Read Microsoft Word - Content_final.doc text version

Running Head: A Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi

Indicators of Technology Integration in Teacher Preparation: A Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi

Gianna Rendina-Gobioff Jeannie Ducher Melinda R. Hess Kristine Y. Hogarty Gwendolyn F. Smith Jeffrey D. Kromrey Thomas R. Lang Ina J. Helmick

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Orlando, Florida, November 19-21, 2003

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 2 Indicators of Technology Integration in Teacher Preparation: A Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi American education is expected to closely reflect and anticipate the major changes occurring at national and international levels in order to better prepare graduates to function in an information and global society. The use and knowledge of technology for instructional purposes have been defined as essential to teacher preparation programs. If students graduating from high school and/or college are expected to be proficient in the uses of technology to function in a technology-rich society, it is imperative that technology be integrated both transparently as well as explicitly at all levels of a student's career. Recently adopted technology standards for teachers (International Society for Technology in Education, n.d.) provide a framework to meet this need. These standards clearly outline the level of technology integration expected in American university teacher preparation programs in order to graduate teachers who know how to use, model, and communicate effective uses of technology to their students. The expressed need to investigate the overall use of technology in teacher preparation programs requires that information be gathered about the extent to which the integration of technology is evidenced within the curriculum. It is well known that multiple curricula exist (designed, delivered, expected, and experienced) from which to gather information (Stark & Lowther, 1986; Ewell , 1997). Our initial investigation was focused specifically on the designed curriculum rather than the delivered, expected, or experienced. The information regarding technology use and integration needed to be collected in a systematic, objective way, in order to inform the overall examination of technology in teacher education. One common tool or technique widely used by college faculty to communicate course plans and information to students is the course syllabus (Smith, 1993). This mandatory tool in most teacher preparation courses serves as an agreement between students and instructors regarding the purpose and direction of the course (Lowther, Stark, & Martens, 1989). Nilson (1998) referred to the syllabus as both a "roadmap" and a "travelogue to pique students' interest in the expedition". Syllabi typically provide a fairly accurate reflection of the delivery method (face-to-face or online), course assignments and outcomes, as well as instructor expectations (McKeachie, 1999). As the most obvious and ubiquitous document containing

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 3 essential information, the course syllabus provides the ideal tool for an initial, systematic look at technology integration. Syllabi are a mandatory requirement in most Colleges of Education, and their purpose is seen as being an expository agreement between students and instructors of approved course objectives and outcomes (departmental syllabi). Syllabi usually follow a fairly set format. Lowther et al. (1989) identified and recommended ten syllabus sections for an effective document: "instructor and course; course purpose, goals, and objectives; educational beliefs; content outline; assignments and course calendar; textbooks; supplementary readings; methods of instruction; student feedback and grading procedures; and learning facilities and resources for students". Similarly, the University of South Florida College of Education has 12 required elements for course syllabi: course prefix and number; course title; instructor name, address, phone number, and office hours; course prerequisites; course description; course goals and objectives; content outline; student outcomes; grading system and criteria; required textbooks, reference list, and/or readings; state attendance; and ADA statement (see Appendix A). It was expected that the overall relative standardization of the tool would show enough information, either through the presence or absence of technology integration. Of particular interest was evidence of technology use by the instructor, either to deliver the course or as an instructional tool. Further we sought evidence of student uses of technology. In this vein, we looked for clues regarding online communication, the ability to obtain supplementary course materials online, or the requirement to employ technology to complete projects or assignments. Operational Definition of Technology Technology can be broadly defined as human innovation, change or modification of the natural environment that is brought about to solve problems and extend human capabilities. Applied to education, technology is defined as tools of information and communication that are used to enhance the teaching and learning process. Depending on the context in which it is used, the term 'technology' can take different interpretations in meaning. For the purpose of this study, technology has been operationally defined as encompassing all products and equipment requiring the use of electricity for educational purpose. This definition allows the inclusion of low-inference technology (tape recording/ playing) to high-inference technology (computers, with their applications and products to videoconferencing equipment, etc.). According to this definition, an instructor's

