Download Report

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2013)
Course Number/Program Name: INED 8315
Department: Inclusive Education
Degree Title: (if applicable) Ed.S/ Ed.D. in Special Education
Proposed Effective Date: Summer 2014
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
New Course Proposal
I, II, III
X Course Title Change
I, II, III
Course Number Change
I, II, III
Course Credit Change
I, II, III
Course Prerequisite Change
I, II, III
X Course Description Change
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new
course with a new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as
part of a new program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing
course incorporated into the program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Harriet Bessette
Faculty Member
Submitted by:
Date
,
/7/V,e..1
Approved
Not Approved
c....._
Karen Kuhel
Department Curriculum Committee
Approved
Not Approved
Patricia McHatton
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
/Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
1
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
___
Course Prefix and Number INED 8315
___
Course Title Supervision, Mentoring and Collegial Coaching in Special Education
Class Hours
3____Laboratory Hours___0____Credit Hours___3_____
Prerequisites Admission to Ed.D. Program
___
Description (or Current Degree Requirements):
This course assists aspiring supervisors in developing skills in distributed leadership,
particularly in terms of effectively providing support, guidance, and feedback to teachers,
paraprofessionals, and related services practitioners in their respective areas of expertise.
Competencies are couched in effective collaboration, communication and collegial
coaching aimed at increasing the outcomes for students with disabilities and/or students
in diverse classrooms, including English Language Learners. This course ultimately
prepares supervisors with the strategies to assist teachers in reaching the level of master
teacher, one who routinely implements validated practices and engages in on-going
professional development through classroom-based action research.
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number: _ INED 8315___________________________
Course Title: __ _ Critical Analysis of Collaboration in Schools _________
Class Hours:
3____Laboratory Hours___0____CreditHours____3____
Prerequisites: Admission to the Ed.S./Ed.D. Program or Instructor/Program Coordinator
Approval
_
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements):
In this course candidates will apply a critical lens to collaboration among key stakeholders to
promote equitable practices within culturally responsive and sustaining educational contexts,
leading to improved outcomes for all learners. This course extends historical discourse on
collaboration by requiring candidates to critically examine the dilemmas, tensions, challenges and
questions relative to collaboration within their own work settings and to apply rational and logical
thought to actualizing change when critically analyzing their own practice.
III.
Justification
As a result of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004), increased collaboration among practitioners, as well as families, community agencies, and
school services became law. The ability for caregivers and educators to work competently and
collaboratively on behalf of students with disabilities was no longer considered an academic frill
but a necessary part of the way educators must work. This course is necessary for helping
candidates critically conceptualize collaboration and gain the skills necessary to effectuate
change, as they become strong advocates for students with disabilities.
1
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Harriet Bessette; (Others include: McHatton, P., Zimmer, K., & Brown, S.)
Texts:
Required
Copland, M.S., & Knapp, M. A. (2006). Connecting Leadership With Learning: A
Framework For Reflection, Planning, And Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., & McMillan, R. (2007). Influencer: The Power to
Change Anything.
Kochhar-Bryant, C. A., & Heishman, A. (2010). Effective Collaboration for Educating
the Whole Child. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Todd, L. (2007). Partnerships for Inclusive Education: A Critical Approach to
Collaborative Working. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Recommended:
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York:
Continuum. (Original work published 1968).
Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach
(Expanded ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (Original work published
1998).
Additional Readings provided in class.
Prerequisites: Admission to the EDD program in Special Education.
Objectives:
1. Candidates will investigate the dialogic and sociocultural frameworks of
collaboration and articulate a cohesive and critical analysis of partnership building
based on these frameworks.
2. Candidates will apply theoretical insights to understanding of, and sensitivity to,
democratic, collaborative, and equitable learning environments.
3. Candidates will support the academic and linguistic needs of the learner by reflecting
upon and critically analyzing the functions of collaboration.
4. Candidates will articulate culturally responsive interpersonal communication skills,
behaviors, interactive techniques, and practical and theoretical strategies, elements,
and models that reflect collaborative professionalism, advocacy, and promote change
within the field of special education.
2
5. Candidates will demonstrate understanding of culturally sustaining pedagogy and
analyze how linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism is fostered as part of the
democratic project of schooling.
