EDUC 3004: Contexts of Practice (Social Foundations III)
Instructors
Ashley Woodson
e-mail: anw@pitt.edu
phone: 412-648-7329
Michael Lovorn
e-mail: mlovorn@pitt.edu
phone: 412-610-0017
Tracy Pelkowski
e-mail: tlp26@pitt.edu
phone: 412-606-1954
Meeting Times
Face-to-Face: 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM on January 10, February 7, March 7, April 11; Online: asynchronous
Course Overview
This course is an overview of structural relationships informing education and schooling systems. We examine the
nature of power, culture, resources, and identity in educational contexts; and integrate these examinations with
exemplars in the ARCO literature through discussion, the use of case material, and experiential learning. Throughout this
course, we promote increased understanding of the role of structural and lived contexts in assessing and developing
leadership, policy, practice, interventions, and outcomes.
Course Objectives
Our overarching goal in this course is to explore the relationship between institutional and structural features of the educative
process and academic outcomes. To achieve this goal, course participants will be engaged in:
 identifying and analyzing specific structural, sociopolitical and historical features of their research sites and the implications
of these features for research;
 assessing and communicating their own researcher positionality, as well as the strengths and limitations of that
positionality as data is collected, analyzed, and disseminated;
 problematizing assumptions of neutrality in discussions of context; and
 referencing, critiquing, and incorporating exemplars of social science literature into one’s research.
Course Readings
Required text (for all course participants)
 Leading for Equity: The Pursuit of Excellence in Montgomery County Public Schools (2009) – Stacey Childress, Denis Doyle &
David Thomas. Harvard University Press (ISBN 978-1934742228)
Additional Readings: In “book club” groups, course participants will read three additional books over the course of the semester.
Course participants will sign up for one of the following reading groups:
Pelkowski Reading Group
February: Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School (Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology) (2012) – Shamus
Rahman Khan. Princeton University Press.
March: Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School (2011) – C. J. Pascoe. University of California Press.
April: Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity (1997) - P. McDonough. SUNY Press,
OR Fracturing Opportunity: Mexican Migrant Students & College-going Literacy (2010) - R. Gildersleeve.
Woodson Reading Group
February: Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity (Law, Meaning, and Violence) (2001) – Ann Arnett Ferguson.
University of Michigan Press.
March: Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood (2008) – Jay MacCleod. Westview Press.
April: The Other Side of the River: A Story of Two Towns, a Death, and America's Dilemma (1999) – Alex Kotlowitz. Anchor Press, OR
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012) – Michelle Alexander. New Press.
Lovorn Reading Group
February: Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools (2012) – Jonathan Kozol. Broadway Books.
March: American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (1998) – Douglas Massey & Nancy Denton. Harvard
University Press, OR The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012) – Michelle Alexander. New Press.
April: Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect (2013) – Robert J. Sampson. University of Chicago Press.
Grading
Evaluation Area
Course Participation
Context Analysis Presentations (3 x 10 pts)
Hidden History Documentary
Social Context of Education Paper
TOTAL
Points (out of 100)
30
30
20
20
Due Dates
Cumulative, throughout the semester
February 7, March 7, April 11
March 28
April 11
100
Course Participation (30 Points)
Your active participation in our face-to-face meetings and online activities is critical to the success of the course. During
our class meetings/online sessions, we will engage in various theoretical discourses, the depth of which will depend
largely on your preparation and participation. We expect you to participate actively by completing readings promptly,
being an actively engaged group member, and taking part in all class discussions/activities. You will receive five
participation grades, each worth up to six points, making up 30% of your final grade. One or more of these grades may
be comprised in part from a group participation score received by your peers after Context Analysis Presentations. We
will use the following 6-point scale to assess your discussion, contribution to group work, and/or participation each
meeting/activity:
Course Participation Evaluation Scale
6 points – Your participation is significant, and meets or exceeds our expectations. You contribute/participate consistently
throughout the discussion/activity. You demonstrate original and deep thinking, and engage in focused analysis of appropriate
readings/topics. You lead conversation and introduce compelling ideas.
