Rapid Essay Researchers We offer fast essays with the best content
CRP 426 ASSESSMENTS 1 AND 2 FOR EXTERNAL STUDENTS_SEM 1 2017
The assessment for this unit incorporates both formative and summative strategies. Formative assessment is provided through verbal and online feedback, and through written comments on assignment work. Summative evaluation will take the form of a Lesson presentation (plan, implementation & reflection) (Assignment One) and Video lesson critique (Assignment Two).
Note: Please go to the BB site and watch assignments information and read discussion forum before emailing us.
Assignment presentation
Students should follow the guidelines set out in the booklet, Cite/Write that is available from the QUT Bookshop and at the following website:
http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au
References, quotations and citations must adhere to APA convention, 6th edition.
Assignment submissions
You will need to submit your assignment through Turnitin as a single file (either as a word document or PDF) on Blackboard site. (Additional instructions about assignments submissions will follow in due course on BB site).
Late assessment and extensions
University rules for late assessment and extensions can be accessed at the following web site:
http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/E/E_06_08.jsp
Please note that if you don’t hand in your assignment by the due date, it won’t be marked and you’ll receive a grade of 1 or 0%. If special circumstances prevent you from completing your assignment by the due date, you can apply for an extension:
https://www.student.qut.edu.au/studying/assessment/late-assignments-and-extensions
ASSIGNMENT 1: LESSON PRESENTATION, LESSON DESIGN AND SELF REFLECTION
Due date Week 6, 9th April (Sunday) 2017. Online Turnitin submission by 11.59pm
Mode Lesson Presentation, Lesson Design and Self Reflection
Weighting 60% (Part 1 + Part 2)
Length Equivalent to 2500 words (+/- 10 %) + Additional documents (photos, SEAMS form)
Outcomes 1, 3, 4, 6, & 7
APSTs 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 5.1
PART 1.
Part 1 of this assignment, requires you to design and present a junior (years 7-10) science lesson on a topic of your choice. The presentation should be planned to engage A GROUP OF 4 PEOPLE meaningfully for at least 30 minutes (maximum 45 minutes). You should consider all the safety aspects of doing the lesson and complete a SEAMS (on the BB site) form prior to the lesson. SEAMS form needs to be handed in with the assignment.
• The context of the presentation is a simulated small class of 13-15 year-olds. Nevertheless, to reduce any ethical complications, be sure YOUR 4 GROUP MEMBERS ARE AGED 18 YEARS OR OVER.
• Your mini science lesson needs to addresses at least one elaboration from SU (Science Understanding), SHE (Science as a Human Endeavour) and SIS (Science Inquiry Skills) from Australian Curriculum – Science (see Lecture 2).
• All students are encouraged to go beyond the library and Internet for information. Possible sources could be scientists themselves, teachers and students.
• Your presentation should include more than one teaching strategy and be hands-on in nature.
Your written component for Part 1 needs to include:
1. A description of the context of the presentation i.e. who is the audience, what syllabus does it align with and where, and what are the key notions you want to impart during the presentation. This part should not exceed 200 words.
2. A short Lesson plan (Maximum 2 pages) including a justification for the selected teaching strategies. This part should not exceed 1000 words. Lesson Plan templates are on the Blackboard site under Learning Resources.
3. Rough script; write out approximately 5 -10 minutes of the presentation between yourself and the audience. Choose a section that shows evidence of students constructing knowledge without an over emphasis on dominant teacher talk. Ensure that science concepts are emerging in this section (see rubric for marking scheme below). You need to show clearly how you are interacting with the audience including what you are asking them to do at various stages of the presentation. Evidence of the social construction of knowledge is required. This part should not exceed 500 words.
4. SEAMS (Safety form completed). See BB site for form. There is no word limit for SEAMS form.
Criteria for Assessment Item (Weighting: 40%). See attached criteria sheet.
PART 2.
Part 2 of the assignment requires you to reflect upon your presentation and to verify you have actually made the presentation. You are required to write critical self-reflection of the presentation in Part 1. A critical self-reflection is about improving teaching practices for enhanced student learning. This should highlight both those aspects that worked well and those parts of the lesson that could be refined for possible improved learning outcomes. Please refer to relevant references that have been discussed during the course of the unit.
