Promoting a Learning Community

Class Participation Assessment Rubric

Meritorius Post
1. View this document in page layout. There are 3 pages that are required to be completed.
2. Copy and paste your meritorious post in this text box. Indicate location of post.
Page 1 of 4
Advised by UBC: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION NOR USE AS MATERIAS AS CONTEMPATED
IN POIC! "#1
Week 5: Vantage Points
List A Article: Charting the Reefs: A Map of Multicultural Epistemology

I chose to summarize this chapter because I found a lack of discussion when it comes to multiple
cultures in Pritchard. Though I appreciate his choice of the female pronoun in his examples and
his engaging way of explaining complex ideas, there was a lack of context for my classroom
given that I teach many ESL students from around the world.
This chapter was written by Jon A. Levisohn and D.C. Phillips to is to call attention to
a trend among prominent contributors to the educational literature to argue on
behalf of these reforms using the language of epistemology (p. 40). This chapter is meant to
open and analyze discussion on the issue rather than to make any sweeping statements or
decisions. The chapter begins by defining terms such as truth, knowledge and justification much
the same way Pritchard has, in far less detail. They then outline 3 examples of why this kind of
mapping is necessary, which I will paraphrase:
1. Research epistemology is racially biased
2. The dominant racial epistemology is silencing others
3. There is a correlation between culture and truth as well as between culture and knowledge (p.
42-43)
This seems to call into question the ways we gain knowledge that Pritchard defined and perhaps
lead us to believe that epistemological theory itself is based around a culturally biased a priori
knowledge. If the researchers are basing many of their assumptions based on one culture, they
lack the scope to encompass all manner of people in their findings. Once again I recall The
Truman Shows almost entirely caucasian island wherein people believed in false truth.
Levisohn and Phillips celebrate the inherent open-debate style discussion that arises in
epistemological research due to it being a meta-discipline (p. 45) and that everyone in this
field acknowledges their own truths (p. 45). After defining the field as they know it, they
move on to discuss multicultural epistemologies as a blanket term to validate and recognize
the various fields of study from a plethora of cultural and ethnic groups (p.47-48). However in
using this term to represent all non-white or non-Western concepts of knowledge I felt the
authors were somewhat minimizing the contributions they were meant to recognize. Why is it
we are so comfortable having one term for Western ideas that is meant as a normative constant,
while all others are grouped together? It reminds me of cultural othering and racialization from
my days studying Womens Studies, and of Angela Davis novel Women, Race &
Class. However Levisohn and Phillips do clarify one binding trait amongst multicultural
epistemologists: they tend to recognize the validity of several arguments and allow them to
coexist rather than choose a side as Western epistemologists have done (p. 48). Thus their open-
mindedness in the face of a dogmatic norm unifies them to be forever grouped into one.
We are introduced to the term standpoint epistemologies which can be reductively
defined as ones social positioning or standpoint (including especially ones race and gender)
determines what is accepted as knowledge, what beliefs can be justied, and crucially how
they can be justied (p. 48). This standpointism is a normative theory just as all other
epistemological theories, however one that can be allowed to umbrella the various multicultural
epistemologies (p. 49) forcing their stagnation into the accepted norm of traditional
epistemology.
We then turn to an argument from Scheurich and Young where the theorists criticize the
accepted framework of epistemology for being by and for white males. They ask future theorists
to expand their horizons when discussing such issues so as not to segregate the conversation and
ultimately to create a conversation worth having.
Page $ of 4
Advised by UBC: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION NOR USE AS MATERIAS AS CONTEMPATED
IN POIC! "#1
it seems to lose a connection to the ideas being introduced. I honestly found the chapter to be
dense and theoretical, as it was surely intended, but without the practical meaning for which I
was searching. My assumptions, based on the title, drove a desire for answers when all I was
given were more questions. So here are my questions for you.
1. How does your individual culture, religion, race, gender or ethnicity influence your beliefs?
Your knowledge? Your need for justification?