4-5 points – Your participation is modest, and meets some, but not all of our expectations. You engage in a marginal analysis of
appropriate readings/topics. You continue conversation and/or build on the ideas of others.
1-3 points – Your participation is weak/minimal, and meets few if any of our expectations for graduate-level study. You make few, if
any, contributions or appear disconnected from discussion/activity, and/or you demonstrate uninformed analysis of
readings/topics.
Context Analysis Presentation (30 Points: 3 x 10 points)
In “book club” groups, course participants will read, discuss, analyze, and then present on three of the Additional
Readings listed above. While your group is expected to accomplish much of this reading, discussion, and analysis during
asynchronous class time, you will also will be given time (about an hour) during each of our face-to-face meetings to
further analyze and synthesize findings, and to craft your presentations. Your group members and you will determine
particular foci and the tone of your presentations; however, we expect each presentation to include, in some capacity:
1. a brief summary of the book; 2. An analysis of the author’s attention to structural relationships informing education
and schooling systems (including an examination of the author’s attention to power, culture, resources, and/or identity
in educational contexts); and 3. your groups opinion(s) about how the book promotes increased understanding of the
role of structural and lived contexts in assessing and developing leadership, policy, practice, interventions, and/or
outcomes. To conclude your presentation, each group member should connect the findings of the text to their own
research (two minutes each, maximum). We encourage you to ground presentation assertions in your book as well as
other supporting and/or conflicting research findings. Presentations should be 45-50 minutes in length and should be
shared using a dynamic visual medium (PowerPoint, Prezi, or similar). Please remember that this is a firm expectation
and limit for the presentation. We will use the following 10-point scale to assess each of your three presentation (see
the next page):
Context Analysis Presentation Evaluation Scale
10 points – Exemplary (exceeds our expectations in all areas). Your group’s presentation is concise yet highly informative, and you
perform an exceptional critical analysis of the book and the author’s attention to structural relationships. Your group’s presentation
style is highly engaging, creative, and extraordinarily relevant in nature, and ideas are presented in a way that we all learn from
your insights.
8-9 points – Good (meets our expectations). Your group’s presentation is concise and moderately informative, and you do a solid
job analyzing of the book and the author’s attention to structural relationships. Your group’s presentation style is engaging,
creative, and relevant in nature, and although we may not have learned anything new, we are pleased with your effort and
competence.
6-7 points – So-so (meets some of our expectations). Your group’s presentation is modestly informative, but is also lacking in some
respects. Any combination of the following factors warrants this evaluation: cursory coverage of the book; inadequate presentation
of the author’s attention to structural relationships; incomplete/shallow analysis; or lacking presentation style/quality. Your group
demonstrates a modest understanding of the book and it’s thrust, but you haven’t necessarily introduced deep thinking, and we
have learned little if anything new from your presentation.
4-5 points – Poor (meets few if any of our expectations). Your group’s presentation is severely lacking in several respects. What you
have presented is of little usefulness and/or contains multiple significant inaccuracies; your group fails to adequately analyze the
book and/or the author’s attention to structural relationships; and/or your presentation seems perfunctory. Your group
demonstrates little depth, insight, or attention to detail.
3 or fewer points – Unacceptable. Your group’s presentation demonstrates few if any redeeming qualities or is nonexistent. You
demonstrate very little (if any) depth, insight, or attention to detail. We expect far more from you at this level of study.