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 4 request that an assignment be typed is an example of student use of technology (it is now assumed that students do not use manual typewriters anymore!), and would be marked as evidence of technology integration into the course instruction. Context of the Research The University of South Florida (USF) is a Research Extensive university serving a diverse population of approximately 40,000 students across four campuses (University of South Florida, n.d.a.). Among thirteen other colleges and institutions at USF, the College of Education offers Bachelors degrees in the following areas: Athletic Training/Sports Medicine, Business Technology Education, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, English Education, Foreign Language Education, Industrial-Technical Education, Mathematics Education, Professional Physical Education, Science Education, Social Science Education, Technology Education, Varying Exceptionalities, and Wellness Leadership. Most of these specialized teacher preparation programs share a set of common courses that include prerequisite classes for entrance into the College, as well as a core of professional education and ESOL endorsement courses. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to analyze the evidence of technology integration contained within course syllabi pertaining to the core of common courses in teacher preparation programs. This study is part of a larger effort designed to develop and implement a technology assessment system. The results obtained from the content analysis conducted as part of the present study will guide the development of an online faculty survey as well as the creation of protocols for both classroom observations and interviews with course instructors. The overarching goal of the broader study is to provide evidence of our commitment to technology, an important component of the upcoming reaccredidation effort. Method The first step in this study was a consultation of the Undergraduate Catalog (University of South Florida, n.d.b.) to identify those courses common to undergraduate teacher preparation programs within the College of Education. The class schedules for the Spring and Summer Semesters of 2003 were then reviewed to identify which of the common courses were offered during the two terms and the instructor of record for each course. As is often typical for undergraduate programs within a large state university, many courses had multiple sections, often with different instructors. In order to attain appropriate representation, all instructors

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 5 teaching a common core course during these two semesters were contacted and a copy of their syllabus was requested. Concurrent with syllabi collection, an initial checklist was developed to help identify elements of technology integration evident in the syllabi. The indicators for the checklist were initially developed by listing technology references from a few syllabi and then organizing them into categories. Once the syllabi were gathered, a team of eight technology and measurement specialists were assembled to review the syllabi using the checklist. During the initial stages of the review process, the checklist was revised and refined to meet the needs and goals of the assessment. Wording was clarified where necessary and indicators were added, combined, or deleted as it became more apparent the appropriateness of individual indicators with respect to the language. The final checklist included six categories: Electronic Communications, Online Resources, Delivery Vehicle, Processes and Products, Course Administration, and Equipment & Facilities (see appendix B). Within each of the six identified categories, four or five individual indicators were created to represent the various aspects of the domain. For example, with respect to Online Resources, syllabi were reviewed for explicit references regarding specific online resources for students such as: course syllabi, class notes, readings, or specific websites to view. Whereas references to email, chat, student postings and instructor postings were coded as Electronic Communication. In all six of the major areas, an additional indicator named `other' was included as it was found that at times there was wording that alluded to the potential use of technology; however it was not clear enough to fit into a specific indicator. Using the developed checklist, syllabi were reviewed independently by team members in stages, followed by team discussions to reach consensus on whether or not various elements of technology were evident in the syllabus. Following each discussion, another set of syllabi would be reviewed independently, again followed by a team discussion to reach consensus. This cycle was repeated until all syllabi had been reviewed for evidence of technology integration. Three syllabi were independently reviewed prior to team discussions during each stage. After each discussion session, a `master' copy of the checklist reflecting the team's final consensus was kept for future data analysis. This cyclical process of independent review followed by collegial discussion was critical as it soon became obvious how easily different team members might interpret and apply different instructors' terminology used in the syllabi. Decisions had to be made on the universal

