Course Outline

University of Calgary
Werklund School of Education
Graduate Programs in Education
EDER 669.15 L04
Hiver 2017
La mise en place des tâches et évaluation
Instructor: Dr. Katherine Mueller
Email: [email protected]
Office Hours / Virtual Office Hours: sur rendez-vous
Dates du cours: 9 janvier au 12 avril 2017
Synchronous Seminars: Deux sessions Adobe Connect: jeudi 19 janvier 2017 6h30 à 8h MST et jeudi 30
mars 2017 6h30 à 8h MST
DESCRIPTION DU COURS:
Le but de ce cours est de développer une compétence professionnelle et critique dans les domaines
de l’enseignement par les tâches et l’évaluation formative et sommative. En particulier, nous allons
explorer les liens théoriques et pratiques entre les approches pédagogiques qui intègrent
l’enseignement par les tâches, et la gamme de possibilités pour inclure l’évaluation dans
l’enseignement. Nous allons mettre le point sur une analyse critique des différentes approches à
l’évaluation pour l’enseignement de langues.
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The goal of this course is to develop students’ professional and critical perspective in the areas of taskbased language teaching and assessment. In particular, we will explore the theoretical and practical
links between the pedagogical approaches that include tasks as a component, and the variety of
possibilities for including assessment in teaching. We will focus especially on a critical analysis of various
assessment approaches for language teaching.
RÉSULTATS D’APPRENTISSAGE:
À la fin du cours, vous saurez
• Articuler le rôle de la tâche dans l’enseignement de langues et ses bénéfices pédagogiques
• Analyser les parties composantes d’une tâche pour comprendre leur contribution à
l’apprentissage de langue
• Lier les différentes approches à l’évaluation aux contextes d’apprentissage et comprendre les
liens entre l’évaluation et l’approche pédagogique
• Créer un plan pédagogique qui intègre une (ou des) tâches et proposer des techniques
d’évaluation appropriée, et soutenir le tout par une exploration de la théorie
LEARNING OUTCOMES :
At the end of this course, students will be able to
• Articulate the role of task in language teaching and clarify its pedagogical merits
• Analyze the constituent parts of a language task in order to understand their contribution to
language learning
• Link the various approaches used for evaluation in language programs to learning contexts,
and understand the links between assessment choices and pedagogical approaches
•
Create a pedagogical plan that integrates one or more tasks and propose appropriate
assessment techniques, and provide a theoretical justification
FORMAT DU COURS:
This is a fully online course. Students will be expected to use a variety of technologies for ongoing
engagement in course activities and learning tasks. Desire2Learn (D2L) will be used to post class
resources, including links to readings and video, and as a site for ongoing dialogue. To access the
course in D2L, you are required to enter your IT username and password. An active University of
Calgary email address is also required / expected. Adobe Connect will be used for 2 synchronous
seminars in this course. You will also need to have a head set with a microphone.
It is assumed that participants in the course are seeking an opportunity to practice their French while
learning the course content. The course is in French with some flexibility regarding other languages and
bilingual practices are welcome (for example, no need to translate quotations).
LECTURES OBLIGATOIRES
Articles:
Bygate, Martin (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language
teaching, The Language Learning Journal, 44:4, 381-400, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
Jacquin, M. (2016). L’approche actionnelle dans l’enseignement des langues étrangères.
Education Canada. 56, 3. http://www.cea-ace.ca/fr/education-canada/article/lapprocheactionnelle-dans-lenseignement-des-langues-%C3%A9trang%C3%A8res
Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2015). Approche neurolinguistique (ANL) Introduction (Version
Adultes). http://francaisintensif.ca/media/INTRO_ANL_-_ADULTES__10_mars_2015_coquilles_corrigees_28_mai.pdf
Piccardo, E. (2014). Du communicatif à l’actionnel : Un cheminement de recherche.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267038584_Du_communicatif_a_l%27actionnel_un_
cheminement_de_recherche
Piccardo, E. (2012). Multidimensionality of assessment in the Common European framework of
reference for langauges (CEFR). Cahiers de l’ILOB. Vol 4, 37-54.