Hidden History Documentary (20 Points)
This project is intended to enrich our semester-long study of power, culture, resources, and identity. After studying
examples in class (March 7), course participants will venture outside the classroom to explore various communities
(South Oakland, North Oakland, and/or others within walking distance) to observe and take field notes on one or more
overt and/or covert displays of power, culture, resources, and identity. In subsequent weeks, course participants will
collaborate during asynchronous time to analyze and draw conclusions about the display(s). You will collect information
on a historical era, event, individual, or group that has been or has not been commemorated with a recognized site,
landmark, roadside marker, mural, street art, or similar. Then you will follow the in-class example for critiquing the
historical/cultural presentation of the topic. Your primary focus will not be on the historical era, event, individual or
group, but rather the way information is conveyed (or not) and presented (or not). Your Hidden History Documentary
should be presented in the form of a PowerPoint or Prezi uploaded to your groups work page in CourseWeb, and should
include a summarized but critical discussion of: 1. the historical presentation/display; 2. the accuracy and significance of
the display; 3. your opinions of the ‘take-home’ message and how students and/or common citizens might perceive the
display/history; and 4. your opinions about what updates, upgrades, and/or revisions to display may need. You will have
a great deal of creative liberty in the development and presentation PowerPoint. We will use the following 20-point
scale to assess your Hidden History Documentary:
Hidden History Documentary Evaluation Scale
18-20 points – Exemplary (exceeds our expectations for mastery in all areas). Your documentary is well designed and
extraordinarily informative. You clearly perform an exceptional critical analysis and critique of the display, and we find your report
to be presented in a highly engaging, creative, and extraordinarily relevant manner. Excellent work!
15-17 points – Good (meets our expectations for mastery). Your documentary is well designed and moderately informative. You
perform a solid critical analysis and critique of the display, and we find your report to be presented in a fairly engaging, creative,
and relevant in nature. We are pleased with your effort and competence. Good job.
12-14 points – So-so (meets some of our expectations for mastery). Your documentary is fairly well designed and perhaps modestly
informative, but also lacking in some respects. Any combination of the following factors warrants this evaluation: cursory coverage
of the display; inadequate, incomplete/shallow analysis; weak critique; baseless opinion.
11 or fewer points – Poor (meets few if any of my expectations for mastery). Your documentary is severely lacking in several
respects. What you present is of little usefulness and/or contains multiple significant inaccuracies, and you fail to adequately
analyze or critique the display. Your findings/conclusions seem perfunctory, and you demonstrate little depth, insight, or attention
to detail.
Social Context of Education Paper (20 Points)
This culminating paper is assigned to encourage your description and justification of a selected research context. It
should include a review of relevant literature and the identification and analysis of specific structural, sociopolitical
and/or historical features of your research topic. The final draft should be no less than 3,000 words (roughly 10 pages) in
length, not counting your reference list, and should conform to the design of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th Edition).
Your goal is to illustrate how the features of the selected context are relevant to examining your problem of practice. To
accomplish this goal, you should:
1. Introduce the broad socio-economic, political, historical, and ideological features of the research context.
2. Elaborate specific features of your context relevant to your problem of practice. This might include, but is not
limited to, demographics, economics, political legislation, social instability, legislation, cultural practices,
patterns of (im/em)migration, etc.
3. Your conclusion should demonstrate that your setting is appropriate for the proposed study:
a. What is your research question? What features of your site inform the variables in your question?
b. What makes your context unique? Why this context over others? (Even if you have selected your
research context as a convenience sample, you must defend your choice of this context over others.)
c. What limitations might your context pose in answering your research question? What strengths?
4. You should cite ten scholarly, peer-reviewed sources as you develop your paper.
a. While newspapers, community bulletins, institutional reports, oral histories, documentaries and other
works might aid you in completing this paper, ten peer-reviewed sources are also required. Sources do
not need to directly reference your research context to be relevant, however, you will need to do the
work to demonstrate how these sources enhance the reader’s understanding of your site.
b. At least three sources should be published prior to 1980, at least three sources should be published
between 1980 and 2000, at least four from 2000 to present. Of these, five sources should be published
in a field other than education.
