Piedmont College
School of Education
Syllabus for Specialist Degree
Strand II
Advanced Research II: Design and Application
EDS 821
Mastering the art
of teaching:
Preparing Proactive Educators to Improve the
Lives of Children
I. Course
Title: Advanced Research II: Design and Application
Number: EDS 821.1
Three Semester Hours
II. Instructor
Name: Dr. Bob Cummings
Office Location: L-120
Phone: (706) 778-3000 ext. 1265
Email: bcummings@piedmont.edu
Fax # (706) 776-9608 for Demorest and (706) 546-8223 for Athens
Office Hours:
Mondays 1pm-3pm
Wednesdays 2pm-5pm
III. Time and Place
Day(s): Saturdays
Time: 9am-5pm
Class Location: Lane Education Center, Computer Lab
IV. Text(s)
Required
Johnson, B. and Christensen, L., (2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
APA Style Manual (5th ed.)
IV. School of Education Mission
Piedmont
College Mission
Inspired by the liberal arts tradition and a historical association with the Congregational Christian Churches, Piedmont College cultivates a diverse, challenging and caring intellectual environment to encourage academic success and spiritual development.
To accomplish this mission, the college offers a number of major fields of study that are informed by the liberal arts, including specialized professional programs and selected graduate programs. Instructional opportunities are also provided at distant locations to meet student needs.
School of Education Mission &
Philosophy:
The theme of the School of Education is “Preparing Proactive Educators to Improve the Lives of Children.” Reinforcing the mission of Piedmont College, the School of Education strives to prepare reflective, scholarly, proactive educators. These practitioners effectively educate their own candidates to become knowledgeable, inquisitive, and collaborative learners in diverse, democratic learning communities.
Specific ideals under-gird our conceptual framework. We advocate the democratic ideals of: equal rights and opportunities; individual freedom and responsibility; responsibility for the greater good; respect for diversity; openness to possibilities; and open, informed discourse.
We endorse the following processes as a means of striving for our democratic ideals: engaging in participatory decision-making; collaborating in teaching and learning; collecting information from all constituencies; examining options and projecting consequences; nurturing open discourse; providing for field experiences; assessing processes as well as products; modeling democratic ideals in the classroom; forming communities of learners; and constantly revising the curriculum to reflect new insights and understandings. Further, we endorse the development of a sense of personal integrity and of strong habits of mind (e.g., reflectiveness, persistence, clarity, accuracy, and responsiveness to feedback).
Specialist Degree Program
Goal(s);
The program goal of the Specialist Program in Instruction is designed to develop distinguished contributing teachers as leaders, mentors, and models across schools and systems. The primary purpose of schooling is instruction; therefore, all teachers, staff and administrators must focus through habits of mind on the ultimate goal of providing candidates with the best and most appropriate education possible through continuing school improvement. Regular classroom teachers, teachers in pull-out areas, lead teachers, department heads, building level administrators, as well as staff and administrators at the district level need to view themselves as instructional leaders and through proactive, scholarly and reflective professional and pedagogical development provide instructional expertise and leadership to candidates and peers both formally and informally.
The specialist program in instruction offers components that address the qualities necessary for preparing distinguished teaching and leadership. The program will provide a rigorous and scholarly pragmatic approach that will meet the needs of candidates in various geographic and educational contexts. To that end, participants are required to specialize in the four program strand themes:
1.
Historical
foundations of education,
2.
Field based research
that examines and leads to improved candidate achievement,
3. Personal and professional philosophy and pedagogy, and
4.
Developing expertise in content inquiry style involving classroom
practices and
management.
These four
strands form a holistic approach to the one year, 30 hour, program of study as
continuous themes and curricula to guide, instruct, and develop the
professional educator to attain distinguished levels of both theory and
practice and become contributing members in the professional discourse of
improving schooling.
VI. Strand/Course Description & Purpose
The
purpose of this course is the continuation of the study of current research
methods and theories, procedures and designs with an emphasis on quantitative and/or
qualitative methodologies to aid in the processes of school improvement, or
meeting criteria for National Board certification, and the development and
implementation of a professional Development Portfolio (PDP). The focus of this course is to demonstrate
the ability to critically synthesize educational literature, gather data for
analysis and apply at least one research method to an educational problem. Candidates will design a research project
that will be presented in proposal format. The goal will be to assess the state
of scholarly literature, identify the interesting questions, formulate
strategies for answering them, acquire the methodological tools with which to
conduct the research, and understand how to write up the results so that they may
be presented and/or published
VII. School of Education Outcomes
Candidate
Learning Outcomes (CLO):
The following applicable outcomes, adapted from the 1994 INTASC standards (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium), are addressed in this course.