Instructional Methods:
A variety of instructional methods will be employed to maximize student engagement
and learning. Strategies include instructor- and student-guided discussion, text analysis
and written reflection, direct instruction, project-based, and group collaborations.
Instruction integrates theory and practice as it relates to curriculum development and
evaluation, allowing students to demonstrate advanced ability to design, implement, and
evaluate curriculum that promotes student learning.
Method of Evaluation:
1. Journal Analysis
2. Reflective Writing on Readings
3. Scholarly Paper
4. Debate
5. Collaborative Presentations
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
Amount
500
500
TOTAL
This course replaces an existing course. No funds are needed beyond library resources ($1000) to
purchase books and support journal subscriptions.
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
None
3
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the Registrar
once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
Special Education
INED 8315
Crit. Analysis Collaboration___
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
3-0-3
Summer 2014
Regular
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
4
VII Attach Syllabus
(*Last day to withdraw w/o academic penalty: )
I.
COURSE NUMBER: INED 8315
COURSE TITLE: Critical Analysis of Collaboration in Schools
COLLEGE OR SCHOOL: Bagwell College of Education
SEMESTER/TERM & YEAR: Summer 2014
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
OFFICE:
III.
CLASS MEETINGS:
IV.
TEXTS:
Required:
Copland, M.S., & Knapp, M. A. (2006). Connecting Leadership With Learning: A Framework
For Reflection, Planning, And Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., & McMillan, R. (2007). Influencer: The Power to
Change Anything.
Kochhar-Bryant, C. A., & Heishman, A. (2010). Effective Collaboration for Educating the
Whole Child. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Todd, L. (2007). Partnerships for Inclusive Education: A Critical Approach to Collaborative
Working. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Recommended:
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
(Original work published 1968).
5
Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach (Expanded ed.).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (Original work published 1998).
Additional Readings provided in class.
V.
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION
In this course candidates will apply a critical lens to collaboration among key stakeholders to
promote equitable practices within culturally responsive and sustaining educational contexts,
leading to improved outcomes for learners with disabilities. This course extends historical
discourse on collaboration by requiring candidates to critically examine the dilemmas, tensions,
challenges and questions relative to collaboration within their own work settings and to apply
rational and logical thought to actualizing change when critically analyzing their own practice.
Pre-requisites: Admission to the EDD program in Special Education.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE
Critical thought is characterized by questioning, evaluating, making judgments, finding
connections and categorizing. It means being open to other voices and not allowing ourselves to be
blinded by our own biases. Making decisions and developing arguments are key processes when
one thinks critically. Critical thought involves taking an inquiry stance, relating theory to practice,
stating an argument and supporting it with evidence, making comparisons, and evaluating. Within
this course, a fuller conceptualization of collaboration is realized by applying a culturally
sustaining lens to our investigation of this construct, which both triggers and nurtures the change
process. This course is presented as four (4) complementary sections:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Dialogic and sociocultural frameworks of collaboration
Evolution of collaborative professionals, interactions, and partnership building practices
and content
Culturally sustaining pedagogy for fostering linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism
Collaboration from a change perspective/advocacy
Within each section, the candidate will critically explore real-world challenges, tensions, and
dilemmas that call for collaboration representing a number of perspectives, frameworks, and
constituencies.
Course Objectives:
1. Candidates will investigate the dialogic and sociocultural frameworks of collaboration and
articulate a cohesive and critical analysis of partnership building based on these frameworks.
2. Candidates will apply theoretical insights to understanding of, and sensitivity to, democratic,
collaborative, and equitable learning environments.
3. Candidates will support the academic and linguistic needs of the learner by reflecting upon and
critically analyzing the functions of collaboration.
6
4. Candidates will articulate culturally responsive interpersonal communication skills, behaviors,
interactive techniques, and practical and theoretical strategies, elements, and models that
reflect collaborative professionalism, advocacy, and promote change within the field of special
education.
5. Candidates will demonstrate understanding of culturally sustaining pedagogy and analyze how
linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism is fostered as part of the democratic project of
schooling.
