Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus
Education Major Version

ED 565 Issues in Early Childhood Educ
Choi, Dong Hwa


Mission Statement: The mission of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies at Park University is to provide leadership and directions to Park University's graduate and professional programs to assure that they are specialized, scholarly, innovative, and designed to educate students to be creative, independent, and lifelong learners within the context of a global community.

School For Education Mission Statement
The School for Education at Park University, an institution committed to diversity and best practice, prepares educators to be effective school professionals, reflective change agents, and advocates for equity and excellence for all learners.



Vision Statement: Park University's School of Graduate and Professional Studies will be an international leader in providing innovative graduate and professional educational opportunities to learners within a global society.

School For Education Vision Statement
The School for Education at Park University is to be known as a leader in the preparation of educators who will address the needs, challenges, and possibilities of the 21st century.

Park University School for Education  Conceptual Framework


Course

ED 565 Issues in Early Childhood Educ

Semester

S1P 2011 EDD

Faculty

Choi, Dong Hwa

Title

Associate Professor / Internatinal Education Coordinator

Degrees/Certificates

Ph.D. Early Childhood Education and Urban Leadership & Policy Studies in Education
M.A.  Educational Psychology
B.S. Elementary School Education

Office Location

911 Main, Suite 819 Kansas City, MO 64105

Office Hours

T : 2-4 pm (Downtown, Rm. 819)

Daytime Phone

816-559-5604

Other Phone

816-820-7950

E-Mail

dong.choi@park.edu

Semester Dates

Jan 10-Mar 6

Class Days

----R--

Class Time

5:00 - 9:30 PM

Credit Hours

3


Textbook:
 

  1. Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN: 0-8070-0441-3
  1. Seefeldt, C. (2005). How to work with standards in the early childhood         

                                      classroom. NY: Teachers College Press.

                                          ISBN: 0-8077-4510-3

  1. Wien, C. A. (2004). Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The

         teacher’s dilemma. NY: Teachers College Press.

            ISBN: 0-8077-4587-1

Additional Resources:
 

Additional readings: (* articles are available on the Park University Ebsco Host Full Text Academic Elite Search)

  1. *Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 2, 111-127.
  1. Boyd, J., Barnett, W. S., Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., Gomby, D., Robin, K. B., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Promoting children’s social and emotional development through preschool. National Institute of Early Education Research. http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report7.pdf
  1. Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror of school accountability. In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.) Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.  pp. 18-34. NY: Teachers College Press. 
  1. *Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). “Learner-centered” according to children. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 1102-108.

 

  1. *Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085
  1. *Drake, S. M. (2001). Castles, kings…and standards. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 38-42.
  1. *Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10. 
  1. *Egan, K. (2003) Testing what for what? Educational Leadership, 61(3), 27-30.
  1. *Gallagher, C. W. (2004) Turning the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one ‘backward’ state. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (5), 352-360
  1. *Harvey, J. (2003). The matrix reloaded. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 18-21.
  1. *Hebart, E. A. (2001). How does a child understand a standard? Educational Leadership, 59(1), 71-73.
  1. Hochschild, J. (2003). Rethinking accountability politics. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West. (Eds.) No child left behind?: The politics and practices of school accountability. pp. 107-123. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
  1. *Jerald, C. (2003). Beyond the rock and the hard place. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 12-16.
  1. *Johnson, J. (2003). What does the public say about accountability? Educational Leadership, 61, 3, 36-40.
  1. Kagan, S. L., Britto, P.R., & Engle, P. (2005). Early learning standards: What can America learn? What can America teach? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (3), 205-208.
  1. *Kagan, S. L., & Scott-Little, C (2004) Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and practice of early childhood education? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 388-396.
  1. *Kendall, J. S. (2003). Setting standards in early childhood education. Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 64-68.
  1. Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap: A report of the Center of Educational Policy. www.ctredpol.org
  1. Kozol, J. (2005). Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid. Atlantic Monthly, 311(1864), 41-54).
  1. *Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2001) Standards for diverse learners. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 43-46.
  1. Mabry, L. (2004). Strange, yet familiar: Assessment-driven education.   In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.) Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.  pp. 116-134. NY: Teachers College Press. 
  1. Newman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 125-145.
  1. *Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standards are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 381-382, 387.