1) Learning Environment: The candidate uses an understanding of individual and group motivation to create a caring learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self regulation. The candidate additionally fosters the ideals of a democratic classroom by treating candidates fairly and justly, providing intellectual challenge, and supporting candidates as they pursue knowledge and understanding.
2) Subject Matter: The candidate understands and can model the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for candidates.
3) Candidate Learning: The candidate understands how candidates develop and learn and can provide well-managed learning opportunities that support candidates’ intellectual, social, and personal growth.
4) Diversity: The candidate understands that learners are the products of their innate talents/disabilities, preferred learning styles, and cultural experiences and can adapt instruction to meet diverse needs.
5) Instructional Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage the development of candidate critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.
6) Assessment Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of assessment strategies to encourage the continual intellectual, social, and personal growth of candidates.
7) Communication and Technology: The candidate uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communication techniques and technologies to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.
8) Planning Instruction: The candidate plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter/pedagogy, candidates, the community, and curriculum goals.
9) Reflection and Professional Development: The candidate is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of her/his choices and actions upon others, and who actively seeks opportunities for the continual development of a personal pedagogy.
10) Collaboration and Relationships: The candidate communicates and interacts with other educators, parents/families, and the community to support candidate learning and well being.
National Board Professional Teacher Standards:
Five core propositions:
1.Teachers are committed to candidates and their
learning.
2.Teachers know
the subjects they teach and how to teach
those
subjects to candidates.
3.Teachers
are responsible for managing and monitoring
candidate
learning.
4.Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn
from experience.
5.Teachers are members of learning communities
Specialist Program Candidate
Outcomes
Potentially all Specialist Program Candidate Outcomes could be met in this strand based on each Candidate’s PDP theme or topic.
· Specialist Candidates will demonstrate proactive knowledge of techniques that bring about positive change in schools, schooling and practices
· Specialist Candidates will be use assessment of characteristics and needs of candidate learners
·
Specialist Candidates (through reflection) will conduct
self-assessment
·
Specialist Candidates will reflect and improve on
candidate learning
·
Specialist Candidates will integrate technology to
enhance learning
·
Specialist Candidates will model, develop, and deliver
content expertise
·
Specialist Candidates will generate and use proactive
and scholarly research to improve schooling
·
Specialist Candidates will create learning communities
·
Specialist Candidates will provide leadership for
creating democratic learning
·
Specialist Candidates will contribute to professional
growth of their profession
·
Specialist Candidates
will demonstrate ethical dimensions of teaching
VIII. Core Course Outcomes Addressed in the Class
.
The Candidate will be able to demonstrate a knowledgeable understanding of research methodologies through application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of research by performing and reporting a PDP project in an educational environment. At the conclusion of the strand and course, candidiates should be able to:
a. (CCLO 2,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the processes an procedures of quantitative and qualitative research;
b. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate vocabulary of research;
c. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate various kinds of research methods;
d. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate quantitative and qualitative methods and designs;
e. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate data interpretation;
f. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate technology used for research;
g.
(CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate research and how it assists teachers to make
changes in their educational practices.
IX. Course Policies & Procedures
X. Class Attendance & Participation
Attendance/Participation:
Attendance, timeliness, and participation are required and part of your grade. The School of Education policy states that more than the allotted number of excused absences for any reason will result in failure of the course. The allotted number of excused absences is as follows:
· Day classes meeting three times a week for entire semester: 6 absences
· Day classes meeting two times a week for entire semester: 4 absences
·
All eight-week
classes: 1 absence
· Evening classes meeting for entire semester: 3 absences
· Summer Institute: 1 absence per course
Only
those absences due to emergencies will be excused. Work missed due to an excused absence may be made up. It is the candidate’s responsibility to
inform the professor in writing how he or she plans to make up the work. Any candidate who misses more than the
allowable number of classes will be asked to drop the course or will receive an
F at the end of the semester. Please
contact the professor prior to absence when possible.
ActActiActive
Active participation means that every candidate prepares for class by reading
the text and/or other assigned readings and that each candidate actively
participates in discussions and activities conducted during class.
