We will be scoring your work according to the following rubric.
Please know that, should your piece require revisions, one of us will meet with you to have a conversation about shared understandings (ours and yours) and to thus make it possible for you to approach the revision with every confidence.
Exceeds Expectations (EE)
These are superior efforts that satisfy all of the criteria for the previous level. In addition, the work presents challenging and significant ideas and/or interpretations that are developed with insight, depth, and originality, and that display sophisticated understandings/analyses.
Fully Meets Expectations (FME)
These are strong efforts that satisfy all of the criteria for the previous level. In addition, the writing goes beyond assignment expectations in terms of sophistication of thought and/or development of more challenging/significant ideas.
Meets Expectations (ME)
These are adequate efforts, demonstrating competent understandings/analyses that go beyond restatements of material that has already been presented. The interpretations reflect the intentions of the assignment, integrate course components, and are focused. The writing is clear and clean.
Needs Revision (NR)
These efforts are problematic. They are insufficiently fitted to expectations, fail to demonstrate adequate understanding, and/or don't offer adequate analysis. The interpretations may (a) repeat without sufficiently elaborating course material, (b) not reflect the intentions of the assignment, (c) show weak or fragmented understandings/analyses, and/or (d) be unfocused/poorly written.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Submitting questions
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note to draw your attention to our two gmail sites, one for submitting assignments and a different one for sending along questions to us. With 300+ assignments, it is easy to miss questions when they are mixed in with the assignments. That's why we (TAs, as in teaching assistants) created ubcpot2010tas@gmail.com for your questions. Your assignments go to ubcpot2010assignments@gmail.com
Please know that we will be checking the email site once a day. You can expect a response from one of us within 24 hours.
Best to everyone,
Lissa & Steven
Just a quick note to draw your attention to our two gmail sites, one for submitting assignments and a different one for sending along questions to us. With 300+ assignments, it is easy to miss questions when they are mixed in with the assignments. That's why we (TAs, as in teaching assistants) created ubcpot2010tas@gmail.com for your questions. Your assignments go to ubcpot2010assignments@gmail.com
Please know that we will be checking the email site once a day. You can expect a response from one of us within 24 hours.
Best to everyone,
Lissa & Steven
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Technical Details & Reminders
- 250 words per person is a maximum; single spaced to ensure it fits on one page/person.
- Include name(s) and student number(s) at the bottom as per the template.
- Save as .doc, rtf or .pdf (no. docx's please).
- Name your file with your student ID number(s) - e.g. 12345678.doc or 12345678_34567890.doc, etc.
- Write ID number(s) in email subject line.
- Submit once only to: ubcpot2010assignments@gmail.com
- Revised time period for submission: March 1st to March 8th.
That is, we won't begin looking at submissions until the afternoon of March 1st and we expect all submissions to be in by 12h00 on March 8th, 2010.
Template for Assignment 1
PoT Assignment 1: Why might he have done that?
[Body: 250 words per author, single-spaced which:
- Describes a pedagogical decision enacted by Dr. Davis about which you are curious or wish to inquire into;
- Describes a pedagogical decision enacted by Dr. Davis about which you are curious or wish to inquire into;
- Names a coherence theory of learning that could be construed as consistent with the enactment of that pedagogical decision; and
- Explicates your understanding(s) of how the decision is consistent with and potentially informed by that particular theory.]
[Under body]
Word Count: ____ Words
[Bottom of page]
Authored by: [Student Name(s), Number(s)]
Examples of pedagogical actions
Some ‘things’ that Brent is doing/has done that you might be wondering about…
NB: ‘Doing’ here could also include explicit pedagogical choices not to do.
Language:
- Introduces new/unfamiliar vocabulary (E.g., transphenomenon, outfluences, fractals, and construeism).
- Traces the etymologies (histories) of commonly used words in education (E.g., normal and science).
- Indicates networks of associations within/across different phenomena.
- Uses hand-gestures and body-language reminiscent of images and metaphors.
- Critiques commonsense notions embodied in the language used in educational contexts.
