|
Teaching and Critical Pedagogy
|
|
|
|
I. Rationale: This school-based inquiry project is to not only get you talking to a real practitioner in the field of education. It is a critically reflective piece of writing, one that should reflect thought and support.
The paper is to be submitted the DAY that it is due, no sooner OR later. When emailing me, make sure the TITLE OF THE PAPER is in THE SUBJECT field of the email. I will assess the paper copy, and keep the electronic copy of your paper on file. If I do not get an electronic copy of the assignment, you will not receive credit for the assignment and/or you risk having the grade of the paper affected considerably.
You will spend the day in a classroom with a teacher of your choosing. You must be there for the entire school day, from the time the teacher arrives (usually before the students!) to the time that teacher leaves the building (perhaps as late as 5pm). This must be a SECONDARY classroom, preferably in your content area. You will want to take notes throughout the day. Please keep track of these notes so that others do not accidentally view them – it is easy to unintentionally leave a notebook lying around for students to try and read. Be aware of your surroundings at all times. You are in a professional setting For this assignment, you will also be engaging in a participant observation and an ethnographic interview. These questions are simply examples of things you might ask. Really, we want you to have a conversation with the teacher you observe, so you need not address every single question on this list. Teachers often enjoy a conversation on these questions, so think carefully about what you want to know and ask away. NOTE: You are to interview a secondary classroom teacher that is in a public school: teachers from private schools, charters, homeschooling, etc., will NOT be allowed. If you do, you will receive a failing grade for the assignment. Also: You are required to provide the school name and the phone number and extension number of the teacher that you interview. I reserve the right to contact any of the interviewees regarding this assignment. Without this information, you will receive an 'Incomplete' for the assignment. Lastly: you are NOT allowed to interview parents or siblings. If you do - and it can be proven - you will receive a failing grade for the assignment.
1. You will be creating a written critical reflection paper for this assignment. It should be approximately SIX-SEVEN PAGES, typed & following usual class format (1" margins, 12-point font, double-spaced). It should contain a mixture or direct and indirect quotes. For the interview, consider the following list of questions - a list compiled by ES2000/Spring 2005. The questions are as follows: • Where did you do your teacher preparation? When? In what subjects are you certified? Have you pursued a masters degree? Additional certification? (** Indicates an important question that should be included in the discussion.) 2. When crafting your final paper, you CANNOT simply offer the reader a laundry list of quotes and answers. This needs to be written in a thoughtful manner. Avoid things like: "For question number one, I asked 'How do you feel about inclusion?' Then, they said, 'I feel bad'. Then, I asked them how they felt about . . ." You are required and expected to sift through your responses after your interview, look for things that strike you, and reflect on what you have learned from the interview as a whole. 3. To support yourself, make sure to use quotes, partial quotes, and/or indirect quotes from the teachers in this reflective essay. Without quotes/teacher voice, the grade for the assignment will be greatly affected. 4. Again, you must show what you have learned from the interview - about yourself, about the teacher, maybe about teaching as a whole. You must also support your thoughts - drawing upon what you have learned in class, from the readings, discussions, etc. As you are interviewing/writing/reflecting, consider some of the following: What did you learn specifically about teaching, the teacher, or maybe even teachers as a whole? How did you feel doing this project? Did you find the people you interviewed were "up- to-date", "realistic" or not about the topics you discussed? Did you get a sense that anyone outside of this class is concerned with these issues? If so, what about this project led you to this conclusion? Is the teacher realistic? Are they knowledgeable? What do you think he/she feels is the 'purpose of education' or schooling? 5. To repeat: this assignment is NOT a reflective journal, nor is the main purpose to simply interview a teacher about how he/she feels about a variety of issues. It is NOT a loose piece of 'I-Centered' play-by-play, a wandering collection of ideas in search of a point. It is a critically reflective essay, one requiring thought, focus, brevity, and support. As a whole, this assignment challenges you to craft a project that showcases not only your ability to write, but also on your ability to make critical, well-supported reflections and connections regarding the content and nature of this course as well as the nature of teaching. V. Other Possible Topics of Discussion: Here are some more possible topics of discussion during your interview regarding some of the critical issues raised by this class: Critical
Pedagogy.