http://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/resources/Articles%20and%20publications%20on%20the%20ECML
/ILOB_vol4-piccardo.pdf
Sites web à consulter (voir lectures pour chaque semaine) :
1. L’enseignement par les tâches : Bilash, Olenka. Website Best of Bilash.
http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/taskbasedlanguaget
eaching.html
2. L’approche neurolinguistique (ANL) + Le français intensif
New Brunswick Scale of Oral Proficiency (employé par Français intensif / évaluation de
l’implémentation de l’ANL Approche neurolinguistique) : http://www2.gnb.ca/c:
ontent/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/eval/FSLOralProviciencyScale-Grade10.pdf
L’approche neurolinguistique : tâches (project-based pedagogy) + évaluation des phases
de la boucle de littératie
Résumé de l’ANL : http://www.francaisintensif.ca/media/edu-04-cinq-principesfondamentaux.pdf
3. Cadre commun de référence
CEFR: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
4. Documents ACPI: Référentiel compétences orales
http://www.acpi.ca/ressources/referentiel-de-competences-orales; Référentiel
compétences écrites http://www.acpi.ca/ressources/referentiel-ecrit
5. BC Performance Standards: https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/
6. Ministère du Manitoba : http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/m12/eval/
7. Ministère de l’Ontario : http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/policyfunding/growsuccessfr.pdf
HORAIRE:
Semaine
(du lundi au
dimanche)
Thème
Lectures et tâches
9 janvier
Introduction au cours;
définitions
16 janvier
L’enseignement par les
tâches
Site web Bilash (voir liste no.1);
Bygate 2016
23 janvier
L’approche actionnelle
Jacquin 2016;
Piccardo 2014
30 janvier
La pédagogie du projet :
L’approche
neurolinguistique
Synthèse : Intégrer les
projets/tâches
Netten & Germain 2015;
Sites web (voir liste no. 2)
6 février
Rappels
Adobe Connect
jeudi 19 janvier
6h30 à 8h MST
Résumés des
articles dans
D2L : LT 2
Résumés des
articles dans
D2L : LT2
13 février
L’évaluation : survol
20 février
READING WEEK
27 février
Cadre commun de
référence (CEFR)
Site web (voir liste no.3);
Piccardo 2011
6 mars
Évaluer les compétences
en immersion
13 mars
Évaluer les compétences
en cours de L2
Document ACPI : Les référentiels de
compétences orales et écrites pour les
élèves apprenant le français (voir liste no.
4)
PIccardo 2011
20 mars
Critiquer les approches à
l’évaluation
27 mars
Intégrer l’évaluation dans
l’approche
pédagogique
3 avril
[suite]
10 avril
Conclusion
Sites web C-B, Manitoba, Ontario (voir
liste no. 5,6,7)
LT 3 à rendre 26
mars : Analyse
d’une
approche à
l’évaluation
Adobe
Connect : jeudi
30 mars 6h30 à
8h MST
LT 4 à rendre :
12 avril
CHANGEMENTS À L’HORAIRE:
Veuillez noter que l’instructeur pourrait changer l’horaire pour répondre aux besoins des participants
dans le cours.
TRAVAUX ET ÉVALUATION
Il y a 4 travaux obligatoires pour compléter ce cours : il faut réussir (50%+) à chaque travail pour réussir
le cours. [There are 4 required learning tasks in this course; you must achieve a grade of 50% or higher
for each learning task in order to pass the course.]
TRAVAUX
DESCRIPTION DU TRAVAIL
% DE
FORMAT
NOTE
FINALE
N0. 1
No.2
No.3
No.4
Participation régulière et réfléchie dans les discussions
D2L et Adobe Connect
Présentation dans D2L d’un article choisi: résumé,
critique de l’article, questions pour collègues,
modération de la discussion
Analyse critique d’une approche à l’évaluation (date de
remise 26 mars)
Plan d’unité qui intègre tâche(s) et outils d’évaluation
(date de remise 12 avril)
20%
30%
Individuel,
continu
Individuel,
Dates à
annoncer
Individuel
30%
Groupe (2)
20%
1. LEARNING TASK 1: Participation régulière et réfléchie dans les discussions D2L et Adobe Connect
20% de la note du cours
Il faut lire les articles pour chaque semaine et participer aux discussions. Pour certains des
articles c’est le prof qui mène la discussion, pour d’autres c’est un de vos collègues qui va
mener la discussion (afficher des questions de réflexion) – il faut afficher vos réponses et
participer à la discussion qui s’ensuit.