24. Rothman, R. (2005). Testing goes to preschool. Harvard  Educational Letter, www.edletter.org/past/issues/2005-ma/preschool.shtml

  1. Schweinhart, L (2003). Making validated educational models central in preschool standards. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute in Early Education Research. http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=15
  1. Scott-Little, C. S., Kagan, S. L. , & Frelow, V. S. (2003). Creating the Conditions for Success with Early Learning Standards: Results from a National Study of State-Level Standards for Children's Learning Prior to Kindergarten. Early Childhood Research and Practice. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html
  1. Shore, R., Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2004). Child outcome standards in PreK Programs: What are standards; What makes them work? New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 
  1. Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005) Assessing the quality of early years learning environments.   Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1)   http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html
  1. Wheatley, K. (2003). Promoting the use of content standards: Recommendations for teacher educators. Young Children, 58 (2) 96-102

 

COURSE RESOURCES  

  1. Kendall, J.S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL).
  1. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Understanding No Child Left Behind: A report of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 & Its Implications for Schools, Communities, and Public Support for Education.   http://www.nationaldialogue.org/resources/Understanding.pdf
  1. Missouri PreK Standards Literacy Standards. Social and Emotional Development Standards. Math Standards. Science Standards.; Physical Development, Health and Safety Standards. http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/fedprog/earlychild/PreK_Standards.html
  1. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2002). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/position_statement.pdf   Complete Position Statement.
  1. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC). (2005). NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Performance Criteria. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/next_era.asp   (review Universal PreK and kindergarten accreditation standards.)   
  1. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC). (2001) NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation. Initial Licensure. http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2001.pdf
  1. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC). (2002) NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation. Advanced Programs. http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2002.pdf 
  1. National Research Council (NRC) (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309068363/pdf_image/278.pdf
  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework.   http://www.hsnrc.org/CDI/pdfs/UGCOF.pdf

           

 
 

McAfee Memorial Library - Online information, links, electronic databases and the Online catalog. Contact the library for further assistance via email or at 800-270-4347.
Career Counseling - The Career Development Center (CDC) provides services for all stages of career development.  The mission of the CDC is to provide the career planning tools to ensure a lifetime of career success.
Park Helpdesk - If you have forgotten your OPEN ID or Password, or need assistance with your PirateMail account, please email helpdesk@park.edu or call 800-927-3024
Resources for Current Students - A great place to look for all kinds of information http://www.park.edu/Current/.


Course Description:
ED565 Issues in Early Childhood Education: A critical examination of issues influencing early education. Topics will include both historical and contemporary views of childhood; trends and issues affecting teaching practices; social, educational, and economic policies shaping the care and education of young children; and professionalism.

Educational Philosophy:
 

Developing as a teacher is a complex process that occurs most effectively in learning communities that provide rich opportunities for inquiry and reflection, and that cultivate a sense of curiosity, integrity, social justice, and professionalism. 

Learning Outcomes:
  Core Learning Outcomes

  1. analyze the interplay of social, political, economic, and cultural
  2. examine the implications of current trends and issues as they influence the work of early childhood professionals.
  3. critically review literature relevant to the profession.
  4. conduct an in-depth investigation analyzing the complexities of an issue directly affecting teaching and learning in their program/school and develop a plan of action to address the issue.


Core Assessment:

Class Assessment:
 

I. Classroom discussion (wk2-wk7) (18 pts x 6: 108 pts)

Read the chapters or articles assigned and post your original post and one response to your classmate(s).