Teacher Inquiry Assessment Sheet After reading/assessing your paper, the evaluator has come to the following general conclusions about your writing. I. Your paper is reflective of an "outstanding, excellent, extraordinary" paper worthy of an "A,” because as a whole it is extremely well written and generally reflects exceptional skill in/mastery of the following focus areas: • As far as ideas go, writing is clear and focused, the writer uses creative, insightful detail and ideas are easy to understand; there is no question as to what the topic/purpose/goal is and where the paper is headed; the writer is in complete control of all of his/her ideas and the material presented; ideas are richly and effectively communicated. • When it comes to content/organization/structure: the complex organization, the attention to paragraph basics, helps move the reader through the text with ease, the student organizes thoughts into meaningful categories and performs the skill with no significant errors, the key features of the skill process clearly understood; the paper is “smooth,” there is an ease to your writing, ideas/thoughts simply flow quite well together; from intro to conclusion, topic sentences, connective transitions, in and in between paragraphs – all work together to make the paper easy to digest; attention clearly placed on organization and presentation of material by this writer; there are no sentence fragments. • As for voice/clarity/fluency: the voice of the writer comes through in vivid and precise word choice and varied sentence structure; mature writing skills obvious; the writer creates a paper that is memorable and leaves the reader wanting more; the reader understands the writer's point of view, sees inside his/her mind and clearly “gets what the writer intended”; no questions unanswered. • The writer uses the standard writing conventions with skill; although there may be a couple of small things, taken as a whole, the paper is easy to follow/understand due to attention placed on the conventions of writing. • When it comes to critical thinking/analysis/critical reflection and support of ideas: the writer clearly demonstrates analysis/thought about the assignment, the paper is filled with quality thinking/precise evidence/support from text/resources/the interviewee; the writer identifies patterns running through information, shows complete and detailed understanding of the information important to the chosen topic; it appears that the writer took time to really consider issues, thought about their importance, clearly highlights a high level of thinking and application; it appears that a good deal of time was taken to make sure there is good support/varied sources/indirect and direct quotes, and solid explanation as to why support is important and/or what it should mean to the reader; as a whole, the paper reflects careful attention to detail and depth when it comes to content; there is simply no room for question – the writer “nailed it cold,” both informing and proving to the reader the writer thought about, analyzed, reflected, and understood what was being addressed. II. Your paper is reflective of "very good/high pass" grade of "B," as the paper meets some of the requirements, but still lacks in some of the more critical areas reflective of "A" quality work. For example: • Writing is basically clear and focused, the writer using some basic detail(s); there still needs to be a bit more focus; at times, writing/content tends to stray or some of your ideas leave the reader hanging and/or trying to figure out what you mean; refining the purpose/goal of paper might be needed; the paper's content was suitable, and generally the ideas were communicated to the reader. • Overall organization is apparent, that is true, but it still needs a tweak; it's possible that the paper is mechanically structured, it reads as if "it is simply written"; it's also possible that some of the basics i.e. topic sentences, explanations, connective transitions, intro, conclusion, etc., could be stronger as a whole; some things good, thoughts are organized and classified, the skill process performed w/o significant errors but still need some tweaks to get to the next level; there may be a couple of sentence fragments in this paper as well. • As a whole, clarity/voice is generally achieved through accurate word choice, sentence structure, etc., but as a whole, the paper does feel or read as if the writer's approach was a bit too general; it may feel as if it was just good enough, not too bad; it's good taken as a whole, but a tweak with creativity, clarity, and/or personality would help get to the next level; a few questions may remain for the writer of the paper; the paper also may fall into an overabundance of 1st /2nd person point of view; perhaps too much when it comes to 'non-specific pronouns' such as 'we, us, they, you,' etc. • It is true that the writer does have skill with most of the standard writing conventions; generally speaking, the writer follows the rules with minimal errors; still, some attention needs to be placed on this area because errors do make it difficult to read/understand at times. • The paper reflects thought and does show some analysis of the content; the writer shows some understanding of the information important to the topic and identifies patterns running through the information; there is thought apparent, attempts at making comparisons/contrasts, connections, reflections, etc., but it's possible that just a bit more could be done, perhaps greater detail is needed, perhaps more 'voice' from the interviewee; the paper does reflect some analysis, thought and/or reflection, and it is apparent that the writer attempts to apply illustrations/support/quotes/paraphrasing but a bit more could be done; it's possible that support/explanation aspect of paper needs to be developed, varied, broadened, etc.; it may be that there is “more of one, not enough of the other”; as a whole, there is still some “wiggle room,” some