CRITÈRES D’ÉVALUATION : Un «A » représente participation régulière, enthousiaste, réfléchie, avec
des réponses soutenues par votre lecture des articles et chapitres, et informée par vos
expériences personnelles.
Learning Task 1: Regular and thoughtful participation in D2L and Adobe Connect discussions.
20% of course grade.
Students are required to read the assigned articles/web links each week and participate in
discussions. During some weeks, the prof will lead the discussion, while other weeks, your
classmates will lead by posting reflection questions – you should post responses to the questions
and participate in the ensuing discussion.
Criteria for evaluation: An “A” represents regular, enthusiastic and thoughtful participation, with
responses that are backed up by the assigned readings, and informed by your personal
practice.
2. LEARNING TASK 2: Résumé et critique d’un article sur l’évaluation; poser des questions dans D2L
pour collègues, mener la discussion.
20% de la note du cours; dates pour afficher votre travail sur D2L et pour mener la discussion :
les semaines du 6 et 13 février 2017
Vous allez afficher un résumé et critique (500 à 600 mots) d’un article supplémentaire qui fera
la base de la discussion sur D2L. Vous allez aussi afficher des questions pour vos collègues qui
vont provenir de votre article; vous allez également mener la discussion D2L qui se produit à
partir de vos questions. (Les membres de la classe ne seront pas obligés de lire les articles, donc
le résumé et critique devraient être complets, et vos questions devraient en rendre compte.)
Vous pourrez choisir un article qui répond à vos intérêts ou à votre contexte professionnel; il
faut confirmer votre choix d’article avec le professeur.
Learning Task 2 : Summary and critique of an article dealing with assessment; post questions on
D2L for classmates, lead the discussion.
20% of the course grade
Dates for posting your summary on D2L and for leading the discussion: weeks of Feb 6 and 13,
2017.
You will post a summary and critique of 500-600 words of a supplementary article that will lead
to a D2L discussion. You will post questions for your classmates based on the article; you will also
lead the D2L discussion that follows from your questions. Class members are not required to
read all the articles, so your summary and critique of your chosen article must be thorough and
your questions should take into account that your classmates will not necessarily have read the
articles.
You will choose an article that corresponds with your interests or with your professional context;
please confirm your article choice with the professor.
Vous pourrez trouver des articles dans le numéro spécial de La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes/Canadian Modern Language Review vol 69, no. 4 novembre 2013, ou dans le numéro
spécial du Journal de l’immersion, vol 28, no 3, Automne 2006.
You may choose articles from the two special issues mentioned just above.
Voici deux autres possibilités / Below are two other possiblities :
Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2004). L’évaluation de la production orale en français intensif :
critères et résultats. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues
vivantes, 60, 3, 309-332.
Piccardo, E. (2011). Du CECR au développement professionnel : pour une démarche
stratégique. Tendances en didactiques des langues secondes et en formation des
enseignant(e)s. Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée. 15, 2, 20-52.
RUBRIQUE D’ÉVALUATION:
Article summary
Critical Analysis
Clarity and style
D2L Discussion
Moderation
A+ / A
Summary is
thorough and
covers all main
arguments made
by author, with
detail to show
understanding
A- / B+
Summary includes
most of the main
points and shows a
good
understanding of
the author’s points
B / BSummary includes
some of the main
arguments of the
article; shows
evidence of
understanding of
the author’s points
but some lack of
depth
Analysis of article
shows little depth
or insight; lack of
evidence of
connections to
research or to prior
learning; some
attempt made to
think critically
C and lower
Summary not
thorough/complete;
main points of
author’s argument
missing or unclear;
shows lack of depth
of understanding
Analysis is insightful
and pertinent,
showing depth of
thought and
critical reflection,
arguments strongly
supported by
thoughtful
connection to
research and prior
learning
Summary and
critique are
presented in a
highly organized
and accessible
manner, with
arguments
detailed clearly
and supported by
research;
references used
are correctly cited
acc. to APA
Poses insightful and
challenging
questions. Provides
timely and
thoughtful
responses to all
postings;
encourages active
and critical
discussion
Analysis of original
article shows some
insight and critical
reflection; most
arguments
supported by
connection to
research and prior
learning
Summary and
critique are
presented in a
comprehensible
manner, with
arguments well
organized; some
detail may be
lacking in
argumentation;
good use of
references/APA
Summary and
critique are
presented in an
inconsistent
manner; with flow
of argumentation
not always clear;
inconsistent or
some incorrect use
of references /
APA
Summary and
critique are
presented in an
unclear,
disorganized
manner, with
argumentation not
clear; poor form in
use of references
and APA style
Poses well-crafted,
probing questions.