Due: Your original post – Thursday midnight , CST : 1/20, 1/27, 2/3, 2/10,                                                                                                              2/17, 2/24

         Your response to classmate(s)—Sunday midnight , CST: 1/23, 1/30, 2/6,                                                                                                         2/13, 2/20, 2/27

 

II. Current issue discussion (wk2, wk 3, wk4, wk6, wk8) ( 18 pts x 5: 90pts)

Read the chapters or articles assigned and post your original post and one response to your classmate(s).

 

Due: Your original post – Thursday midnight , CST : 1/20, 1/27, 2/3,                                                                                                           2/17, 3/3

         Your response to classmate(s)—Sunday midnight , CST: 1/23, 1/30, 2/6,                                                                                                          2/20, 3/6

 

 

III. Midterm assignment: Topic presentation (wk 5) ( 50 pts)

You will select a topic related to early childhood education, standards, or educational policies. Your presentation is informational in nature. Keep in mind that your presentation format is open (i.e, Youtube, mp3 file, or powerpoint, etc) and is limited only by your creatively; there is no set structure.

In your presentation, 1) describe an introduction of your topic, 2) discuss three main facts about your topic, 3) discuss your personal reflections on the topic , and 4) discuss how ECE or elementary school teachers can use the information for their practices.

Post your presentation and/or directions on how to access your presentation by midnight Thursday of Week 5. Post one response to your classmate by midnight Sunday of week 5.

Due: Your original post – Thursday midnight , CST :  2/10

    Your response to classmate(s)—Sunday midnight , CST: 2/13

 

IV. Final assignment: In-Depth Exploration of Standards in Early Childhood Education. (Core Assessment) (wk 8) (73 pts)

DUE: Thursday, midnight, CST: 3/3

A.                Based upon the model of teacher interview and analysis presented in Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: A teacher’s dilemma (Wien, 2004), present a report (adapted to your particular professional context) that 1) identifies the current economic, cultural, and political forces that shape the issue of standards in early childhood education, 2) examines the implications for daily teaching practice, and 3) defines a course of action (either individual or collaborative) that responds to the questions raised by the standards movement. 

B.                 Your report should have the following components: 1) an introduction that places your inquiry within the current educational context, 2) an analytical review of course readings, 3) a description and analysis of your interviews, and 4) a description and rationale for plan of action. 

C.                 Use Time New Roman letter, 12 font, double space, and at least 7-8 pages . APA style , more than 6 references

 

Grading:
 

GRADING PLAN:

A: 100-90%

B: 89-80%

C: 79-70%

 

Late Submission of Course Materials:
 

·   All assignments should be typed. No handwritten assignment will be accepted.

·   All assignments must be turned in on the dates indicated, unless date is changed by instructor.

·   I will not accept any late submissions.  

·   Any absence does not excuse students’ responsibility to get assignments turned in on or before due day.

·   Extreme emergency absences and/or due date situations will be handled case by case at the instructor’s discretion. Instructor’s decision is final. Keep instructor informed of any potential personal situations that might necessitate an absence-preferably in advance.

·   The above procedures and calendar (given in class) for this course are tentative and subject to change in the event of extenuating circumstances. I reserve the right and responsibility to evaluate the quality of your work. Completion of an assignment does not guarantee the awarding of all possible points.

·   If a student is absent for any reason, the student is still responsible for the information discussed in class that day.

·   For your own protection, always save a copy of any assignment you complete.

Classroom Rules of Conduct:
 

ATTENDANCE POLICY: Instructors are required to keep attendance records and report absences. The instructor may excuse absences for cogent reasons, but missed work must be made up within the term of enrollment. Work missed through unexcused absences must also be made up within the term of enrollment, but unexcused absences may carry further penalties. In the event of two consecutive weeks of unexcused absences in a term of enrollment, the student will be administratively withdrawn, resulting in a grade of “F”. An Incomplete will not be issued to a student who has unexcused or excessive absences recorded for a course. Students receiving Military Tuition Assistance (TA) or Veterans Administration (VA) educational benefits must not exceed three unexcused absences in the term of enrollment. Excessive absences will be reported to the appropriate agency and may result in a monetary penalty to the student. Reports of F grade (attendance or academic) resulting from excessive absence for students receiving financial assistance from agencies not mentioned above will be reported to the appropriate agency.