room to consider with the persuasive/analytical/support/reflective aspect of the paper; the writer is close but the reader still needs a bit more. III. Your paper is reflective of an "adequate/satisfactory" paper receiving a "C” because as a whole it might meet some of the key criteria/requirements but: • Writing includes details but is general in application; there may not be enough development as a whole; there also may be too much going on, too many ideas to handle for one paper and the writer should think about taking some stuff out for the next time; it's also possible that ideas sometimes digress into irrelevant discussion, what you say just doesn't seem to fit and appears "clunky”; revision and focus on simplifying and/or developing ideas the next time. • Some organization is apparent, it looks as if the writer is attempting some of “the basics,” but there are things that must be addressed the next time; it's possible that there needs to be more focus on developing topic sentences, connectives, explanations, clearer intro/conclusion, etc.; the paper has potential, but more attention to the way you organize your thoughts and material is needed the next time; some significant errors here with performing the process, a rough approximation of the skill/process; possibly more than two sentence fragments. • When read, the paper possibly came across as a bit ordinary/trite and/or inappropriate to the task at hand; whether sentence structure, overall feel, or the writer's thinking, things appear as “fuzzy” or superficial taken as a whole; considering the task at hand, all told, the reader is left with too many things to ask of the writer when it comes to voice, clarity of purpose, etc. • The writer does okay with conventions, but this is an area that clearly needs more attention; there were several errors with conventions and the reader lost focus/thought due to the errors; more time needed with this area to help the reader follow along smoothly, without pausing to figure out what is happening or being said; there needs to be more focus here for the next time. • After reading the paper, the reader either feels as if the support/explanation element is too general, possibly unclear, inaccurate or inappropriate and/or that some features of the main patterns running through information are apparent but possibly excludes some important detail, like the thoughts and feelings from interviewee; paper reads as a simple summary most of the time, a 'play by play' laundry list as opposed to a reflective essay; it's also possible that the paper reflects incomplete understanding or misconception of some of the information; clearly, more needs to be done on the paper as a whole; it appears as “basic,” the presentation leaves reader with too much to ask or decide about what is being analyzed/discussed; deeper thought necessary concerning analysis/support/contrast/comparative/connective/reflective aspect and reader remains ill-informed. IV. Your paper reflects a "D", reflecting considerable problems and/or poor quality of work, support, organization, planning, etc., and/or concerns such as: • Writing lacks central idea/purpose, and/or lacks detail; it is very hard to figure out the writer's key ideas/direction; the ideas are superficial at best or maybe the reader is not sure of a purpose or intent; the paper does appear as a "work in progress,” ideas communicated as isolated pieces of random thought. • Organization is lacking or not apparent, the writer does not seem to understand and/or apply the “the basics” of organization/paragraph structural devices; intro/conclusion, transitions, and/or topic sentences, etc., really need focus; the paper also may appear as “not finished,” work in progress, as if the writer didn't really have a plan to present ideas; more thought the next time or meeting to discuss basics are advised, so many errors in performing skill/process that there is doubt she/he can perform the skill/process. • Quite difficult to figure out the writer's voice; paper is difficult to “get,” or understand; whether word choice being limited or inappropriate, whether the sentence structure lacking variety, the paper does leave the reader wanting more from the writer and comes off as a “work in progress.” • Although it does appear that the standard writing conventions are being followed, there were simply too many errors as a whole; it was difficult to “get what was going on,” or understand the writer due to time spent on figuring out punctuation, spelling, etc.; this is a biggie, a key focus area in the future. • It is quite apparent that the writer offers little to no fact, ties to class, and/or analysis/connection/reflection ; this paper appears superficial, like a "work in progress," the understanding of the topic appears too incomplete or misconceived; it's possible that the main patterns running through the information are not dealt with; too much still remains unanswered or not developed, possible that research element is very superficial - no quotes/direct/indirect from teachers, for example; it is possible that the paper did not keep user interested, ideas may not have been relevant or not really related to the material discussed and/or the assigned task.
• Perhaps when reading, the paper comes off as 'last ditch' attempt, a paper that feels upon reading that the writer did it at the last minute; it is so badly organized, written, structured, etc., that it makes reading for understanding way too difficult for the reader; there is absolutely no support at all, no direct citations from research, no quotes from the interviewee; essentially all opinion without any attempt at all to ground opinion in fact/scholarship/thought; there really is no substance, perhaps paper is way too short, feeling like it is is a 'half done' assignment (2-3 pages) as opposed to being close to a finished product. In short, it is more than clear that the assignment is less than acceptable for a college level research/reflective project.
|
|
|
|