How are areas (e.g., technology, pedagogy) affected by changes in one another?

The end product for this project is not a MS Word document. Rather, you will be creating a web-based, multimedia experience designed to help other teachers and educator learn from you.

When thinking about this project, assume that an audience of your peers wants to get three things out of interacting with your web-based project:

  1. An understanding of the decision-making process when tacking problems of technology, pedagogy, and content within particular contextual constraints
  2. A specific plan they can put into practice in their own classrooms or other environments
  3. An example of a powerful way of sharing one’s teaching with colleagues

Rubric:

Addresses Content 6 points
Addresses Context 6 points
Addresses Technology 6 points
Addresses Pedagogy 6 points
Addresses Interrelatedness 6 points
Web-based, multimedia experience presentation 10 points
40 points

Plymouth Leadership and Technology for Educators Conference: Year 2 will be creating and conducting a conference on Leadership and Technology for the MAET program and possibly for others.

For this assignment, Year 2 students will be creating their own Leadership and Technology Conference. The objective is to both plan and implement a learning experience for other educational professionals on topics of leadership, technology, and education. The theme of the conference that will be creating and conducted is Leadership and Technology and broadly defined. Students will work in groups to develop 2 sessions – one on issues and ideas and the other on technology training. The “issues and ideas” sessions will tackle what is viewed as important topics in educational technology today. The “technology training” sessions will be designed to introduce colleagues to Web 2.0 technologies they could use in their classrooms. Please note, you will be recording at least audio, but preferably video, to make podcasts/vidcasts for the conference Web site.

This assignment has multiple parts, including:

  1. Creating electronic advertisement for the conference, including a conference Web site
  2. Determining session topics (and topics that garner interest)
  3. Preparing and presenting conference presentations
  4. Capturing program sessions to be archived on the conference Web site

Rubric:

Electronic advertisement 5 points
Planning program (i.e., selection of sessions) 10 points
Conference presentation 30 points

(15/presentation)

Archiving sessions 5 points
50 points

Conference schedule (TENTATIVE): Thursday, July 15th 1-3:30

  • 1:00-1:20 – Opening session/Keynote
  • 1:30-2:00 – Session 1
  • 2:10-2:40 – Session 2
  • 2:50-3:20 – Session 3
  • 3:30-3:45 – Closing session

Video Research Project: Year 2 will involve a video research project capturing understanding. The rationale for this project is that K-12 students come to class with a large number of entrenched, well-developed naïve conceptions and knowledge structures. These structures often interfere with what they are taught in school. In this project, each group is to select a certain topic and document people’s understanding of these topics. We will provide a short list of possible topics but this list is not exhaustive (and by no means should limit your creativity). Please discuss other topics with us that you feel are worthy of investigation.

This project is comprised of 5 parts:

  • Is there any prior research in this area that has looked into common conceptions or alternate conceptions to your topic?
    • This will require you to use the Internet, Google Scholar, online journals through the MSU library, etc.
  • Develop your research questions and an interview protocol. You need to decide what your topic is about and turn that into research questions. You also need to determine if you need anything (i.e., props, written questions) to elicit answers. Note, you may be able to find existing research protocols that you uncover in your search in Part I. You may also need to develop a set of interview questions to tap into people’s true understanding of your topic.
  • You will need to select a group of individuals that you will interview and record using a digital camera (recorder on your digital camera or programs available on your computer). It is expected that each group member participate in the interviews (i.e., interviews at least one person). Please keep these interviews precise and focused.
  • Edit the video interviews and incorporate them into one group video that depicts a variety of individual’s understanding of your topic.
  • Create a Web site for this research project. It should include the relevant research, research questions (and hypotheses), the video, results, and a brief discussion/reflection on why you selected this topic and larger implications for understanding or misunderstanding in classroom or other learning settings.

Some possible topics (open to others – please discuss):

  • How does the Internet work?
  • What causes weather events such as thunder, lightening, wind, tornadoes, etc.?
  • How do people learn/think?
  • What causes the sunrise and sunset?
  • How can you distinguish between things living and nonliving?
  • What causes shadows?
  • What is democracy?
  • What is justice?

Rubric:

Web site (45 pts. total)
Research questions and hypotheses 10
Video 15
Results 10
Discussion/reflection/

implications

10
Presentation of Video Research project 10 points
55 points

QuickFire Challenges

NOTE: These will be explained in greater detail during the course.

Sharing a tech tip

Once during the 4 weeks, you will share a tech tip with the class. This will occur during the 8:30-9:00 time slot. Each individual will sign up for a day and share a tech tip on that day. It can be a tip for making an application more effective, accessible, etc. It can be a Web site that provides something interesting for an educational perspective. Anything tech tip that you think your colleagues would benefit.