Student attendance and participation is essential in achieving maximum learning.  It is generally expected that students will attend all scheduled class sessions and to contribute to the classroom learning environment. However, it is recognized that occasions do arise that necessitate being absent from a class.  Students are responsible for making prior arrangements regarding a necessary absence and for completing any alternative assignments.  

·   If you have more than three absences for the semester, your final evaluation will be lowered by one grade, for example, a “A” will become a “B.” 

·   Emergency room, hospital stay, and death of immediate family ( e.g., father, mother, siblings, grandparents) are only exceptions of the point deduction and the three absences rule that are explained above. Adequate documentation of the event must be provided at the next class session to the instructor’s satisfaction.

Course Topic/Dates/Assignments:
 

COURSE TOPICS/DATES/ASSIGNMENTS

Week

Date

Topics/Assignments

1

1/13

Early childhood education and standards : Face-to-face session

2

1/17-23

Setting the Stage: Past and Present

 

  • Seefeldt, C. (2005). How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Chapters 1, 2, & 3.
  • *Kagan, S. L., & Scott-Little, C (2004) Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and practice of early childhood education? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 388-396. 

3

1/24-30

Standards and Prekindergarten Education: Issues and Questions

  • Wien, C. A. (2004). Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma. NY: Teachers College Press. (Chapter 9)

 

  • *Drake, S. M. (2001). Castles, kings…and standards. Educational Leadership, 59 (1) 38-42
  •  

4

1/31-2/6

Standards and Benchmarks: Sources and Problems

 

  • Seefeldt, C. (2005). How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Chapters 4-5.
  • *Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standards are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 381-382, 387.

 

5

2/7-13

No Child Left Behind: Standards and Assessment

 

  • Wien, C. A. (2004). Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma. NY: Teachers College Press.

 

6

2/14-20

Continuing the Conversation: Education and Democracy

  • Seefeldt, C. (2005). How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Chapters 6,  8, & 9

 

  • Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). “Learner-centered” according to children. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 1102-108.

 

7

2/21-27

Children Navigating Standards

 

  • Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education?  Boston: Beacon Press.

 

8

2/28-3/6

Standards: Further Considerations

  • *Gallagher, C. W. (2004). Turning the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one ‘backward’ state. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 352-360

Academic Honesty:
As a learning community, the University upholds the highest standards of academic integrity in all its academic activities, by faculty, staff, administrators and students. Academic integrity involves much more than respecting intellectual property rights. It lies at the heart of learning, creativity, and the core values of the University. Those who learn, teach, write, publish, present, or exhibit creative works are advised to familiarize themselves with the requirements of academic integrity and make every effort to avoid possible offenses against it, knowingly or unknowingly. Park University 2010-2011 Graduate Catalog Page 20

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism involves the appropriation of another person's ideas, interpretation, words (even a few), data, statements, illustration or creative work and their presentation as one's own. An offense against plagiarism constitutes a serious academic misconduct.  Although offenses against academic integrity can manifest themselves in various ways, the most common forms of offenses are plagiarism and cheating. Plagiarism goes beyond the copying of an entire article. It may include, but is not limited to: copying a section of an article or a chapter from a book, reproduction of an art work, illustration, cartoon, photograph and the like and passing them off as one's own. Copying from the Internet is no less serious an offense than copying from a book or printed article, even when the material is not copyrighted.

