Bobbitt, F.(1928). How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bruce, F. and Dodson, E. (2001) Technology and the Human Spirit: Confronting the New Millenium. [Electronic Version]. Association of Humanistic Psychology. Retrieved Jan. 18th, 2006 from http://www.ahpweb.org/involve/centers/technologyandspirit.html
Conway, Judith (1997) Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Jan. 20th, 2006 from http://udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.
Driscoll, M.(1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered, 2e, New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Art of Educational Evaluation, Lewes: Falmer Press.
Eisner E. W. and Vallance E. (1974). Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gagne, R. and Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gardner, Howard (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, Howard (1999) Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books.
Gendron, B. (1977) Technology and the Human Condition, NY: St.Martin. p. 23
Ghaoui, C. (2004). E-Education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc.
Henderson, James G. and Kesson, Kathleen R. (2004). Curriculum Wisdom: Educational Decisions in Democratic Societies. OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hewit, T. W. (2006). Understanding and Shaping Curriculum: What We Teach and Why. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hurd N. S. and Stein R. F. (2004). Building and Sustaining Learning Communities. The Syracuse University Experience. MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Magoulas D. G. and Chen, S.Y. (2006). Advances in Web-Based Education: Personalized Learning Environments. (London: Idea Group Inc.)
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
McNeil, J. D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.
McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary Curriculum: In Thought ad Action, 6th Edition. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R. and Holzinger, A. Student-Centered Teaching Meets New Media: Concept and Case Study Educational Technology & Society 5 (4) 2002 at 3. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Jan 18,th 2007, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2002/renate.html
Panitz, T. (2001). Learning Together: Keeping Teachers and Students Actively Involved by Writing Across the Curriculum A Source Book of Ideas and Writing Assignments. Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.
Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the Curriculum. 3d edit. NY: McGraw Hill.
Roberts, Tim S. (2004) Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (London: Idea Group Inc.)
Rogers, C.R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Rosales-Dordelly, C.L. and Short, E.C. (1985). Curriculum Professors’ Specialized Knowledge. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Redmond A. (2004). The Education Living Learning Community in Hurd. S.N. and Stein, R.F. Building and Sustaining Learning Communities (p.190)
Sagor, R. (1993). At-Risk Students: Reaching and Teaching Them. Swampscott, Massachusetts: Watersun Publishing Company, Inc.
Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the Structure of the Disciplines. In J. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schwab, J. (1971). The Practical: Arts of Eclectic. School Review, 79, 493-542.
Short Edmund C. (1991). Forms of Curriculum Inquiry. New York: State University of New York.
Schwier, R., and Misanchuk, E. N. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. CA: Englewood Cliffs.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
Tim S. R. (Ed.). (2004). Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. London: Idea Group Inc.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., and Hoppe, U. (Ed.). (2003). Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning. Netherlands: Kugler Academic Publishers.
White, J.A. and Purdom, D. A. (n.d.) Viewing Modern Instructional Technology through Conceptions of Curriculum [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Jan 18,th 2007, from http://gozips.uakron.edu/~jsavery/emerging/it-and-curriculum.htm
Zuga, Karen F. (n.d). Relating Technology Education Goals to Curriculum Planning, [Electronic Version] Journal of Technology. Retrieved Jan.18th, 2007 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v1n1/zuga.jte-v1n1.html
I got Voice –In my MEd I am learning to be a leader and feeling free to ‘speaking my truth.’ Vision and Passion: my view of the future is that Venezuela will make progress, and I will be injecting enthusiasm and energy to transform the vision of education. University education, particularly the program communication and technology at UCV is rigid, follows a traditional pattern, offering a couple of courses via online. I have a simple vision:
To teach people that Life is a Journey and that this Journey requires flexibility, freedom and commitment to research to pursue happiness. Given the constant progress of communications and technology, the challenge is:
To seek the integral formation of the student so that he and she may develop positively and creatively in his or her environment, being committed to find new ways for his/her own growth, as well as that of his/her society. To help students to apply technology skills, as well as teaching in an online environment, research methods and abilities to value an integrated and a coherent curriculum. The final purpose is to encourage them to keep learning on their own. The use of different teaching techniques motivate students to learn better the material presented to them in class, besides providing them with enough tools to continue developing their learning skills on their own.