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Our vision as a nationally recognized Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is to remain at the
forefront of educator preparation. Informed by responsive engagement in collaborative
partnerships, we advance educational excellence through innovative teaching in an ever-changing
global and digital learning environment. Our mission is to prepare educators to improve student
learning within a collaborative teaching and learning community through innovative teaching,
purposeful research, and engaged service. The essence of our vision and mission is captured in
the theme Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership which
was adopted in 2002 to express concisely the fundamental approach to educator preparation at
KSU.
The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers, teacher
leaders and school leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels
of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom
instruction, and to enhance the structures that support all learning. To that end, the EPP fosters
the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to
proficient to expert and leader. Within the EPP conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a
process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational
leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of
learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the
EPP recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university
and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with
professionals in the university, local communities, public and private schools and school districts,
parents and other professional partners, the EPP meets the ultimate goal of bringing all of
Georgia’s students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning
process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to
preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the
continuum phases, teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms
toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg
(1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
7
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students learning English continues to develop
rapidly. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, content-based instruction, and
L1/L2 approaches to teaching and learning. The field draws on research literature in the areas
of second language acquisition, bilingualism and cognition, L1/L2 literacy, and social justice.
EPP Diversity Statement
The KSU Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) believes all learners are entitled to equitable
educational opportunities. To that end, programs within the EPP consist of curricula, field
experiences, and clinical practice that promote candidates’ development of knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to diversity identified in the unit’s conceptual framework,
including the local community, Georgia, the nation, and the world. Curricula and applied
experiences are based on well-developed knowledge foundations for, and conceptualizations of,
diversity and inclusion so that candidates can apply them effectively in schools. Candidates learn
to contextualize teaching and draw effectively on representations from the students’ own
experiences and cultures. They learn to collaborate and engage with families in ways that value the
resources, understandings, and knowledge that students bring from their home lives, communities
and cultures as assets to enrich learning opportunities. Candidates maintain high expectations for
all students (including English learners, students with exceptionalities and other historically
marginalized and underrepresented students), and support student success through research-based
culturally, linguistically, and socially relevant pedagogies and curricula.
Technology
Technology Standards & Use: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to
use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use
instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of
productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, and use various software. Library research required in this
course is supported by the Galileo system. D2L is a tool available to use for distance learning and
will also be the primary mode of communication, especially in case of weather related notices
regarding class. Course materials will be posted on D2L two to three weeks before they are
discussed in class.
8
Theoretical Framework for the Ed.D. & Ed.S. in Teaching Field Majors
Conceptual
Theoretical
Contextual
Learner
Practice
Informed pedagogical approaches arise from teachers’ critical understandings of
Theoretical/Conceptual, Contextual, and Practical/Applied influences on the learner. The belief
that all students can learn when the learner is the pedagogical core—promoted by Weimer
(2002)—is the foundation of this program. Within this learner-centered conceptual framework,
learners are embodied as P-16 students, pre-service candidates, teachers, teacher-leaders, and
school and district leaders and administrators, all of whom engage in a coherent, learner-centered
approach (Copland & Knapp, 2006). According to Lambert and McCombs (2000) and Alexander
and Murphy (2000), the confluence of Practical, Contextual, and Conceptual Critical
Understandings forms a lens for understanding Learner-Centered Psychological Principles.Within
the Education and Research Core and the Teaching Field Pedagogy core courses, the candidates
are introduced to key theories/concepts which are then examined according to the context of their
teaching situation addressing issues of grade level, diversity, and school type. The assessments of
the key theories/concepts in the courses, including formal and informal, are practical, which means
the candidates apply the theories/concepts in a practical situation, such as a 7th grade science
classroom.
VII. POLICIES:
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct
addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism
and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of
University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library
materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of
student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the
established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal"
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure,
which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension
requirement.
9
ATTENDANCE POLICY
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. Regular
attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the candidate is responsible for obtaining all
materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings (face-to-face,
synchronous, and asynchronous) is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. As a
community of learners we are diminished if any one of us is absent. Not all material covered will
be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your
absence. Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance points
(see KSU Graduate Catalog).
CANDIDATE EXPECTATIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION:
It is expected that candidates not only attend classes online and/or in person (face-to-face) depending
on the delivery mode of the class, but also contribute to discussion boards thoroughly prepared.