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 6 application of some common rules for interpretation and application. For example, it was agreed that if an instructor provided an email address for himself/herself, that was sufficient to credit them with `email' within Electronic Communications. On the other hand, to reflect the use of `chat' under Electronic Communications, words specific to using a chat room had to be present. Terms such as `online discussions' were classified under `other' because they were not specific and could be indicative of a variety of venues, including bulletin board postings, email, and chat rooms. One element of this process that soon became evident was the need to ensure that technology integration use had to be specifically evident in the syllabus itself, not as a function of individual knowledge. Some team members were very familiar with selected courses and were therefore aware of uses of technology in the course that were not distinctly evident in the syllabi. As such, an initial guideline for the review was to use information only from syllabi for making a decision, not individual knowledge of specific course/class structure. Another decision that was made during this process was to equally include technology evidence that was non-mandatory and mandatory. Therefore, some syllabi indicated that the student was allowed to choose from a series of projects to which some incorporated technology. This was considered equal to a course syllabus that required a project that incorporated technology. The 22 syllabi evaluated represent 10 common courses for teacher preparation. There were 19 instructors who provided copies of their syllabi for this sample. Nineteen syllabi were gathered from the Spring 2003 semester and three syllabi were gathered from the Summer 2003 semester. Once the reviews were completed, the information from the checklists was then analyzed to determine the extent of technology integration within the common core classrooms. Frequency counts were calculated for each indicator as well as summary frequencies for each of the six categories. Results The results of the content analysis provided information regarding the manner and degree of technology integration in the courses sampled. The number and percent of course syllabi displaying each of the technology indicators are presented in Table 1 and graphically represented in Figure 1. For example the technology indicator 'email', which falls within the Electronic Communication category, was observed for all 22 of the course syllabi (100%). Another indicator that was frequently illustrated was the Online Resources category indicator 'websites'

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 7

T a b le 1 : F re q u e n c y o f T e c h n o lo g y In d ic a to rs O b se rv e d in C o u rs e S y lla b i T e c h n o lo g y In d ic a to rs F re q u e n c y P e rc e n t C o m m e n ts E le c tro n ic C o m m u n ic a tio n e m a il 22 1 0 0 .0 0 ch at 3 1 3 .6 4 stu d e n t p o s tin g s 6 2 7 .2 7 5 2 2 .7 3 in s tru c to r p o s tin g s o th e r 2 9 .0 9 D is c u s sio n D e liv e ry V e h ic le W ebC T 6 2 7 .2 7 B la c k b o a rd 7 3 1 .8 2 WWW 4 1 8 .1 8 0 0 .0 0 te le c o n fe re n c in g o th e r 0 0 .0 0 d o n 't k n o w 0 0 .0 0 C o u rse A d m in is tra tio n p re re q u isite s 3 1 3 .6 4 3 1 3 .6 4 o b je c tiv e s/ e x p e c ta tio n s o n lin e in stru c tio n 7 3 1 .8 2 a ss ig n m e n ts 7 3 1 .8 2 g ra d e s 2 9 .0 9 o th e r 3 1 3 .6 4 A s sig n m e n ts, S e p a ra te e m a il re q u ire d O n lin e R e so u rc e s sy lla b i 4 1 8 .1 8 In s tr u c tio n s, V is u a ls / V id e o , P r o d u c t c la s s n o te s 2 9 .0 9 R e q u ir e m e n ts, S tu d y Q u e s tio n s, A d d itio n a l re a d in g s 7 3 1 .8 2 L in k s, P r o je c ts & A ss ig n m e n ts, O n lin e w e b site s 19 8 6 .3 6 L e a r n in g C e n te r , L e ss o n P la n T u to r ia l, R e v ie w M a te r ia l o th e r 15 6 8 .1 8 P ro c e sse s & P ro d u c ts p ro je c ts / p re se n ta tio n s 12 5 4 .5 5 h o m e w o rk 8 3 6 .3 6 e x a m s/ q u iz z e s 8 3 6 .3 6 w e b s e a rc h e s 6 2 7 .2 7 a u d io / v isu a l 6 2 7 .2 7 o th e r 0 0 .0 0 E q u ip m e n t & F a c ilitie s c o m p u te rs 6 2 7 .2 7 la b s 3 1 3 .6 4 0 0 .0 0 sm a rt sy ste m v id e o / a u d io 9 4 0 .9 1 TV 1 4 .5 5 o th e r 0 0 .0 0