My Preparation: Courses taken M.Ed Communications & Technology in U Sask. Canada: EDCMM 802.6 Historical & Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology (Fall 2006/Winter 2007) 6 cr. ECMM 804.3/ Distance Education Theory and Practice (Online option) (CRN: ECMM 804.3-82701) 2008 Dr Morrison EDCMM 873.3 Instructional Design: Designing Materials for Individualized Instruction (Fall 2007) 3 credit EDCMM 874.3 Advanced Principles of Instructional Design (Winter 2008) 3 U Dr Wilson EC&I 834.3 Teaching in an Online Environment,University of Regina(Spring/Summer 2008 ERES 800 Ed Research Dr Noonan –Spring/Summer 2009 ECUR 805 Ed Evaluation Winter 2009 Dr Jay Wilson ECUR 960 Ethics ECUR 990 Curriculum Seminar Fall/Winter 2009-2010 Dr Janet McVittie ECUR 991 Curriculum Portfolio Winter 2010 Dr Tim Molnar
My values are: freedom, honesty, balance, trust, determination, confidence, being healthy, contribution, family… Personal integrity: creating trust and being a good listener. Intellectual stimulation (researcher)
Confidence Principle & Personal Charisma: persuasiveness and sound self-esteem (no arrogance). “A confident persuader creates confidence in the persuaded.” The Route Forwards: inspirational motivation, finding the way forwards, feeling progress, collaboration…
Seeking to Transform: seeking change, to transform the organization. My focus will be on transforming traditional rigid view of teaching into a modern technology & freedom perspective, combining face to face with an online environment in my University in Venezuela: helping to restructure the graduate program of education (a specialization "Tecnologias de la Informacion Comunicacion") by improving program conditions e.g., "Communication & Technology for Freedom" emphasizing in three components: Research Methodology using Data Bases online, Curriculum Portfolio, teaching in an online environment. This program will be good not only for educators, teachers, faculty but also for lawyers, politicians, etc. (interdisciplinary). Different people often seek updating knowledge in Communication & Technology. This program can be transformed into a more freedom and happiness to the students. To that end, I will start today with a Survey questionnaire to participants and stakeholders to find out specific needs. Please click: https://survey.usask.ca/survey.php?sid=18846&preview_survey=1
“If you do not know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere.” ~ Henry Kissinger ~
“A single lie destroys a whole reputation for integrity.” ~ Baltasar Gracian ~
“As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.” ~ Bill Gates ~
“Leadership is the challenge to be more than average.” ~ Jim Rohn ~
James S. Pounder (2006) in "Transformational Classroom Leadership The Fourth Wave of Teacher Leadership?" emphasizes in the following "waves" of teacher leadership: - 1. confined teacher leadership within the formal organizational hierarchy and merely placed the concept close to the teaching function - 2. placed more emphasis on the instructional dimension of the teaching function but still vested teacher leadership in formally created organizational positions such as team leader and curriculum developer - 3. teacher leadership is a process rather than a positional concept - 4. it could include transformational classroom leadership as one of the defining qualities of a teacher leader and could embrace both school and university contexts. The author notes that teacher leaders tend to possess many of the characteristics of transformational leaders.
Huber and West (2002) delineate the following stages: 1. The personality or trait theory of leadership: focusing on great men and women leaders in history, for example: Gandhi, Mandela, Churchill, Thatcher…. 2. Examining what good leaders actually do 3. Attention to the context in which leadership is exercised: Task-related and people-centred behaviours. 4. Linking the culture of the organization to the leader.
Key characteristics of Instructional & Transformational Leadership that I as teacher-scholar experienced during my M.Ed experience: I got Voice –means feeling free to ‘speaking my truth.’ Vision and Passion: a view of the future, injecting enthusiasm and energy I have a simple vision: To teach people that Life is Happiness My values are: freedom, honesty, balance, trust, determination, confidence, being healthy, contribution, family… Personal integrity: creating trust and being a good listener. Intellectual stimulation (researcher) Confidence Principle & Personal Charisma: persuasiveness and sound self-esteem (no arrogance). “A confident persuader creates confidence in the persuaded.” The Route Forwards: inspirational motivation, finding the way forwards, feeling progress… Seeking to Transform: seeking change, to transform the organization, the followers are the product of the transformation… for example, my focus at the University in Venezuela: helping to restructure the graduate program of education(a specialization "Tecnologias de la Informacion Comunicacion") by improving program conditions e.g., "Communication & Technology for Freedom". This program will be good not only for educators, teachers, faculty but for lawyers, politicians, etc. as well. Different people often seek updating knowledge in Communication & Technology (see: http://www.ucv.ve/?id=1684) http://www.ucv.ve/ Transformational Leadership Sources: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transformational_leadership.htm http://www.waynelee.com/become-a-great-leader.htm
Hallinger’s (2003) re: instructional leadership proposes three dimensions: 1. defining the school’s mission, 2. managing the instructional program, 3. promoting a positive school-learning climate.