XI. Academic Honesty
Written Work:
Use APA style (4th ed.). All papers for the course are to be typed using size 12 print and one of the following fonts: Bookman, Times New Roman, or Geneva. Papers should be double-spaced, error-free, and grammatically correct (including punctuation, spelling, capitalization, etc.). Make good use of writing references such as dictionaries, writing handbooks, and computer spelling and grammar checks. Each paper should have a cover sheet with your name, course number and name, assignment, and date clearly typed on the front.
Academic Integrity:
By accepting admission to Piedmont College, each candidate makes a commitment to understand, support, and abide by the "Academic Integrity Policy" without compromise or exception. This class will be conducted in strict observance of the policy. Refer to your Piedmont College Candidate Handbook for details.
All work submitted must be your
original work created in and for this course. It should be properly referenced
using APA (including information from the internet). Double dipping (to be explained in class) is not permitted.
Research
Ethics (AERA)
Educational researchers come from many disciplines, embrace several
competing theoretical frameworks, and use a variety of research
methodologies. AERA recognizes that its members are already guided
by codes in the various disciplines and, also, by organizations such as
institutional review boards. AERA's code of ethics incorporates a set of
standards designed specifically to guide the work of researchers in
education. Education, by its very nature, is aimed at the improvement
of individual lives and societies. Further, research in education is often
directed at children and other vulnerable populations. A main objective
of this code is to remind us, as educational researchers, that we should
strive to protect these populations, and to maintain the integrity of our
research, of our research community, and of all those with whom we
have professional relations. We should pledge ourselves to do this by
maintaining our own competence and that of people we induct into the
field, by continually evaluating our research for its ethical and scientific
adequacy, and by conducting our internal and external relations
according to the highest ethical standards.
The standards that follow remind us that we are involved not only in
research but in education. It is, therefore, essential that we continually
reflect on our research to be sure that it is not only sound scientifically
but that it makes a positive contribution to the educational enterprise.
I. Guiding Standards: Responsibilities to the Field
A. Preamble.
To maintain the integrity of research, educational researchers should
warrant their research conclusions adequately in a way consistent with
the standards of their own theoretical and methodological perspectives.
They should keep themselves well informed in both their own and
competing paradigms where those are relevant to their research, and
they should continually evaluate the criteria of adequacy by which
research is judged.
B. Standards
1.Educational researchers should conduct their professional lives
in such a way that they do not jeopardize future research, the
public standing of the field, or the discipline's research results.
2.Educational researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or
misrepresent authorship, evidence, data, findings, or
conclusions.
3.Educational researchers must not knowingly or negligently use
their professional roles for fraudulent purposes.
4.Educational researchers should honestly and fully disclose their
qualifications and limitations when providing professional
opinions to the public, to government agencies, and others who
may avail themselves of the expertise possessed by members of
AERA.
5.Educational researchers should attempt to report their findings
to all relevant stakeholders, and should refrain from keeping
secret or selectively communicating their findings.
6.Educational researchers should report research conceptions,
procedures, results, and analyses accurately and sufficiently in
detail to allow knowledgeable, trained researchers to understand
and interpret them.
7.Educational researchers' reports to the public should be written
straightforwardly to communicate the practical significance for
policy, including limits in effectiveness and in generalizability to
situations, problems, and contexts. In writing for or
communicating with nonresearchers, educational researchers
must take care not to misrepresent the practical or policy
implications of their research or the research of others.
8.When educational researchers participate in actions related to
hiring, retention, and advancement, they should not discriminate
on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, physical disabilities,
marital status, color, social class, religion, ethnic background,
national origin, or other attributes not relevant to the evaluation of
academic or research competence.
9.Educational researchers have a responsibility to make candid,
forthright personnel recommendations and not to recommend
those who are manifestly unfit.
10.Educational researchers should decline request to review the
work of others where strong conflicts of interest are involved, or
when such requests cannot be conscientiously fulfilled on time.
Materials sent for review should be read in their entirety and
considered carefully, with evaluative comments justified with
explicit reasons.
11.Educational researchers should avoid all forms of harassment,
not merely those overt actions or threats that are due cause for
legal action. They must not use their professional positions or
rank to coerce personal or sexual favors or economic or
professional advantages from candidates, research assistants,
clerical staff, colleagues, or any others.
12.Educational researchers should not be penalized for reporting in
good faith violations of these or other professional standards.