(86.36%). Similarly, fifteen of the course syllabi (68.18%) were determined to have an 'other' indicator for the Online Resources category. The types of indicators that were determined to fit the 'other' for the Online Resources category were; instructions, visuals/video, product requirements, study questions, additional links, projects & assignments, online learning center, lesson plan tutorial, and review material. Some indicators were not revealed in any of the course syllabi that were evaluated. Such indicators were; 'teleconferencing', 'other' for Delivery Vehicle, 'don't know' for Delivery Vehicle, 'other' for Processes & Products, 'smart system', and 'other' for Equipment & Facilities. In addition to the frequency information provided by the checklist, some expounding information was gathered. Two syllabi warranted descriptive notes in the "Additional Notes" section of the checklist. Thus one syllabus indicated that email was not permitted for

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 8

Figure 1 : Percent of Technology Indicators Observed in Course Syllabi

Indicators

email chat

student postings instructor postings communication other WebCt Blackboard WWW teleconferencing delivery other don't know prerequisites objectives/expectations online instruction assignments grades administration other syllabi class notes readings websites resources other projects/presentations homework exams/quizzes web searches audio/visual processes other computers labs smart system video/audio TV equipment other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Communication

Delivery

Administration

Resources

Processes & Products

Equipment & Facilities

80

90

100

Percent of Course Syllabi

submitting assignments and another indicated that the office hours were virtual. Another source of descriptive information was from the "Specific Software" section of the checklist. There was a variety of software required for students to learn and/or use; Microsoft Office products (Word, Access, Excel, and Power Point), 1st Class Gradebook, web authoring programs (Netscape Composer, Frontpage, Dream Weaver), graphic drawing programs (Paint, Corel Draw, Photoshop), and web browsers (Microsoft IE, Netscape). The degree of technology integration is summarized by examining the total number of indicators in each category observed in the course syllabi (see Table 2). For example, the first

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 9

Table 2: Number of Technology Indicators for Each Course Syllabus by Category Electronic Online Delivery Processes & Course Communication Resources Vehicle Products Spring 2003 EDF 2005 (1) 2 2 1 4 EDF 2005 (2) 1 2 1 4 EME 2040 1 4 1 3 EDG 2701 (1) 1 1 0 3 EDG 2701 (2) 1 1 0 2 EDF 3214 (1) 4 2 1 1 EDF 3214 (2) 2 4 2 2 EDF 3604 (1) 2 4 1 0 EDF 3604 (2) 1 2 0 1 EEX 4070 4 0 1 1 FLE 4315/FLE 6932 (1) 3 2 1 3 FLE 4315/FLE 6932 (2) 4 1 1 4 FLE 4316/FLE 6932 (3) 2 4 1 3 FLE 4316/FLE 6932 (4) 1 2 1 0 FLE 4316/FLE 6932 (5) 1 2 1 0 FLE 4316/FLE 6932 (6) 1 2 1 0 FLE 4316/FLE 6932 (7) 1 2 1 0 EDF 4430 1 3 1 2 FLE 4365 2 3 1 3 Summer 2003 EDF 3604 (1) 1 0 0 2 EDF 3604 (2) 1 2 0 1 EDF 3604 (3) 1 2 0 1 *Some graduate level courses included

Course Administration 2 2 3 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0

Equipment & Facilities 3 3 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

course listed (EDF 2005) was determined to have two Electronic Communication indicators, two Online Resources indicators, one Delivery Vehicle indicator, four Processes & Product indicators, two Course Administration indicators, and three Equipment & Facilities indicators. The data can be summarized broadly by examining the percent of course syllabi that exhibited one or more technology indicators in each of the categories (Figure 2). All (100%) of the course syllabi demonstrated technology use for the Electronic Communication category with at least one indicator. Essentially, all of the course syllabi at a minimum provided an email address for communicating with the instructor. The large majority of course syllabi (90.91%) showed evidence of at least one technology indicator for the Online Resources category. A minimum of one indicator of technology usage for Delivery of the course was exhibited by 72.73% of the course syllabi. Student use of technology for Processes and Products was observed by at least one indicator in 77.27% of the course syllabi. Technology use for Administration of the course was evidenced with at least one indicator by 63.64% of the course syllabi. Lastly, the category with the smallest percent of at least one technology indicator was Equipment and Facilities (54.55%). Thus, the majority of course syllabi were determined to have at least one technology indicator for all of the categories of interest. The data were broken down further by presenting the frequency and percent of course syllabi for each number of technology indicators within each category (Table 3). The