Marks and Printy (2003) the term “instructional leadership” should replace the hierarchical and procedural notion with the concept of “shared” instructional leadership. In this model, the principal is the “leader of instructional leaders” not the person who is independently responsible for leadership initiatives within the school…
Dimmock (1995) asserts that instructional leadership is too prescriptive and relies on a top down process of management. A better strategy would be a bottom-up approach. The proposed “backward mapping” would begin with student outcomes and then progress up through the following: learning styles and processes; teaching strategies; school organization and structure; and leadership, management, resources and culture/climate. The challenge for many principals is to work with the various educational stakeholders to maintain some sense of balance…
Adams and Kirst (2004)state, “Policy makers, educational leaders, practitioners, and parents also continued to seek better student performance and accountability through management practices, professional standards, teacher commitment, democratic processes, and parent choice” (p. 466).
New terms began to emerge in literature such as: shared leadership, teacher leadership, distributed leadership and transformational leadership. Burns’ latest book entitled Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness (2003) offers an expansion of his earlier book.
Bernard M. Bass & Bruce J. Avolio (1998) "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ). Components of transformational leadership: 1. Charismatic Leadership, or Idealized Influence. Transformational leaders are role models; they are respected and admired by their followers. Followers identify with leaders and they want to emulate them. Leaders have a clear vision and sense of purpose and they are willing to take risks. 2. Inspirational Motivation. Transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate others, generate enthusiasm and challenge people. These leaders clearly communicate expectations and they demonstrate a commitment to goals and a shared vision. 3. Intellectual Stimulation. Transformational leaders actively solicit new ideas and new ways of doing things. They stimulate others to be creative and they never publicly correct or criticize others. 4. Individualized Consideration. Transformational leaders pay attention to the needs and tthe potential for developing others. These leaders establish a supportive climate where individual differences are respected. Interactions with followers are encouraged and the leaders are aware of individual concerns (Bass, 1998) Source: http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/stewart.html
Topics: Topic 1-Jan 10th What are your plans for developing your final portfolio, presentation or performance? Describe your initial ideas, what you may focus on as meaningful from your M.Ed experience and perhaps a hint of why. 1 To create and maintain a learning environment that encourages and supports the growth of the whole student. 2 To demonstrate a professional level of knowledge about the curriculum and the skills and judgment required to apply this knowledge effectively. 3 To demonstrate and support a repertoire of instructional strategies and methods that are applied in teaching activities. 4 To carry out professional responsibilities for student assessment and evaluation. 5 To reflect upon the goals and experience of professional practice, and adapt oneʼs teaching accordingly. 6 To work with colleagues in mutually supportive ways and develop effective professional relationships with members of the educational community. 7 To conduct all professional relationships in ways that are consistent with principles of equity, fairness and respect for others. ECUR 801.6 - Principles and Practices of Curriculum Construction ERES 800.3 - Research Methods: Introductory Level ECUR 990.0 - Seminar in Curriculum Research ECUR 992.6 - Project or ECUR 991.3 – Portfolio ECUR 994 - Thesis ECUR 805.3 - Trends and Issues in Educational Research and Development ECUR 809.3 - Models and Methods for the Evaluation of Educational Programs ECUR 810.3 - Design and Practice of the Evaluation of Educational Programs ECUR 819.3 Trends and Issues in Mathematics Education ECUR 820.3 Introduction to Graduate Studies in Science Education ECUR 830.3 Research in Teaching and Learning ECUR 832.3 Practicum in Professional Development ECUR 843.3 Reading Process and Practice ECUR 870.3 Literacy Education and Curriculum ECUR 872.3 Trends and Issues in the Study of Writing ECUR 888.3 Trends and Issues in Social Studies ECUR 898.3 or ECUR 899.6 Individual Reading Courses in Curriculum ERES 845.3 Qualitative Research ERES 840.3 Quantitative Research _________ Required courses for the MEd degree in Educational Technology and Communication: ECMM 802.6 - Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology ERES 800.3 - Research Methods: Introductory Level ECUR 990.0 - Seminar in Curriculum Research Elective courses for the MEd degree in Educational Technology and Communication: ECMM 803.3 - Principles and Practices of Designing Multimedia Resources ECMM 804.3 - Distance Education ECMM 873.3 - Principles and Practices of Instructional Design ECMM 874.3 - Advanced Approaches to Instructional Design ECMM 876.3 - Organization and Administration in Educational Technology ECMM 877.3 - Advanced Video Production in Education ECMM 879.6 - Television in Education University of Saskatchewan: Department of Curriculum Studies - ECUR 991.3 Scholarship in Teaching Course Description Students will demonstrate their scholarship in teaching through developing a collection of academic and professional work. The work may be represented through a variety of media, such as portfolios (including electronic portfolios), multi-media presentations, and professional development initiatives. This course will be a culmination of students’ research into professional knowledge and identity undertaken throughout the MEd degree within a transformative and reflective learning culture. Course Objectives • To analyze, synthesize and evaluate teaching scholarship through growth in understanding educational theory. • To demonstrate academic and professional competence in their chosen field of curriculum studies or educational communication and technology. • To reflect on teaching and learning philosophy. • To demonstrate awareness of the ethical nature and practice of professional work and research. Teaching methodologies Since students in this course are likely to be studying part-time, a variety of distance approaches (online discussion boards, video/podcast) as well as face-to-face meetings, will be used. Academic Honesty Students are expected to follow the University of Saskatchewan’s guidelines on academic honesty detailed at http://www.usask.ca/honesty/pdf/dishonesty_info_sheet.pdf Honesty and integrity are expected in class participation, examinations, assignments, and other academic work. Perform your own work unless specifically instructed otherwise. Follow examination rules. Discuss with your