Graduate Studies Reports Access

Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - ESE7035
Tracking Number - 5131

Edit function not enabled for this course.

Current Status: Approved by SCNS - 2015-10-01
Campus: Tampa
Submission Type: New
Course Change Information (for course changes only):
Comments: Elective for PhD in C&I - Teacher Ed Conc. To GC. Intro needs to be restated. GC approved 8/28/15. To USF sys 8/28/15. To SCNS 9/7/15. Nmbr 7690 approved as 7035 effective 10/1/15

Detail Information

  1. Date & Time Submitted: 2014-10-29
  2. Department: Secondary Education
  3. College: ED
  4. Budget Account Number:
  5. Contact Person: Allan Feldman
  6. Phone: 8139742471
  7. Email:
  8. Prefix: ESE
  9. Number: 7035
  10. Full Title: Design and Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs
  11. Credit Hours: 3
  12. Section Type: D - Discussion (Primarily)
  13. Is the course title variable?: N
  14. Is a permit required for registration?: N
  15. Are the credit hours variable?: N
  16. Is this course repeatable?: N
  17. If repeatable, how many times?: 0
  18. Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum): Des & Eval Teacher Ed Programs
  19. Course Online?: C - Face-to-face (0% online)
  20. Percentage Online: 0
  21. Grading Option: R - Regular
  22. Prerequisites: none
  23. Corequisites: none
  24. Course Description: Students in this course will examine theories for design and evaluation of teacher ed programs. The course uses a problem-based approach in which instruction is structured around the design and evaluation of model teacher education programs.

  25. Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course: Needed for program/concentration/certificate change
  26. What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service? This course will prepare students enrolled in the Teacher Education doctoral concentration in Curriculum and Instruction with the knowledge and skills needed to design and evaluate teacher education programs. It will also serve the needs of students in other concentrations that prepare educators, including higher education, and educational leaders. Preservice and inservice, and formal and informal education teacher education programs are covered in this course.

    List of other programs that this course can serve:

    Adult Education

    Career & Workforce Education

    Early Childhood Education

    Educational Leadership

    Elementary Education

    English Education

    Foreign Language Education /ESOL

    Higher Education /Community College Teaching

    Interdisciplinary Education

    Mathematics Education

    Reading/Language Arts

    Science Education

    Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology (SLA/IT)

    Social Science Education

  27. Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times? Yes, 2 times
  28. What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.) Terminal degree and expertise in teacher education program design and evaluation.
  29. Objectives: The objecties of this course are to:

    1) learn how to design teacher education programs and associated evaluation plans, and write proposals, either unsolicited or in response to RFPs.

    2) be introduced to the theory of program development. Much of this will draw upon the significant work done in teacher education, but the course will also draw upon scholarly work in informal, international, and development education.

    3) be introduced to the theories and methods of program evaluation.

  30. Learning Outcomes: After successful completion of this course, students will be able to:

    1) Prepare a proposal for a teacher education program that includes a literature review, details of the program, and plan to evaluate it.

    2) Gain knowledge and understanding of the theories of teacher education program development, which they will demonstrate in the proposal that they develop.

    3) Gain knowledge and understanding of the theories and practice of teacher education program evaluation, which they will demonstrate in the proposal that they develop.

  31. Major Topics: Overview of USF grant procedures

    Review of an RFP

    IRB Information

    Designing programs: Elements of teacher education programs

    Policy, Research, and Practice of Programs and Enacting Change

    Multicultural teacher education

    Introduction to principles of evaluation

    Program design workshop

    Evaluation design: Introduction

    Varieties of evaluations

    Evaluation design: Participatory and community-based

    Scientifically-based research

    Reporting the evaluation & Evaluating evaluations

  32. Textbooks: Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J.and Worthen, B. (2010) Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th Edition). Boston: Pearson.

    Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction: University of Chicago Press.

    All other textual materials are made available to the students through the USF library system and Canvas (see X below).

  33. Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases: Reading List

    Ball, S., & Et al. (1970). The first year of Sesame Street: An evaluation (pp. 442). New York: Educational Testing Service.

    Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

    Calhoun, E. (2002). Action Research for School Improvement. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 18-24.

    Chen, H.-T. (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17(2).

    Chen, Huey-Tsyh. (1996). A Comprehensive Typology For Program Evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 121-30. [Note – special issue on formative/summative]

    Churchill, Andrew and Halsey, Heather (2003). Improving Design And Evaluation Of Programs Preparing Math And Science Teachers. Sponsored by the University of Massachusetts President’s Office.

    Clinical Design Sciences: A View from Sister Design Efforts. Zaritsky, Raul; Kelly, Anthony E.; Flowers, Woodie; Rogers, Everett; O'Neill, Patrick; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p32-34 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667313)

    Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.

    Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them.

    Cook, Thomas. (2002). Randomized Experiments in Education: Why Are They So Rare? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175-99.

    Darling-Hammond, Linda and Youngs, Peter (2002). Defining “Highly Qualified Teachers”: What Does “Scientifically-Based Research” Actually Tell Us? Educational Researcher, 31(9).

