University of Dayton, Department of Teacher Education
Social Foundations Paper
Candidate:
05/07/08
Student ID Number:
Date:
Course/ Instructor
UD SOEAP Assessment Plan Scoring Procedures: These procedures are used when compiling scores to be entered into TaskStream.

The rating of 1 is be given if any indicator within category 1 (Unsatisfactory) is present.

The rating of 2 is given if all indicators within category 2 are present, or one indicator within 2 and one or more indicators within 3 are present.

The rating of 3 is given if all indicators within category 3 are present.

The rating is entered in the UD SOEAP Assessment Plan Score column for each of the five portfolio categories which will be entered into TaskStream.
Domain ____
Criterion ____
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Basic
3
Proficient
1. Knowledge of
social
foundations of
education
2.
Interpretation
and
connections
Adequate subject knowledge is not
evident. Some Information is confusing,
incorrect, or flawed.
Subject knowledge is evident in much
of the paper. Most information is clear,
appropriate, and correct.
Subject knowledge is evident
throughout the paper. All information is
clear, appropriate, and correct.
The paper is an extensive collection and
rehash of other people’s ideas,
products, and images. There is little
evidence of reflection or inventiveness.
The paper shows some evidence of
reflection and inventiveness.
The paper shows significant evidence of
reflection and inventiveness.
3. Clarity,
cogency, and
coherence
The sequence of information is
somewhat logical. The connections
between most topical points are
confusing and flawed.
Serious technical errors in sentence
composition, spelling, grammar,
punctuation and citation considerably
detracted from the content of the
assignment.
The sequence of information is logical.
The connections between most topical
points are clear and direct.
The sequence of information is logical
and intuitive. The connections between
all topical points are clear and direct.
Technical errors in sentence
composition, spelling, grammar,
punctuation and citation somewhat
detracted from the content of the
assignment.
Minor technical errors in sentence
composition, spelling, grammar,
punctuation and citation did not detract
from the content of the assignment.
The paper shows little or no evidence of
reflection regarding self knowledge as a
teacher candidate, and professional
development goals are not demonstrated.
The paper demonstrates some evidence of
reflection regarding self knowledge as a
teacher candidate, and provides some
discernment of professional development
goals, and demonstrates the application
The paper demonstrates considerable
reflection regarding self knowledge as a
teacher candidate, and provides several
examples of professional development
goals. The in-depth use of interpretive,
of interpretive, normative, and critical
perspectives on education.
normative, and critical perspectives
produces some ideas that are fresh and
original.
4. Written
expression
(technical)
5. Application of
interpretive,
normative, and
critical
perspectives to
professional
development.
TaskStream
Score
1, 2, 3
Total Assignment Score Points:
Definition of Terms:
Appropriate—meets most or all of the criteria as described in the standards for professional associations (SPA) i.e. CEC, IRA, ISTE, NAEYC, NCTE, NCTM, NMSA, NSTA, CLSE
Somewhat—meets some of the criteria as described in the standards for professional associations but not others
Inappropriate or Minimally Appropriate—does not meet the criteria as described in the standards for professional associations
Assignment
Score
Philosophy of Education Statement
Joseph Watras
Winter 2009
Statement on Syllabus
The teacher candidates will write a clear, personal, and publicly justifiable statement of philosophy of education.
Limitation
University faculty members teaching courses on the history and philosophy of education agreed that candidates must base the
philosophy statement on knowledge of the social foundations. This means they should demonstrate the interpretative, normative, and critical
perspectives defined by the Council of Social Foundations. The council’s definition of these perspectives appears below.
Although candidates should express their opinions about educational matters, they should base those opinions on an understanding of
the writings of philosophers of education or on the historical development of schools. In this regard, candidates should realize that a
philosophy of education is more than a series of opinions.
To exemplify these conditions, the faculty created a rubric containing their expectations that they use to evaluate the statements. In
the main, these can be summarized as the need to be familiar with the material, coherent, clear, and thoughtful. In this case, though,
thoughtful is the need to demonstrate the interpretative, normative, and critical perspectives on education.
Justification for the Assignment
Because the Department of Teacher Education organizes its program around the standards developed in 1992 by the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the philosophy of education statement offers candidates the opportunity to explore
the possible interpretations of those criteria. In this case, the faculty members agreed that the candidates’ papers should explain how they
consider the ninth standard. INTASC describes its principle number nine in the following way: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who
continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning
community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
The reason the faculty members selected this standard is that it requires that the candidate understand several items that appear in
other INTASC principles. An easy way to list those items is to point to the seventh INTASC principle where these concepts appear together:
The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of the subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.
Organization of Assignment
In writing the statement, the candidates should approach the work as a research paper that seeks to compare and contrast the
conditions available in Catholic and in public schools by determining how a teacher can act as a reflective practitioner within each setting.
The paper may begin with a brief definition of a teacher as a reflective practitioner such as the one that appears in the paragraph above.
In the subsequent paragraphs, the candidates should compare and contrast the nature of the subject matters or curriculum found in
each setting, the ways the students have the opportunities to learn that subject matter within each setting, the relation the instruction has to the
community, and to the aim of education. A final paragraph can offer a summary that explains how these aspects of education enable the
teacher to fulfill the definition of a reflective practitioner.
Evaluation of the Statement
2
The rubric that the faculty members use to evaluate the statements contains five criteria. The first is an understanding of the available
material. While this refers to the books or essays assigned for the class, it includes several other sources the candidates discover in their
library research. The second is the ability to interpret the ideas contained in those materials and connect them to the important points in the
statement. The third and fourth criteria relate to the candidates’ ability to write clearly and correctly. The final aspect is evidence of the
candidates’ mastery of the interpretative, normative, and critical perspectives as defined by the Council of Social Foundations of Education
(CSFE).
The CSFE derived these perspectives from an analysis of the skills found in the humanities from which the social foundations of
education draw. According to the CSFE standards, “The interpretive perspectives use concepts and theories developed within the humanities
and the social sciences to assist students in examining, understanding, and explaining education within different contexts….The normative
perspectives assist students in examining and explaining education in light of value orientations. … The critical perspectives employ
normative interpretations to assist students to develop inquiry skills, to question educational assumptions and arrangements, and to identify
contradictions and inconsistencies among social and educational values, policies, and practices.”
The instructor will give candidates two separate grades for the philosophy statement. The first appears in Task Stream and is for the
Department of Teacher Education. This grade appears on a rubric with five categories described above. The second grade is a summative
letter grade that will become part of the candidate’s final grade for the university.
Specific Suggestions
Throughout the course, the candidates will take steps that should lead to the creation of a coherent and solidly researched philosophy
of education statement. These include writing a preliminary research proposal, determining what sources to use, evaluating the evidence,
writing an outline, and submitting the paper.
Submitting the Philosophy of Education Statement
Candidates must submit two copies of their philosophy of education statement. The first is a paper copy handed to the instructor. The
second is an electronic copy uploaded into TaskStream. Instructions on how to upload copies into TaskStream are on separate sheets.
3
20062007
N=109
Knowledge of Key
Philosophies of Education
Interpretations and
Connections
Clarity, Cogency and
Coherence
2007-2008
N=156
2008-2009
N=143
2.23
2.39
Number of
2.27 Candidates
2.16
2.19
2.21
109
2.16
2.28
2.22
156
Written Expression (technical)
2.16
2.42
2.35
143
Applications of Interpretive,
Normative, and Critical
Perspectives to Professional
Development
N/A
N/A
2.17
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
2006-2007 N=109
0.5
2007-2008 N=156
0
2008-2009 N=143
4