We will use the following 20-point scale to assess your Social Context of Education Paper (see the next page):
Social Context of Education Paper Evaluation Scale
18-20 points – Exemplary (exceeds our expectations for mastery in all areas). Your central thesis is readily apparent; you present
relevant information that clearly supports a central purpose or argument; and you clearly perform a very thoughtful, in-depth
analysis of your selected context. You share important insights and your ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose or
argument. Your writing is compelling and the paper flows smoothly. Your tone is consistently professional and appropriate for an
academic research paper, sentences are well phrased and varied in length and structure, and word choice is consistently precise and
accurate. You support all claims by giving compelling evidence from legitimate sources, and your attribution is clear and fairly
represented. The paper conforms to our prescribed length and style requirements, and is free of syntax, grammar, or typographical
errors.
15-17 points – Good (meets our expectations for mastery). Your central thesis is generally apparent; you present relevant
information that supports a central purpose or argument; and you perform a somewhat in-depth analysis of your selected context.
You share important insights and your ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose or argument. Your writing is compelling
and the paper flows smoothly. Your tone is generally professional and appropriate for an academic research paper, sentences are
well phrased and varied in length and structure, and word choice is appropriate throughout. You support all/most claims by giving
compelling evidence from legitimate sources. The paper conforms to our prescribed length and style requirements, and is almost
free of syntax, grammar, or typographical errors.
12-14 points – So-so (meets some of our expectations for mastery). Your paper is lacking in one or more regards. Any combination
of the following conditions warrant this evaluation: Your central thesis is only modestly apparent; you present only some relevant
information that supports a central purpose or argument; and you perform a somewhat in-depth analysis of your selected context.
You share few insights and/or your ideas seem disjointed or illogical. Your writing seems hurried and perfunctory. You fail to support
most claims by giving compelling evidence from legitimate sources. The paper does not conform to our prescribed length and style
requirements, and/or contains significant syntax, grammar, or typographical errors.
11 or fewer points – Poor (meets few if any of my expectations for mastery). Your paper is severely lacking in several regards. Any
combination of the following conditions warrant this evaluation: Your central thesis is not at all apparent; you fail to present
relevant information that clearly supports a central purpose or argument; you fail to perform a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of your
selected context. You do not share important insights and/or your ideas are illogical. Your writing lacks life, focus, and/or freeflowing style. Your tone is inappropriate for an academic research paper. You fail to correctly cite legitimate sources to support
claims. The paper fails to conform to our prescribed length and style requirements, or is rife with syntax, grammar, or typographical
errors.
Submitting Assignments
Course participants will use the assignments tool on CourseWeb to submit all completed work. Please follow these guidelines:
 Unless specifically requested, do not submit or email drafts or revisions of work to your instructors. We assume that all
submissions are: a.) submitted through the assignments tool, and b.) final work ready to be evaluated.
 Late submissions will not be read or graded under any circumstances. We anticipate that your final paper is reflective of a
semester’s worth of growth, inquiry, and effort. As a result, extensions will not be provided for this assignment. If your
paper is incomplete for whatever reason we recommend you submit what you’ve completed for a final grade.
 If you encounter trouble uploading an assignment, it is your responsibility to call the HELP desk (412-624-HELP) for
assistance. Login problems or other technical issues are not accepted as excuses for late submissions.
Communicating with Instructors
Course participants are encouraged to read the syllabus carefully and consult your peers prior to contacting instructors for
explanations of course expectations or assignments. Of course, questions of a personal nature are an exception to this rule.
Instructors expect that all e-mail communication will utilize your pitt.edu email address. When contacting an instructor, please
include the course number in the title. Allow up to 48 hours for a response from an instructor.
Office Hours: Each instructor maintains individual office hours. Please contact her or him individually to set up a face-to-face or
telephone appointment. Course participants are also encouraged to schedule appointments immediately before or after face-to-face
sessions.
