Module 4 — Mathematics teaching capstone
EDU-MAT-201 · Module 4 of 4 · Estimated effort: 4 hours including practice
Before you begin: Complete Module 3 or demonstrate its evidence criteria. Use the course environment and downloads.
Outcomes
Integrate the course evidence into a reproducible microteaching session; apply an analytic rubric; identify a specific improvement after feedback.
Scenario and deliverable
Teach a 20-minute lesson on interpreting a positive screening result using a fictional population. Provide both a frequency table and a probability derivation; diagnose confusion between sensitivity and the probability of a condition after a positive result. Add one transfer problem with different prevalence and a transparent partial-credit rubric.
This capstone is a public portfolio brief. It is not a secure exam. Formal assessment requires an assigned assessor, an approved private submission channel and confirmed assessment arrangements. Do not upload learner records or controlled institutional questions to a public repository.
Worked example: plan the evidence before the performance
A strong submission makes a claim, shows the relevant artifact and explains why the artifact meets the criterion. For example, “the task has been checked” is weaker than a dated run record naming the fixture, environment and expected result. For editorial work, show the original wording, the query or edit, its justification and the release decision. For teaching work, show the outcome, the task and the learner evidence it produces.
| Stage | Time budget | Observable output |
|---|---|---|
| Plan and check prerequisites | 45 minutes | Scope, outcome and readiness checklist |
| Produce the task and worked example | 75 minutes | Reproducible learner materials |
| Rehearse and deliver | 60 minutes | Observed performance and feedback |
| Moderate and revise | 60 minutes | Rubric, correction and final reflection |
These are planning estimates, not measured completion times. Pause when a prerequisite is missing and record the adjustment rather than rushing through unverified work.
Lab — assemble and defend the portfolio
- Gather the three earlier module artifacts. Label each with the course ID, module, version and date; remove unnecessary personal information.
- Use the downloadable workbook to map each artifact to an outcome and acceptance criterion.
- Prepare the role-specific capstone above. Keep its scope small enough to verify every important claim.
- Rehearse with a peer or record a self-review. If recording another person, obtain permission and use an approved private location; a written observation is an alternative.
- Introduce one controlled defect in a labelled copy. Demonstrate how a test, source check or rubric detects it, then restore the correct version.
- Score the evidence against the rubric below. An assessor should reproduce at least one technical or editorial check and explain any disagreement.
- Revise the weakest criterion and submit a short change record. Retain the initial and revised versions so the improvement is visible.
Expected observations: Every scored claim has observable evidence, and the corrected artifact passes the same check that exposed the defect. Evidence: The four artifacts listed on the course overview, a rubric record and a reflection. Cleanup: Remove faulty release copies and temporary files; retain only the agreed evidence in the approved workspace.
Assessment rubric
This is the proposed Academy pilot standard. Score each criterion from 0 to 4 and calculate weight × level / 4. Level 0 means absent evidence; 1 means major errors; 2 means partially working or incompletely verified; 3 means correct, reproducible and appropriately explained; 4 adds justified transfer and diagnosis of a meaningful fault.
| Criterion | Weight | Evidence required for level 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Subject correctness | 30% | Correct reasoning and outputs against explicit requirements |
| Role-specific performance | 25% | A coherent microteaching session aligned with its audience and outcome |
| Verification and reproducibility | 20% | Traceable checks, environment or source details, and a demonstrated repair |
| Accessibility and clarity | 15% | Structured materials, readable visuals and equivalent text explanations |
| Safe professional handover | 10% | Synthetic or authorized data, source attribution and unresolved issues recorded |
Pilot completion threshold: at least 75/100, with subject correctness and verification each at level 3 or above, and all critical conditions resolved. This is not a vendor examination pass mark. A browser self-check does not issue a certificate or record an official grade.
Critical condition: Incorrect denominators or a worked solution that conflicts with the stated assumptions must be corrected.
Feedback, moderation and reassessment
Give feedback using an observed artifact, the relevant criterion and one concrete next action. Where two assessors disagree, compare the same evidence and record the reason for the final decision. Do not average unexplained scores to hide disagreement. A reassessment should target the missing capability with a fresh equivalent task, followed by rechecking the affected criteria. Follow the commissioning institution's approved appeals process for formal delivery.
Retrieval and reflection
Can a polished presentation compensate for incorrect subject reasoning?
No. Subject correctness has a minimum required level and cannot be offset by attractive formatting. Correct the reasoning and verify the revised artifact.
What distinguishes a self-check from formal assessment here?
A self-check supports practice. Formal assessment requires an authorized assessor, controlled evidence handling, recorded decisions and confirmed institutional arrangements. This public course does not create those records automatically.
Official references and next steps
Use the specific official sources in Modules 1–3 and record their versions in your portfolio. Consult W3C accessibility tutorials when reviewing your handout. Ask about facilitated enrolment for a supported cohort or assessment discussion; an enquiry does not grant access or award a credential.