Plagiarism also includes borrowing ideas and phrases from, or paraphrasing, someone else's work, published or unpublished, without acknowledging and documenting the source. Acknowledging and documenting the source of an idea or phrase, at the point where it is utilized, is necessary even when the idea or phrase is taken from a speech or conversation with another person.

Park University 2010-2011 Graduate Catalog Page 20


Attendance Policy:

Instructors are required to maintain attendance records and report absences. Excused absences can be granted by the instructor, for medical reasons, school sponsored activities, and employment-related demands, including temporary duty. Students are responsible for any missed work. Absences for two successive weeks, without approved excuse, will be reported to the Director of the individual graduate program, or to the Executive Director for the Graduate School, for appropriate action. Students with such a record of absences, without an approved excuse, may be administratively withdrawn from the class and notified that an "F" will be recorded, unless the student initiates official withdrawal from the class(es).Park University 2010-2011 Graduate Catalog Page 24

Disability Guidelines:
Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all students that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to students concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University's policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding students with disabilities. In the case of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Additional information concerning Park University's policies and procedures related to disability can be found on the Park University web page: http://www.park.edu/disability .

Additional Information:
 

ED565


Topic Presentation Rubrics


 



   
       
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
       
   

           

Exceeds Expectations


           

           

Meets Expectations


           

           

Does Not Meet Expectations


           

           

Introduction (background info) is clearly discussed.  10 pts


           

Three main facts regarding the topic are discussed  15 pts


           

Personal refection clearly describes the candidate’s idea on the topic.  15 pts


           

Educational suggestions for  teachers based on the information discussed are well described.  10 pts


           

           

Introduction (background info) is somewhat discussed.  6 pts


           

Two main facts regarding the topic are discussed  10 pts


           

Personal refection somewhat describes the candidate’s idea on the topic.  10 pts


           

Educational suggestions for teachers based on the information discussed are briefly described.  6 pts


           

           

Introduction (background info) is not clearly discussed.  2 pts


           

One main fact regarding the topic is discussed. 5 pts


           

Personal refection does not describe the candidate’s idea on the topic. 5 pts


           

Educational suggestions for teachers based on the information discussed are not described. 2 pts


           

Name________________________________________ Date_____________________


Points earned__________________________


 


ED 565 Discussion rubric


 


 


Original post (10pts): -3pts per everyday  late


Post by deadline--3 pts


Comments : 8-7 sentences – 7 pts


                    6-5 sentences –5 pts


                   4-3 sentences –3 pts


                   2-1 sentences—1 pts


Post to classmate(s) (8pts): I will NOT accept any late posts.


Post by deadline—3pts


Comments: 6-5 sentences –5 pts


                   4-3 sentences –3 pts


                   2-1 sentences—1 pts




  

Park University Graduate School


Core Assessment Rubric for Graduate Courses


ED565 Issues in Early Childhood Education


CORE ASSESSMENT: In-Depth Exploration of Standards in Early Childhood Education. 



   
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
       
           
           
           
           
       
   

           

Competency/Skills


           

           

Definition


           

           

Criteria & Definitions


           

           

Score


           

           

 


           

I. Cognitive Skills 


           

 


           

Analysis


           

Outcome 1, 3


           

NAEYC Standard 5a


           

Professional Tools 4, 6


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

           

 


           

 


           

Artifact demonstrates candidate’s ability to critically review the literature relevant to the question.


           

(14 pts)


           

           

 


           

 


           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

1.Review of literature analyzes relevant course readings, 1) explaining the implications of the reading to the larger question of standards, and 2) making connections across readings.  (7 pts)


           

2. More than 6 in-text citations (7 pts)


           

Meets Expectations (2) (Developing)


           

1. Review of literature briefly references relevant course readings. (5 pts)


           

2. 5-4 in-text citations (5 pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

1. Little if any mention is made of relevant readings. (3 pts)


           

2. 3-2 in-text citations (3 pts)


           

           

 


           

           

Synthesis


           

Outcome 2


           

