1. Online Participation. (20% of Final Grade)

Students are expected to participate in the (a) Weekly readings and the resulting question of the week assignment - 12 in total and (b) three - two hour online class sessions at designated times during the course.

2. Reading Assignments (20% of Final Grade).

Over the course of the semester, students will be required to read and critique three specific articles. These readings are selected to provide valuable insights into the challenges of planning for technology. You will be expected to submit a report about the article not to exceed three pages of content. Reports should provide a 1 page synopsis of the content of the article while the 2nd and 3rd of the report will be your personal critical analysis of the main ideas in the article. Your critical analysis will show how relevant you feel the author's ideas are to the role of a technology leader. The rubric for grading these critiques is found in the table below.

3. Reaction (sent to Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education) to the development of a US National Education Technology Plan 2010. The document ios called: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology- Module #1 (20% of Final Grade (See Criteria for Assessment below)

4. Your development of the Outline of a Technology Staff Development Plan - Module #2 (20% of Final Grade)

5. Development of an Outline of a Technology Funding Plan - Module #3. (20% of Final Grade)

top of page

NB The following table outlines the standards used for evaluating the short papers expected in the Reading Assignment above.

A B C D
Tightly focused writing relating to a narrow topic. Generally focused on single topic. Somewhat focused on broad topic. Scattered random writing without focus.
A high degree of conceptual development Indicates good ability to conceptualize Concept discussed but not well developed. Little if any conceptualization.
Properly documented where sources used. Outside sources given proper credit. Outside sources alluded to. No credit given to sources used.
Excellent organization and logical progression of thought. Good organization and logic. Moderately well organized, but logical progression not evident. Poorly organized with little or no logic evident.

Excellent use of prose in capturing the essence of referenced material. A good job of summarizing the material reviewed. Much paraphrasing of other material. Mostly paraphrased or copied; not really the authors own work.
Syntax and grammar excellently done. Well edited material. Only a few errors of minor significance. A number of errors. Not well edited. Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure.
Complete yet concise discussion of the issue. Concise and generally recognizes most aspects of the topic. Topic appears to be one-sided with aspects of the topic missing. Overly verbose. Incomplete discussion of the issue. Major points ignored.
Opinion based on fact, research or scholarly authority. Generally good evidence given in support of opinion. Evidence only somewhat supports opinion. Opinion entirely unsupported.

Criteria for Assessment of Assignments #2, 3, & 4: Technology Integration Plan, Staff Development Plan, and Technology Funding Plan


Final grades

Final Grades for each module and the entire course (3 credits) are based on the following distribution of points with the calculation of the grades as illustrated below:
  Percent of Grade Max Possible Pts. Your Score Weighted Percent
Modules 1, 2, 3        
Discussion/Participation 20% 60  60 20.0%
Reading Assignment #1, #2, #3
Article Critique		 20% 120  120  20.0%
Assignment #1 - Reaction to the Development of a US Technology Plan - Major Assignment #1
Assignment #2 - Development of the Outline of a Technology Staff Development Plan
Assignment #3 - Collaborative Project to fund Technology		 60% (20% each) 120 120  60.0%
Final Mark for Module 1 (1 sem credit) 100% 300 300 100.0% = A
Suggested Grade Scale: A (95-100), A- (90-94.9), B+ (85-89.9), B (80-84.9), B- (75-79.9), C+ (70-74.9), C (65-69.9)