II. Guiding Standards: Research Populations, Educational
Institutions, and the Public
A. Preamble.
Educational researchers conduct research within a broad array of
settings and institutions, including schools, colleges, universities,
hospitals, and prisons. It is of paramount importance that educational
researchers respect the rights, privacy, dignity, and sensitivities of their
research populations and also the integrity of the institutions within
which the research occurs. Educational researchers should be
especially careful in working with children and other vulnerable
populations. These standards are intended to reinforce and strengthen
already existing standards enforced by institutional review boards and
other professional associations.
B. Standards.
1.Participants, or their guardians, in a research study have the
right to be informed about the likely risks involved in the
research and of potential consequences for participants, and to
give their informed consent before participating in research.
Educational researchers should communicate the aims of the
investigation as well as possible to informants and participants
(and their guardians), and appropriate representatives of
institutions, and keep them updated about any significant
changes in the research program.
2.Honesty should characterize the relationship between
researchers and participants and appropriate institutional
representatives. Deception is discouraged; it should be used only
when clearly necessary for scientific studies, and should then be
minimized. After the study the researcher should explain to the
participants and institutional representatives the reasons for the
deception.
3.Educational researchers should be sensitive to any locally
established institutional policies or guidelines for conducting
research.
4.Participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any
time, unless otherwise constrained by their official capacities or
roles.
5.Educational researchers should exercise caution to ensure that
there is no exploitation for personal gain of research populations
or of institutional settings of research. Educational researchers
should not use their influence over subordinates, candidates, or
others to compel them to participate in research.
6.Researchers have a responsibility to be mindful of cultural,
religious, gender, and other significant differences within the
research population in the planning, conduct, and reporting of
their research.
7.Researchers should carefully consider and minimize the use of
research techniques that might have negative social
consequences, for example, experimental interventions that
might deprive candidates of important parts of the standard
curriculum.
8.Educational researchers should be sensitive to the integrity of
ongoing institutional activities and alert appropriate institutional
representatives of possible disturbances in such activities which
may result from the conduct of the research.
9.Educational researchers should communicate their findings and
the practical significance of their research in clear,
straightforward, and appropriate language to relevant research
populations, institutional representatives, and other stakeholders.
10.Informants and participants have a right to remain anonymous.
This right should be respected when no clear understanding to
the contrary has been reached. Researchers are responsible for
taking appropriate precautions to protect the confidentiality of
both participants and data. Those being studied should be made
aware of the capacities of the various data-gathering technologies
to be used in the investigation so that they can make an informed
decision about their participation. It should also be made clear to
informants and participants that despite every effort made to
preserve it, anonymity may be compromised. Secondary
researchers should respect and maintain the anonymity
established by primary researchers.
III. Guiding Standards: Intellectual Ownership
A. Preamble.
Intellectual ownership is predominantly a function of creative
contribution. Intellectual ownership is not predominantly a function of
effort expended.
B. Standards.
1.Authorship should be determined based on the following
guidelines, which are not intended to stifle collaboration, but
rather to clarify the credit appropriately due for various
contributions to research.
a. All those, regardless of status, who have made
substantive creative contribution to the generation of an
intellectual product are entitled to be listed as authors of
that product.
b. First authorship and order of authorship should be the
consequence of relative creative leadership and creative
contribution. Examples of creative contributions are:
writing first drafts or substantial portions; significant
rewriting or substantive editing; and contributing
generative ideas or basic conceptual schemes or analytic
categories, collecting data which require significant
interpretation or judgment, and interpreting data.
c. Clerical or mechanical contributions to an intellectual
product are not grounds for ascribing authorship.
Examples of such technical contributions are: typing,
routine data collection or analysis, routine editing, and
participation in staff meetings.
d. Authorship and first authorship are not warranted by
legal or contractual responsibility for or authority over the
project or process that generates an intellectual product. It
is improper to enter into contractual arrangements that
preclude the proper assignment of authorship.
e. Anyone listed as author must have given his/her consent
to be so listed.
f. The work of those who have contributed to the production
of an intellectual product in ways short of these
requirements for authorship should be appropriately
acknowledged within the product.
g. Acknowledgement of other work significantly relied on in
the development of an intellectual product is required.