    Design Experiments and Laboratory Approaches to Learning: Steps toward Collaborative Exchange. McCandliss, Bruce D.; Kalchman, Mindy; Bryant, Peter; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p14-16 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667308)

    Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p5-8 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667306)

    Eisner, E. W. (1992a). Curriculum ideologies. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302-326). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Eisner, E. W. (1992b). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 610-627.

    Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. NY, Macmillan. Chapter 3

    Exploring Modeling Aspects of Design Experiments. Sloane, Finbarr C.; Gorard, Stephen; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p29-31 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667312)

    Feldman, A. (1993). "Promoting equitable collaboration between university researchers and school teachers." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(4): 341-357.

    Feldman, A. (2007). Validity and Quality in Action Research. Educational action research, 15(1).

    Fetterman, D. and Wandersman, A. (2007). Empowerment Evaluation: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(2), 179-198.

    Fetterman, D. M. (2007). Empowerment evaluation.

    Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J. and Worthen, B. (2010) Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th Edition). Boston: Pearson.

    Frierson, H. Hood, S. and Hughes, G. NSF Guide To Conducting Culturally Responsive Evaluations. Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation.

    Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Chapter 3: Unpacking the Postulates Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    How Design Experiments Can Inform a Rethinking of Transfer and Vice Versa. Lobato, Joanne; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p17-20 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667309)

    Martin, Renee J. and Van Gunten, Dawn M. (2002). Reflected Identities: Applying Positionality and Multicultural Social Reconstructionism in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1). 44-54.

    Montecinos, C. (1995). Multicultural teacher education for a culturally diverse teaching force. Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity in teacher education. R. J. Martin. Albany, NY, SUNY Press.

    Montecinos, C., V. Cnuddea, et al. (2002). "Relearning the meaning and practice of student teaching supervision through collaborative self-study." Teaching and Teacher Education 18(7): 781-793.

    National Science Foundation. (2002). The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    NRC (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and schools. Washington, DC, National Academy Press. Link to chapter 8

    On the Science of Education Design Studies. Shavelson, Richard J.; Phillips, D. C.; Towne, Lisa; Feuer, Michael J.; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p25-28 Jan-Feb 2003

    Quintanilla, G., & Packard, T. (2002). A participatory evaluation of an inner-city science enrichment program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(1), 15-22.

    Quintanilla, Glenda and Packard, Thomas (2002), A participatory evaluation of an inner-city science enrichment program, Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(1), 15-22.

    Rothkopf, E. Z. (2009). An Immodest Proposal: Pedagogic Information Supports for Teachers. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 164-179.

    Scriven, M. (undated). Goal-free evaluation.

    Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the Science of Education Design Studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.

    Stassen, M. L. A. (2001). Program-based review and assessment. Amherst, University of Massachusetts.

    The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework. Bannan-Ritland, Brenda; Educational Researcher, v32 n1 p21-24 Jan-Feb 2003 (EJ667310)

    Turnbull, B. (1999). The mediating effect of participation efficacy on evaluation use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 131-140.

    Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction: University of Chicago Press.

  34. Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy: Grades in this course will be determined by the level of completion of all assignments and participation in the class. Participation in class, including preparedness to discuss readings and attendance, is an important component of the grade. The final grades will be calculated based on the percentage of points accumulated by the student compared to the total number of points.

    A+ 100 Plus

    A 95-100

    A- 90-94

    B+ 87-89

    B 84-86

    B- 80-83

    C+ 77-79

    C 74-76

    C- 70-73

    D+ 67-69

    D 64-66

    D- 60-63

    F Below 60 points

  35. Assignments, Exams and Tests: Introduction to the course

    Overview of USF grant procedures

    Review of an RFP


    Overview of Programs

    IRB Information

    Readings: Eisner (1992); Eisner (1994) Chapter 3; Tyler (1949) Ch1;

    Assignments: Program topic; Reading assignment

    Designing programs: Elements of teacher education programs

    Readings: Goodlad; Tyler (1949) Chs 2-3; NRC ch. 8

    Assignments: report on professional standards; Program objectives; Reading assignment

    Policy, Research, and Practice of Programs and Enacting Change

    Readings: STEMACT White Papers, Churchill Report (2003); Rothkopf (2009)

    Assignments: Reading assignment

    Multicultural teacher education

    Readings: Martin; Duncan

    Assignments: Program prospectus; Reading assignment

    Program design workshop

    Introduction to principles of evaluation

    Readings: NSF chs. 1, 7; UMass Program Review chs 1, 2; Tyler (1949) Ch 4

    Assignments: Program design

    Evaluation design: Introduction

    Readings: NSF ch. 2; UMass Program Review ch. 3, 4

    Assignments: Reading assignment; Group Evaluation Comparisons

    Varieties of evaluations (pt 1)

    Readings: Chen; Worthen & Sanders

    Assignments: Group Evaluation Comparisons; Reading assignment

    Varieties of evaluations (pt 2)

    Readings: Scriven “Goal-Free”; Worthen & Sanders ch. 5

    Assignments: Group Evaluation Comparisons

    Evaluation design: Participatory and community-based

    Readings: Quintanilla; Fetterman; NSF Culturally Responsive Evaluation; Turnball

    Assignments: Mini-proposal with literature review; Group Evaluation Comparisons

    "Scientifically-based research"

    Readings: Darling-Hammond; Cook; Ed Researcher special issue on Design Experiments

    Assignments: Reading assignment

    Reporting the evaluation & Evaluating evaluations

    Readings: NSF ch. 4; UMass ch. 5; Weiss; Sample evaluation reports available on Blackboard.