Content:
- Includes the TED talks but doesn’t incorporate them in the lectures.
- Incorporates popular culture (E.g.,, Monty Python, Simpsons, Spock, Hulk, and Lost).
- Interjects autobiographical narratives/vignettes (E.g., one of my 6 favorite teachers).
- Refers to one BCCT standard in each session.
- Varies media representations.
- Suggests sources for further inquiry (E.g., books every teacher should read).
- Juxtaposes contrasting ideas (E.g., correspondence and coherence theories).
- Organizes the lecture topics as a decentralized network rather than a linear trajectory.
Lecture and Course Organization:
- Explicitly frames sessions as more a “public lecture” than a lecture-seminar.
- Starts and ends promptly.
- Moves along briskly.
- Attempts to introduce humor.
- Posts lecture slides only after the lectures have been completed.
- Begins a course on teaching by talking about knowing.
- Draws attention to linkages across the course (E.g., to text and future lectures).
Assignments:
- Does not include all the assignment details in the course outline.
- Organizes Assignment 1 around noticing, perception, and interpretation but not evaluation.
- Limits the assignment to 250 words per person
Clarifications, Examples, and Elaborations
Hello everyone. Moved by former and ongoing conversations with students, I have formulated the following description in the hopes of better clarifying the intentions underpinning Assignment 1. First let me emphasize that, though we definitely value your opinions, this particular task is in no way meant to be an opinion piece. Rather we want to assess your deep understanding of coherence theories of learning and how they look when enacted in a teaching situation.
Consider the following analogy: Let's say you were studying physiotherapy and you had learned different theories behind the various approaches for rehabilitating a knee injury. Then this assignment would be comparable to watching a physiotherapist in action and having to identify which choices were examples of say a theory about the physiology of knee tissues and their responses to exercise, rest, and stretching. In your description you would have to explain how you know that the physiotherapist's action is an example of that theory in action. In other words, you would be asked to think like the physiotherapist, to get into her mind, to get behind the action into the principles driving it. This is because, in this example, presumably one day you would be a physiotherapist and the person teaching and assessing your progress would want to be sure that you understood how key theories look when enacted.
Notice that to answer such questions does not require an opinion or value judgment. In fact you could absolutely disagree with the theory. But that is not the point. Rather, you need to demonstrate that you know what is going on here: That you can recognize a particular theory in action and explicate how that particular action is consistent with that theory.
So, to take a counter example, let's say I was watching a popular enactor and promoter of correspondence theories of learning (e.g., Carol Ann Tomlinson) teach and I saw detailed lesson objectives and a lot of individualized student testing. Say, the classroom was highly structured with different students doing different activities tailor-made for them, with each of the activities preset by the teacher. Moreover, I saw clearly laid out rewards and consequences for student actions. Watching her, I could identify such teaching practices as exemplifying a correspondence theory of learning—in particular I might interpret them as enactments of behaviorist principles for conditioning children and mentalist principles underpinning the matching of activities to student.
Notice again that in no way do I have to make an evaluative judgment to conduct this critique. That is, I could entirely describe her teaching as enacting a correspondence theory of learning without ever giving my opinion about that theory, the actions arising from it, or the educative consequences of those choices. In the present case, you are being asked to do the same thing. The only difference is that it's Dr. Davis, the examples are the one's you've experienced in the course, and the theory is a coherence one.
So, for this assignment you need to pick something that Dr. Davis does that is consistent with a coherence theory of learning, describe why you think it exemplifies this coherence theory in action, and explain the theory behind the action. No judgment. [And bonus: even if that's not why he did it, you'll be fine as long as the example you picked matches the coherence theory you describe and you give an explication that clearly shows you understand what a coherence theory in action would look like and why.]
Further, let me advise you to make generous use of the text’s index. As well, do make a point to revisit the posted lecture notes, especially lecture 6 and the coherence theory slides. These particular slides provide a preliminary list of what might be called "principles of teaching" or pedagogical guidelines. You will also find on this blog sight a beginning sample of pedagogical decisions and enactments by Dr. Davis. I hope that these supports and the above examples set you well underway in terms of understanding our expectations and the rationales behind them. We look forward to reading your thoughts.
