Kindly go through the word documents which will assist you to understand the attachments. The Pdf attachment are priority to follow through as examples o

History of Teaching and Learning – Rubric

Overview of the Common Historical Perspectives of Teaching and

Learning in America 44 points

Criteria Description

Overview of the Common Historical Perspectives of Teaching and Learning in America

5. Excellent 44 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented and is thorough. Information presented is from current or

seminal scholarly sources.

4. Good 38.28 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated

sources.

3. Satisfactory 34.76 points

An overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and

scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 32.56 points

A vague overview of the common historical perspectives of teaching and learning in

America is presented, but is incomplete or inaccurate. Information presented is not

based on scholarly sources.

Overview of the Historically Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in

America 44 points

Criteria Description

Overview of the Historically Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in America

5. Excellent 44 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented and is insightful. Information presented is from current or seminal

scholarly sources.

Collapse All

4. Good 38.28 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented and thorough. Information presented is from scholarly though dated

sources.

3. Satisfactory 34.76 points

An overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America is

presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 32.56 points

A vague overview of the historically key theories of teaching and learning in America

is presented, but is incomplete or inaccurate. Information presented is not based

on scholarly sources.

Synthesis of the Common Perspectives and Key Theories of Teaching and

Learning in America 55 points

Criteria Description

Synthesis of the Common Perspectives and Key Theories of Teaching and Learning in

America

5. Excellent 55 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented and is insightful. Information presented is from current or

seminal scholarly sources.

4. Good 47.85 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented and is thorough. Information presented is from scholarly

though dated sources.

3. Satisfactory 43.45 points

A synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and learning

in America is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and

scholarly sources.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 40.7 points

A vague synthesis of the common perspectives and key theories of teaching and

learning in America is presented, but is illogical. Information presented is not based

on scholarly sources.

Two Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations 11 points

Criteria Description

Two Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations

5. Excellent 11 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and

obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.

4. Good 9.57 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, and

obtained from reputable professional sources.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic related, but

the source and quality of one reference is questionable.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Not all required elements are present. One or more elements are missing and/or

one or more sources are not scholarly research or topic related.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

None of the required elements (two topic-related scholarly research sources and

two in-text citations) are present.

Thesis Development and Purpose 15.4 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent 15.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained

within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good 13.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is

descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory 12.17 points

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 11.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not

clear.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Argument Logic and Construction 17.6 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent 17.6 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and

compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good 15.31 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most

sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory 13.9 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents

minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the

purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 13.02 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There

are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language

use) 11 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent 11 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good 9.57 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety

of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the

reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in

language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 11 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent 11 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good 9.57 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors

may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of

control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Research Citations 11 points

Criteria Description

Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference

page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent 11 points

In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation

of cited sources is free of error.

4. Good 9.57 points

Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is

appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

3. Satisfactory 8.69 points

Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are

appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory 8.14 points

Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

No reference page is included. No citations are used.

Total 220 points

Barton, Keith C., and Linda S. Levstik. Teaching History for the Common Good. Chapter Mahwah, N. J. : L. Erlbaum Associates, 2004.

13

Teacher Education and the Purposes of History

To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on theJea, though many there be that have tried it.

The two of us spend much of our professional time preparing history and so- cial studies teachers. We have taught thousands of students in our methods courses, along with hundreds more in workshops or graduate classes. We know this includes a great many success stories-teachers who provide excit- ing instruction for their students in ways consistent with what we have taught them. Others have adopted our suggestions less wholeheartedly but with se- lective enthusiasm for practices we consider important-good literature, or inquiry, or conflicting viewpoints, or open-ended writing. Yet we fear these success stories may pale in comparison with the number of teachers who have ignored our ideas completely. As we look around, we have to admit that many classrooms (the majority? the vast majority?) show little evidence of the cur- ricular and instructional perspectives we have tried to promote. Around the country, we have hundreds of colleagues who prepare teachers much as we do (many with greater ability and enthusiasm, no doubt), yet we fear their ex- periences may be the same as ours-plenty of individual success stories but no widespread or systematic changes in teaching.

Why is this? How can our efforts at developing teachers' understanding of instructional methods leave so little imprint on classroom practice? Why aren't all children using a variety of sources to develop interpretations of history? Surely teachers who have taken courses from us or our colleagues know that history is an interpretive, inquiry-oriented subject involving mul- tiple perspectives, and they must know how to implement the practice in the classroom, at least in an introductory way. Yet maybe knowing isn't enough. From a sociocultural perspective, after all, what people know–conceived of as individual cognition-is less important than how they act purposefully (and how they use cultural tools to do so). To under- stand why teachers engage in the practices they do, perhaps we need to turn to the socially situated purposes that guide their actions. While we are at it,

TEACHER EDUCATION 245

maybe we should ask ourselves, as teacher educators, whether we are help- ing them explore themes "mighty" enough to lead to the kinds of instruc- tion we hope for.

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION REFORM

Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle note that over the last two de- cades, teacher learning has been at the forefront of efforts at improving education and that "it has been more or less assumed that teachers who know more teach better." This has not always been so: Perspectives on the teacher's role in improving instruction have undergone a number of changes over the past half century. Behaviorists of the 1950s, for example, emphasized the transformative potential of teaching machines and pro- grammed instruction; from their viewpoint, the teacher was little more than a manager of the classroom who needed little specialized knowledge. Similarly, in the 1960s, a variety of national organizations created and field tested new reading materials, artifact kits, and classroom activities that focused on the concepts and procedures of the academic disciplines. Although rarely dismissing teacher knowledge directly, these movements clearly hoped to promote instructional reform by improving curricular materials rather than by addressing teachers' ideas; teachers were respon- sible primarily for implementing the innovations developed by others. By the mid-1970s, reform efforts (and much academic research) focused less on curricular innovation and more on "teaching behaviors7'-the set of generic skills that were believed to result in higher levels of student achievement (such as pacing, wait time, feedback, and so on). Although this approach put teachers at the center of instructional improvement, it deemphasized their role as knowledgeable professionals and centered in- stead on changing observable behavior through structured systems of feedback.'

Over the last 20 years, though, most theory and research on teachers' ed- ucation and professional development has focused on precisely the area ne- glected in previous work-their active role in designing and implementing instruction. This work has been grounded in the assumption that teachers are ultimately responsible for what goes in their classrooms; they serve as "brokers" or "gatekeepers" who select from and transform the array of pos- sible curricula, resources, and instructional strategies to provide concrete learning activities for students. As Stephen Thornton puts it, "As gatekeep- ers, teachers make the day-to-day decisions concerning both the subject matter and the experiences to which students have access and the nature of that subject matter and those experiences." If teachers' decisions shape their students' curricular and instructional experiences, then it seems logi- cal to assume that we need to understand the thinking behind those deci- sions, and a large body of research has been devoted to this topic. Although this research has employed a number of different theoretical frameworks