Assessment Overview
Week A: Teacher as Problem Solver—Team
Knowledge-Building Rubric
Weeks 4, 7, 10, 13

Goal: Build ESS knowledge as a team about the event described in the scenario.

Background: While Piaget helps us to understand that we are not blank slates, but rather creatures with rich and complex theories that we construct and reconstruct, a Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, helps us to understand how we learn together.

Since we have theories, we need opportunities to make them visible and to examine them. Vygotsky found that we evolve our theories when we communicate them to others, and they respond with their own theories, connections to what they know, and feedback about what we believe--mirroring. These interactions provide a safe and yet challenging environment, in which the goal is knowledge-building through considering different perspectives.

To begin knowledge-building you need to know what you know and what you want to know--your questions. Work with your team to create a list of questions.

In the typical "go find out about it" method, learners are familiar with a traditional, formal, linear classroom approach where they find answers to questions posed by the teacher. This knowledge acquisition is teacher-directed and limited to what the teacher asks. The knowledge-building in this course is based on your questions and is limited only by your curiosity. In working together to develop a shared understanding, teammates: 

  • value multiple perspectives; 
  • ask each other for evidence for their ideas; 
  • provide evidence; 
  • actively make connections among the ideas; 
  • share responsibility for regularly summarizing information; and
  • generate more questions from team discussions.

These are the signs of a successful knowledge-building community at work.

Also, the goal of knowledge-building in this course is not to find only the "right" answer, but rather answers that are most supportable with evidence. The evidence needs to support the answers and the answers need to explain the evidence.

Team knowledge-building results in more thoughtful answers, more powerful questions, and more confidence by individual members in their ideas.

Based on your questions, you and your team will determine "what you need to know" and will develop a problem statement to focus your thinking toward making your recommendations or solutions for the problem described in the scenario. Remember to post in Resource Space any new resources that are worthy of sharing as you come across them. Your team assignment will be assessed according to the rubric below, so you may want to refer to it while you are doing your assignment.

Rubric
Your team Week A: Teacher as Problem Solver assignment corresponds to PBL Steps 4, 5, and 6. The rubric below assesses how well you do PBL Steps 4 and 5 in your effort to build knowledge as a team. PBL Step 6 is to develop a problem statement, which is a natural outcome of the work you do in Steps 4 and 5.

You can earn as many as five points for completing this assignment. You will automatically earn one point for submitting your assignment on time. See the Time Rubric. Use the criteria and indicators below to gauge your success in earning the remaining four points.

Questions
4 Rating:
A rich list of questions (profound and trivial) with contributions from each participating team member.		 3 Rating:
Each participating member contributes a variety of questions to the list. 		2 Rating:
Question list contains a variety of questions. 		1 Rating:
Question list is 5-6 questions in one or two categories.
Multiple perspectives on each question
4 Rating:
Multiple perspectives are weighed as members begin to answer questions.		 3 Rating:
Different perspectives emerge as most members begin to answer most team questions.		 2 Rating:
More than one perspective is apparent as some members begin to answer some team questions.		 1 Rating:
Individual perspectives remain separate since individual members answer only their own questions.
Evidence to support answers
4 Rating:
Answers are supported with sufficient evidence from experience, prior research and reading. 		3 Rating:
Answers are partially supported with evidence from experience, prior research and reading.		 2 Rating:
Answers are supportable.		 1 Rating:
Only answers are given, without reasons.
List what needs to be done
4 Rating:
A thorough investigation is planned and explained with individual roles, resources and expected outcomes. 		3 Rating:
An investigation that builds on itself is planned and justified. 		2 Rating:
A list with roles is explained and expectations given. 		1 Rating:
The list of things to do is given and explained in terms of how it will address the team's questions.
Creation of problem statement
4 Rating:
A problem statement is developed and elaborated to test its power and centrality. 		3 Rating:
A problem statement is developed and discussed in terms of its centrality to the questions and evidence. 		2 Rating:
A problem statement is suggested and analyzed before acceptance. 		1 Rating:
A problem statement is suggested and accepted without considering other options.

References
 Piaget, J. (1990). The child's conception of the world. New York: Littlefield Adams Quality Paperbacks.

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (2000). The psychology of the child. (Paperback). New York: Basic Books.

Singer, D. G., and Revenson, T. (Contributor). (1996). A Piaget primer: How a child thinks. Plume.

Vygotsky, L., Vygotsky, S., John-Steiner, V. (Ed.). (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L., and Kozulin, A. (Ed.). (1986). Thought and language. Mount Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1988). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[ Welcome ] [Earth's Spheres] [ Earth System Science ] [ PBL Model ] [ Use of Technology ] [ Science as Inquiry ] [ Participation ] [ Assessment Overview ] [ Course Sections ]


[ Home ] Intro [ Guide ] [ Outline ] [ Classroom ]

HTML code by Chris Kreger
Maintained by ESSC Team
 
 

..

 

..