Part 2 should be written in the first person as it is a self reflection. Nevertheless, you must make reference to data collected during and post-lesson e.g., evaluations of the lesson. It is therefore necessary that you use the “Peer Feedback Sheet” (from Blackboard) to get information on the quality of the presentation. These feedback sheets should be signed by the participants, and included in your assignment. Please note, you should encourage your participants to be honest.
Part 2 should be approximately 800-1000 words and needs to be uploaded with Part 1 (which has four parts to it).
Criteria for Part 2 of Assessment Item 2 (Weighting: 20%). See attached criteria sheet.
PART 3: Other supporting material
To verify you have actually made the presentation, you are required to submit at least 3-6 photos of parts of your presentation (they can be embedded in the Lesson Plan or attached in Appendix).
ASSIGNMENT 2: VIDEO LESSON CRITIQUE
Due date Week 9, 7th May 2017 (Sunday). Online Turnitin submission by 11.59pm
Mode Video Lesson Critique
Weighting 40%
Length Equivalent to 1500 words (+/- 10 %)
Outcomes 1, 3, 4 & 6
APSTs 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 5.1
Your Task:
You are to write an essay that critiques this lesson. Your critique should be based on the well-established pedagogical framework of Productive Pedagogies or Enabling Pedagogies. If you choose the PP framework then you are to use the Productive Pedagogies coding sheet (pages 19 and 20) to rate the lesson for each dimension and explain 2-3 key results (2-3 dimensions will be sufficient).
The link will be uploaded on BB site two weeks prior to the scheduled due date (in week 7).
Criteria: See attached Criteria and Standards Rubric
Possible References:
Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345-362.
Productive Pedagogies – Recorded Lecture from week 6 explains how to do this.
Additional Information
Student rules, policies and procedures
It is recommended that students understand and abide by the University rules, which can be accessed at the following web site:
http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/Appendix/append01cst.jsp
If you have any queries, please contact the Faculty of Education on phone number: (07) 3138 3947 or email: educationenq@qut.edu.au
CRP426 Assignment One: Criteria and Standards for Lesson Presentation, Design and Self Reflection [60%]
PART 1: Presentation and Lesson Plan 40%]
PART ONE
[40%]
Marks Very High Achievement (VHA)
10 9 High Achievement (HA)
8 7 Satisfactory Achievement (SA)
6 5 Limited Achievement (LA)
4 3 Unsatisfactory Achievement (UA)
2 1 Marker Only
1.Context (200 words)
Presentation
(Evidenced in Lesson Plan and script)
[APSTs: 2.2, 2.6, 2.3, 3.3]
• Context described thoroughly with audience, alignment with syllabus and key ideas included thoroughly
• Active and creative learning techniques, engaging activities
• Appropriate use of language for year level chosen
• Evidence of effective ICT integration
• • Context described well with audience, alignment with syllabus and key ideas included adequately
• Active learning techniques, engaging activities
• Good use of language for year level chosen
• Evidence of good ICT integration
• • Context described satisfactorily with audience, alignment with syllabus and key ideas included satisfactorily
• Appropriate learning techniques but activities may need development
• Satisfactory use of language for year level chosen
• Evidence of satisfactory ICT integration
• Context not described adequately with little reference to the audience, alignment with syllabus and key ideas
• Ineffective selection and delivery of learning techniques including choice of activities
• Inappropriate use of language for year level chosen
• Little evidence of ICT integration • No context
• no questioning predominantly didactic teaching
• language use inappropriate for year level chosen
• No positive emotional energy or empathy for students during the lesson
2.Lesson Plan (1000 words): A “write-up” of the presentation as a short lesson plan including a justification for the selected teaching strategies
Structure of Teaching
• Logical and challenging development of science concept evident in lesson plan
• Well organised and logical sequencing of science concept
• Modelled the integration of technology with additional resources complementing your presentation
• Innovative and appropriate teaching strategies chosen for concept explanation
• Lesson plan is of a high standard including all required aspects
• Logical development of science concept evident in lesson plan
• Well organised and logical sequencing of science concept
• Modelled the integration of technology with additional resources complementing your presentation
• Appropriate teaching strategies chosen for concept explanation
• Lesson plan is of a satisfactory standard including all required aspects
• Satisfactory development of science concept evident in lesson plan
• Well organised but sequencing may need attention
• Integration of technology may need development; additional resources complementing presentation included
• Satisfactory teaching strategies chosen for concept explanation but a greater variety needs to be explored for future lessons • Lesson plan not satisfactory and does not include all required aspects
