Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## 1A3Details.docx
– ## A3DiscussionandQuestionsRubric1.docx
– ## A3Task1Rubric.docx
– 1A3OnEducationText1.pdf
**## 1A3Details.docx**
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education Summer 2023**
2
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment #3 (15 points) – On Education by Harry Brighouse.**
**Due: Thursday, 11/13 – 4:00 pm upload Chapter One document and questions to Canvas as one document.**
· Everyone will read the introduction and Chapter 1.
· Everyone will also be assigned to read a second chapter, which the instructor will select.
**Chapter One**
**_Compose_** an essay reflection addressing the elements below
**(Do not exceed two pages).**
Use of APA Format is a requirement.
· A brief and concise summary of the Chapter.
· Why do you think Brighouse included the “Yoder v Wisconsin” case in the Chapter?
· Do you think Amish children are deprived of the opportunity to live autonomously? Explain your response.
· Brighouse states on page 15 of the text, “… I shall argue that autonomy is important enough to justify a requirement that all children be subject to an education designed to facilitate it. But I am going to do so without claiming that autonomy is needed for a life to be worth living.” What are your thoughts?
· How could teachers facilitate autonomy in the classroom? Give two examples.
**Assigned Chapter**
· Read the assigned Chapter.
· To facilitate class discussion, you will create four meaningful open-ended questions for the Chapter you are assigned to read.
· Questions should address the information included in the Chapter you are assigned to read.
Page 1
**## A3DiscussionandQuestionsRubric1.docx**
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**On Education Discussion Question Rubric – Task 2**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Depth**<br>Do questions call for higher order thinking (analysis, application, evaluations, creativity)? | · All four questions demonstrate higher-order thinking (analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creativity) and require thoughtful responses. | Most questions (3 of 4) demonstrate higher-order thinking. | Some questions (1–2) show limited higher-order thinking; others are surface-level. | Questions rely on recall or simple understanding with no analytical depth. |
| **Value**<br>How valuable would answering these questions be for a deep understanding of the text? | · All questions promote deep understanding of the text and connect meaningfully to key ideas or arguments. | · Most questions promote deep understanding and relate well to the text. | · Some questions encourage limited reflection or connection to key ideas. | · Questions fail to promote critical engagement with the text. |
| **Specificity**<br>Are questions clear and specific? | · All questions use precise language, are clearly written, and reference specific passages or ideas from the text. | · Most questions are clear and refer to specific text ideas. | · Questions are somewhat vague or general; limited textual connection. | · Questions are unclear, overly broad, or unrelated to the text. |
| **Mechanics**<br>Are questions well-written and grammatically correct? | All questions are grammatically correct, well-structured, and free of spelling or punctuation errors. | Minor (1–2) errors that do not interfere with understanding. | Several (3–4) errors that somewhat affect clarity. | Frequent (5+) errors that interfere with readability or meaning. |
**## A3Task1Rubric.docx**
1
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment 3: On Education – Task 1 Rubric**
**Task 1 – Essay Reflection**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Content** | · Addresses all questions thoroughly and insightfully.<br>· Demonstrates deep understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show strong reasoning with clear concrete connections, between the text and analysis.<br>· Makes insightful personal connections, with clear examples and implications for teaching. | · Addresses all questions clearly.<br>· Demonstrates adequate understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show logical reasoning with some supporting evidence.<br>· Makes clear personal connections, with some examples and implications for teaching | · Addresses most questions but with limited depth.<br>· Demonstrates partial or superficial understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Lacks consistent evidence or reasoning.<br>· Includes limited examples and personal reflection and vague connections to classroom implications for teaching. | · Addresses few questions or in minimal detail.<br>· Demonstrates little understanding of Brighouse’s ideas or reasoning.<br>· Reflection is minimal.<br>· Lacks personal or practical application of ideas. |
| **Organization** | · Demonstrates clear, logical progression of ideas.<br>· Strong introduction, body, and conclusion with smooth transitions.<br>· Notable sense of voice. | · Demonstrates a logical structure with identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion.<br>· Transitions are mostly clear.<br>· Distinct sense of voice. | · Organization is apparent – but may be choppy or uneven. (Introduction, body and conclusion are basic).<br>· Basic sense of voice. | · Organization is unclear.<br>· Lacks clear structure.<br>· Ideas appear disjointed or confusing. |
| **Mechanics** | · Writing is fluent and polished with no grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. | · Writing contains minor errors (1-2) that do not interfere with meaning. | · Writing contains several errors (3-4) that occasionally interfere meaning. | · Writing contains frequent errors (5+) that interfere with meaning. |
| **APA Format** | · APA format followed precisely with no errors. | · APA format accurately and consistently with 1-2 minor errors. | · APA format attempted with multiple errors; 3-4. | · APA format not followed; contains 5+ significant errors. |
**1A3OnEducationText1.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/1a3oneducationtext1-pdf)
**1A3OnEducationText1.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/1a3oneducationtext1-pdf)
**## 1A3Details.docx**
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education Summer 2023**
2
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment #3 (15 points) – On Education by Harry Brighouse.**
**Due: Thursday, 11/13 – 4:00 pm upload Chapter One document and questions to Canvas as one document.**
· Everyone will read the introduction and Chapter 1.
