Robert Hampel

213B Willard Hall

302-831-1651 (O), 302-658-6346 (H)

hampel@udel.edu

James Raths

211D Willard Hall

302-831-6103 (O), 610-255-0478 (H)

raths@udel.edu

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacLeod, J. (1995). Ain’t no makin’ it. Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood. San Francisco: Westview Press.

Sizer, T. (1996). Horace’s hope: What works for the American high school Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

8/31 Introductions and overview of the pro-seminar

  Review of the structure of the American system of education

9/7 The history of education research

  (Lagemann: pp. x-103)

  -- You are a new assistant professor in an ed school in 1920. What research activities are most and least likely       to lead to promotion and tenure?

  -- In the 1920s, why was the community of educational researchers fragmented rather than united?

  -- Why did the scholarship of Thorndike and Judd seem more credible to practitioners than the writings of      philosophers and historians?

9/14 The history of education research, 1950-2004

  (Lagemann: pp. 159-246)

  (Spencer Foundation 25 th annual report, pp. 6-35)

  -- What are the bright spots in these pages? What accounts for the successes?

  -- How and why did the federal role in educational research change?

  -- “Public attitudes that deny the complexity, difficulty, and expertise of education will have to change if educational research is to be strengthened.” Comment.

9/21 Teacher preparation
  
  (Grossman, Chapters 1-3)

  Guest: Professor Christopher Clark

  -- What hinders the impact of teacher education?
  -- How can teacher education become more impactful?  
  -- How well did Grossman link her study to the relevant literature?

9/28 Teacher preparation

  (Grossman, Chapters 4-end)

  -- What elements of Grossman’s design prevented her from completing the study as intended? Did these elements damage the credibility of her work?

  -- What considerations did Grossman take into account in selecting her cases? Were they reasonable?

  -- What is Grossman’s view about generic teaching skills?

  -- What makes pedagogical content knowledge such an important concept for teacher educators? Did Grossman make a compelling case for its significance?

10/5 Individual meetings with Professors Hampel and Raths

10/12 Contemporary school reform: Strategies and tactics

  (Sizer, all)

--What are the major reasons for Sizer’s optimism?

--Who is the constituency for the proposals in this book?

--What is the role of research in this book?

10/19 Program evaluation

(Handouts: Excerpts from The Program Evaluation Standards; several of the Coalition’s plans for evaluation of its schools)

Guest: Professor Audrey Noble

--Compare the Coalition’s plans with the “best practices” endorsed in the Standards

--What forms of research discussed by Lagemann enriches program evaluation?

10/26 Poverty and race in the lives of male adolescents

(MacLeod, all)

--Discuss MacLeod’s use of the scholarship on “social reproduction” (Ch. 2).

How does he thread theory throughout the book rather than drop it after Ch. 2?

--What makes MacLeod’s findings credible? Why should a reader trust his account of the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers rather than dismiss it as hopelessly subjective?

11/2 Poverty, race, and gender in the lives of female adolescents

(Bettie, all)

--Does Bettie use sociological theory in the same ways as MacLeod?

--What are the implications for teachers? administrators? Counselors?

--Analyze the social groups in your high school along the lines of class, race, and gender.

11/9 Focus on the learner

(Erlwanger, S. H. (1975). Case studies of children’s conceptions of mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1, 7-26); Other readings to be announced.

-- How confident are you with Erlwanger’s conclusions?

--What implications for teaching and teachers emanate from Erlwanger’s study?

--How do Erlwanger’s findings link with current thought about constructivist teaching?

--How would you describe the role the editor plays in annotating Erlwanger’s work?

11/16 Focus on learning

(Cohen, D.K. (1990). A Revolution in One Classroom: The Case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329)

--How would Benny fare in Mrs. O’s classroom?

--What is teaching for understanding difficult? What does the teacher risk?

--Write a protocol for interviews with Mrs. O’s students.

11/23 Reflections on life in doctoral programs (brief handouts to be distributed)

11/30 Improvement of instruction

(Carroll, J.B. (1963) A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.) Guest: Professor Frank Murray

-- What hinders teachers undertaking to improve their instruction?

-- Should teachers be held accountable for the learning of their students?

12/7 Improvement of instruction

Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts (pp. vii—136)

Guest: Professor Ralph Ferretti

-- What reasons does Wineburg advance for teaching history? Do his reasons apply to your country as well?

-- What is a teaching paradigm for teaching content – history content or science content?

-- What is a research question we could address using the “pictures of the past” technique?

-- How are your views of “causation” informed by Wineburg’s text?

-- What are “ways of knowing?” Do you use any of them? All of them? in your own studies?

Conferences with the instructors

During the week of October 3d, each student will schedule a one-half hour appointment with the instructors. The three of us will discuss the course, your career plans, and other related issues.

Evaluation of our work

1. The course grade assigned to students will be based on joint considerations of effort and accomplishment. The six papers will be weighted 60%, the formative assessment 25%, and class participation 15% (for class participation, we look for your demonstration of the scholarly “dispositions” we’ll discuss in the first class).

