Assessment


 * Assignment Rubric**

** Unsatisfactory ** ||  ** PASS ** ** Satisfactory ** ||  ** CREDIT ** ** Good, sound ** ||  ** DISTINCTION ** ** Superior, thoughtful ** ||  ** HIGH DISTINCTION ** ** Outstanding, original ** ||
 * || ** FAIL **
 * ** THE EVENT ** ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Suitability of the incident as defined by the Essential Readings (10) || Inadequate implicit or explicit justification of the incident as an event. || Good implicit or explicit justification of the incident as an event. || Excellent implicit or explicit justification of the incident as an event. || Exemplary implicit or explicit justification of the incident as an event. || Exemplary example ||
 * Context: school, community, students, curricular (10) || Inadequately described, with almost all relevant details missing || Adequately described, with some of the necessary details. || Described well, with sound and relevant details. || Described thoughtfully, with almost all relevant details. || Described comprehensively, with all relevant details. ||
 * Interactions: what the teacher said, did, acted and felt; how the students responded 10) || Few or no relevant details are present || Some relevant details are present. || Most relevant details are present. || Almost all relevant details are present. || All relevant details are present. ||
 * ** THE ANALYSIS ** ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Unit sources used to inform the analysis (20) || Little or no material || Some relevant material || Sound and relevant material. || Thorough & detailed material. || Outstanding & original material. ||
 * At least three theories/perspectives (10) || Either absent or are inadequate. || These illuminate the analysis in an adequately. || These illuminate the analysis in a sound way. || These illuminate the analysis thoroughly || These illuminated the analysis outstandingly ||
 * Identifies the strengths and/or weaknesses of how you handled the incident (10) || No convincing analysis of strengths and/or weaknesses || Some adequate analysis of strengths and/or weaknesses || Sound analysis of strengths and/or weaknesses || Thorough and thoughtful analysis of strengths and/or weaknesses || Outstanding and original analysis of strengths and/or weaknesses ||
 * Proposed alternatives and/or additional action for the future (10) || None || An adequate outline of what might be tried || A sound and useful description of what might be tried. || A thorough and convincing description of future possibilities || An outstanding and original analysis of future possibilities ||
 * ** COMMUNICATION ** ||   ||   || s ||   ||   ||
 * The way the ideas have been communicated (20) || There are significant difficulties for the reader. || The ideas have been communicated adequately. || The ideas have been communicated clearly. || The ideas have been communicated thoughtfully, effectively and clearly. The different ideas form a coherent whole. || The ideas have been communicated in an original and clear way. The author’s voice is present in an original and authentic way. ||
 * Suitability of the incident as defined by the Essential Readings (10): **We meet this criteria but just need to back it up with one/some of the required readings. Perhaps this should be done in the exegesis.


 * Context: school, community, students, curricular (10): **Again we can meet this by providing a context of the school the class, previous student behaviour etc.


 * Interactions: what the teacher said, did, acted and felt; how the students responded (10): **I think we can meet the HD criteria with this


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Unit sources used to inform the analysis (20): **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">We have plenty of sources but not sure if they meet the 'outstanding and original material' for a HD.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">At least three theories/perspectives (10): ** We have far more than 3, should we cut them down and focus a bit?


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Identifies the strengths & weaknesses of how you handled the incident (10): **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">So far we have concentrated on the strengths, what are the weaknesses?


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Proposed alternatives and/or additional action for the future (10): **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">???????


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The way the ideas have been communicated (20): ** I think our cube will meet the originality criteria and should be in the HD range if we communicate the assignment clearly

The whole point of the is to make our thinking visible. To make the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle come together.
 * Notes on Phil's video of assessment 3 (holy cow this is complex)**

Choose a specific event - That teachable moment Then describe Analysis needs > >
 * What happened and why did it happen?
 * Look at it from the perspectives of each unit
 * What have we learnt in each unit that will help us understand this event - make a mind map like Phil's we can start on 1st semester units
 * The we have to link readings - both unit and required
 * Can link provocations
 * Keep the criteria in mind at all times - 5 criteria
 * Generic skills - preparation of teachers to teach students - I'm not quite sure about this bit?
 * Whole course response (max 2000 words)
 * Individual unit response (1 page for each of the **semester 2** **units only**)
 * Find a weave that links through all your subjects
 * 3 unique pedagogical theories and perspectives ie. inclusive classrooms, good pedagogy