Instructional Technology Program

     Department of Secondary Education

            College of Education

         University of South Florida

 

Ref # 82617 EME 7938-901

Ref # 84592 EME 7938-799

 

Computer-Augmented Instructional Paradigms in Education

(OR Survey of Research in Instructional Technology)

 

DEPARTMENT COURSE SYLLABUS

        FALL 2003

 

INSTRUCTORS:

CLASS WWW SITE:        http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7938/index.html

PREREQUISITES:            Consent of Instructor

 

REQUIRED TEXT & READINGS:

 

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. [Online] Available http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/EDIT572/Nrefcla.html, August 24, 2001.

 

Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Part Two: Research problems. New York: Macmillan. (pp. 35-87). ISBN 0-13-096103-5. (ProCopy)   M. Karahalios Related Web Site

 

Hill, R. & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52. (USF Electronic Reserves)

  

Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-864663-0.  OR  Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-4187-3.  Available at USF Bookstore OR online at http://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/index.html#hb

 

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. (ProCopy)

 

Reeves, Thomas C. (2000). Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through 'Design Experiments' and Other Development Research Strategies. [Online] Available http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/AERA2000Reeves.pdf, April 27, 2000. (Related 1995 Paper)  (ETR&D table)  (JCBI Table)

 

Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64. (USF Electronic Reserves)

 

Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67. (USF Electronic Reserves)

  

Russell, T. (1999). No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. ISBN 0-9668936-0-3 [Online (most)] Available http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/index.cfm, August 24, 2001. (Some also in ProCopy Packet)

Thompson, A., Simonson, M., & Hargrave, C. (1996). Educational technology: A review of the research, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ProCopy)

 

White, J. (2003). A research agenda for web-based instruction: Lessons learned from research on media and methods.  [Online] Available http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7938/wbira_old.pdf, August 19, 2003.    http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7938/wbira.pdf, October 2004 Revision.

 

Willis, Jerry. (1999.) ITTE Research: Fundamental Questions and No Final Answers. [Online] Available http://jwillis.hypermart.net/ITTERES/Research2.html, August 24, 2001.

 

 

(Individual IT Research Studies)

 

Anonymous. (2000.) Computer-Assisted Instruction in Support of Beginning Reading Instruction. Manuscript submitted to the Review of Educational Research (RER). (See Course Web Site)

 

Harmes, J. (2002). Accuracy and stability of item parameter estimates under conditions of sparse data: Implications for computerized adaptive testing.  Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida. (See Course Web Site)

Majchrzak, T. (2001). Effects of deadline contingencies in a web-based course on HTML. Doctoral Dissertation.  University of South Florida.  (See Course Web Site)

 

Pable, J. (2000). A Description of Students’ Experiences with a Studio-Based Quick Sketching Course Using Traditional and Computer-Based Instruction Practice Strategies. Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida. (See Course Web Site)

 

Parker, K. (2000).  Art, Science, and the Importance of Aesthetics in Instructional Design.  Unpublished paper.  (See Course Web Site)

 

VanDeventer, S. & White, J. (2002). Expert Behavior in Children’s Videogame Play. Simulation & Gaming, 33(1), 28-48. (See Course Web Site)

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

 

Doctoral-level research seminar in the field of instructional technology.  EME 7938 students focus on IT research literature, purposes, and paradigms. The course is designed to engage students at the highest cognitive levels, requiring extensive independent literature review, conceptualization, evaluation, and writing.  Students must be able to deliver, to receive, and to apply constructive criticism.  Appropriate mainly for IT doctoral, cognate, & Ed.S. students, but doctoral students in other education disciplines who possess the prerequisite competencies may inquire.

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

 

1. Student will gain broad understanding of the scholarly literature base pertaining to the application of technology to instruction.

2. Student will be able to synthesize scholarly literature pertaining to instructional technology.

3. Student will be able to identify and describe IT research paradigms.

4. Student will be able to identify IT research needs.

5. Student will be able to evaluate IT research questions and/or theories.

6. Student will be able to employ scholarly processes to articulate IT research questions/ theories.

7. Student will be able to describe specific instantiations of IT research questions/theories derived from scholarly processes.

8. Student will be able to produce a publication-quality research concept paper that articulates a unique and appropriate IT research question/theory.

9. Student will be able to present to a group of educators a paper that articulates an IT research question/theory.

 

STUDENT ASSESSMENT:

 

List Of Course Products:

 

Evaluation of the student will be based on successful completion of the following products and activities.

1) Six (6) sets of responses to Study Questions on assigned readings.  A printed copy of this document will be submitted to the instructor at the beginning of the class for which the reading is scheduled.
(Distance Learning students email document by midnight.)

2) One (1) online, take-home Midterm Exam.  Submit printed copy of response.
(Distance Learning students may email document.)

3) One (1) “Proposal Defense”: student will collaborate within a group to “defend” a research “proposal” (This is a performance.  There is no written document to submit.)
(Distance Learners will respond individually to a written list of questions.)

4) Six (6) “Proposal” examinations: student will collaborate within a group to examine 5 different research “proposals.”  The group will submit in class to the instructor a written list of at least three good questions about the “proposal.”  One group member will email the document to the instructor shortly thereafter.  (Distance Learners will respond individually.)

5) One (1) Literature Review/Concept Paper (in hardcopy and doc, rtf, pdf, or other standard format)

6) Three different (3) Sets of Critical Questions on three different Literature Review/Concept Papers

 

Criteria For Evaluation Of Student Performance:

 

All products except the midterm examination will be evaluated by the instructor using a 3-level scale.

1)       “Good” = full credit  2) “Acceptable” = half credit  3) “Unacceptable” = no credit

Each item on the midterm exam will be scored in the same fashion, then scaled for 20 points total.

 

Relative product point values are as follows:

Study Questions 1-6                    42 points (7 ea)

Midterm Examination                   20 points

Proposal “Defense”                        3 points

Proposal “Examinations” 1-6         12 points (2 ea)

Literature Review/Concept Paper   20 points

Criticism/Evaluations 1-3                3 points (1 ea)

TOTAL                                      100 POINTS

 

Grade scale is as follows:

A  100-85 points           B  84-70 points           C  69-55 points           D  54-40 points

 

ADA Statement: Students with disabilities are responsible for registering with the Office of Student Disabilities Services in order to receive special accommodations and services. Please notify the instructor during the first week of classes if a reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed for this course. A letter from the USF Disability Services Office must accompany this request.

USF Policy on Religious Observances: All students have a right to expect that the University will reasonably accommodate their religious observances, practices and beliefs. Students are expected to notify the instructor in writing by the second class if they intend to be absent for a class or announced examination, in accordance with this policy.

 

Academic Dishonesty: The University of South Florida has an account with an automated plagiarism detection service which allows instructors to submit student assignments to be checked for plagiarism. I reserve the right to 1) request that assignments be submitted to me as electronic files and 2) electronically submit assignments to Turnitin.com. Assignments are compared automatically with a huge database of journal articles, web articles, and previously submitted papers. The instructor receives a report showing exactly how a student’s paper was plagiarized. For more information, go to www.turnitin.com and http://www.ugs.usf.edu/catalogs/0304/adadap.htm#plagiarism.