Provides timely
responses to most
postings; some
evidence of
thoughtfulness in
responses; good
attempt to
encourage
discussion
Some lack of
attention to
discussion ensuing
from original post;
responses to
posters often short
and lacking insight.
Questions posed to
classmates are
somewhat
superficial.
Neglectful of the
discussion ensuing
from original
summary; little or no
attempt to provide
insightful comments
or to encourage
critical analysis;
questions posed to
classmates are
weak.
Analysis shows no
depth or insight, no
evidence of critical
thinking; few or no
attempts made to
connect this article
to other research or
to prior learning
3. LEARNING TASK 3 : Analyse critique d’une approche à l’évaluation (6 à 8 pages, double interligne,
Times New Roman, 12 pt). 30% de la note finale.
DATE DE REMISE : 26 MARS 2017
Sujet : Vous allez présenter une analyse critique d’une approche à l’évaluation : par exemple CCR,
Référentiels ACPI, documents des Ministères des provinces
Dans votre analyse, vous devriez inclure (1) une description de l’approche, (2) les forces de
l’approche (en quoi est-elle pratique, flexible etc), (3) les faiblesses de l’approche (où voyez-vous
des problèmes d’implémentation, par exemple?) et (4) un résumé soit de vos expériences avec
cette approche, soit de votre vision pour l’intégration dans une approche pédagogique avec
laquelle vous travaillez (ou avez travaillé dans le passé). Il faut soutenir vos arguments par des
références à la théorie.
Learning Task 3 : Critical analysis of an approach to assessment (6-8 pages, double-spaced, Times New
Roman 12pt.) 30% of final grade.
Due Date: March 26, 2017
Topic: You will present a critical analysis of an approach to assessment (or an assessment tool): for example
the Common Framework of Reference (CFR), the ACPI assessment documents, various provincial assessment
documents.
In your analysis, you must include (1) a description of the approach, (2) the strengths of the approach (how is
it practical, flexible etc), (3) the weaknesses that you perceive (where do you see problems for
implementation, for example?) and (4) a summary of your experiences with this approach, or a discussion of
your vision for integrating the assessment tool into a pedagogical approach with which you are working (or
have worked in the past). Please support your arguments by references to the theory.
RUBRIQUE D’ÉVALUATION (LEARNING TASK 3)
Strength of
summary and
critical analysis;
insight in
connections
A+ / A
Analysis provides
thorough summary
of evaluation
approach; strong
insight in identifying
strengths and
weaknesses of
approach;
evidence of
thoughtful
connections to
practice
Theoretical
support
All arguments are
strongly supported
by appropriate links
to theory
Style and
structure
Paper organized
clearly with intro,
development and
conclusion;
language of
appropriate
scholarly level;
citations and
references using
appropriate APA
style
A- / B+
Summary of
evaluation
approach is mostly
complete; some
insight shown in
identifying
strengths and
weaknesses of
approach; some
strong
connections to
practice are
provided
Most arguments
are supported
(strongly or less so)
by links to theory
Organization
(intro,
development,
conclusion) clear
but intro and
conclusion may
not be strong;
language of
appropriate
scholarly level;
references using
appropriate APA
style (may be
some small issues)
B / BSummary of
evaluation
approach is
incomplete. Weak
insight shown in
identifying
strengths and
weaknesses of
approach; weak
and/or
unconvincing
connections to
practice
Some arguments
are supported by
theory –
inconsistency in
use of theoretical
support
Organization of
paper not clearly
defined as to intro,
development,
conclusion;
development of
argument not
optimal; language
used too
colloquial for
graduate scholarly
level; some issues
with APA
references and
citations
C and below
Summary of
evaluation
approach is
unsatisfactory.
