TOWSON UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Program in Instructional Technology: School Library Media
ISTC 541.101
Foundations of Instructional Technology
Dr.____________, Instructor
Office: HH ____
Phone:
E-mail:
Course Website: In Blackboard
Course Description: This introductory course provides an overview of the field of Instructional Technology. This course focuses on
helping students to develop an awareness and understanding of the theories and philosophies driving the field. In addition, this course
will explore common computer-related technologies used within most learning environments.
The School Library Media Program Digital Portfolio:
1
The School Library Media Program Digital Portfolio Assessment is introduced in ISTC 653 (The Organization of Knowledge),
structurally designed in ISTC 541 (Foundations of Instructional Technology), and completed in ISTC 789 (Practicum and Portfolio in
School Library Media).
As candidates near completion of the program, they will write reflection statements correlating their program work,
particularly as the work connects to PK-12 students. Candidates are encouraged to write reflections throughout their program of study
aligning coursework to the AASL standards for the Initial Programs for School Library Media Specialist Preparation.
It is not likely possible to complete the portfolio until a majority of coursework is completed. The portfolio is to be completed
as part of (three credits) of the final six credit program course, ISTC 789 (Practicum and Portfolio in School Library Media).
Candidates should archive digital and other copies of their work.
Class Meeting Dates: The class will meet face-to-face on the following dates: June 5, June 7, June 12, June 14, June 19, June 21,
June 26, June 28,and July 3, Additional requirements will be completed online. This is a hybrid course with approximately 50% of
the content covered in face-to-face class sessions and 50% of the content covered online in Blackboard.
Course Goals: Upon successful completion of this course, students will be able to:
 Discuss and apply theories, philosophies, and current research driving learning and teaching. (AASL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3)
(InTASC 1-9)
 Discuss and apply theories, philosophies, and current research driving the field of Educational Technology. (AASL 3.3)
(InTASC 9)
 Discuss and apply theories, philosophies, and current research driving the field of Instructional Design. (AASL 3.3) (InTASC
9)
 Create Internet-based instructional content. (AASL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 3.3) (InTASC 1-9)
 Create multimedia-based instructional content. (AASL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 3.3) (InTASC 1-9)
 Manipulate current database technologies. (AASL 3.3)
 Manipulate current desktop publishing technologies. (AASL 3.3)
 Manipulate current spreadsheet technologies. (AASL 3.3)
 Manipulate current digital graphic editing technologies. (AASL 3.3)
 Integrate Web 2.0 technologies into instructional content. (AASL 3.3) (InTASC 1-9)
2
Textbook:
Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning
David H. Rose & Anne Meyer available at: http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Standards: The following standards are incorporated into the course curriculum.




Towson University Conceptual Framework
Maryland Teacher Technology Standards
International Society for Technology in Education, National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (ISTE-NETS)
American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians Standards
Applicable AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Library Media Specialists:
1.1 Knowledge of learners and learning
Candidates are knowledgeable of learning styles, stages of human growth and development, and cultural influences on learning.
Candidates assess learner needs and design instruction that reflects educational best practice. Candidates support the learning of all
students and other members of the learning community, including those with diverse learning styles, physical and intellectual abilities
and needs. Candidates base twenty-first century skills instruction on student interests.
1.2 Effective and knowledgeable teacher
Candidates implement the principles of effective teaching and learning that contribute to an active, inquiry-based approach to learning.
Candidates make use of a variety of instructional strategies and assessment tools to design and develop digital-age learning
experiences and assessments in partnership with classroom teachers and other educators. Candidates can document and communicate
the impact of collaborative instruction on student achievement.
1.3 Instructional partner
Candidates model, share, and promote effective principles of teaching and learning as collaborative partners with other educators.
Candidates acknowledge the importance of participating in curriculum development, of engaging in school improvement processes,
and of offering professional development to other educators as it relates to library and information use.
1.4 Integration of twenty-first century skills and learning standards
Candidates advocate for twenty-first century literacy skills to support the learning needs of the school community. Candidates
demonstrate how to collaborate with other teachers to plan and implement instruction of the AASL Standards for the21st-Century
3
Learner and state student curriculum standards. Candidates employ strategies to integrate multiple literacies with content curriculum.