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 10

Figure 2 : Percent of Course Syllabi with One or more Technology Indicators by Category 100

100.00 90.91

90

80 77.27 70 Percent of Course Syl 72.73 63.64 54.55

60

50

40

30 20

10

0 Communication Resources Delivery Processes & Products Course Administration Equipment & Facilities Technology Indicator Categories

percentages for each of the categories are graphically presented in Figures 3 - 8 (Appendix C). For example, in the Electronic Communication category; none (0.00%) of the course syllabi had zero technology indicators, thirteen course syllabi (59.09%) had one technology indicator, and nine course syllabi (40.91%) had two or more technology indicators. Half of course syllabi exhibited two technology indicators for Online Resources, with some courses exhibiting as many as four indicators. As was expected the majority (68.18%) of course syllabi revealed one technology indicator for the Delivery Vehicle. However, one course syllabus (4.55%) exhibited two indicators (www and WebCT). There was a lot of variation for the number of indicators in the Processes & Products category. The number of indicators ranged from 0 to 4, with 0, 1, and 3 indicators being demonstrated by 5 courses or 22.73%. The number of indicators for the Course Administration category was in the low end with 36.36% of the course syllabi having no

Table 3: Frequency and Percent of Course Syllabi for Each Number of Technology Indicators by Category Electronic Online Delivery Processes & Course Equipment & Number of Communication Resources Vehicle Products Administration Facilities Technology Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Indicators 0 0 0.00 2 9.09 6 27.27 5 22.73 8 36.36 10 45.45 1 13 59.09 3 13.64 15 68.18 5 22.73 7 31.82 8 36.36 2 5 22.73 11 50.00 1 4.55 4 18.18 4 18.18 1 4.55 3 1 4.55 2 9.09 0 0.00 5 22.73 2 9.09 3 13.64 4 3 13.64 4 18.18 0 0.00 3 13.64 1 4.55 0 0.00 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 N=22 22 100 22 100 22 100 22 100 22 100 22 100

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 11

technology indicators and 31.82% of the course syllabi having one technology indicator. Technology indicators in the Equipment & Facilities category were least evident in the syllabi. For example almost half (45.45%) the course syllabi had no technology indicators and a third (36.6%) had one technology indicator. Thus, 81% of the course syllabi had 0 or 1 technology indicator for the Equipment & Facilities category. Limitations The purpose of this research was to describe the current types and degree of technology use as evidenced in course documentation (syllabi). This data was useful in the development of an online faculty survey and interview protocols. Further, these results provide guidance for general recommendations regarding syllabi revision and enhancement. Yet the use of the syllabus as the data source for gathering evidence of technology integration resulted in some limitations. Instructors seldom include in their syllabus their use of technology as an instructional tool. For example, students may be required to make a presentation that the instructor verbally encourages be produced in Power Point which would not be included in these analyses. In addition the College guidelines (Appendix A) for course syllabi do not address technology use or delivery. Another limitation is that some common core courses had multiple instructors whose syllabi were not obtained. Conclusions The types and degree of technology integration varied across the syllabi for courses required for teacher preparation. Although there was a variety of technology indicators observed, the majority were for the Communication, Resources, and Student Project & Processes category. A minimum of one indicator for each category was observed for the majority of courses, the lowest being for the Equipment & Facilities category. Thus, a minimum level of technology integration was evidenced by the majority of the courses examined. However, these results indicate that course syllabi offer only partial evidence of technology integration. Clearly, it will be necessary to explore additional venues to supplement this inquiry. The results of this study served their purpose of providing information to guide the development of future instrumentation, as well as, syllabi revision and enhancement, with the hope of providing a more accurate reflection of the relative degree of technology integration across courses.