Lab Projects

In addition to the major and minor projects as well as to introduce you to important new technologies, we will also have in-class lab projects. These lab projects are performance-based and graded on a pass-fail scale. These labs are designed for students to be independent to meet the needs of beginning, intermediate, and advanced

Lab projects include:

  1. Basic Web Design
  2. Bibliographic Tools
  3. Advanced Web Design
  4. Images/Creative Commons
  5. Mind Maps
  6. Image Manipulation
  7. Video
  8. Recording/Editing Audio
  9. Web Presentations
  10. RSS
  11. Web Conferencing
  12. Wikis
  13. Surveys

Grading

You will receive an individual grade for each of the Year 2 courses. Below indicates the assignments and activities and constitute each course grade. Each course is worth 100 points. Note, professional conduct includes participation in in-class activities related to course content.

CEP 800:

  • Professional conduct (15 points; 15%)
  • TPACK Project (40 points; 40%)
  • Lab Projects 1-6 (5 points each => 30 points; 30%)
  • QuickFire Challenges (10 points, 10%)
  • Sharing a tech tip (5 points, 5%)

TOTAL: 100 points

CEP 815:

  • Professional Conduct (10 points; 10%)
  • PLATE Conference Project (50 points; 50%)
  • Lab projects 7-10 (5 points each => 20 points; 20%)
  • QuickFire Challenges (10 points each => 20 points ; 20%)

TOTAL: 100 points

CEP 822:

  • Professional Conduct (10 points; 10%)
  • Lab Projects 11-13 (5 points each => 15 points; 15%)
  • Video Research Project (55 points; 55%)
  • QuickFire Challenges (10 points each => 20 points; 20%)

TOTAL: 100 points

Schedule

While we will take each day as it come and be flexible, we will try to follow a schedule to provide you with predictability and routine. Given that these four weeks are intense and we are trying to cover a lot (major projects, minor projects, lab projects, readings and discussions), we will build in work time during the class time. Please note these are tentative and fluid, and will be adjusted as needed.

Mondays: 8:30-9:00 Check in/settle in, questions, tech tip
9:00-11:00 Discuss readings; in class activities related to readings
11:00-12:00 Work time; quickfire challenge
12:00-1:00 Lunch
1:00-3:00 Lab projects; work time* (note: wk3 1-3 is Unclass time; no lab)
3:00-3:30 Work time
3:30-4:00 Office hours
Tuesdays: 8:30-9:00 Check in/settle in, questions, tech tip
9:00-12:00 Discuss readings; in-class activities related to readings*

(note: wk2 and wk3 10-12 is Unclass time; 9-10 readings)

Start labs or work time (wk1 & wk4)

12:00-1:00 Lunch
1:00-2:00 Lab projects or Finish reading discussions/activities

(wk2 & wk3 because of Unclass)

2:00-3:30 Lab projects & work time
3:30-4:00 Office hours
Wednesdays: 8:30-9:00 Check in/settle in, questions, tech tip
9:00-10:30 Discuss readings; in-class activities related to readings
10:30-12:00 Lab projects
12:00-1:00 Lunch
1:00-3:00 Work time* (note: wk1 and wk2 1-3 is Unclass time)
3:00-3:30 Work time; Finish up reading discussion; in-class activities
3:30-4:00 Office hours
Thursdays: 8:30-9:00 Check in/settle in, questions, tech tip
9:00-11:00 Discuss readings, minor projects
11:00-12:00 Work time
12:00-1:00 Lunch
1:00-3:00 Lab projects; work time
3:00-3:30 Work time
3:30-4:00 Office hours
Fridays: 8:30-9:00 Check in/settle in, questions, tech tip
9:00-11:00 Work time; lab projects; discuss readings
11:00-12:00 Cross sharing

Readings

Date Focus Readings
Monday,

June 28

Learning · Shulman, L. (1999). What is learning and what does it look like when it doesn’t go well.
· Worth, K. The power of children’s thinking.
Tuesday,

June 29

TPCK

(TPACK)

· Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.

· Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017-1054.

Wednesday, June 30 Behaviorism · Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Behaviorism

· Langer, E. (1997). When practice makes imperfect. In The Power of Mindful Learning (pp. 9-31). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Thursday,

July 1

Cognitivism/ Constructivism · Gardner, H. (2006). The power of early theories. In Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds (pp. 49-67). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

· Bhattacharya, K.& Han, S. (2001). Piaget and cognitive development. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Piaget%27s_Constructivism

· Orey, M. (2001). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Information_processing

Friday,

July 2

NO READINGS – FIELD TRIP
Monday,

July 5

Professional Development (PLATE Conference) · Harris, J. (2008). One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development – Part I. Learning & Leading with Technology, Available from http://etpd.wm.edu/Documents/Harris-DesigningETPD1.pdf

· Harris, J. (2008). One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development – Part II. Learning & Leading with Technology. Available from http://etpd.wm.edu/Documents/Harris-DesigningETPD2.pdf

· Harris, J. (2008). One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development – Part III. Learning & Leading with Technology.

· Harris, J. (2008). One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development – Part IV. Learning & Leading with Technology. Available from http://etpd.wm.edu/Documents/Harris-DesigningETPD4.pdf

Tuesday,

July 6

Socioculturalism · Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understanding. In A personal introduction: An education for all human beings.

· Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism

· Galloway, C. M. (2001). Vygotsky’s Constructionism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Vygotsky%27s_constructivism

Wednesday, July 7 Creativity/

Innovation

· Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. Learning basic techniques. In How to develop student creativity.

· Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (  ). Introduction: Theory of creativity. In How to develop student creativity.

· Barell, J. A culture of inquisitiveness. In Developing more curious minds.

· James, V., Lederman Gerard, R., & Vagt-Traore, B. (2004). Enhancing creativity in the classroom. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Creativity

Thursday,

July 8

Misconceptions

& Research (VRP)

· Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. (1999). How experts differ from novices.  In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed., pp. 31-50. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Available http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6160&page=19)

· Perkins, D. (1993, Fall). Teaching for understanding. American Educator, 17(3), 28-35.

· Watson, B., & Kopnicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 680-684.

Friday,

July 9

NO READINGS – ½ Day
Monday,

July 12

Assistive Technology · Bouck, E. C. (2010).  Technology and students with disabilities: Does it solve all the problems. In F. E. Obiakor, J. P. Bakken, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Current Issues and Trends in Special Education: Research, Technology, and Teacher Preparation (pp. 91-104).

· Hasselbring, T. S. (2001). A possible future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 15-21.

Tuesday,

July 13

Other Ed Psy Theories ·Giles, E., Pitre, S., Womack, S. (2003). Multiple intelligences and learning styles. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Multiple_Intelligences_and_Learning_Styles

· Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Technology and MI. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/hoerr.htm

· Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

· Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digital. Tech & Learning, Retrieved April 13, 2010, fromhttp://www.techlearning.com/article/8670

Wednesday, July 14 NO READINGS – NO CLASS (CAMPUS CLOSED)
Thursday,

July 15

NO READINGS – PLATE CONFERENCE
Friday,

July 16

NO READINGS – ½ Day
Monday,

July 19

Evaluating Technology PD; Evaluating Technology · Rodriguez, G. , & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm

· Pea vs. Cuban: Tappin (http://tappedin.org/archive/peacuban/pea.html) and (http://tappedin.org/archive/peacuban/cuban.html)

· Cuban, L. (2001). Are computers in school worth the investment? In Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom (pp. 176-197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

· Cuban, L. (2001). Introduction. In Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom (pp. 1-20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tuesday,

July 20

The digital generation? · Prensky. M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

· Prensky. M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.

· Prensky, M. 2009. H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5(3). Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705

· MacKenzie, J. (2007). Digital nativism, digital delusions, and digital deprivation. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.fno.org/nov07/nativism.html

Wednesday, July 21 Technology Implementation · Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55, 223-252.

· Lessons learned for effective technology implementation. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_id=206

· Technology implementation in schools: Key factors to consider. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_id=187

· Mims, C., Polly, D., & Grant, M.. (2009). Technology integration in K-12. In M. K. Barbour & M. Orey (Eds.), The Foundations of Instructional Technology. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/ITFoundations/index.php?title=Technology_Integration_in_K-12

Thursday,

July 22

Motivation · Wang, S. (2001). Motivation: General overview of theories. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Motivation

· Wang, S. & Han, S. (2001). Six C’s of Motivation. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Six_C%27s_of_motivation

· http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=evidence&answerID=12

Friday,

July 23

NO READINGS – ½ day; end of session

Policies

Academic Honesty Policy: “The principles of truth and honesty are recognized as fundamental to the community of teachers and scholars. The University expects that both faculty and students will honor these principles and in so doing protect the validity of University grades. This means that all academic work will be done by the student to whom it is assigned, without unauthorized aid of any kind (See General Student Regulation 1.00, Scholarship and Grades for specific regulations). Instructors, for their part, will exercise care in the planning and supervisions of academic work, so that honest effort will be positively encouraged” (MSU General Information, Policies, Procedures, and Regulations, p. 24).

MSU Student Regulations: Participation in MSU courses assumes students will abide by the University’s Student Regulations (See Spartan Life, http://www.vps.msu.edu/SpLife/). Violations of these codes or legal statues may results in penalty of your course grade or dismissal from the course and/or University.

MSU Minimum GPA Policy: MSU, the College of Education, the CEPSE Department, and the MAET program all have a policy requiring MA students to maintain a cumulative GPA. “If upon completion of 18 or more graduate credits, the student has not attained a grade point average of 3.00 or higher, s/he comes ineligible to continue work toward the master’s degree in the College” (Academic Standards, University Graduate Policy – Education, p. 1).

MSU Minimum Course Grade Policy: According to MSU policy, students cannot receive credit for any course with a grade below 2.0. You have to take an extra course if you earn below a 2.0 in any course. Note, in the MAET program, no 2.0 grades can be applied towards your degree (MSU General Information, Policies, Procedures, and Regulations, p. 22).

Professional Policy: During lecture, discussion, lab, work sessions during course time, we ask that you refrain from email, IM, skype, unrelated web-surfing, etc. Throughout the day, you will have several breaks during which you can do these activities. Further, it is expected that you are prepared, prompt, and present in both classroom activities and with regards to submitting assignments.

Comments are closed.