NAEYC Standards 5a Professional Tool 6


           

           

Artifact demonstrates candidate’s ability to critically examine the implications of the standards movement on early childhood settings. (14 pts)


           

 


           

           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

1. Discussion of interviews uses literature review as a tool of analysis. A description and analysis of the interview demonstrates in-depth understanding related to the topic. (7 pts)


           

2. four-five implications for daily teaching practice ( 7 pts)


           

Meets Expectations (2)


           

(Developing)


           

1. Interviews are described with brief references to course readings. A description and analysis of the interview demonstrates basic understanding related to the topic. (5 pts)


           

2. three implications for daily teaching practice (5 pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

1. Little if any use of course readings to analyze interviews. Relies on personal opinion.  


           

A description and analysis of the interview demonstrates poor understanding related to the topic. ( 3 pts)


           

2. two implications for daily teaching practice (3 pts)


           

 


           

           

 


           

           

Evaluation


           

Outcome 4


           

NAEYC Professional Tools 6, 7, 8


           

           

Artifact demonstrates the candidate’s ability to evaluate the effects of the standards on teaching practices, and develop an effective plan of action.


           

 


           

(20 pts)


           

           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

1. Rationale for evaluation and plan of action are explained in terms of issues defined in course readings.


           

Specific and feasible action plan ( 8 pts)


           

2. four current economic, cultural, and political forces that shape the issue of standards in early childhood education ( 12 pts)


           

 


           

Meets Expectations (2) (Developing)


           

1. Course readings briefly mentioned in rationale for evaluation and plan of action.


           

An abstract action plan (6 pts)


           

2. three current economic, cultural, and political forces that shape the issue of standards in early childhood education (9 pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

1. Little if any use of course readings evident on evaluation and plan of action. Relies on personal opinion.


           

Unclear action plans (3 pts)


           

2. two current economic, cultural, and political forces that shape the issue of standards in early childhood education (6 pts)


           

 


           

           

 


           

           

 


           

III. Professional Disposition


           

NAEYC Professional Tools 7


           

           

 


           

 


           

Ability to collaborate with colleagues to study and improve teaching practices


           

 


           

(5 pts)


           

           

 


           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

Collaboration with in-class research group is well-documented with descriptions of the questions explored and reflections on the implications for the next week of the candidate’s inquiry.


           

“Intentional probings” provided by colleagues are described and evaluated.


           

Candidate describes and reflects on the implications of collaboration in the inquiry process.


           

(5 pts)


           

Meets Expectations (2) (Developing)


           

Collaboration with in-class research group is described.


           

Candidate describes effects of collaboration in the inquiry process. (3 pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

Little if any description is provided of the collaborative process. (0 pts)


           

           

 


           

           

 


           

IV. Sources


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

           

(10 pts)


           

           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

All sources are accurately documented in the APA format in the text and on the reference page (10 pts)


           

Meets Expectations (2) (Developing)


           

Minor errors (2-3) in APA format in the text and/or on the reference page (5pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

Multiple errors (more than 4) in APA format in the text and/or on the reference page (2 pts)


           

 


           

           

 


           

           

V. Mechanics


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

 


           

           

(10 pts)


           

           

Exceeds Expectations (3) (Target)


           

No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Professional voice and word choice used exclusively. (5 pts)


           

More than 7 pages (5 pts)


           

Meets Expectations (2) (Developing)


           

Almost no (1-2) grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.


           

Professional voice and word choice dominates (3pts)


           

6-5 pages(3 pts)


           

Does Not Meet Expectations (1) (Unacceptable)


           

A few (3-4) grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.


           

Professional voice and word choice lacking in spots. (2 pts)


           

4-3 pages ( 2 pts)


           

 


           

           

 


           

 



 

 

Copyright:

This material is protected by copyright
                               and can not be reused without author permission.

Last Updated:1/15/2011 7:32:21 PM