I was thinking about assessment and evaluation in context to professional programs and teacher education. Practicum courses are evaluated on a PASS/FAIL premise based on the BC Teacher Standards, but there has been a conversation on the floor about PASS/FAIL for coursework. I would like us to have this conversation as we move forward with the Design Committee and future programming. I would like this to be a topic of conversation in future design committee meetings. Thanks for your consideration.
Submitted by Christine
Posted by CYH: We had an Ad Hoc Design Committee meeting for those at the PG Campus this SATURDAY from noon – 3pm. We wanted to complete the work (or at least continue the work) from our Nov.2/3 meeting. Bill, Bonnie, Deb, and Christine were in attendance.
What we did was look at the courses currently being offered (that are Senate approved) at UNBC School of Education. This was a task that we started at the end of our 2-day meeting a couple of weeks ago. What we did is, we printed a list of courses and cut them into strips to situate them within the framework of Questioning, Exploring, Focusing, and Refocussing. We added the fourth category of “refocussing” to our thinking. We reviewed each course and placed them accordingly with 300-level courses (Year 1) and 400-level courses (Year 2).
After we placed the courses onto a poster paper (photo not shown), we then looked at how we could offer courses in a 16-month framework. The “refocusing” of Year 1 (old language) is the “questioning” of Year 2 (old language). They overlapped. “Refocussing” for Year 2 (old language) would be the Capstone e-Portfolio, where e-Portfolios would be ongoing learning for the entire BEd Program along with Teacher Inquiry (EDUC 431) starting after the first 13-weeks of the program.
We started to talk about the ideas of “blocks” of time for courses and practicum and how these courses could be placed. We were essentially scaffolding coursework. It was an amazing process. We worked on a DRAFT construction for half the program. What would it look like? We hope to continue this conversation Thursday, Nov. 22nd to see how the second half could unfold. We are just playing and innovating. Great conversation. Worth noting, we would like to offer an ETHICS course at the beginning of the BEd program but there is currently no existing Senate approved course. Something to consider.
The blog entry in only an update of our homework.
Submitted by: Bill, Bonnie, Deb, and Christine
Late post by CYH: Here is our DRAFT NOTES from the Nov. 2/3 2-day meeting. It’s the conclusion of our meeting where we were tasked as small groups to consider the overview of the UNBC BEd Teacher Education Program within the Framework of Questioning, Exploring, and Focussing/Refocussing by Identity, Community, Responsibility, and Bodies of Knowledge. We looked at the task from the 50,000 feet point of view looking at ideology, visioning, and learning intentions… as these would lend to specific learning experiences.
Loved some key words that were elicited from this conversation like Enculturation, Transformation, Lived Experiences, and Shared Values. Furthermore, we wanted to challenge students to connect with their identity, differentiate the differences between a “teacher” and “educator,” and look for VISIBLE differences in self, pedagogy/performance, and mindset in light of the BC Teacher Standards demonstrated them in a capstone e-Portfolio.
To finalize this thought process… students start their BEd Program on the LAND and end their BEd on the LAND… acknowledging PEOPLE and PLACE at the beginning and end of the BEd program.
We loved how this framework is cyclic and interconnected vertically and horizontally. There is harmony, growth, and continuity. It models the LIFE LONG LEARNING via experiential learning and reflection.
Submitted by: Alex L., Bonnie, and Christine (Nov.18, 2018)
These questions arose for me from our 2-day conference:
1. If we can agree on the ideal balance between theory and practice in this program – how can this balance be reflected in SCHs? Or should it?
2. Should admission to the program be subject to affirmative quota? (e.g. fewer humanity graduates, more scientists) Or should we aim to produce “competent out-of-field teachers”? Learning II?
3. How could the School of Ed facilitate better communication between colleagues teaching similar courses or themes?
4. Addressing subject matter gaps (I have faced a chronic gap in scientific literacy over 12 years): Format a ‘special topic’ course to fit small groups with inquiry topics of their choice?