2. The instructors will be evaluated in part by School of Education policies. Each student will have the opportunity to render a summative judgment concerning the quality of instruction in the course. Formative suggestions are welcome at any time.

Overall Expectations

1. The purpose of these written assignments is to allow you to “show off” your new understandings of qualitative methodology and the substance of the topics we have chosen to cover in the seminar. As you read over your manuscript before it is submitted, in each case check to see if it indeed includes your current understandings of qualitative methods and the topics we are covering.

2. Sometimes we write casually and informally to our colleagues, to our friends, and even to our students. These exercises are different. We want you to polish your efforts so that they display your best writing skills. What you write in this course reflects on your professional preparation and diligence.

Specific Expectations

Assignment 1: Address one of the guiding questions in the syllabus for this reading. (2-3 pages)

1. In your response, cite the text often as the basis and/or source of your answer. You may include quotations in your paper to convey your answers to the question.

2. Acknowledge that there may be several answers to the question. Pose several, defend your favorite, and explain why you rejected the others.

Assignment 2: Find and critique a review of this book/author. (4-5 pages)

1. Give the full citation of the review.

2. A review often includes the following: Places the work in context, summarizes the central points or contributions made by the work, describes the work’s strengths and weaknesses, and relays a holistic judgment about the work. Comment on how well each of those elements is handled in the review.

3. Describe the degree of congruence between your views of the work and those of the reviewer. Explain or account for any variance.

4. Attach a Xerox copy of the review to your critique.

Assignment 3: Using a reading assigned for this unit, prepare an outline of a lecture you would give to a master’s level class on this topic. (4-5 pages)

1. Introduce the outline by specifying the assumptions you are making about the class you are planning to teach. Who are the students? Why do they need to know what you will be teaching them.

2. Integrate technology into your notes, such as PowerPoint, if that is useful.

3. Cite references of all materials used to plan the lecture.

N.B.—The assignment calls for an outline of a LECTURE. Other classroom interventions, discussions, small group work, and the like are not part of the task.

Assignment 4: Write a problem statement suitable for the introduction of a research proposal. (4-5 pages)

1. The problem statement is the nub or kernel of a proposal – giving the reader a taste of your wonderment and your question. The wonderment that is the focus of this assignment must be realistic and do-able.

2. The problem should address one of the topics found in the units of this course.

Assignment 5: Write a letter to the author posing a wonderment. (At least 1 page).

1. Introduce yourself and comment on the author’s work.

2. Ask a question (at most two) that is answerable in a few lines. For example: “In what ways did the citation of the Illinois dean concerning educational research advance your thesis?” Consider this as a counter-example: “What is your philosophy of education?”

3. Suggest why the question is important for you.

4. Add thanks and a stamped, self-addressed envelope or send it via e-mail. The instructors would be pleased to review the letter before it is sent.

5. When a response is received, analyze the author’s rejoinder. How does it change your understanding of what you read in the book/article? As part of this reaction paper, make sure to attach a copy of the author’s letter.

Note: If more than one student elects to write to an author, please pool your efforts. As a group, draft the letter together. Each student will respond individually to the response that is received.

Assignment 6: Interview a UofD faculty member about an issue found in the text. (4 pages).

1. Identify an issue, question, or concern developed in one of our readings. The matter prompting the interview should fall within the expertise of the faculty member you will be interviewing. (Professors Raths and Hampel can help you find a match.)

2. Unlike the letter to an author, where one question is perhaps the limit, you might have 3 or 4 questions you would like answered. Further, the questions could be broader than those appropriate for Assignment 5. Your question could be of the order, “Could you give me some background about what prompted NCTM to issue new teaching standards in 1988?” You should not ask questions whose answers are immediately available to you if you took the time to look them up.

3. Ask for a spot on our class agenda to rehearse with the class the questions you want to ask in advance of the interview.

4. Record the professor’s response to your interview, and promise to allow him/her to read your rendering of his/her response.

5. Report on the outcome of your interview with the following headings: Introduction (describing your preparation for the interview, the reason for choosing the questions you posed and the professor you have selected to respond); A listing of the questions and a recording of the professor’s responses; Summary: a listing of your surprises, your new understandings, and/or your new “knowledge” gained from the interview.

Assignment 7: Write a letter to the editor of a professional journal or another prominent outlet (New York Times) taking a positive stand on an educational issue. (2 pages)

2. The letter should cite sources to buttress the argument.

• The letter must refer to an article or item appearing in a recent issue of the journal or newspaper to which you are writing.

4. The letter should conform to the length of letters normally published in the journal or newspaper.

Assignment 8: Read a dissertation addressing a topic associated with a unit. Prepare a reaction to this experience. (3-4 pages)

 1. The dissertation need not be from the University of Delaware. Inter-library loan is a source for dissertations from other universities.

Your reaction should address the following:

2. Compare the literature review to those of either Bettie or MacLeod.

3. How could the author have made better use of qualitative research methods?

4. What are the key differences between a good dissertation and a book?

5. What did you find in your reading that surprised or puzzled you?