List B Article: Multiple Intelligences Go to School

For my second article I decided to tackle another issue at the forefront of my mind. As a
secondary school teacher I am constantly attempting to make my classes as dynamic as possible
and allow students to take ownership for their studies by choosing their assessment rubric,
assignments and method of presentation as much as possible.
The theory of multiple intelligences calls into question the accepted Piagetian model of
intelligence. Rather than Piagets semiotic function, Gardner began to see that the various forms
of intelligence grouped individually (p. 5). He also called into question the values we place on
activities that are important to school culture rather than practical skills for the world after
school. This seems to recall Pritchards summary of false belief. By keeping our schools within
a idealist framework where students are educated based on a lot of testimonial knowledge we are
limiting the amount of knowledge our students can truly acquire.
As this article was written in 1989, I suspect (or at least) hope that Gardners description of
multiple intelligences has permeated the culture. I know I studied these theories during my BEd
and our staff often discuss the need to educate for multiple intelligences. As I look at the
curriculum I am meant to teach (the BC IRPs), they certainly follow this wide-ranging approach
to reaching learners. Yet we are still bound by a system that tests our students as they always
have. The provincial exams are limiting for all kinds of learners and really only truly assess the
Logical-Mathematical or Linguistic learners (p. 6). My students range not only on this spectrum
of intelligences but also in language ability and cultural knowledge ability which prevents them
from succeeding on a test built for people like me alone.

Query:
1. What kind of intelligence are you?
2. In what other ways are we limited from truly reaching those with multiple intelligences?
References

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple
intelligences. Educational researcher, 18(8), 4-10. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?
url=http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/4.full.pdf+html

Levisohn, J.A. & Phillips, D.C. (2012). Charting the Reefs: A Map of Multicultural
Epistemology. In Ruitenberg, C. W., & Phillips, D. C. (Eds.). Education, Culture and
Epistemological Diversity: Mapping a Disputed Terrain (Vol. 2) (39-64). Springer.
Pritchard, D. (2014). What is this thing called knowledge? (Third ed.). London: Routledge.
3. pply the assessment rubric below to your post. !on"t forget to total the scores.
Criteria Indicators #core $total 1%& % each'
Sense-making
and application
(ost demonstrates an understanding of
readings and texts using quotations and all
claims about education are substantiated
with references to the literature
(ost is original and attempts to ma)e
meaning of prior personal experiences and
identifies applications from the literature to
a current context
(ost introduces new factual* conceptual*
and theoretical )nowledge into the
discussion
%&%
Building
community and
leadership
+stablishes a social and cogniti,e
presence online with the expression of
constructi,e perspecti,es and affect or
emotions and moods. $This can ta)e the
form of agreeing or disagreeing to a
comment* e,idence that you are attending
to* understanding* and thin)ing about
other"s responses* consensus building*
forming goals* ob-ecti,es* encouraging*
ac)nowledging* and reinforcing one
another"s contributions'.
+xtends discussion by as)ing peers or
group members literal questions
Instructor posts are responded to where
appropriate $eg. where the instructor has
as)ed a question to you personally'
(ost is on time
.ules of netiquette are obser,ed/ all posts
are constructi,e in nature and show
e,idence of application of course concepts
0&%
Communicating (osting ma)es a concise point that is
clearly rele,ant to the topic and falls within
the realms of discussion on epistemology*
constructi,ism* and learning and e1learning
#ub-ect header is a unique summary of the
topic and promotes readership
#pelling and grammar do not detract from
the message
2here applicable* references are cited
with at least author* year* and title of
publication
%&%
TOTAL 10&1%
Page % of 4
Advised by UBC: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION NOR USE AS MATERIAS AS CONTEMPATED
IN POIC! "#1
0. (ro,ide in 1 paragraph* a rationale for the self1assessment and grade allocation. #ubmit to the
assignment dropbox.
I feel that I connected the readings to my own ideas and experiences as well as (ritchard
in a clear and insightful way. I )now that these readings spar)ed a lot of interest in me and
this response too) a few days to construct. I mar)ed myself down because I responded to
another student"s question* but not the professor because I didn"t belie,e she was as)ing me a
question/ rather I thought it was meant as a uni,ersal question to the cohort. 3,erall I feel this
assignment allowed me to showcase all I ha,e learned during this module.
Page 4 of 4
Advised by UBC: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION NOR USE AS MATERIAS AS CONTEMPATED
IN POIC! "#1