“Thoroughly prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and in writing
state the definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues, and
procedures in relation to previous information presented in class, online, or in previous readings; and
apply the information from the readings to problems. It also implies the candidate has reviewed
information from the previous class meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the
candidate should prepare questions to discuss in class. In addition, group members can ask candidates
who are not contributing equally to the development of the presentation to be removed from their
group.
Various cooperative learning group activities - in class and online - will enable candidates to apply
new skills and knowledge. Each candidate has something unique to contribute to the class
experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members. For full credit, candidates must
demonstrate professionalism by:
a) Participating fully in collaborative group work and focus groups
b) Practicing active listening during presentations
c) Refraining from working on other assignments during class presentations (or checking
email)
All assignments must be submitted on or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. All
grading will be done as objectively as possible. Rubrics will be provided for class presentations,
postings, facilitation, and projects. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on
instructor judgment. Points will be cumulative and final course grades will be based on the percent
of total points earned (i.e., A = 100 - 90%, B = 89 - 80%, etc.).
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the
learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of
others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
Candidates should refer to the University Catalog to review this policy.
HUMAN RELATIONS
The University has formulated a policy on human relations that is intended to provide a learning
environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the University Catalog. It is
expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your
10
consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that
policy.
VIII. COURSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this course are consistent with the
EPP Advanced Proficiencies, EDD/EDS program standards, and SPED EDD/EDS program standards.
EDD Performance Outcome
SPED EDD/EDS Objectives
Course Objective
1. Candidates foster a
responsive, learner-centered
educational environment
that promotes collaboration
and democratic
participation for student
learning and may include
co-teaching.
Candidates apply a critical
lens to collaboration among
key stakeholders to promote
equitable practices within
culturally responsive and
sustaining educational
contexts leading to improved
outcomes for all learners.
Candidates will apply
theoretical insights to
understanding of, and
sensitivity to,
democratic,
collaborative, and
equitable learning
environments.
Also:
Candidates will
articulate culturally
responsive
interpersonal
communication skills,
behaviors, interactive
techniques, and
practical and theoretical
strategies, elements,
and models that reflect
collaborative
professionalism,
advocacy, and promote
change within the field
of special education.
Candidates will
demonstrate
understanding of
culturally sustaining
pedagogy and analyze
how linguistic, literate,
and cultural pluralism is
fostered as part of the
democratic project of
schooling.
2. Candidates demonstrate
pedagogical approaches
which incorporate
contextual,
theoretical/conceptual, and
practical influences on the
learner and learning.
3. Candidates advance
teaching and learning
through the innovative use
of technology based on
sound educational theory
and knowledge of the
learner.
4. Candidates demonstrate indepth foundational
knowledge of content-based
research, scholarship, and
socio-political influences in
the teaching field and use
this knowledge to analyze
Knowledge,
Skills
Dispositions
(Advanced
CPI)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
Activities, Coursework,
Assignments & Key
Assessment
Reflective Writing on
Readings
Scholarly Paper
Debate
Reflective Writing on
Readings
Scholarly Paper
Debate
Collaborative Presentations
1.2 (K;S)
1.3 (K;S)
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 - 2.6
(K;S;D)
Reflective Writing on
Readings
Scholarly Paper
Debate
Collaborative Presentations
1.2 (K;S)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
2.4 (K;S)
Candidates demonstrate an
understanding of how
historical legacies, legislation,
and litigation have served to
both include and segregate
students with disabilities and
utilize this knowledge to serve
Candidates will
investigate the dialogic
and sociocultural
frameworks of
collaboration and
articulate a cohesive
and critical analysis of
1.1 (K)
1.2 (K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
Reflective Writing on
Readings
Scholarly Paper
Debate
11
and interpret problems and
implement solutions within
their profession.
5. Candidates demonstrate and
apply various types of
assessment to inform the
learner’s ability to analyze,
monitor, and improve their
learning as well as interpret
and use data to inform their
own pedagogical
effectiveness.
6. Candidates engage in
scholarly, applied research
to advance knowledge of
teaching, the learner, and/or
learning.
as change agents within
educational and community
settings.
partnership building
based on these
frameworks.