professor if you are using the same material for assignments in two different courses. Use the same standard of honesty with fellow students, lab instructors, teaching assistants, sessional instructors and administrative staff as you do with faculty. Course Activities and Topics As they build their portfolios, students may: • Identify major trends in curriculum theory, and major trends in their own specific areas of interest, then identify how their understanding of curriculum has evolved through participation in their MEd courses. • Decide on the final form of their Scholarship in Teaching portfolio and presentation. • Reflect on teaching practice. Through examples from their own and others’ experiences, students will describe ways in which they can influence practice in different educational settings, as well as identify ways in which they can best represent their skills, challenges and changes. • Take a problem-solving approach to evaluating practice and to curriculum implementation. • Reflect on issues of diversity, including Aboriginal issues, teaching and learning in multicultural contexts, and working with the full range of student needs. • Represent learning from their academic and professional growth during the MEd program. • Make a presentation to the class or to another academic/professional group. • Carry out a final interview with a faculty member, based on their portfolio. • Construct an annotated personal curriculum vitae that demonstrates leadership in curriculum or educational technology. Evaluation: • Online discussions and/or in-class presentations: 30% • Final interview/oral examination 25% • Portfolio 45% Student work will be evaluated using the grading system from the College of Graduate Studies and Research. It is available at http://www.usask.ca/calendar/gradstudies/additional/grading/
Resources and References Resources on portfolios and e-portfolios Anderson, R. S., & DeMeulle, L. (1998). Portfolio use in twenty-four teacher education programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 23. Bartell, C. A., Kaye, C., & Morin, J. A. (1998). Teaching portfolios and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 5. Barton, J., & Collins, A. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education. Journal Of Teacher Education, vol, 44(3), 200-210. Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd ed.). London: SRHE and Open University Press. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1998). Assessment by portfolio: Constructing learning and designing teaching. In P. Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system (pp. 443-462). Hong Kong: Open University of Hing Kong Press. Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J. (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal Of Teacher Education, vol, 48(5), 345-357. Cambridge, B. (2001). Electronic portfolios as knowledge builders. In A. Cambridge (Ed.), Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty and institutional learning. New York: AAHE Publications. Grant, G. E., & Huebner, T. A. (1998). The portfolio question: A powerful synthesis of the personal and professional. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 33-43. Heath, M. (2003). Telling it like it is: Electronic portfolios for authentic professional development. Library Media Connection, 21(6), 38. Hopper, T., & Sanford, K. (2004). Representing multiple perspectives of self-as-teacher: Integrated teacher education course and self-study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 57-74. Hopper, T., Sanford, K., Lauzon, L., Yeo, M., & Stogre, T. (2003). Enhancing professional development through integrated campus/field-based teacher education: Rekindling the passion for teaching. Paper presented at the CATE, CSSE, Halifax. Lyons, N. (Ed.). (1998). With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877-904).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Young, J. R. (2002). "e-portfolios" could give students a new sense of their accomplishments. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(26), 31-32. Resources on educational issues Aoki, T. T. (2005.). In Pinar W., Irwin R. L., (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key :The collected works of ted T. aoki. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,. Ayers, W., Miller, J., & Miller, J. (1998). A light in dark times: Maxine Greene and the unfinished conversation. New York: Teachers College Press. Ayers, W., & Schubert, W. H. (c1992.). Teacher lore :Learning from our own experience. New York ;: Longman. Battiste, M. A. (2000.). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver: UBC Press. Battiste, M. A., & Barman, J.,. (c1995.). First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds.Vancouver: UBC Press. Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M.S., Pearce, M., Murray-Orr, A., & Steeves, P.(2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. London: Routledge. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2006). Complexity and education : Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people's children : Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education : An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press. Fine, M. (c1992.). Disruptive voices :The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Huber, J., Murphy, M., & Clandinin, D. (2003). Creating communities of cultural imagination: Negotiating a curriculum of diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(4), 343-362. Huber, J. C.,Jean. (2002). Ethical Dilemmas in Relational Narrative Inquiry with Children. Liston, D. P. (1991.). In Zeichner K. M. (Ed.), Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling. New York: Routledge. Mirochnik, E., & Sherman, D. C.,. (c2002.). Passion and pedagogy :Relation, creation, and transformation in teaching. New York: P. Lang. Paley, V. G. (1992). You can't say you can't play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pinar, W. (c1998.). Curriculum:Toward new identities. New York: Garland Publ. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001.). Handbook of action research :Participative inquiry and practice. London ;: SAGE. Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Schwab, J. J. (1978.). The practical: Translation into curriculum. In I. Westbury, & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays [Science, curriculum, and liberal education : Selected essays] (pp. 365-383). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum : Multicultural teaching in the standardsbased classroom. New York: Teacher College Press. Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany: State University of New York Press. St. Denis, D. V. Literature review on racism and the effects on aboriginal education. Ottawa, Ontario November 15/2002.: Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience : Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ont.: Althouse Press. Woyshner, C. A., & Gelfond, H. S. (1998). Minding women: Reshaping the educational realm. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Educational Review.