• Unsatisfactory development of science concept evident in lesson plan
• Organisation and sequencing need attention
• Integration of technology needs attention; additional resources complementing presentation were absent
• Inappropriate teaching strategies chosen for concept explanation
• Organisation and sequencing unsatisfactory
• Integration of technology is absent and no additional resources complementing presentation
• Poor teaching strategies chosen for concept explanation
• Did not cater adequately for student diversity
3.Planning (evidenced in Lesson Plan and script)
[APSTs: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4] • High level of familiarity with science concept evident in script
• Planning evident in lesson plan
• Flow of lesson is logical and develops concepts sequentially
• Organisation is thorough and students are engaged for the lesson
• Resources are used appropriately
• Familiarity with science concept evident in script
• Planning evident in lesson plan
• Flow of lesson is adequate and develops concepts sequentially
• Organisation is good and students are engaged for the lesson
• Resources are used • Familiarity with science concept evident in script
• Lesson plan requires further details to aide planning
• Flow of lesson is satisfactory and develops most concepts
• Organisation is satisfactory and students are mostly engaged curing the lesson
• Resources need to be used more • Familiarity with science concept not evident in script
• Overall time limit not met
• Planning not evident in lesson plan
• Flow of lesson is not evident
• Organisation is poor and students not engaged sufficiently
• Resources are not ready and explanation is inadequate • There is minimal evidence that this lesson has been planned adequately
4.Science Content Knowledge
• Show a deep understanding of the science concept/s
• Science concept demonstrated clearly through links to hands-on experiments, inquiry-based practices and constructivist principles
• Links to the real-world clearly identified
• Key concept/s accurate in lesson plan
• Show an understanding of the science concept/s
• Science concept demonstrated through links to hands-on experiments, inquiry-based practices and constructivist principles
• Links to the real-world clearly identified
• Key concept/s in lesson plan
• Show an understanding of the content knowledge associated with your topic with minor inaccuracies
• Science concept may be demonstrated through links to hands-on experiments, inquiry-based practices and constructivist principles
• Links to the real-world identified but further links need to be explored
• Key concept/s requires further refinement in lesson plan
• Show an inaccurate understanding of content knowledge associated with your topic
• Science concept is not demonstrated through links to hands-on experiments, inquiry-based practices and constructivist principles
• No links to the real-world identified
• Key concept is inaccurate in lesson plan • There is minimal evidence of science content knowledge or understanding of constructivist principles for teaching
Note – Each criteria has equal weighting (10 %)
SEAMS form included: YES/ NO
PART TWO: Critical Self Reflection [Individual Result, 20%]
PART TWO
[20%]
Marks Very High Achievement (VHA)
10 9 High Achievement (HA)
8 7 Satisfactory Achievement (HA)
6 5 Limited Achievement (LA)
4 3 Unsatisfactory Achievement (UA)
2 1 Marker Only
5.Links to readings and feedback
Links to Pedagogical Content Knowledge
[APST: 2.5] • Provided high quality evidence of links to contemporary (last five years) science education issues arising from readings, lectures, workshops and /or other units to support the issues raised in your critical reflection.
• Feedback from students included thoroughly in refection
• Provided high quality insights and connections into your pedagogical and conceptual development in science education in the senior years. • Provided quality evidence of links to contemporary (last five years) science education issues arising from readings, lectures, workshops and /or other Grad Dip units to support the issues raised in the critical reflection
• Feedback from students included in reflection
• Provided quality insights and connections into your pedagogical and conceptual development in science education in the senior years.
• Provided satisfactory evidence of links to contemporary (last five years) science education issues arising from readings, lectures, workshops and /or other Grad Dip units to support the issues raised in the critical reflection
• Some feedback from students included in reflection
• Provided satisfactory insights and connections into your pedagogical and conceptual development in science education in the senior years. • Provided unsatisfactory evidence of links to contemporary (last five years) science education issues arising from readings, lectures, workshops and /or other Grad Dip units to support the issues raised in the critical reflection
• Little use of student feedback
• Provided unsatisfactory insights and connections into your pedagogical and conceptual development in science education in the senior years.