Collaborative Presentations
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
Candidates engage in inquiry
based learning as both
consumer and producer of
research. Drawing from
theoretical and conceptual
frameworks in educational
research they apply these
theories to their practice and
develop alternative critical
pedagogies to provide socially
just schooling for all students.
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
7. Candidates reflect on their
professional, scholarly
practice, and analyze the
ways in which they have
changed in their thinking,
beliefs, or behaviors toward
improved learner-centered
practices.
Candidates are knowledgeable
of critical issues within the
field of special/education and
engage in critical reflection,
which involves taking an
inquiry stance, relating theory
to practice, stating an
argument and supporting it
with evidence, making
comparisons and evaluating
their own positionalities and
epistemologies.
3.2 (K;D)
8. Candidates support
academic and linguistic
needs of the learner,
enhance cultural
understandings, and
increase global awareness
of all students.
Candidates move beyond a
culturally responsive
framework by adopting a
reflexive multicultural
approach that validates and
sustains the cultural identity
of learners.
9. Candidates demonstrate
professional dispositions,
fluency of academic
language in a variety of
contexts, and ethical
practice expected of an
engaged scholarpractitioner.
10.
Candidates support the
academic and linguistic
needs of the learner by
reflecting upon and
critically analyzing the
functions of
collaboration.
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
Journal Analysis
Reflective Writing on
Readings
Scholarly Paper
Debate
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
3.1 – 3.5
(K;D)
Candidates employ a critical
lens to dismantle, reconfigure,
and construct equitable
educational institutions by
identifying and challenging
Course Goals #4 & #8
12
power and ideology in
teaching practices, curricular
materials, and education
reform efforts.
13
IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS & ASSIGNMENTS
1. Journal Analysis. During this course, you will be prompted to create at least 6 journal
entries. At the end of the course you will analyze your journal responses for critical themes,
what the journal tells you about the core issues within these themes, how you have applied
them to your life and career, as well as what you have learned about yourself as both an
educator and learner. This journal analysis is adapted from the research practice of diary
study in language learning (as developed by K. Bailey and others). Analysis is not to exceed
five (5) pages.
2. Reflective Writing on Reading Assignments. You will periodically be assigned to reflect
on assigned readings about collaboration. You will review/reflect upon salient points of the
work and the particular critical perspective which it elucidates. Author intent, as well as
social, cultural, pedagogical, and ethical implications for diverse learners will be addressed.
3. Scholarly Paper. You are required to focus in depth on a critical issue which underpins
collaboration and prepare a scholarly paper, the length of which is 15 pages minimum,
double-spaced with a reference page formatted in APA style. There must be at least 20
sources listed on the reference page. Each of these sources should be used in a significant
way in your paper. It is critical that you choose credible and sterling sources to write this
assignment. Further guidelines will be discussed.
4. Debate. You will be participating in a debate that poses a statement related to the critical
analysis of collaboration, and for which there is both a “pro” side and “con” side. The debate
consists of the following:
•
•
•
•
One “for” argument lasting a maximum of 5 minutes
One “con” argument lasting a maximum of 5 minutes
Four “for” rebuttals lasting a maximum of 4 minutes each
Four “con” rebuttals lasting a maximum of 4 minutes each
You will be placed in either a “for” or “con” group prior to the debate. You will be
responsible for preparing a written statement (in the form of a paper, outline, or notes) that
formulates your argument and possible rebuttals. After each set of main arguments and
rebuttals, students meet with their “for” or “con” group for between 5 and 10 minutes to
discuss what was said by the other side and to jointly plan the next rebuttal. Students need to
anticipate what the opposing side will present in order to counter. Any and all materials
(including online resources) may be used. The debate will conclude with both sides engaging
in a conversation during which students do not have to be on either side, but implications for
collaboration born of a major critical issue are discussed.
5. Collaborative Presentations. You are required to participate in at least one small group
presentation, which will focus on advocacy and on becoming change agents within schools.
The presentation should focus on the underlying assumptions of advocacy and change theory,
14
how they manifest in special education settings, and the impact they have on empowering
families through collaboration and cultural reciprocity. You will discuss what major thinkers
or works you have drawn on, and how they helped us to see the world differently. These
presentations are expected to be creative, interactive and engaging. Handouts with major
ideas, bibliographies, biographies, etc. are most welcome.