Assignment # 5- ECUR 809 The focus of this assignment is on clients’ level of satisfaction and their suggestions for the improvement of the Spanish Intermediate Program (SIP) offered by the Community Center in the City of Ottawa. Overview: This assignment aims the improvement of SIP in light of the clients' suggestions and responses to the survey questionnaire in The Community Center in the City of Ottawa. Clients in this particular case refers to students or participants of the Program “Spanish Intermediate and Conversation” (this program is complemented with Tennis Teaching) offered in the Community Center in Ottawa. According to Jody L. Fitzpatrick, James R. Sanders and Blaine R. Worthen (2004 p.100-111), there are standards and criteria to judge programs which may have a marked effect in improving the efforts of teachers and the whole community to improve programs: the purpose of the program (s), its rationale and objectives, its content, process and implementation (instructional technology and activities or strategies), and evaluation, form overall judgments about its effectiveness. Below each one is briefly explained:
1. Purpose and objectives: Community Center Programs are offered by season for all members of the community. Their rationale states that the community believes that the programs enhance growth and quality of life of the clients and their academic achievement; the teachers have the primary responsibility for their growth. Rationale of the City of Ottawa and the Community Center believe that the teachers’ performance enhances instruction, clients’ satisfaction and achievement. Objectives or specific statements of what the project sets out to accomplish: each teacher shall develop a program for their students in his/her area of expertise and under general guidelines provided by Ottawa City. Specific objectives are outputs to be achieved; these are immediate or specific, concrete results (direct products of project activities). Each program is to be reviewed by the teacher and students to make changes or improvements, according to own immediate needs, for example: enhancing student achievement, performance and satisfaction, a more productive use of time, to increase professional and personal interactions and discussions, greater sharing of responsibility and leadership, increasing knowledge, involvement, and continuous learning. 2. Content: specific tasks to complete the course content in the classroom; content included in the Program kit or educational package created and published by the City of Ottawa and the Community Center. 3. Process and Implementation: include strategies for goal achievement, activities or actions taken to achieve the program: registering to the course, attending lectures or lessons, seminars and workshops, reading or doing research, peer coaching, mentorship, creation of personal portfolios, videos and recordings, mentorship, understanding Lesson planning, workshops, and meetings, discussing contents, organizing groups and setting ‘drills’, examples, exercises, models, instructional media, training opportunities; using equipment and educational materials and supplies, etc; reflective journal, developing collaboration and learning group, speaking the language (Spanish) in a real setting (playing tennis) or other initiatives that enhance instruction and student achievement. 4. Satisfaction relates to effectiveness: Impacts of SIP on students’ satisfaction shows in some way the effectiveness of the Program. Also, there must be long-term outcomes such as increasing knowledge, involvement, and ownership, continuous and permanent learning, increasing progressive knowledge, involvement, and ownership Plan of Evaluation: Who should be involved? Engage Stakeholders:Teachers, administrators, supervisors, coordinators, volunteers and students; however, the focus of this work will be on the students or participants of the Community Center, particularly of Spanish Intermediate and Conversation (SIP). How might they be engaged? Students will be invited in meetings, email, survey-questionnaires. Focus of the Evaluation: What are you going to evaluate? Description of Community Center: Programming (see below logic model 1) Clients’ satisfaction – students’ reactions (see below logic model 2) What is the purpose of the evaluation? The purposes of this evaluation are to evaluate the level of satisfaction about (a) the organization, design and implementation (teaching) of the program; (b) their suggestions and recommendations to better achieve the goals of the program, namely, the enhancement of student learning and achievement. Who will use the evaluation? How will they use the information? - Teachers, administrators, supervisors, coordinators, volunteers and students. - To assess the level of satisfaction with the organization, design and teaching of the program and to propose improvements or changes that can help teachers and students to meet the goals. What questions will the evaluation seek to answer? General questions: Do Community Program (CP) helps participants or clients in their personal and professional growth and satisfaction? Is the Program meeting the goals set out by the Center? What