However, so long as such work is not plagiarized or
otherwise inappropriately used, such reliance is not ground
for authorship or ownership.
h. It is improper to use positions of authority to appropriate
the work of others or claim credit for it. In hierarchical
relationships, educational researchers should take care to
ensure that those in subordinate positions receive fair and
appropriate authorship credit.
i. Theses and dissertations are special cases in which
authorship is not determined strictly by the criteria
elaborated in these standards. Authorship in the
publication of work arising from theses and dissertations is
determined by creative intellectual contributions as in
other cases.
j. Authors should disclose the publication history of articles
they submit for publication; that is, if the present article is
substantially similar in content and form to one previously
published, that fact should be noted and the place of
publication cited.
2.While under suitable circumstances, ideas and other intellectual
products may be viewed as commodities, arrangements
concerning the production or distribution of ideas or other
intellectual products must be consistent with academic freedom
and the appropriate availability of intellectual products to
scholars, candidates, and the public. Moreover, when a conflict
between the academic and scholarly purposes of intellectual
production and profit from such production arise, preference
should be given to the academic and scholarly purposes.
3.Ownership of intellectual products should be based upon the
following guidelines:
a. Individuals are entitled to profit from the sale or
disposition of those intellectual products, they create. They
may therefore enter into contracts or other arrangements
for the publication or disposition of intellectual products,
and profit financially from these arrangements.
b. Arrangements for the publication or disposition of
intellectual products should be consistent with their
appropriate public availability and with academic freedom.
Such arrangements should emphasize the academic
functions of publication over the maximization of profit.
c. Individuals or groups who fund or otherwise provide
resources for the development of intellectual products are
entitled to assert claims to a fair share of the royalties or
other profits from the sale or disposition of these products.
As such claims are likely to be contentious, funding
institutions and authors should agree on policies for the
disposition of profits at the outset of the research or
development project.
d. Authors should not use positions of authority over other
individuals to compel them to purchase an intellectual
product from which the authors benefit. This standard is
not meant to prohibit use of an author's own textbook in a
class, but copies should be made available on library
reserve so that candidates are not forced to purchase it.
IV. Guiding Standards: Editing, Reviewing, and Appraising
Research
A. Preamble.
Editors and reviewers have a responsibility to recognize a wide variety
of theoretical and methodological perspectives and, at the same time,
to ensure that manuscripts meet the highest standards as defined in
the various perspectives.
B. Standards
1.AERA journals should handle refereed articles in a manner
consistent with the following principles:
a. Fairness requires a review process that evaluates
submitted works solely on the basis of merit. Merit shall be
understood to include both the competence with which the
argument is conducted and the significance of the results
achieved.
b. Although each AERA journal may concentrate on a
particular field or type of research, the set of journals as a
whole should be open to all disciplines and perspectives
currently represented in the membership and which
support a tradition of responsible educational scholarship.
This standard is not intended to exclude worthy
innovations.
c. Blind review, with multiple readers, should be used for
each submission, except where explicitly waived. (See #3.)
d. Judgments of the adequacy of an inquiry should be
made by reviewers who are competent to read the work
submitted to them. Editors should strive to select reviewers
who are familiar with the research paradigm and who are
not so unsympathetic as to preclude a disinterested
judgment of the merit of the inquiry.
e. Editors should insist that even unfavorable reviews be
dispassionate and constructive. Authors have the right to
know the grounds for rejection of their work.
2.AERA journals should have written, published policies for
refereeing articles.
3.AERA journals should have a written, published policy stating
when solicited and nonrefereed publications are permissible.
4.AERA journals should publish statements indicating any special
emphases expected to characterize articles submitted for review.
5.In addition to enforcing standing strictures against sexist and
racist language, editors should reject articles that contain ad
hominem attacks on individuals or groups or insist that such
language or attacks be removed prior to publication.
6.AERA journals and AERA members who serve as editors of
journals should require authors to disclose the full publication
history of material substantially similar in content and form to
that submitted to their journals.
V. Guiding Standards: Sponsors, Policymakers, and Other Users
of Research
A. Preamble.
Researchers, research institutions, and sponsors of research jointly
share responsibility for the ethical integrity of research, and should
ensure that this integrity is not violated. While it is recognized that
these parties may sometimes have conflicting legitimate aims, all those
with responsibility for research should protect against compromising
the standards of research, the community of researchers, the subjects
of research, and the users of research. They should support the widest
possible dissemination and publication of research results. AERA
should promote, as nearly as it can, conditions conducive to the
preservation of research integrity.
B. Standards.