X. EVALUATION & GRADING
Assignments/Assessments
Points
Journal Analysis
15
Reflective Writing on Reading Assignments
20
Scholarly Paper
35
Debate
15
Collaborative Presentations
15
Total Points
100
Numeric Scale:
A = 90-100%
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D = 60-69%
F = below 60
XII. COURSE OUTLINE
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). Course requirements
and homework assignments are indicated on the chart below, but the weekly agendas will
provide the specific due dates.
15
provide the specific due dates.
Class
Session
1
Section/Topic
Assignment/Reading for Next
Week
Assignment Due
Welcome
Orientation to Course
and Review of Syllabus
Looking at the Readings
Overview of
Collaboration,
Advocacy, and Change
2
Dialogic and
sociocultural
frameworks of
collaboration:
Theoretical Foundations
Orientation to the Course
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of
the oppressed and Teachers as
cultural workers: Letters to
those who dare teach
Large and Small Group
Discussion
Journal Entry #1
Vygotsky and Sociocultural
Theory explored
3
Dialogic and
sociocultural
frameworks of
collaboration:
Motivation & Influence
Patterson, Influencer. Ch. 2-3
Self-Assessment: found
at:
www.influencerbook.com
4
Dialogic and
sociocultural
frameworks of
collaboration: Cultural
Identity & Influence
Patterson, Influencer. Ch. 4-9
Reflective Writing on
Reading
Evolution of
collaborative
professionals,
interactions, and
partnership building
practices: Promoting
Collaboration in
Schools
Kochhar-Bryant & Heishman
(2010). Effective Collaboration
for Educating the Whole Child.
Ch. 1-4
5
Journal Entry #2
Small & Large Group
Discussion
Todd (2007). Partnerships for
Inclusive Education: A Critical
Approach. Ch. 1-3
16
6
Evolution of
collaborative
professionals,
interactions, and
partnership building
practices: Advocacy
Kochhar-Bryant & Heishman
(2010). Effective Collaboration
for Educating the Whole Child.
Ch. 5-8
7
Evolution of
collaborative
professionals,
interactions, and
partnership building
practices: Culturally
Sustaining Pedagogy
Paris, D. (2012).Culturally
Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed
Change in Stance, Terminology,
and Practice.
Outline for Debate Due
8
Culturally sustaining
pedagogy for fostering
linguistic, literate, and
cultural pluralism:
Linguistic Pluralism
Paris, D. (2012).Culturally
Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed
Change in Stance, Terminology,
and Practice.
Reflective Writing on
Reading
9
Culturally sustaining
pedagogy for fostering
linguistic, literate, and
cultural pluralism:
Literate Pluralism
Stephens & Lindsey (2011).
Culturally Proficient
Collaboration. Ch. 6-9.
Outline for Scholarly
Paper Due
10
Culturally sustaining
pedagogy for fostering
linguistic, literate, and
cultural pluralism:
Cultural pluralism
Debate
Prepared Written
Statements for Debate
Due
Collaboration from a
change perspective:
Influence
Patterson, Influencer, Ch. 1 &
10
11
12
Collaboration from a
change perspective:
Reflective Writing on
Reading
Journal Entry #3
Todd (2007). Partnerships for
Inclusive Education: A Critical
Approach. Ch. 4-7
Journal Entry #4
Journal Entry #5
Copland & Knapp, Connecting
Leadership With Learning: A
Framework For Reflection,
Planning, And Action, Ch. 1-2
Copland & Knapp, Connecting
Leadership With Learning: A
Worksheet to design &
organize next influence
effort – found at:
www.influencerbook.com
Draft of Scholarly Paper
Due
Notes and Outlines for
17
12
Collaboration from a
change perspective:
Creating coherence in
Leadership Actions
Copland & Knapp, Connecting
Leadership With Learning: A
Framework For Reflection,
Planning, And Action, Ch. 3-4
Notes and Outlines for
Presentations Due
13
Collaboration from a
change perspective:
Reflections
Copland & Knapp, Connecting
Leadership With Learning: A
Framework For Reflection,
Planning, And Action , Ch. 5-6
Journal Analysis Due
14
Collaborative
Presentations
Presentations
Scholarly Paper Due
Journal Entry #6
18