are the reactions of students regarding the program? Are they satisfied with their achievement of goals and performance? Specific questions: Do objectives, content and activities match properly? How the teacher implement it? Do Programs encourage students to develop personally and professionally? Is the Program being used in the way that it was intended? How is the Program perceived by students? Are they satisfied with their performance in the programs? What information do you need to answer the questions? Indicators – How will I know it? Level of satisfaction of participants. When is the evaluation needed? At the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the program (s). What evaluation design will you use? Takes in consideration the Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approach but the focus is on the Goal-Oriented Approach. Assessment and evaluation are best addressed from the viewpoint of the students’ reactions to 1) teachers & teaching, 2) class-assignments and 3) assignments-materials. Collect the information What sources of information will you use? Existing information: Web site – Programs – Written materials provided by the Community Center – Teachers materials – samples of students’ work and/or experiences (videos, photos, etc). People: Teachers, administrators and the focus will be on the students' satisfaction. What data collection method(s) will you use? E-mail survey questionnaire to students - and teachers - (a larger sample). Questionnaire- Interview (a small sample of four students). ________ Bibliography: Jody L. Fitzpatrick, James R. Sanders and Blaine R. Worthen, Program Evaluation: AlternativeApproaches and Practical Guidelines (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004) p.100 City of Ottawa: www.ottawa.ca The Glebe Community Center Plan of evaluation: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/G3658-02.pdf
Versions of Survey Questionnaire: Different versions were developed during the process of designing and testing of the survey. Each one included a sample checklist, a variety of question types such as scale rating, short answer, and open-ended; the final version is now in the web site. Two preliminary versions were designed and evaluated together with four students. They provided suggestions regarding the following issues: clarity of questions, wording, style, and importance. A third version was developed and posted in the web site of the University of Saskatchewan. The students answered the questionnaire but their concern was on correcting some discrepancies between items and the characteristics of the actual program. They also made suggestions to improve clarity, wording and style. The fourth version is the final one, which is now on the web site of the University of Saskatchewan. Below is the preliminary versions as they were presented to the students for their evaluation: A. – Version One or Preliminary version Short Answer: yes or not 1. Does the content cover a significant portion of the program competencies? 2. Is the content up-to-date 3. Is the course level appropriate for most students? 4. Are objectives, competencies, or tasks stated in the student materials? 5. Are tests included in the materials? 6. Are performance checklists included? 7. Is a student’s guide included that offers how to manage and perform the course theory and practice? 8. Is the material presented in a logical sequence? Scale rating: Quality and satisfaction Judgments. Use +, 0, - to rate or degree of the quality or your satisfaction with specific aspects of the course: Quality and satisfaction of objectives, competencies, and/or tasks_____ Degree or match between learning activities and objectives______ Quality of test tests and degree of match with objectives________ Quality and satisfaction with of performance checklists and degree of match with objectives________ Quality and satisfaction of directions for how students are to proceed through the materials_______ Quality of visuals, videos, games, experiences, practices_______ Overall design of the learning activities for individualized instruction_____ Quality and satisfaction on safety practices_____ Satisfaction with degree of freedom from bias with respect to sex, race, origin, age, religion, etc,?________ Quality and satisfaction of content list or the course content-map and competencies covered by the course_________ Short answer: brief comment Does the course have basic elements, such as those listed below? Please mark with an “x” and make a comment if necessary: a) Clearly stated outcomes objectives____ b) Sufficient directions_____ c) Other materials required____ d) Prerequisite knowledge based and existing programs___ e) Fit with knowledge base and existing programs___ Process information: what is the nature and frequency of interactions among students or clients relevant others? ________________________________ Have these interactions being evaluated?____________________________ Open ended questions: Please explain or illustrate - Is evaluation an integral part of (a) the development and (b) the implementation of the program? - Is there evidence of effectiveness available regarding the course?