· Everyone will also be assigned to read a second chapter, which the instructor will select.
**Chapter One**
**_Compose_** an essay reflection addressing the elements below
**(Do not exceed two pages).**
Use of APA Format is a requirement.
· A brief and concise summary of the Chapter.
· Why do you think Brighouse included the “Yoder v Wisconsin” case in the Chapter?
· Do you think Amish children are deprived of the opportunity to live autonomously? Explain your response.
· Brighouse states on page 15 of the text, “… I shall argue that autonomy is important enough to justify a requirement that all children be subject to an education designed to facilitate it. But I am going to do so without claiming that autonomy is needed for a life to be worth living.” What are your thoughts?
· How could teachers facilitate autonomy in the classroom? Give two examples.
**Assigned Chapter**
· Read the assigned Chapter.
· To facilitate class discussion, you will create four meaningful open-ended questions for the Chapter you are assigned to read.
· Questions should address the information included in the Chapter you are assigned to read.
Page 1
**## A3DiscussionandQuestionsRubric1.docx**
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**On Education Discussion Question Rubric – Task 2**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Depth**<br>Do questions call for higher order thinking (analysis, application, evaluations, creativity)? | · All four questions demonstrate higher-order thinking (analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creativity) and require thoughtful responses. | Most questions (3 of 4) demonstrate higher-order thinking. | Some questions (1–2) show limited higher-order thinking; others are surface-level. | Questions rely on recall or simple understanding with no analytical depth. |
| **Value**<br>How valuable would answering these questions be for a deep understanding of the text? | · All questions promote deep understanding of the text and connect meaningfully to key ideas or arguments. | · Most questions promote deep understanding and relate well to the text. | · Some questions encourage limited reflection or connection to key ideas. | · Questions fail to promote critical engagement with the text. |
| **Specificity**<br>Are questions clear and specific? | · All questions use precise language, are clearly written, and reference specific passages or ideas from the text. | · Most questions are clear and refer to specific text ideas. | · Questions are somewhat vague or general; limited textual connection. | · Questions are unclear, overly broad, or unrelated to the text. |
| **Mechanics**<br>Are questions well-written and grammatically correct? | All questions are grammatically correct, well-structured, and free of spelling or punctuation errors. | Minor (1–2) errors that do not interfere with understanding. | Several (3–4) errors that somewhat affect clarity. | Frequent (5+) errors that interfere with readability or meaning. |
**## A3Task1Rubric.docx**
1
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment 3: On Education – Task 1 Rubric**
**Task 1 – Essay Reflection**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Content** | · Addresses all questions thoroughly and insightfully.<br>· Demonstrates deep understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show strong reasoning with clear concrete connections, between the text and analysis.<br>· Makes insightful personal connections, with clear examples and implications for teaching. | · Addresses all questions clearly.<br>· Demonstrates adequate understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show logical reasoning with some supporting evidence.<br>· Makes clear personal connections, with some examples and implications for teaching | · Addresses most questions but with limited depth.<br>· Demonstrates partial or superficial understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Lacks consistent evidence or reasoning.<br>· Includes limited examples and personal reflection and vague connections to classroom implications for teaching. | · Addresses few questions or in minimal detail.<br>· Demonstrates little understanding of Brighouse’s ideas or reasoning.<br>· Reflection is minimal.<br>· Lacks personal or practical application of ideas. |
| **Organization** | · Demonstrates clear, logical progression of ideas.<br>· Strong introduction, body, and conclusion with smooth transitions.<br>· Notable sense of voice. | · Demonstrates a logical structure with identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion.<br>· Transitions are mostly clear.<br>· Distinct sense of voice. | · Organization is apparent – but may be choppy or uneven. (Introduction, body and conclusion are basic).<br>· Basic sense of voice. | · Organization is unclear.<br>· Lacks clear structure.<br>· Ideas appear disjointed or confusing. |
| **Mechanics** | · Writing is fluent and polished with no grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. | · Writing contains minor errors (1-2) that do not interfere with meaning. | · Writing contains several errors (3-4) that occasionally interfere meaning. | · Writing contains frequent errors (5+) that interfere with meaning. |
| **APA Format** | · APA format followed precisely with no errors. | · APA format accurately and consistently with 1-2 minor errors. | · APA format attempted with multiple errors; 3-4. | · APA format not followed; contains 5+ significant errors. |
**1A3OnEducationText1.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/1a3oneducationtext1-pdf)
**## 1A3Details.docx**
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education Summer 2023**
2
**EDSN 600 History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment #3 (15 points) – On Education by Harry Brighouse.**
**Due: Thursday, 11/13 – 4:00 pm upload Chapter One document and questions to Canvas as one document.**
· Everyone will read the introduction and Chapter 1.