Little insight shown
in analysis. Lack of
evidence of effort
in making
connections to
practice.
Arguments not
supported by
theory.
Organization poor
(one or more of
intro, clear
development of
argument,
conclusion
missing); language
of inappropriate
level for graduatelevel scholarly
work; references
and citations not
presented
according to APA
style
4. LEARNING TASK 4: PRÉPARATION D’UN PLAN PÉDAGOGIQUE QUI INTÈGRE UNE/DES TÂCHE(S) ET DES OUTILS
D’ÉVALUATION. 30% DE LA NOTE DU COURS.
DATE DE REMISE : 12 AVRIL 2017
Sujet : Vous allez préparer avec un partenaire un plan pédagogique (plan d’unité) qui a pour but de
préparer et présenter une (ou des) tâches, et vous allez proposer un plan d’évaluation (avec rubriques,
et outils détaillés) qui fait preuve d’une vision intégrée. Vous allez soutenir vos choix en faisant des liens
avec la théorie (annotations). [Longueur du travail à discuter].
Learning Task 4 :
Creation of a pedagogical plan that integrates one or several tasks and assessment tools.
30% of final grade.
Due date: April 12, 2017
Topic: With a partner, you will prepare a pedagogical plan (unit plan) that will include one or several tasks, and
you will propose an assessment plan (with rubrics and detailed assessment tools) that provides evidence of an
integrated vision. You will support your choices by providing links to the theory (annotations). (Length of paper to
be discussed)
RUBRIQUE D’ÉVALUATION (LEARNING TASK 4)
A+ / A
A- / B+
Strength of
Integration of
Task and
Evaluation in
Unit Plan
Strong evidence
of integration of
task and
evaluation tools;
strong design of
task and clear
links with choice
of evaluation
Good evidence
of integration of
task and
evaluation tools;
task is welldesigned; most
links to
evaluation are
clear
Theoretical
Support
Strong and wellchosen links to
theory provide
clear support for
choices made in
unit plan
Most links to
theory are strong
and chosen to
support choices
made in unit
plan
Design and
Organization of
Unit Plan
Presentation
and Evaluation
Plan
Unit plan
presented in
accessible, clear
manner; highly
organized and
accessible;
evaluation
techniques are
comprehensive,
clearly articulated
and accessible to
users
Unit plan is
presented in
well-organized
manner; may be
missing
components that
would provide
clarity;
evaluation
techniques are
generally
accessible to
users
B / B-
C and below
Some evidence
of attempt to
integrate task
and evaluation
tools; task is
somewhat
unclear;
evaluation tools
may not be
appropriate to
task
Links to theory
are not wellchosen and
provide weak
support for
choices made in
unit plan
Little evidence of
attempt to
integrate task
and evaluation
tools; task is
incomplete or
difficult to follow;
evaluation tools
are ill-conceived
and not linked to
task
There are few or
no links to theory;
any links made
are ill-conceived
and do not
provide support
for choices
made in unit
plan
Unit plan is poorly
organized
and/or
incomplete;
evaluation
techniques are
incomplete or
inappropriate
Unit plan is not
well-organized
and therefore
difficult to
envision;
evaluation
techniques are
not accessible or
easily envisioned
for use
GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION: GRADING SCALE
Grade
Distribution of Grades*
Percent Graduate Description
A+
GP
Value
4.0
A
4.0
A-
3.7
B+
B
3.3
3.0
80 - 84 Good performance
75 - 79 Satisfactory performance.
B-
2.7
70 - 74 Minimum pass for students in the Faculty of Graduate Studies
C+
2.3
C
2.0
C-
1.7
D+
1.3
D
1.0
F
0.0
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59 All grades below B- are indicative of failure at the graduate level
and cannot be counted toward Faculty of Graduate Studies
50 - 54 course requirements.
45 - 49
< 45
95 - 100 Outstanding
Excellent - superior performance showing comprehensive
90 - 94
understanding of the subject matter
85 - 89 Very good performance
Note: The grade point value (3.0) associated with this grade is the
minimum acceptable average that a graduate student must
maintain throughout the program as computed at the end of
each year of the program.
*Based upon Faculty of Graduate Studies 2015/2016 Calendar, “Distribution of Grades”
It is at the instructor's discretion to round off either upward or downward to determine a final grade when the
average of term work and final examinations is between two letter grades.