B. Second Version: the modified version based on the testing of the survey with four individuals: Short answer: Yes or not 1. Is the program content of Intermediate Spanish up-to-date? 2. Is the program level appropriate for most students? 3. Are objectives, competencies, or tasks satisfactory stated? 4. Is the program presented in a logical sequence? 5. Are you satisfied with the program have basic elements, such as those listed below? Scale rating: Choice decision-making. Please write on the spaces below: Very Good (VG), Good (G) or Bad (B), and make a comment if necessary: a) Outcomes, objectives, competencies or tasks____ b) Directions or instructions for how students are to proceed through the materials___ c) Materials ____ d) Prerequisite knowledge based ___ e) Performance checklists____ f) Student’s guide_____ g) Fit with knowledge base and program___ h) Tests Scale rating: Judgments. Use +, 0, - to rate or degree of the quality or your satisfaction with specific aspects of the course: Degree or match between learning activities and objectives______ Quality of test tests and degree of match with objectives________ Quality and satisfaction with of performance checklists and degree of match with objectives________ Quality of visuals, videos, games, experiences, practices_______ Overall design of the learning activities for individualized instruction_____ Quality and satisfaction on safety practices_____ Satisfaction with degree of freedom from bias with respect to sex, race, origin, age, religion, etc,?________ Quality and satisfaction of content list or the course content-map and competencies covered by the program_________ Open ended question: Please feel free to make any suggestions, comments that can help us to improve our Program on Spanish Intermediate (complemented with Tennis instruction) for the next Spring/Summer: ________________________________________________________________
Third Version of the survey questionnaire: It was posted in the web site and the students evaluated it. The students made different corrections and suggestions to improve it. Based on their comments, most items were re-written and the questionnaire was re-organized and redesigned.
B. Description of the Logic Model- Assignment # 4: - scope of logic model (how much they cover); - the number of levels included; - the description of levels included; - the direction of information flow - the amount of text; - the visual layout. Each of these variables is described in turn, below. Scope of Logic Model: The flow chart is a logic model designed for evaluation purposes of the whole programs at the Community Center. It begins with vision, mission, values, motivations, expectations, etc and at the end of the day, the purpose of evaluation is to find out if the programs are making the difference. The community center offers complex, multi-component programs that may require the development of separate logic models for each program component or activity. Thus, I designed one general and a more specific one that can help me to promote the need of evaluating ‘clients satisfaction’ in the community programs (which include Spanish & Tennis Teaching). Assessment and evaluation are best addressed from the viewpoint of the students’ reactions to 1) teachers &teaching, 2) class-assignments and 3) assignments-materials. Number of Levels: The first flow chart logic model includes several ‘levels’ (goals, population of interest, long and short term objectives and indicators). The second one, includes strategies, activities, process indicators. Description of Levels: There is no standard set of terminology for our logic models. So, the first one includes general terms and the second one applies more specifics. The discussion will begin with stakeholders:Who should be involved or engaged? Teachers, administrators, supervisors, coordinators, volunteers and students;the focus of my work will be on the students or participants of the Community Center Programs. How might they be engaged? Students will be invited in staff meetings, email, survey-questionnaires. Direction of Information Flow: Both flow charts-logic models flows from moving from left to right starting with objectives and focus of the Evaluation: What am I going to evaluate? The Community Center Programming (logic model 1) and the clients’ satisfaction – students’ reactions and satisfaction (logic model 2). What is the purpose of the evaluation? The purposes of this evaluation are to evaluate the extent to which (a) the organization and programs help the members of the Community in their personal and professional growth; (b) the participants or students are meeting the goals of the programs, namely the enhancement of student satisfaction and achievement. Amount of Text: It is well known that the amount of text included in a logic model can vary greatly between logic models. It can be sparse and in point form, or highly detailed. As a matter of preference and the function, my logic models include the information needed for our purposes of presenting the most important issues: Who will use the evaluation? How will they use the information? - Teachers, administrators, supervisors, coordinators, volunteers and students. - To assess the effectiveness of the programs and make changes and improvements to help teachers and students to meet the goals. -To improve students achievement and satisfaction. What questions will the evaluation seek to answer? General questions: Do Community Programs (CP) help participants or clients in their personal and professional growth and satisfaction? Are Programs meeting the goals set out by the Center? What are the reactions of students regarding those programs? Are they satisfied with their achievement of goals and performance? Specific questions: Does the community offer varied programs? Do teachers have adequate resources to implement them? Do they see growth in their students as a result of their CP? Do Programs encourage students to develop personally and professionally? Are Programs being used in the way that they are intended? How are Programs perceived by students? Are they satisfied with their performance in those programs? What are the benefits to students? Visual Layout: As we know there are many ways to approach visuals and overall layout. This is a highly subjective issue, but an important one as good visual design can greatly enhance the understandability of a logic model. In these cases I tried to avoid confusion and focus on the following questions: What information do I need to perform evaluation? or to answer the questions? Indicators – How will I know it? Level of satisfaction of participants. When is the evaluation needed? At the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the program (s). What evaluation design will you use? Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approach. Assessment and evaluation are best addressed from the viewpoint of the students’ reactions to 1) teachers & teaching, 2) class-assignments and 3) assignments-materials. Collect the information: What sources of information will you use? Existing information: Web site – Programs – Written materials provided by the Community Center – Teachers materials – samples of students’ work and/or experiences (videos, photos, etc). People: Teachers, administrators and the focus will be on students satisfaction. What data collection method(s) will you use? E-mail survey questionnaire to students - and teachers - (a larger sample). Questionnaire- Interview (a small sample of four students).