Let me add that I am personally thrilled at the possibilities that will unfold for you as you begin to envision how coherence theories might move your choices in teaching. Indeed, I have had the wonderful opportunity to watch practicing pre-service teachers grappling with such enactments and have witnessed the most inspiring of growth. Moreover, these students did not have the benefit of having attended Dr. Davis’s lectures nor of having access to the text Engaging Minds. So I can only begin to imagine where—emerging from these particular beginnings—you will take this.
Always, our best wishes go to you and your future students.
Lissa
Consider the following analogy: Let's say you were studying physiotherapy and you had learned different theories behind the various approaches for rehabilitating a knee injury. Then this assignment would be comparable to watching a physiotherapist in action and having to identify which choices were examples of say a theory about the physiology of knee tissues and their responses to exercise, rest, and stretching. In your description you would have to explain how you know that the physiotherapist's action is an example of that theory in action. In other words, you would be asked to think like the physiotherapist, to get into her mind, to get behind the action into the principles driving it. This is because, in this example, presumably one day you would be a physiotherapist and the person teaching and assessing your progress would want to be sure that you understood how key theories look when enacted.
Notice that to answer such questions does not require an opinion or value judgment. In fact you could absolutely disagree with the theory. But that is not the point. Rather, you need to demonstrate that you know what is going on here: That you can recognize a particular theory in action and explicate how that particular action is consistent with that theory.
So, to take a counter example, let's say I was watching a popular enactor and promoter of correspondence theories of learning (e.g., Carol Ann Tomlinson) teach and I saw detailed lesson objectives and a lot of individualized student testing. Say, the classroom was highly structured with different students doing different activities tailor-made for them, with each of the activities preset by the teacher. Moreover, I saw clearly laid out rewards and consequences for student actions. Watching her, I could identify such teaching practices as exemplifying a correspondence theory of learning—in particular I might interpret them as enactments of behaviorist principles for conditioning children and mentalist principles underpinning the matching of activities to student.
Notice again that in no way do I have to make an evaluative judgment to conduct this critique. That is, I could entirely describe her teaching as enacting a correspondence theory of learning without ever giving my opinion about that theory, the actions arising from it, or the educative consequences of those choices. In the present case, you are being asked to do the same thing. The only difference is that it's Dr. Davis, the examples are the one's you've experienced in the course, and the theory is a coherence one.
So, for this assignment you need to pick something that Dr. Davis does that is consistent with a coherence theory of learning, describe why you think it exemplifies this coherence theory in action, and explain the theory behind the action. No judgment. [And bonus: even if that's not why he did it, you'll be fine as long as the example you picked matches the coherence theory you describe and you give an explication that clearly shows you understand what a coherence theory in action would look like and why.]
Further, let me advise you to make generous use of the text’s index. As well, do make a point to revisit the posted lecture notes, especially lecture 6 and the coherence theory slides. These particular slides provide a preliminary list of what might be called "principles of teaching" or pedagogical guidelines. You will also find on this blog sight a beginning sample of pedagogical decisions and enactments by Dr. Davis. I hope that these supports and the above examples set you well underway in terms of understanding our expectations and the rationales behind them. We look forward to reading your thoughts.
Let me add that I am personally thrilled at the possibilities that will unfold for you as you begin to envision how coherence theories might move your choices in teaching. Indeed, I have had the wonderful opportunity to watch practicing pre-service teachers grappling with such enactments and have witnessed the most inspiring of growth. Moreover, these students did not have the benefit of having attended Dr. Davis’s lectures nor of having access to the text Engaging Minds. So I can only begin to imagine where—emerging from these particular beginnings—you will take this.
Always, our best wishes go to you and your future students.
Lissa
Assignment 1 Details
As you work through the text, the lectures, and the TED talks, expect to encounter a variety of Theories of Learning. Each of these suggests certain educational attitudes, choices, and directions. At the same time, you arrive to teaching with educational experiences that may represent, as yet, a largely undifferentiated variety of positions on the natures of knowing and learning.