    Assignments: Evaluation design; Reading Assignment

    Presentations and course evaluation

    Assignment: Final report


    1) Program Topic

    Write one paragraph that describes the focus and purpose of an educational program that you would like to design and evaluate. Due 8/30 via Blackboard.

    2) Report on professional standards

    Many professional and policy organizations have published standards for the preparation of teachers and other practitioners. Your assignment is to find those standards, summarize them in a table, and write a critical analysis of them. The analysis should be approximately 1-2 pages.

    3) Program prospectus

    A prospectus can be defined as "an official document giving details about something that is going to happen, for example, a stock offering, a forthcoming publication, a new business, or a proposed project." For this assignment you will need to produce a prospectus for your proposed program. The prospectus should include:

    1. An abstract of no more than 50 words.

    2. A rationale in which you argue why this program is needed (no more than 500 words).

    3. A brief description of the proposed program, including a set of objectives or goals. This should include enough information so that a reader can understand what it is that you intend to do. Include activities and a timeline. Feel free to use diagrams, charts, etc. This should be no more than 3 pages in length.

    4) Program design

    The program design is a more fully executed description of the project. There should be sufficient detail so that a reader would be able to assess whether your planned activities would enable you to meet the your objectives and those of the funding agency and/or the professional or policy organization. You may need 10 pages or so to provide enough detail. Be prepared to discuss your design with your peers.

    5) Group evaluation comparisons

    The class will be divided into three groups to compare and contrast the evaluation models in each of the three weeks' readings. Structure your comparison so that you look at the pros and cons of using each type for your project. Be prepared to present your comparison in class.

    6) Mini-proposal with literature review

    This assignment combines the abstract, rationale and program design that you prepared earlier (with appropriate revisions) with a literature review that supports your objective and design. The literature review should be between 7 and 10 pages in length and reference theoretical, empirical, and policy documents.

    7) Evaluation design

    The evaluation design should describe ways that you will gather formative and summative information to improve the program during its lifetime, and evaluate its successes and failures at the end of the funding period. Your design should include multiple methods.

    8) Final Proposal

    On the last day of class you will be responsible for handing in a complete "proposal" that includes an abstract, rationale, literature review, program design, and evaluation plan. The contents can be modified to fit the requirements of an RFP. You will also need to “pitch” your program.

  36. Attendance Policy: Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,

    Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (

    In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.

    Attendance is very important in a course like this, where so much of the learning happens during class, in contact and conversation with the instructor and peers. In addition, there may be unannounced in-class assignments that will be part of your grade. Inform the instructor ahead of time via email if you will not be in class, and find out from a classmate what you missed. If you do not e-mail the instructor in advance of an absence YOUR ABSENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED UNEXCUSED. Unexcused absences will negatively affect your grade. One unexcused absence will lower your grade by an amount to be determined by the instructor and two unexcused absences could result in a failing grade. If a student misses more than three classes, excused or not, then the present course requirements are cancelled and the student must renegotiate her/his class requirements.

  37. Policy on Make-up Work: All assignments missed because of excused absences can be made-up. If an assignment is turned in more than one week after its due date, the student must negotiate with the instructor conditions for submitting it.

    Plagiarism is defined as “literary theft” and consists of the unattributed quotation of the exact words of a published text, or the unattributed borrowing of original ideas by paraphrase from a published text. On written papers for which the student employs information gathered from books, articles, or oral sources, each direct quotation, as well as ideas and facts that are not generally know to the public at large must be attributed to its author by means of the appropriate citation procedure. Citations may be made in footnotes or within the body of the text. Plagiarism also consists of passing off as one’s own, segments or the total of another person’s work.

    Punishment for Academic Dishonesty will depend on the seriousness of the offense and may include receipt of an “F” with a numerical value of zero on the item submitted, and the “F” shall be used to determine the final course grade. It is the option of the instructor to assign the student a grade of F or FF (the latter indicating dishonesty) in the course.

  38. Program This Course Supports: C&I concentration in Teacher Education
  39. Course Concurrence Information: Adult Education

    Career & Workforce Education

    Early Childhood Education

    Educational Leadership

    Elementary Education

    English Education

    Foreign Language Education /ESOL

    Higher Education /Community College Teaching

    Interdisciplinary Education

    Mathematics Education

    Reading/Language Arts

    Science Education

    Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology (SLA/IT)

    Social Science Education

- if you have questions about any of these fields, please contact or