Candidates integrate the use of emerging technologies as a means for effective and creative teaching and to support P-12 students'
conceptual understanding, critical thinking and creative processes.
2.3 Respect for diversity
Candidates demonstrate the ability to develop a collection of reading and information materials in print and digital formats that
support the diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of P-12 students and their communities.
3.3 Information technology
Candidates demonstrate their ability to design and adapt relevant learning experiences that engage students in authentic learning
through the use of digital tools and resources. Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of current and emerging digital tools to
locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support research, learning, creating, and communicating in a digital society.
* specifically met through projects, activities and discussion within this course.
InTASC PRINCIPLES:
Standard #1: Learner Development
The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually
within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally
appropriate and challenging learning experiences.
Standard #2: Learning Differences
The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning
environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.
Standard #3: Learning Environments
The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive
social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.
Standard #4: Content Knowledge
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning
experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.
Standard #5: Application of Content
The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and
collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.
Standard #6: Assessment
The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress,
4
and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making.
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction
The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content
areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context.
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content
areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the
effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to
meet the needs of each learner.
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration
The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with
learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the
profession.
Attendance
You are expected to attend every class. If you absent you are responsible for all content covered during that class meeting.
Class Discussion and Participation
A major portion of this class is based on participation in class discussion and activities. All students are expected to carefully read the
assigned readings for each week and be prepared to participate in classroom discussions and activities. You are encouraged to share
items that you think might add to and improve the quality of the class. This includes, bringing in relevant articles, web sites, new
technologies, software, or anything you think might be appropriate.
Projects
Every project has an assigned due date. Your project is expected to be ready for submission when class begins that day. Unless
specific circumstances have been discussed on a one to one basis prior to the due date, late projects will not be accepted.
Technology Requirements
5
Each student is required to purchase one key disk or mass storage device. Each student is also required to utilize their Towson
University e-mail account and Blackboard courseware.
Policies
Students are expected to maintain a high standard of academic integrity. Inappropriate classroom conduct, cheating, and plagiarism are
unacceptable and are grounds for a failing grade in this course. Students are responsible for adhering to the Towson University
academic integrity policies described in the Towson University Graduate Catalog. Students are also expected to adhere to the Towson
University policies for responsible computing
Professionalism
Students are expected to act as professionals. Interactions with peers and the instructor should be conducted in a respectful and
professional manner.
Note: The syllabus serves as a guide, and may be modified to meet the needs of a specific class based on pre-assessment and
formative assessment tools.
GRADING POLICIES
Assignments will be due on the posted due dates. The intention is to make you aware of the major assignments from the start of the
course so that you know the long-term expectations. On time delivery of assignments is expected and rewarded. If you will be absent
or need an extension, it is essential to make a request prior to the due date. A high degree of professionalism is expected of all
students. Students will be rewarded for demonstration of skills essential to the teaching profession including: ability to work in a
team environment, and ability to engage the other students and instructor in a polite and professional manner.
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
95-100% = A
90-94= A86-89= B+
6
80-85% = B
70-79% = C
70% or below = F
Grade Distribution
Project
Points
Attendance, Participation and Professionalism
Online Discussion Activities
Wiki Project
Inspiration Map Project
Interactive PowerPoint Project
Team Moviemaker Project
Spreadsheet Project
Research Paper
Final Project: Unit Plan with Technology Integration Product or
Sample Student Product.
UDL Analysis of the Final Project
10
30
7
10
25
24
5
100
15
Course Sequence (Tentative)
Date for Face to Face
Sessions
Activity
June 5
Course Introduction – Review syllabus and course expectations/projects.
UDL and the role of multi-media in learning.
Overview of class projects.
Foundations of Instructional Technology – introduction to the research paper/project, introduction to
Cook Library databases. APA Style.
Highly effective teaching practices (team activity w/ Inspiration Software).