If we recognize that teaching practice always enacts a theory of some sort, then the work of interrogating the beliefs you hold about theory and practice must figure centrally in your becoming a teacher. This assignment arises out of our broader concern with the questions: When a particular teaching choice is made, what theory is enacted in that choice? Moreover, given a particular theoretical enactment, what “goes without saying?” That is, we wish you to take notice and probe the assumptions and beliefs behind particular teaching acts—to question un-interrogated habits of being and doing in teaching.
You are invited to:
- Attend to the pedagogical decisions made by Dr. Davis within the context of EDUC 311/310. [Keeping in mind the constraints of this institutional environment, not all curricular decisions are open to the teacher.]
- Look for an incident/occasion/fragment that could be interpreted as having arisen out of a pedagogical practice consistent with a coherence theory of learning.
Ask yourself, “What is the ‘coherence theory’ through which this act might be rendered sensible?”
Your 250 word written response should:
- Describe a pedagogical decision and name the theory being enacted.
- Explicate your understanding of how the action is consistent with and potentially informed by that particular theory.
Note: This exercise is NOT premised on your ‘knowing’ with any degree of certainty (and being able to articulate) what Dr. Davis actually intended at any given point or by any given action. Nor is it an invitation to judge the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the action or the teacher. Consider this an opportunity for you (and us) to engage with the meaning(s), understanding(s), impression(s), and/or resonance(s) that some pedagogical act has had for you in light of, or as informed by, your unfolding experiences in the course. Thus the assignment cannot be an opinion piece, but rather is a considered critique grounded in and guided by deep, prolonged, and recursive engagements with your observations and co-participation in the course readings and activities.
In sum, this assignment is about locating and demonstrating your understanding of a coherence theory in action. This deliberate pedagogical tactic is based on our belief and experience that such understanding dramatically opens the space of possibility in teaching. In short, we wish you to enter the field with a good start at, quite literally, “knowing (deeply) what you are doing!”
If we recognize that teaching practice always enacts a theory of some sort, then the work of interrogating the beliefs you hold about theory and practice must figure centrally in your becoming a teacher. This assignment arises out of our broader concern with the questions: When a particular teaching choice is made, what theory is enacted in that choice? Moreover, given a particular theoretical enactment, what “goes without saying?” That is, we wish you to take notice and probe the assumptions and beliefs behind particular teaching acts—to question un-interrogated habits of being and doing in teaching.
You are invited to:
- Attend to the pedagogical decisions made by Dr. Davis within the context of EDUC 311/310. [Keeping in mind the constraints of this institutional environment, not all curricular decisions are open to the teacher.]
- Look for an incident/occasion/fragment that could be interpreted as having arisen out of a pedagogical practice consistent with a coherence theory of learning.
Ask yourself, “What is the ‘coherence theory’ through which this act might be rendered sensible?”
Your 250 word written response should:
- Describe a pedagogical decision and name the theory being enacted.
- Explicate your understanding of how the action is consistent with and potentially informed by that particular theory.
Note: This exercise is NOT premised on your ‘knowing’ with any degree of certainty (and being able to articulate) what Dr. Davis actually intended at any given point or by any given action. Nor is it an invitation to judge the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the action or the teacher. Consider this an opportunity for you (and us) to engage with the meaning(s), understanding(s), impression(s), and/or resonance(s) that some pedagogical act has had for you in light of, or as informed by, your unfolding experiences in the course. Thus the assignment cannot be an opinion piece, but rather is a considered critique grounded in and guided by deep, prolonged, and recursive engagements with your observations and co-participation in the course readings and activities.
In sum, this assignment is about locating and demonstrating your understanding of a coherence theory in action. This deliberate pedagogical tactic is based on our belief and experience that such understanding dramatically opens the space of possibility in teaching. In short, we wish you to enter the field with a good start at, quite literally, “knowing (deeply) what you are doing!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)