Sherry TE803-10

U-CASE: Careful Analysis of Some Enigma during a Unit

Description
A case is an opportunity for you to practice the professional judgment you use every day as a
teacher. In this assignment, while continuing to teach a class as a whole, you will deliberately
build habits that help you to teach selected students better than you have to date.

Process1
1. Choose your focus: Who needs extra attention?
Select one class, one unit of instruction in that class, and 2 students in that class, whom you will
attempt to teach better than you have. Pick those students with the intention of learning how to
extend educational opportunity to all of your students.
2. Describe the situation: try not to limit your point of view.
Describe the class and the selected students in the period shortly before you started the project.
Just the facts: What you observed yourself, what others said to you, how you and the selected
students interacted, what you thought about those interactions at the time. One way to do this would be
to describe two or three meetings of the class in which the selected students were prominent in your
thinking. Another would be a series of vignettes describing your interaction with each student.
3. Interpret the situation: generate multiple possibilities for what happened and why.
Using resources from professional literature and persons to help you, construct some
explanations: What has been going on with the selected students? Between you and
them? Among you and them and the subject matter? Among you and them and the subject matter and
the class? Draw a tentative conclusion (a conclusion that could be changed by subsequent events), on
which you will act.
4. Define the stakes: who could gain or lose what in each interpretation?
You can improve your thinking by getting clearer about what is at stake in this situation, for you,
for the subject matter, for the students you select, for other students in the class, and perhaps for
other concerned or affected persons. As you consider the stakes for the selected students or other
persons, be sure to consider the situation from their point of view: notice how students might have a
stake in their current behavior. Here, you might link interpretations to discussion of the stakes from the
students’ perspectives.
5. Suggest alternatives: what are potential solutions and consequences?
As you plan that unit, also plan how you will try to teach the selected students better. With the
help of professional resources (literature and people), generate 2-3 relatively specific alternative
ways in which you might teach these students better, during the selected unit. Notice, also, that
your alternatives should connect in some logical manner to your main interpretations. Choose or
combine alternatives, and make a relatively part of your unit plan) that you can incorporate into lesson
planning and implement as you teach the unit.
6. Evaluate your efforts: How did you implement and assess your plans?
As you implement your plan, gather and record information to assess your effort and any
adjustments you made as you went along. In general, you could limit your description to activity
in one week of the class. Use professional resources and the preceding parts of the case to help
you assess your effort to teach the two students better. Did your activity address your hypotheses in
section 1, or change them? Did your activity address the stakes you identified in section 2? Did your
activity carry out the strategy you chose and planned in section 3, or change it? Were you able to do what
you intended to do? Finally, on the basis of evidence, how did it work out? Did you teach the two
students better, and how can you tell?

1
Case template and rubric developed by Dr. Tom Bird
 Sherry TE803-10
Reasoning included a balanced description of the initial situation you chose.
2. Poor. Description said far more about teacher than about students, or vice-versa; or was vague, general,
lacking in detail; or was clearly colored by interpretations, evaluations, proposals.
4. Adequate. Description included some attention to the commonplaces: teacher, students, subject matter,
and context. Did not obviously incorporate a favored interpretation, evaluation, or proposal. Therefore, the
description was available for interpretation.
6. Strong. Description included salient details of the commonplaces, presented teacher interaction
concretely, and was itself free of interpretation, evaluation, or proposal.
8. Excellent. Beyond "strong," description was very clear, specific, and vivid. Carefully avoided loaded
terms/terms of interpretation and valuation, and that aided dispassionate, insightful interpretation.
Reasoning included searching interpretations of the initial situation.
2. Poor. Came up with only one way of thinking/talking about the description. Or, hypotheses were unclear,
undeveloped, hard to follow.
4. Adequate. Favored one hypothesis, but also considered another. The first was relatively clear and explicitly
connected to the facts of the case; the other less so.
6. Strong. Constructed and compared two or more clearly developed hypotheses; taken together the section
amounts to a thoughtful search for understanding of the situation.
8. Excellent. Like strong, and with particular clarity, insight, and empathy with the persons who participated
in the events described.
Reasoning identified who could gain or lose what in the initial situation.
2. Poor. Noticed what participants could gain or lose, but vaguely, unclearly, with inadequate support.
4. Adequate. Clearly identified what the participants could/did gain or lose, as generally indicated by the
description and the interpretation.
6. Strong. By hypothesis, carefully explored what participants could or did gain or lose, supporting
conclusions with specific evidence from the description.
8. Excellent. Like "strong" with great clarity, explicit logic, and care for participants in the situation.
Compared several options for thought and action, then developed and carried specific plans.
2. Poor. Came up with alternatives, but they were vaguely associated with one or more interpretations or
hypotheses. As a consequence, the deliberation was not guided by the interpretation. And, the plan provides
only a vague idea of the actions carried out. Vague indication of effort to carry out the plan, lacking details,
colored by interpretations, ungenerous to students.
4. Adequate. Alternatives for action were reasonably linked to hypotheses, compared their potential relative
virtues, and drew a warranted conclusion. Plan was consistent with choice of options and well developed.
Description included some attention to commonplaces and was balanced and responsive to facts of the case.
6. Strong. Constructed two clear and specific alternatives that were evidently linked to hypotheses, compared
their potential results with care for the circumstances and possibilities for error, and drew a persuasive
conclusion. Plan provides a clear, specific image of action and interaction that anticipates some potential
student responses. The actions taken included solid description of the commonplaces and was logically
related to other aspects of the case and plan.
8. Excellent. Like “strong” but with particular clarity, insight, specificity, and thoroughness.
Honestly evaluated attempt to carry out the plan.
2. Poor. Conclusions were careless or unfair toward some participants, were vaguely related to evidence in
the description of implementation, or were contradicted by some of that evidence.
4. Adequate. Conclusions showed care for all parties involved and were generally supported by evidence in
the description of your implementation.
6. Strong. Conclusions showed specific care for all parties involved and were clearly and specifically
supported by evidence in the description of your implementation.
8. Excellent. Like "strong," and with unusual care for persons and for evidence.
Made good use of professional resources to add power to your thinking.
1. Poor. Noticed but didn't really use options for thought and action that the resources offered. Or, mis-stated
or mis-applied those options.
2. Adequate. Made several valid, productive connections between the activity in the situation and options for
thought and action from the resources.
3. Strong. Showed consistent awareness of options from the resources; validly and specifically applied those
options in the work of the case.
4. Excellent. Strong, and employed options from the resources with particular insight or ingenuity.