----------------------------
Werklund School of Education Appeals Policy and Process
•
http://werklund.ucalgary.ca/gpe/werklund-school-education-appeals-policy-amp-process
Universal Student Ratings of Instruction (USRIs)
Students are strongly encouraged to complete course evaluations for each course taken in their program. Student
feedback on their experience in a course is taken very seriously by the Werklund School of Education in
timetabling and staffing courses. Student feedback via the Course Evaluation is used to monitor the quality of
teaching, the quality of students’ learning experiences and the quality of course design in Graduate Programs in
Education.
Students are advised to become familiar with the Faculty of Graduate Studies policies and the University of
Calgary support services in these areas: intellectual property, academic integrity, plagiarism, research ethics,
effective writing, and English language proficiency. Information about these topics is available through the
following web addresses:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plagiarism + academic misconduct: http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/grad/current/gs-o.html
Intellectual Honesty: http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/grad/current/gs-m.html
Integrity: http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/grad/current/gs-r.html
Research Ethics: http://www.ucalgary.ca/research/researchers/ethics-compliance
My Grad Skills: http://grad.ucalgary.ca/mygradskills
Intellectual Property: http://grad.ucalgary.ca/current/managing-my-program/academicintegrity/intellectual-property
Student Success: http://www.ucalgary.ca/ssc/
Graduate Studies Calendar, Excerpts on Plagiarism:
O.1.a) Definitions
1. Plagiarism - Plagiarism involves submitting or presenting work as if it were the student’s own work when it is not.
Any ideas or materials taken from another source written, electronic, or oral must be fully and formally
acknowledged.
(b) Parts of the work are taken from another source without reference to the original author.
(c) The whole work (e.g., an essay) is copied from another source, and/or,
(d) A student submits or presents work in one course which has also been submitted in another course (although it
may be completely original with that student) without the knowledge of or prior agreement of the instructor
involved.
O.1.b) Penalties, can include and are not limited to:
1. Failing Grade - A student may be given a failing grade in either an exercise or course in which that student is
found guilty of plagiarism, cheating or other academic misconduct. A student may not avoid a failing grade by
withdrawing from the course.
2. Disciplinary probation.
3. Suspension.
4. Expulsion.
Copyright: All material used in the course is for the sole use of the individual and should not be recopied in either
print or digital format. For copyright guidelines, including those relating to photocopying and electronic copies,
please refer to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) fair dealing guidelines:
http://library.ucalgary.ca/copyright
Academic Accommodations – It is the students’ responsibility to request academic accommodations. If you are a
student with a documented disability who may require academic accommodations and have not registered with
Student Accessibility Services, please contact them at 403-220-6019. Students who have not registered with
Student Accessibility Services are not eligible for formal academic accommodations. More information about
academic accommodations can be found at www.ucalgary.ca/access .
Accommodations on Protected Grounds other than Disability
Students who require an accommodation in relation to their coursework or to fulfill requirements for a graduate
degree, based on a protected ground other than disability, should communicate this need, preferably in writing,
to their Instructor or the appropriate Associate Dean, Department Head or the department/faculty designated
contact person. Students who require an accommodation unrelated to their coursework or the requirements for a
graduate degree, based on a protected ground other than disability, should communicate this need, preferably
in writing, to the Vice-Provost (Student Experience). For additional information on support services and
accommodations for students with disabilities, visit www.ucalgary.ca/access/.
Campus Security provides a range of services intended to promote and facilitate a safe and secure learning and
living environment, e.g. the SafeWalk program for students attending classes on campus. For more information
please visit http://www.ucalgary.ca/security/ or telephone 403-220-5333.
The Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPP) prevents instructors from placing assignments or
examinations in a public place for pickup and prevents students from access to exams or assignments other than
their own. Therefore, students and instructors may use one of the following options: return/collect assignments
during class time or during instructors' office hours, students provide instructors with a self-addressed stamped
envelope, or submit assignments, or submit/return assignments as electronic files attached to private e-mail
message.
Emergency Evacuation Assembly Points - For both the Education Tower and Education Block, use the Scurfield Hall
Atrium (Primary) or Professional Faculties Foodcourt. See: http://www.ucalgary.ca/emergencyplan/assemblypoints