Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EDU5230 Case Study- SUSAN


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EDU5230 Case Study- SUSAN

  1. 1. GROUP ASIGNMENT #3: WHO IS TO ASSESS? CASE STUDY Courtney Beaulne Jon Cappello Karine Cosgrove EDU 5230
  2. 2. HOW DO WE SEE SUSAN? <ul><li>New, unseasoned teacher </li></ul><ul><li>Female VS the male antagonist </li></ul><ul><li>Desire to please and to remain </li></ul><ul><li>employed </li></ul><ul><li>Competent but recognizes she is </li></ul><ul><li>not a “master teacher” yet </li></ul><ul><li>Her focus is on the qualitative not the </li></ul><ul><li>quantitative in educating her students </li></ul><ul><li>Pushed to leave the narrow confines of who she thinks she is </li></ul><ul><li>Her “home” is her one-best-way: subjectivity </li></ul>
  3. 3. SUSAN’S FINAL VOCABULARY <ul><li>Fairness is subjective to each student </li></ul><ul><li>Her role demands that she tailors her instruction method for each student </li></ul><ul><li>She is knowledgeable in critical literacy and alternative assessment (graduate courses) </li></ul><ul><li>SUSAN’S VALUES: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding and sees the student as a whole, and understanding the frames in which they function </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not “completely comfortable” with Mr. Donald’s standardized tests </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. THROUGH THE LENS OF TAYLORISTIC SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT: RUBRIC OF MASTERY <ul><li>Mr. Donald’s perspective is wrong in his ways, Susan’s method is the sole best method. </li></ul><ul><li>Subjectivity is the only way to proceed efficiently in assessing students such as Tony and Sarah. </li></ul>
  5. 5. THROUGH THE LENS OF ARISTOTELIAN PHRONESIS: NON-RUBRIC OF MYSTERY <ul><li>Creating dialogue with Mr. Donald, listening with an open mind to his perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Moving forward to a consensus with Mr. Donald, understanding the consequences of each action </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding Tony and Sarah’s frames will allow her to adequately assess </li></ul><ul><li>Not discounting the subjective while still understanding the value of the objective </li></ul>
  7. 7. FLEXIBILITY... BENDING THE RULES <ul><li>The final solution has Ms. Cipher dancing around both the subjective and objective approaches, coming up with “just the right combination for this particular moment” or in our case the particular student. </li></ul><ul><li>Rule bending or flexibility only happens to service the right aims. In our case study, it is to service the students in the best way possible. </li></ul>
  8. 8. FUSION: Blending the Subjective and Objective <ul><li>Susan needs to GIVE a little (understand the value of objective tests), GAIN a little (demonstrate the uses for her subjective strategies) and GROW (in appreciating the different perspectives in the assessment of students) </li></ul><ul><li>Ms. Cipher can bring about this collaboration and open the communication in having both Mr. Donald and Susan communicate the values of their own approaches </li></ul>