REQUIREMENTS:

Expectations:

We expect that members of our cohort will

Attend all classes*
Participate in our learning community in meaningful ways in class and out of class by reading the articles, engaging in and leading learning activities, and contributing to discussions**
Treat our class as a ‘teaching and learning lab’ to experiment and reflect on our pedagogical practices
Develop, and share your writing, and respond constructively to the drafts of others
Extend an inclusive, respectful and welcoming atmosphere within our learning community and support the learning of others
Complete all assignments

*The Masters program is based on a community of learners model in which all members of the cohort contribute to the learning of the group. Additionally, we value the process of our learning as much as we value the products of our learning. Consequently, attendance and participation are highly valued in our program. Please contact me if you experience an unforeseen or professional conflict.

**Please note that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and discomfort that often accompanies meaningful learning, and some learning activities which may not be familiar or comfortable for you. That said, if you have a pre-existing condition or dis/ability, that makes an activity difficult or risky for you, please let me know and I will work with you to devise an alternative activity. 

All members of the University community share the responsibility for the academic standards and reputation of SFU. Academic honesty is a condition of continued membership in the university community. Please review the Policy at: http://www.sfu.ca/content/sfu/policies/gazette/student/s10-01.html

More information can be found on the Student Learning Commons website: http://learningcommons.sfu.ca/strategies/academic-integrity

“Simon Fraser University is committed to creating a scholarly community characterized by honesty, civility, diversity, free inquiry, mutual respect, individual safety and freedom from harassment and discrimination.”

http://students.sfu.ca/academicintegrity.html

References

Aoki, T. T. (2005). Curriculum implementation as instrumental action and as situational

praxis. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected

works of Ted. T. Aoki (pp. 111-123). New York: Routledge.

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming  a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:

Jossey­ Bass Publishers.

Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (2005) Discussion in a democratic society. In Discussion as a

way of teaching (2^nd ed.) (pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cajete, G. (2005). American Indian epistemologies. New Directions for Student

Services,109, 69-77.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L.  (2009). Inquiry as stance:  Practitioner research in the

next generation. New York:  Teachers College  Press

Fichtman-Dana, N., & Yendol-Hoppy, D. (2014).The reflective  educator's guide to

classroom research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Groundwater-Smith, & Mockler, (2007).  Ethics in practitioner research: an issue of quality.

Research Papers in Education, 22. 199-211.

Guba, E. G.  & Lincoln, D. (2005).  Paradigm controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S Lincoln's The handbook of qualitative  

research (pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks: Sage  Publishing.

Hauver James, J. (2008). Autobiographical inquiry, teacher education, and (the possibility

176. of) social justice, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 4(2), 161-176.

Heron, J. & Reason, P. ( 1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3

(3)274-294.

Himley, M. & Carini , P. (2000). From another angle: Children's strengths and school

standards. New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, S. R. (2004). Can a Teacher Ever Know Too Much?  Ethical Considerations  of

Practitioner  Research with Students in Gangs. English Education, 36(2), 141-152.

Kaline, N. (2007). Art teachers learning from the personal through autobiographical

inquiry. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 23, 77-91.

Ladkin, D. (2005). 'The enigma of subjectivity': How might phenomenology  help action

researchers negotiate the relationship between 'self',  'other' and 'truth'? Action Research, 3(1), 108-126.

Miller, J. & Seller, W. (1990) Curriculum: Perspectives and Practices. Toronto,

Ontario: Copp Clark Pitman  Ltd.

Nicolini, D. & Roe, B.  “Surfacing the multiple: Diffractive methods for rethinking

professional knowledge and practice.” In T. J. Fenwick, and M. Nerland (eds.) Reconceptualising professional learning : Sociomaterial knowledges, practices and responsibilities (pp. 67-81). Abingdon: Routledge.

Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education

38 (6), p. 771–781.

Placier, P., Pinnegar, S., Hamilton, M. L., & Guilfoyle, K. (2006). Exploring the concept of

dialogue in the self-study of teaching practices. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese and A. P. Samaras (Eds.). Making a Difference in Teacher Education Through Self-Study. (pp. 51-64). Dordrecht: Springer.

Richardson, L. (1994).  Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S

Lincoln's The handbook of qualitative  research .Thousand Oaks: Sage  Publishing.

Shagoury, R. & Miller Power, B. (2012). Living the questions: A guide for teacher

researchers (2^nd Ed.). Portland, Maine: Stenhouse.

End Note The foundations of this course have been developed collaboratively by the MEd EP Instructional Team