MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

EdF 201 – Educational Foundations

2nd Semester 2022-2023

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

A. Paired Oral Presentations (Student-Led Discussions)

A.1. Mechanics

• You are NOT supposed to give only provide a surface-level discussion of the topics assigned
to you. You must prepare critical discussion questions and lead the class discussion. Examples
of general questions that could be asked are the following: What trends and issues surround
the assigned topics? How do these trends and issues relate to education internationally and
locally? How could people, particularly in the academic community, participate in the
ongoing conversations or debates? How are these trends and issues reflected in your
contexts? (2 to 3 hours; exemptions may be applied depending on the assigned topic).

As discussion leaders, you are expected to:

• Facilitate the discussion, NOT ONLY deliver a lecture. You do not need to answer every
question that your classmates raise—you may encourage everyone to come up with answers
to those questions or use those questions as points for reflective thinking. Of course, if your
classmates cannot come up with a logical answer, you need to provide your own.

• Steer the discussion effectively. You may follow the suggested presentation framework
below:
1. Warm-Up Activity
2. Presentation Outline
3. Learning Outcomes
4. Discussion of the Assigned Course Topics
5. Synthesis/ Highlights (Interactive/ Collaborative)
6. Reflection and Insight Sharing

You may also choose to organize the discussion in any manner you want, but you need to
have an overarching structure that best encapsulates and addresses the topics. Also,
communicate this to the teacher-in-charge for perusal and approval prior to your scheduled
presentation.

• Ask questions that provoke good discussions—do not ask questions that can be easily
answered. You should also not ask questions that are too general (e.g. “How did you feel
about the article?” or “Did you like the article?”). Try to ask questions which you think
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

actually require a discussion—these may be concepts which you think are “tricky.”

• Be critical in approaching your assigned topics. Identify issues which you think deserve critical
analysis. Contrast the reading with other resources or topics that we have discussed/ we will
discuss in class.

• Be confident. Do not be nervous when your classmates are silent during the discussion—
maybe they just need more time to think, or maybe you need to rephrase the questions.
Guide them so they will speak up and engage with you.

• After the oral presentation, submit the written report, which follows your presentation
framework and should contain the talking points in your discussions. The written report
should also contain a reference list. The length of your written report depends on the topic
assigned to you; there is no limit as to the number of pages. The font style should be Calibri
or Arial, 12 font size and single spacing. Margins must be 1 inch on all sides. A footer
indicating page numbers must be included. A cover page should also be included bearing
the names of the presenters, their topics, and the date of presentation.

A.2. Evaluation Rubric

Category Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Nearly Meets Does Not Meet
Standard Standard
Summary (25%) Accurate and Clear discussion of Some attempts to The summary was
concise discussion the topics. summarize the factually wrong.
of the topics. Minimal topics were No evidence of
structure or
Showed deep inaccuracies and observed but failed organization.
knowledge of the ineffective to make a Shows poor
topics. synthesis were reasonable comprehension of
observed. synthesis. the topics.
Critique (25%) Reasonable and Clear evaluation of Criticisms were Misrepresented
logical evaluation the topics but lacks provided but not the topics. No
of the topics. substance. Depth of fully explained. evidence of
Comments were analysis presented Unfair evaluation of argumentation or
constructive. but needs the topics. Links to clear evidence of
Exhibits theoretical improvement. the literature were flawed
and Informed by the made but was not argumentation.
methodological literature. targeted well. Criticisms were
finesse. not based on
evidence.
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

Discussion Great questions Some questions Questions were Questions were

Management were raised. The and discussion asked but they poorly conceived.
(25%) discussion was points were good. could not inspire a The discussion was
comprehensive and
well-structured and Enrichment topics good discussion. irrelevant. Does
involved the whole had acceptable Lacked focus, not inspire any
class. Presented breadth and depth. coverage, and reasonable
enrichment topics Was able to start a structure. Involved conversation.
that had breadth conversation about several students. Involved very few
and depth.
the topics. students.
Presentation (25%) Impressive visual Visual aids and Ineffective visual Poor visual aids
aids and communication aids and and
communication skills need communication communication
skills. Good time improvement. Went skills. Went skills. Went
management. slightly slightly significantly
over/undertime. over/undertime. over/undertime.
*Mechanics and Rubric are adapted from the Syllabus on Sociolinguistics prepared by Dr. Raymund Vitorio
of De La Salle University – Manila, Department of English and Applied Linguistics

Schedule of Presentations

DATE & TIME OF

TOPIC PRESENTERS
PRESENTATION
UNIT 1 – Psychological Foundations John Paul C. Vallente February 11
1. Psychological Bases of Education
2. The Learner
3. The Temperament
4. Personality

February 25 (People Power Anniversary) – WRITING BREAK

5. The Learning Process John Paul C. Vallente March 04
6. Motivation
7. Discipline and Guidance
8. The Teacher and Policy Maker
UNIT 2 – Sociological Foundations Jonalyn Calaro Estoesta; March 11
1. Social Stratification Czairin Angel Acnam Alejandro
2. Social Groups
3. Institutional Group Agencies
4. Human Relations and Leadership
5. Social Problems

UNIT 3 – Anthropological Foundations Mayleen Garasa Mabbagu; March 18

1. Introduction to Anthropology and Education Romasanta Munar Aguda
2. Culture
3. Language and Writing
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

4. Religion and Values Jolly Maye Agustin Jacinto Batara; March 25

5. The Arts Jennifer Abian Galam
6. Geography

UNIT 4 – Historical Foundations Jay Kevin Garganta Cadigoy; April 01

1. Introduction to Historical Foundations Ian Kirby Marcos Dugay;
2. Ancient to Roman Education Marison Sariah Yadao Infanta
3. Renaissance Period
4. Pioneers in Modern Teaching
5. Philosophical Roots of Education

APRIL 08 (Black Saturday) – WRITING BREAK

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITY/GROUP PRESENTATION/GROUP DEMONSTRATION – APRIL 15
Facilitated by John Paul C. Vallente, Teacher In-Charge
UNIT 5 – Philosophical Foundations Genelyn Laguinte Miguel; April 29
1. Philosophies of Education Jonelah Pitpit Balanlayos
2. Philosophies Applied to Education
3. Implications of Educational Philosophies to
Teachers and Learners
UNIT 6 – Legal Foundations Joan Balaqui Quiapo; May 06
1. Legal Bases of Education John Clifford Macaraeg Garcia
2. Organization & Structure of Philippine
Educational System
Educational Delivery Program Services
UNIT 7 – Technological Foundations Maria Eloisa Ibuyat Mabborang; May 13
1. Technology in Education: Hopes and Perils Julyn Limon Batoon
2. Technological Developments in Education

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITY/GROUP PRESENTATION/GROUP DEMONSTRATION – MAY 20

Facilitated by John Paul C. Vallente, Teacher In-Charge
UNIT 8 – The Educational Research Paper John Paul C. Vallente May 27 and
June 03

B. Synthesis Paper

B.1. Mechanics

• Synthesis, or synthesizing, is a mode of writing that groups various sources together in a way
that makes the relationships between the sources clear. Usually, these sources revolve
around the same subject. The mode of synthesis is used in any cohesive writing that engages
multiple outside sources. Essays employing synthesis include documented arguments,
research papers, literature reviews, explanatory/informative syntheses, argumentative
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

syntheses, and so on.

• The synthesis essay can be broken into two categories: explanatory/informative syntheses
and argumentative syntheses. While both syntheses use multiple sources in order to discuss
a subject from many angles, an explanatory synthesis has the goal to understand a
perspective or a rational about the subject and an argumentative synthesis has the goal to
make a claim about the subject. You are required to submit an argumentative synthesis
paper.

o Argumentative syntheses are also researched, informative, well-rounded/broad, but

make a clear argument/claim.
Write an argumentative synthesis essay when the goal of the writing task is to make
a claim, not merely inform.

• Parts of your argumentative synthesis paper:

1. INTRODUCTION
The foundational ideas of your essay are expressed in the introductory paragraph. You
will address the general landscape of ideas around your topic, introducing some of your
sources. You will also introduce the argument to be made through a thesis statement,
which succinctly states your primary argument in a sentence or two. The thesis
statement typically comes at the very end of your introductory paragraph.

2. BODY
The body of your synthesis essay is usually about three paragraphs long. This typically
includes two paragraphs synthesizing your sources in a way that supports your
argument, and one paragraph that acknowledges opposing arguments.

3. CONCLUSION
The conclusion of your synthesis essay reiterates the argument that you have made
throughout your essay. It may emphasize how each of the points you made and the
sources you have cited substantiate your point.

• Your synthesis paper must be composed of 2-3 A4-sized pages, with content written in either
Calibri or Arial, 12 font size and single spacing. Margins must be 1 inch on all sides. A
reference list must be included at the last part, but it will not be counted in relation to the
total number of pages required. A footer indicating page numbers must be included.

• Submit the hard copy of your output to the teacher in charge of the course not later than
the deadline set. Remember to indicate your full name and degree program in your output.
*Adapted from: https://success.uark.edu/get-help/student-resources/synthesis-paper.php
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/synthesis-essay-guide#synthesis-essay-structure
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School
B.2. Evaluation Rubric
Category Exceeds Standard
Argumentation Engaging intro that builds
(40%) background, introduces
question and thesis.
Sophisticated thesis
articulates a precise
central argument that is
supportable, arguable and
shows depth of thinking.
Writer evaluates and/or
refutes counter arguments
or alternative perspective.
Conclusion accounts for
thesis, synthesizes
artifacts, and argues the
universality of the topics.
Use of Evidence Uses strong and
(35%) compelling textual
evidence from more than
five (5) articles or topics in
this course, which require
the writer to assess and
evaluate the supporting
evidence. Skillfully
incorporates quotes,
examples, and/or
paraphrases to advance
the thesis and build the
analysis. Sophisticated
analysis of specific details
to support and extend
argument. Analyzes the
how, why, and what to
enhance and express the
writer’s critical thinking
and central argument.
Meets Standard Nearly Meets Standard Does Not Meet
Standard
Intro provides some Underdeveloped intro Ineffective intro.
background/context with little background Does not provide
for the question. info. Somewhat broad background info.
Succinct and narrowed thesis that highlights Vague or hard to
thesis; focuses on a an argument. Counter distinguish thesis.
central argument. arguments or Counter arguments
Writer discusses alternative or alternative
counter arguments or perspectives on the perspectives on the
alternative articles are identified are not
perspectives. but underdeveloped. acknowledged.
Conclusion highlights Conclusion Conclusion is
thesis, summarizes acknowledges thesis underdeveloped or
artifacts and begins to and begins to no conclusion
argue the universality summarize but may be present.
of the topics. unclear/abrupt.
Uses five (5) articles or Uses less than five (5) 0 to 1 article or topic
topics that support articles or topics to used and they may
critical thinking. support some critical be used only
Effectively incorporates thinking. Inconsistently superficially.
quotes, examples, incorporates quotes, Quotes and
and/or paraphrases to examples, and/or paraphrasing are not
support thesis and paraphrases to support handled correctly at
analysis. Analyzes thesis and analysis. all.
evidence to Some analysis of Little analysis or
support/extend evidence, but lacks elaboration of
argument; elaborates thoroughness and evidence. Mostly
to show some critical elaboration; rarely summarizes article or
thinking and relevance. goes beyond what the topic.
articles or topics say.
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

Organization Articles or topics are
(15%) cohesively and
sophisticatedly
synthesized to support
central argument; makes
connections between
articles or topics.
Comprehensive and well-
developed argument is
built throughout the essay
with related subtopics/
assertions, generally
demonstrated through
argumentative topic
sentences. Strong and
effective transitions
throughout essay.
Articles or topics
reflect a basic level of
synthesis around a
central argument.
Consistent argument is
built throughout the
essay with related
subtopics/assertions,
demonstrated through
some clear topic
sentences. Transitions
evident throughout
essay.
Attempts to synthesize Little synthesis.
articles or topics but Argument is
may be too general at underdeveloped or
times. confusing; weak topic
Inconsistent argument sentences. Missing or
is built through the ineffective
essay; topic sentences transitions.
are broad and general
and do not make clear
claims. Weak
transitions or
inconsistent use of
transitions throughout
essay.

Grammar & Strong mechanics and Good mechanics and Meaning is somewhat Substantial errors in
Formatting grammar as appropriate grammar as diminished by grammar and
(10 %) for graduate level. May appropriate for consistent errors in punctuation that
have a few minor mistakes graduate level. punctuation, interfere with
but does not inhibit May have a few capitalization, spelling, meaning. No clear
meaning. All sources are patterns of mistakes and/or agreement. evidence of source
correctly cited as directed but they do not inhibit Most sources are not documentation is
th
by the teacher (APA 7 meaning. Most sources correctly cited. present.
Edition) are correctly cited as
directed by the teacher
th
(APA 7 Edition)
*Rubric is adapted from
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/english/professional_development/institutes/2015/secondary/levy_and_wagoner/files_within_pres
entation/bq_rubric_final.pdf

C. Journal Article Critique

C.1. Mechanics

• An article critique requires you to critically read a piece of research and identify and evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of the article. A summary of a research article requires you to
share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear picture of what the article is
about. A critique may include a brief summary, but the main focus should be on
your evaluation and analysis of the research itself.
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

• Suggested parts of your journal article critique:

1. INTRODUCTION
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
a. name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name
of the author
b. describe the main argument or purpose of the work
c. explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social
or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or
the relationship between the work and the author’s life experience

Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for
instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

2. SUMMARY
Briefly summarize the main points and objectively describe how the author portrays
these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should
not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

3. CRITICAL EVALUATION
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements
of the article, evaluating how well the author was able to achieve the purpose through
these. For example, a critique of a research would look at subject selection, design of
the study, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should

deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine
the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and
order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move
into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the
strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to
discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or
example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this
evidence supports your evaluation of the work.
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

4. CONCLUSION
This is usually a paragraph, which includes:
a. a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the article
b. a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this
evaluation was formed
c. in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the article may
be appropriate.

5. REFERENCE LIST
Include all resources cited in your critique. Use the APA 7th Edition Referencing Style.

• Your journal article critique must be composed of 2-3 A4-sized pages, with content written
in either Calibri or Arial, 12 font size and single spacing. Margins must be 1 inch on all sides.
A reference list must be included at the last part, but it will not be counted in relation to the
total number of pages required. A footer indicating page numbers must be included.

• Submit the hard copy of your output to the teacher in charge of the course not later than
the deadline set. Remember to indicate your full name and degree program in your output.
You may also visit the following links for a more detailed discussion on the content of a
journal article critique.
• https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/other/critique
• https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/writing-article-critique

*Adapted from: https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/writing-well/critique.html

C.2. Evaluation Rubric

Description Nearly Meets Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard Percentage

The student does not
Summary clearly summarize the
main points of the article
(i.e., the main research
question/s, methods,
results, and implications)
and/or includes
inaccurate
information.
The student does not
clearly move beyond a
Analysis summary of the article to
provide an analysis. No
new ideas are
Most of the article is
summarized, but the
student may not clearly
cover all aspects (i.e., the
main research
question/s, methods,
results, and implications).
The student provides an
analysis of the article by
answering most of the
important questions. The
ideas presented are
The summary clearly
outlines the main
research question/s, 30%
methods, results, and
implications in the
student’s own words.
The student provides
an insightful analysis
of the article, 45%
answering all or nearly
all of the necessary
 MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
Graduate School

contributed beyond what mostly novel, going questions. The

is in the article itself, or
the analysis is overly
confusing.
Overall, the student’s
Writing communication of their
analysis is confusing,
unclear, and/or suggests
limited understanding of
the issues involved in this
question.
Grammatical,
punctuation, and spelling
Mechanics errors significantly
detract from reading the
paper. Basic sentence
structure often includes
poor structure (e.g., run-
on
sentences).
beyond what is in the
article itself.
Overall, the student’s
communication of their
analysis is somewhat clear
and/or suggests some
understanding of the
issues involved in this
question.
There may be a few
grammatical, punctuation,
and/or spelling errors, but
overall they do not detract
too much from reading
the paper.
Basic sentence structure is
good (e.g., avoids
run-on sentences,
sentence structure is
solid).
student articulates
novel ideas that
clearly go beyond
what is in the article
itself. The
analysis is clear and
rational.
Overall, the student’s
communication of 15%
their analysis is clear
and evidences a
general, overarching
understanding of the
issues involved in this
question.
Grammatical,
punctuation, and
spelling errors are 10%
RARE and do not
detract from reading
the paper. Basic
sentence structure is
good (e.g., avoids run-
on sentences,
sentence structure is
solid).

Total Possible Points 5

0
*Rubric is adapted from Meredith Martin’s Syllabus on Psychology

Prepared by:

JOHN PAUL C. VALLENTE

Teacher-In-Charge
Assistant Professor IV
MMSU-CTE
jcvallente@mmsu.edu.ph