· Everyone will also be assigned to read a second chapter, which the instructor will select.
**Chapter One**
**_Compose_** an essay reflection addressing the elements below
**(Do not exceed two pages).**
Use of APA Format is a requirement.
· A brief and concise summary of the Chapter.
· Why do you think Brighouse included the “Yoder v Wisconsin” case in the Chapter?
· Do you think Amish children are deprived of the opportunity to live autonomously? Explain your response.
· Brighouse states on page 15 of the text, “… I shall argue that autonomy is important enough to justify a requirement that all children be subject to an education designed to facilitate it. But I am going to do so without claiming that autonomy is needed for a life to be worth living.” What are your thoughts?
· How could teachers facilitate autonomy in the classroom? Give two examples.
**Assigned Chapter**
· Read the assigned Chapter.
· To facilitate class discussion, you will create four meaningful open-ended questions for the Chapter you are assigned to read.
· Questions should address the information included in the Chapter you are assigned to read.
Page 1
**## A3DiscussionandQuestionsRubric1.docx**
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**On Education Discussion Question Rubric – Task 2**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Depth**<br>Do questions call for higher order thinking (analysis, application, evaluations, creativity)? | · All four questions demonstrate higher-order thinking (analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creativity) and require thoughtful responses. | Most questions (3 of 4) demonstrate higher-order thinking. | Some questions (1–2) show limited higher-order thinking; others are surface-level. | Questions rely on recall or simple understanding with no analytical depth. |
| **Value**<br>How valuable would answering these questions be for a deep understanding of the text? | · All questions promote deep understanding of the text and connect meaningfully to key ideas or arguments. | · Most questions promote deep understanding and relate well to the text. | · Some questions encourage limited reflection or connection to key ideas. | · Questions fail to promote critical engagement with the text. |
| **Specificity**<br>Are questions clear and specific? | · All questions use precise language, are clearly written, and reference specific passages or ideas from the text. | · Most questions are clear and refer to specific text ideas. | · Questions are somewhat vague or general; limited textual connection. | · Questions are unclear, overly broad, or unrelated to the text. |
| **Mechanics**<br>Are questions well-written and grammatically correct? | All questions are grammatically correct, well-structured, and free of spelling or punctuation errors. | Minor (1–2) errors that do not interfere with understanding. | Several (3–4) errors that somewhat affect clarity. | Frequent (5+) errors that interfere with readability or meaning. |
**## A3Task1Rubric.docx**
1
**EDSN 600: History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education – Fall 2025**
**Assignment 3: On Education – Task 1 Rubric**
**Task 1 – Essay Reflection**
| | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Exceeding the Standard** | **Meeting the Standard** | **Approaching the Standard** | **Below the Standard** |
| **Content** | · Addresses all questions thoroughly and insightfully.<br>· Demonstrates deep understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show strong reasoning with clear concrete connections, between the text and analysis.<br>· Makes insightful personal connections, with clear examples and implications for teaching. | · Addresses all questions clearly.<br>· Demonstrates adequate understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Responses show logical reasoning with some supporting evidence.<br>· Makes clear personal connections, with some examples and implications for teaching | · Addresses most questions but with limited depth.<br>· Demonstrates partial or superficial understanding of Brighouse’s arguments.<br>· Lacks consistent evidence or reasoning.<br>· Includes limited examples and personal reflection and vague connections to classroom implications for teaching. | · Addresses few questions or in minimal detail.<br>· Demonstrates little understanding of Brighouse’s ideas or reasoning.<br>· Reflection is minimal.<br>· Lacks personal or practical application of ideas. |
| **Organization** | · Demonstrates clear, logical progression of ideas.<br>· Strong introduction, body, and conclusion with smooth transitions.<br>· Notable sense of voice. | · Demonstrates a logical structure with identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion.<br>· Transitions are mostly clear.<br>· Distinct sense of voice. | · Organization is apparent – but may be choppy or uneven. (Introduction, body and conclusion are basic).<br>· Basic sense of voice. | · Organization is unclear.<br>· Lacks clear structure.<br>· Ideas appear disjointed or confusing. |
| **Mechanics** | · Writing is fluent and polished with no grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. | · Writing contains minor errors (1-2) that do not interfere with meaning. | · Writing contains several errors (3-4) that occasionally interfere meaning. | · Writing contains frequent errors (5+) that interfere with meaning. |
| **APA Format** | · APA format followed precisely with no errors. | · APA format accurately and consistently with 1-2 minor errors. | · APA format attempted with multiple errors; 3-4. | · APA format not followed; contains 5+ significant errors. |
**1A3OnEducationText1.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/1a3oneducationtext1-pdf)
– 1
– 2
– 3
– 4