• Minimal evidence of readings, lectures or student feedback used in the CSR
• Minimal evidence of pedagogical or conceptual insights •
6.Reflection concentrated on only two or three key issues in depth
Written Expression
[APSTs: 2.5, 3.6] • Provided insightful and well planned critical reflection on your secondary science lesson by concentrating on only two or three key issues in depth
• Exemplary level of written expression with careful attention to organisation, layout, grammar and APA referencing
• Provided a good, well planned critical reflection on your secondary science lesson by concentrating on only two or three key issues in depth
• High level of written expression with careful attention to organisation, layout, grammar and APA referencing • Provided a satisfactory critical reflection on your secondary science lesson by concentrating on only two or three key issues in depth
• Acceptable level of written expression with careful attention to organisation, layout, grammar and APA referencing
• Provided an unsatisfactory critical reflection on your secondary science lesson by concentrating on only two or three key issues in depth
• Unacceptable level of written expression with careful attention to organisation, layout, grammar and APA referencing
• Minimal evidence of choosing two or three key issues for reflection
• Minimal evidence of written expression, layout and APA referencing that would meet standards for teachers •
Note – Each criteria has equal weighting (10%)
Final Grade for Assignment One:
Decision Making Matrix:
Mark /60 (cut off) Percentage % Grade Grade on QUT 1-7 scale
51 >85% VHA 7
45 >75% HA 6
39 >65% SA 5
30 >50% LA 4
30<x<24 <50% UA 3
24 <40% Fail 2
Late submission Fail 1
CRP426: Assessment Two: Criteria and Standards for Video Lesson Critique [40%]
###NOTE – Rubrics may be slightly modified for Turnitin ###
Criteria/Standards
[40%]
Marks Very High Achievement (VHA)
5
High Achievement (HA)
4 Satisfactory Achievement (SA)
3 Limited Achievement (LA)
2 Unsatisfactory Achievement (UA)
1 Marker Only
1.INTRODUCTION
Framework chosen (PP or Hildebrand)
(5%)
Student showed scholarly interpretation of the chosen framework and clearly explained their choice in the introduction (e.g., chosen PP dimensions explained or clusters from enabling pedagogies). Introduction is logical, fluent and grammatically accurate.
Student showed an interpretation of the framework chosen and sound explanation of PP dimensions or clusters from enabling pedagogies in the introduction. Introduction is fluent and grammatically accurate.
Student showed an understanding of the framework chosen with some explanation of PP dimensions or clusters from the enabling pedagogies. Introduction shows links between sentences, however, there are some inaccuracies in the grammar.
Student demonstrated limited understanding of the framework chosen. There is a lack of fluency and grammatical errors.
Student demonstrated minimal evidence of using a framework. There is no fluency in the written work and many grammatical errors.
2.BODY
Teaching Strategies identified
[APST: 2.1]
(5%)
Major teaching strategies have been identified; these have been coded accurately in terms of the dimensions of Productive Pedagogies or the clusters/themes of the Enabling Pedagogies. The critique shows complex analysis and critically argues the chosen coding. Teaching strategies have been identified; these have been coded accurately in terms of the dimensions of Productive Pedagogies or the clusters/themes of the Enabling Pedagogies. The critique shows analysis and argues for the chosen coding. Teaching strategies have been identified; there may be some inconsistent coding in terms of Productive or Enabling Pedagogies. The critique is satisfactory however further analysis of the chosen coding would enhance the essay. Few teaching strategies have been identified. The coding is inconsistent with the analysis, however, there is evidence that the student has viewed the video and written an essay about the video. There is minimal evidence that the student has identified teaching strategies and used the coding sheet/ enabling pedagogies to analyse the essay.
3. BODY
Extent to which strategies and pedagogies are linked to observed student engagement
[APST: 2.4]
(5%)
Understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen coding scheme (i.e., PP or enabling pedagogies) are evident through the descriptive critique about strategies used to elicit observed student engagement. Clear examples are cited from the video to support discussion about student engagement.
Understanding of the theoretical underpinnings (i.e., PP or enabling pedagogies) are evident in the critique about strategies used to elicit observed student engagement.
Evidence of student engagement or lack of engagement is identified.
The chosen framework is used satisfactorily (i.e., PP or enabling pedagogies) in the discussion about strategies used to elicit observed student engagement.