Digital Portfolio Review
Introduction to Wiki’s- Developing a Digital Portfolio template
June 7
June 12
June 14
7
June 19
June 21
June 26
June 28
July 3
Online Activities
July 4 – July 11
July 12-19
July 20-27
July 28- August 3
Spreadsheet – Project Introduction and guided practice to non- linear PowerPoint Begin team – PowerPoint on
foundational learning theory and design principles
Introduction to Digital Photography/Video and Moviemaker/Photostory – Design. Moviemaker
Project Development
Digital Photography/Video and Moviemaker/Photostory – Design. Moviemaker Project Development
Resources on the Web – Glogster, Jing, and online survey tools other useful sites as shared in class
by the instructors and students. Final Project review – multimedia-based unit of instruction w/ sample
student digital product.
Readings and online discussion on UDL. Final project development – phase 1. Research paper due on
July 11.
Readings and online discussion on TPACK. Final project development – phase 2.
Readings and online discussion on diversity issues and technology. Final project development –
phase 3.
Final project – post online, peer feedback discussion in Blackboard.
8
References
Anglin, G. J. (Ed) (1995). Instructional technology: Past, present, and future 2nd ed. Englewood, CO.: Libraries Unlimited
Apple Computer. (1991). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: Philosophy and structure and what is happening where. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED340349).
Dawson, K., & Dana, N. (2007). When curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences and teacher inquiry coalesce: An
opportunity for conceptual change? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 656–667.
Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (Ed.) (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishing.
Ely, D. & Plomp, T. (Eds.) (1996). Classic writings on instructional technology. Englewood, CO.: Libraries Unlimited
Frederick, G., Schweizer, H., & Lowe, R. (2006). After the in-service course: Challenges of technology integration. Computers in the
Schools, 23(1), 73-84. doi:10.1300/J025v23n01•07 Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning.
USA.: Houghton Mifflin Company
Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycker, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, W., & Van Leusen, P. (2010). Equipping the next
generation of teachers: Technology preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 30-36.
Jonassen, D., & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In: S.P. Lajoie, Editor,
Computers as Cognitive Tools-Volume Two, No More Walls: Theory Change, Paradigm Shifts, and their Influence on the Use
of Computers for Instructional Purposes (pp. 165–196). Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Hillsdale (2000).
9
Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computer as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends: Linking
Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 43(2), 24-25-32.
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook
of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Kopcha, T. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175-190.
Lin, C. & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (1996). Effects of linking structure and cognitive style on students’ performance and attitude in a
computer-based hypertext Environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 317-329.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017-1054.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning
and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40.
Moersch, C. (2009). The LoTi connection. Retrieved from http://www.drchrismoersch.com/LoTi.html
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Educational technology in teacher programs for initial licensure: Statistical
analysis report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008040.pdf
Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: a research synthesis. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
10
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York : Basic Books.
Park, S., & Ertmer, P. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 247-267.
Prensky, M. (2009). An open letter to the Obama administration. Educational Technology. April-May, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Open_Letter_To_The_Obama_Administration.pdf
Reiser, R. & Dempsey, J. (Eds.) (2002). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice
Hall
Rickover, H. (1963). American Education: A National Failure. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., & Marsh, J. (1996). Integrating technology into classroom instruction: An assessment of the impact of the
ACOT teacher development center project. (Research Study No. 22). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc. Retrieved from
http://images.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt22.pdf
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and
inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4).
Simonson, M & Thompson, A (1997). Educational computing foundations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall
Talbott, S. (1995). The future does not compute: Transcending the machine in our midst. USA : O’Reilly and Associates.
11
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38,
64.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Wepner, S, Ziomek, N., & Tao L. (2003). Three teacher educators’ perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing
technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53–63.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self efficacy. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14, 151–165.
Wentworth, N., Graham, C., & Tripp, T. (2008). Development of teaching and technology integration: Focus on pedagogy. Computers
in the Schools, 25(1-2), 64-80.
Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions.
Educational Technology Research and Development. 47(4), 29-45
Wizer, D., Sadera, W, & Banerjee, T. (2005). A faculty mentoring program: Professional development in technology integration. In
Integrated Technologies, Innovative Learning: Insights from the PT3 Program, (pp.143-160). EuAgene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
12
13