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 12 References Ewell, P.T. (1997). Identifying indicators of curricular quality. In J. G. Gaff & J. L. Ratcliff (Eds.). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. International Society for Technology in Education (n.d.). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Retrieved October 31, 2003, from http://cnets.iste.org. Lowther, M. A., Stark, J. S., & Martens, G. G. (1989). Preparing Course Syllabi for Improved Communication. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. 35p. McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nilson, L. B. (1998). Teaching at its best. Bolton, MA: Anker. Smith, R. A. (1993). Preventing lost syllabi. Teaching of Psychology, 20, p. 113. Stark, J. S. & Lowther, M. A. (1986). Designing the learning plan: A review of research and theory

related to college curricula. Ann Arbor: National Center for Research on Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 287 439).

University of South Florida. (n.d.a.) Quick facts about USF. Retrieved July 3, 2003, from http://www.usf.edu/ataglance.html.

University of South Florida, (n.d.b.). Undergraduate Catalogs and Counseling Manuals. Retrieved October 31, 2003, from http://www.ugs.usf.edu/catalogs.htm.University of

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 13

Appendix A College of Education Outline for Individual Course Syllabus Graduate Level Courses

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 14

Appendix B Use of Technology in Common Teacher Preparation Courses (Checklist)

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 15

Use of Technology in Common Teacher Preparation Courses Course#: ________ Title: _______________________________ Instructor: ________________

Specific software: ____________________________________________________________________ Electronic Communications ____ email ____ chat ____ student postings ____ instructor posting (i.e., announcements) ____ other Delivery Vehicle Online Resources ____ syllabi ____ class notes ____ readings ____ websites ____ other Processes & Products (student creates or interacts with technology) ____ WebCT ____ Blackboard ____ WWW ____ teleconferencing ____ other ____ don't know (can't tell) ____ projects/presentations (e.g.,)_____________________________ ____ homework (e.g.)_____________________________ ____ exams/quizzes ____web searches ____ audio/video ____ other: ____________________________ Course Administration ____ prerequisites ____ objectives/expectations ____ online instruction (content; new knowledge) ____ assignments (i.e., online submission) ____ grades ____ other: ___________________________ Equipment & Facilities ____ computers (explicit use in classroom) ____ labs ____ smart system ____ video/audio ____ TV ____ other: ____________________________

Additional Notes:

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 16

Appendix C Figure 3: Electronic Communication Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators Figure 4: Online Resources Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators Figure 5: Delivery Vehicle Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators Figure 6: Processes & Products Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators Figure 7: Course Administration Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators Figure 8: Equipment & Facilities Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 17

Figure 3: Electronic Communication Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 60 59.09 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00 0 1 2 4.55 3 4 22.73 13.64 0.00 5

Percent of Course Syllabi

Number of Technology Indicators

Figure 4: Online Resources Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 18.18 10 9.09 0 0 1 2 3 4 Number of Technology Indicators 13.64 9.09 0.00 5

Percent of Course Syllabi

50.00

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 18

Figure 5: Delivery Vehicle Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 68.18 60 50 40 30 27.27 20 10 0 0 1 4.55 2 0.00 3 Number of Technology Indicators 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6

Percent of Course Syllabi

Figure 6: Processes and Products Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 Number of Technology Indicators 4 22.73 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 5 0.00 6 22.73

Percent of Course Syllabi

Content Analysis of the Common Core Syllabi, 19

Figure 7: Course Administration Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 18.18 10 9.09 0 0 1 2 3 Number of Technology Indicators 4.55 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 36.36 31.82

Percent of Course Syllabi

Figure 8: Equipment and Facilities Category Percent of Course Syllabi Exhibiting Each Number of Technology Indicators

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 4.55 2 3 Number of Technology Indicators 13.64 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 45.45 36.36

Percent of Course Syllabi

Information

Microsoft Word - Content_final.doc

19 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1013343


You might also be interested in

BETA
U.S. Undergraduate Academic Catalog | Information | DeVry University
Four Point Bending: A New Look
untitled
Final_kit.doc
New Jersey Undergraduate Academic Catalog | Information | DeVry University