About Assignment # 5- ECUR 809: The focus for my assignment will be on students’ testimonials of their experience with CP (a sample of four students).My focus will be on Programs: "Spanish Intermediate and Tennis Instruction"
ECUR 809 Assignment # 3: Evaluation of Organization -Performing an Evaluation Assessment. Determining the feasibility and direction of my evaluation: I have selected a community center as organization to use as a model for the rest of the course its programs (Adult General Interest programs such as Intermediate Spanish): http://www.gnag.ca/index.php http://www.gnag.ca/index.php?page=154 I live close by; so, I can access individuals for input in my work. I chose the City of Ottawa: http://www.city.ottawa.on.ca/ specifically a neighborhood as organization because during the Spring/Summer I taught Spanish (complemented with tennis lessons)(www.moretennis.blogspot.com) as part of the "Ultra Play" program: http://www.ottawatennis.com/detail.php?news_id=294 Kindly please see below overview of my chosen organization: Organization: A Community Center in the City of Ottawa, ON Canada Program: "Adult General Interest - Spanish: Intermediate/conversational" Model of Evaluation Assessment:student-centered evaluation Assessment. According to the Student Evaluation: A Teacher Handbook(Saskatchewan Education, 1991) student evaluation should focus on the collection and interpretation of data which would indicate student progress. This, in combination with teacher self-evaluation and program evaluation, provides a full evaluation. Chapter one states that, "Assessment and evaluation are best addressed from the viewpoint of selecting what appears most valid in allowing students to show what they have learned." In general, the main phases are the following: preparation, assessment, evaluation (formative, diagnostic, and summative) and reflection. Below each one is briefly described: Preparation: what is to be evaluated, the type of evaluation (formative, summative, or diagnostic) to be used, the criteria against which student learning outcomes will be judged, and the most appropriate assessment strategies with which to gather information on student progress. Decisions made during this phase form the basis for planning during the remaining phases.In the Spanish Intermediate and Conversation Program the criteria and strategies are guided by an instructor (graduate student) from the University of Ottawa. Assessment: identify information-gathering strategies, construct or select instruments, administer them to the student, and collect the information on student learning progress. The identification and elimination of bias (such as gender and culture bias) from the assessment strategies and instruments, and the determination of where, when, and how assessments will be conducted are important considerations. Performing an evaluation assessment process of the Program "Adults General Interest," Spanish Intermediate and Conversation Program in the Community Center, City of Ottawa, requires an appropriate approach. The Stake's "responsive" approach seems to be an an adequate way to reporting the "success and failure" of that program. Stake (1975, p.19)recommended the "clock" model to reflect the prominent recurring events in a responsive evaluation: talk with clients, program staff, audiences; identify program scope; overview program activities; discover purposes, concerns; conceptualize issues, problems; identify data needs re issues; select observers, judges, instruments, if any; observe designated antecedents, transactions and outcomes; thematize: prepare portrayals, case studies; validate, confirm, attempt to dis confirm; winnow, for audience use; and assemble formal reports, if any. In this sense, the Stake's model helps in reporting evaluation assessment of Intermediate & Conversation Spanish Program, in which not only questionnaires but also specific tests and sample work portfolios were assessed. See example of past questionnaires. Evaluation: the information gathered during the assessment phase is used to make judgments about student progress. Based on the judgments (evaluations), decisions about student learning programs are made and reported to students, parents, and appropriate school personnel. Reflection: allows pondering the successes and shortfalls of the previous phases. Specifically, evaluate the utility and appropriateness of the assessment strategies used, and make decisions concerning improvements or modifications to subsequent teaching and assessment. Instruments contain questions that encourage reflection on student assessment,teachers'planning, and on the structure of the curriculum. In the Intermediate & Conversational Spanish, successes of the program of Intermediate and Conversational Spanish, we can mention the following: excellent Audio CD cassettes; and an exciting vacation with a great learning opportunity, offered in combination with similar programs to study Spanish complemented with other programs, such as sports tennis and golf, games and with latin dance programs. Until now no failures have been reported. To the contrary, students are looking for more "living spanish" programs.