Incomplete Grades
For this course, an I-Grade will be granted only to course participants who have actively attended to the course requirements but
needs extended time to complete the required work to meet minimum expectations. If you choose to take a grade of ‘incomplete,’
instructors will require you to propose a plan of action outlining how you will complete the work within no more than one term from
the end of the course (and preferably a shorter period of time).
Select School of Education Policies
Attendance: Attendance is required at all scheduled classes. Participation during the face-to-face classes is an essential component
of the Ed.D. program. The nature of these sessions makes it impossible to be substituted or replaced. As a doctoral student, you are
expected to be present, to be on time, to be prepared for every class, and to remain for the duration of the class. In the event of an
unanticipated exceptional circumstance or emergency (emergency is defined as a crisis, tragedy, and/or disaster), please contact the
Chair of the Ed.D. and the instructors by email that you will not be present in class. When you return to class, please provide the
instructors with documentation concerning your unanticipated special circumstance or emergency.
Departmental Grievance Procedures: The purpose of grievance procedures is to ensure the rights and responsibilities of faculty and
students in their relationships with each other. When a student in ADMPS believes that a faculty member has not met his or her
obligations (as an instructor or in another capacity) as described in the Academic Integrity Guidelines, the student should follow the
procedure described in the Guidelines by (1) first trying to resolve the matter with the faculty member directly; (2) then, if needed,
attempting to resolve the matter through conversations with the chair/associate chair of the department; (3) if needed, next talking
to the associate dean of the school; and (4) if needed, filing a written statement of charges with the school--‐level academic integrity
officer.
Academic Integrity: The integrity of the academic process requires fair and impartial evaluation on the part of faculty and honest
academic conduct on the part of students. To this end, students are expected to conduct themselves at a high level of responsibility
in the fulfillment of the course of their study. It is the corresponding responsibility of faculty to make clear to students those
standards by which students will be evaluated and the resources permissible for use by students during the course of their study and
evaluation. Cheating/plagiarism will not be tolerated. Students suspected of violating the University of Pittsburgh Policy on
Academic Integrity, from the February 1974 Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom reported to the Senate Council,
will be required to participate in the outlined procedural process as initiated by the instructor. Students in this course are expected
to comply with the University of Pittsburgh Policy on Academic Integrity, which can be found online at:
http://www.provost.pitt.edu/info/ai1.html
Disability Services: If you have a disability that requires special testing accommodations or other classroom modifications, you need
to notify both the instructor and Disability Resources and Services no later than the second week of the term. You may be asked to
provide documentation of your disability to determine the appropriateness of accommodations. To notify Disability Resources and
Services, call (412) 648--‐7890 (Voice or TTD) to schedule an appointment. The Disability Resources and Services office is located in
140 William Pitt Union on the Oakland campus.
Statement on Classroom Recording: To ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not record classroom lectures,
discussion and/or activities without the advance written permission of the instructor, and any such recording properly approved in
advance can be used solely for the student’s own private use.
Face-to-Face Class Schedule (*Does not include asynchronous times/dates)
Date
January 10
February 7
March 7
April 11
Class Activity or Assignment
 Course introduction
 In-class reading/discussion:
o Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and
unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36 (7), 388-400.
o Leading for Equity: The Pursuit of Excellence in Montgomery County Public Schools (2009) – Stacey Childress,
Denis Doyle & David Thomas
 Context Analysis Presentation #1 due
 In-class reading/discussion:
o Cooley, A. (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics of creating
knowledge.” Educational Studies, 49(3), 247-262.
 Context Analysis Presentation #2 due
 Hidden History Documentary group work
 Context Analysis Presentation #3 due
 Hidden History Documentary due
 Social Context of Education Paper due
 In-class reading/discussion:
o Raufelder, D., Bukowski, W. M., & Mohr, S. (2013). Thick description of the teacher-student relationship in
the educational context of school: Results of an ethnographic field study.” Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 1(2), 1-18.