Examples are give about student engagement or lack of engagement but could be elaborated upon for a better explanation. Limited understanding of the theoretical underpinnings present and discussion about engagement of students lacks evidence.
Minimal evidence addressing the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen framework and no discussion about student engagement.
4. BODY
Strategies identified that differentiate/cater for inclusion of all students [APST 2.2]
(5%)
Insightful and accurate discussion of strategies used to include students. Citations beyond the textbook have been used to support the discussion. Accurate discussion of strategies used to include students. Citations on inclusivity have been included. Discussion of strategies used to include students is evident but lacks detail. Citations from the textbook may have been included. Limited discussion of strategies used to include students. Limited citations used. Minimal evidence addressing inclusivity in the essay.
5. WHOLE ESSAY
Quality of Argument /Examples/
Evidence used to support argument
(5%)
Critique is convincing with strong coherence and many supportive citations. References have been used that demonstrate wide reading and engagement with all aspects of the unit (i.e., Venville and Dawson and unit readings on the BB site). A deep understanding of constructivism as a referent for practice is evident.
Examples used support the discussion and are accurately depicted.
Critique is discernible with a coherent argument. Citations are used that link to the chosen discussion points.
References have been used that demonstrate reading beyond the textbook and engagement with most aspects of the unit (i.e., Venville and Dawson and unit readings on the BB site). A sound understanding of constructivism as a referent for practice is evident.
Examples used support the discussion.
The argument is discernible. Most citations are from the text book with a small amount of wider reading.
References have been used that demonstrate a small amount of reading beyond the textbook and engagement with most aspects of the unit (i.e., Venville and Dawson and unit readings on the BB site). A basic understanding of constructivism as a referent for practice is evident.
Examples used link to the discussion.
Argument is not discernable. Little reading beyond the textbook.
Few examples are used from video to support argument
Argument is incoherent or not evident
Unsatisfactory or no examples or evidence used from video to support argument
6. WHOLE ESSAY
Fluency and academic conventions
(5%)
The analytical essay flows fluently; is easy to read; there are no spelling or grammatical errors. The scholarly writing is of the highest quality.
The essay flows and reads well. There are a few spelling or grammatical errors. The scholarly writing is of a high quality. Minor revisions of the essay would enhance its readability.
The essay is readable but would benefit from further revisions for grammatical errors, sentence construction and planning.
Minor revisions of the essay would enhance its readability.
The writing is developing a scholarly tone. The essay is difficult to read.
There is some inconsistent use of grammar with spelling mistakes throughout.
The essay cannot be read and shows no use of grammatical conventions.
7. CONCLUSION
[APST: 2.5]
(5%)
Convincing conclusion that summarises the argument concisely showing a very high level of written expression. The reader is convinced by the persuasive discussion. Well planned conclusion that summarises the argument with a high level of written expression. The reader is generally convinced by the persuasive discussion. Logical conclusion with a sound summary of the argument. The reader is not persuaded by the conclusion, however it is consistent with the dimensions/clusters addressed in the essay. Conclusion does not sum up the argument however, there is a position that is stated. Minimal evidence of constructing a conclusion that sums up the argument.
8. REFERENCING
[APST: 2.5]
(5%)
The essay demonstrates scholarly writing using all the conventions of APA accurately both in text and in the reference list. This essay uses APA accurately in the in-text citations and reference list, however, there are a few anomalies. This essay uses APA, however, greater adherence to the scholarly conventions would improve it. APA is inconsistent and rarely accurate APA is not used
Total /40
Note – Each criteria has equal weighting (5 %)
Final Grade for Assignment Two
Decision Making Matrix:
Mark /40 (cut off) Percentage % Grade Grade on QUT 1-7 scale
34 >85% VHA 7
30 >75% HA 6
26 >65% SA 5
20 >50% LA 4
20<x<16 <50% UA 3
16 <40% Fail 2
Late submission Fail 1
Final Grade Overall for Assignments One and Two: Mark for Ass One /60 is added to Mark for Ass Two /40 = /100
Mark /100 (cut off) Percentage % Grade Grade on QUT 1-7 scale
85 >85% VHA 7
75 >75% HA 6
65 >65% SA 5
50 >50% LA 4
50<x<40 <50% UA 3
40 <40% Fail 2
Late submission Fail 1
Final Grade for CRP426: