PIDP 3260 – Professional Practice
Vancouver Community College
May 26, 2018
1. What I learned about professional ethics from this assignment:
This experience taught me that it is my ultimate responsibility to provide learners with fair evaluation while considering a learner-centred approach to adult education. I arrived at this assumption while reflecting on all that I have learned throughout the PIDP. There is a lot more at stake than just being a caring instructor from my learners’ perspective. I have a responsibility to convey distinct knowledge, skills and attitudes required for my profession, and this assignment reminds me that upholding these standards outweighs the relationship that I have with my learners.
However, there is always going to be an emotional approach to a dilemma, and a logical approach. The challenge is to use the wisest approach. This includes providing learners with what they need in terms of success: have I conveyed the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes? And just as important: have I provided sufficient evaluative measures? Professor Ken Bain calls this a learner-centred approach to evaluation (as opposed to a performance-centred approach): “what evidence might I collect about the nature and progress of their development?” (2004, p. 153).
2. How and what I contributed to the writing of the report:
I wrote the outline following the guiding questions from the Assignment 4 Marking Rubric, which I forwarded to my learning partner, Sandra Parry. Sandra edited (I would like it noted that she is an excellent editor), and added to my outline, then forwarded the report back to me, where I double-checked our references, and submitted the report.
3. Two significant contribution my partner made and the insights I gained:
– Sandra was instrumental in guiding me to approach this dilemma from a logical perspective, because initially, I was approaching it from an emotional one.
– Sandra brought first-hand insights into our decision-making process, because she has a lot more experience as an instructor than I do.
Excerpt from our Forum Discussion (Truant, 2018, May 8):
“In step 4, I found myself favouring an emotional approach to this dilemma. But, I need to ask myself: Is this Tyler’s dilemma? Or, is this the community’s dilemma? I was placing too much emphasis on alignment with an individual, and not focusing enough on how an individual’s actions (or in Tyler’s case, potential inaction) can affect the greater good of a community. Being supportive of Tyler is good, but being overly supportive, at the expense of others is not good practice.”
4. Compare our report to the rubric and the expectations and determine a mark out of 5:
4.75 out of 5
5. Rubric Rationale:
– All guiding questions were addressed with comprehensive ethical awareness.
– Kidder’s framework is demonstrated throughout our decision-making process, and our report.
– Our report conforms to APA guidelines, except for the above-mentioned error.
– Contributions in the group discussion forum were, in my opinion, extremely comprehensive and reflective. Due to our schedules, contributions were regular, but did not occur as often as outlined in the rubric. I believe that we contributed quality over quantity in our discussion.
– Sandra and I contributed a substantial and equal amount of input into our group report.
@ Please refer to my Resources page for works cited