Duration
18h Th
Number of credits
| Master of education, Section 5: Social sciences | 3 crédits | |||
| Master of education, Section 4: Social sciences | 3 crédits |
Lecturer
Language(s) of instruction
French language
Organisation and examination
Teaching in the second semester
Schedule
Units courses prerequisite and corequisite
Prerequisite or corequisite units are presented within each program
Learning unit contents
Based on the learning acquired in the courses ZENS0098 Disciplinary Teaching: Social Sciences (Part I), HSTG0101 Social Sciences Internship (Part I), ZENS0020 Assessment and Differentiation, and HSTG0201 Social Sciences Internship (Part II), students compile a public lesson package (learning sequence for the "Social Sciences" option, general education) and write a reflective practice note.
The theme of the public lesson is randomly selected at the beginning of the program (September 2025). It is developed during the second individual internship: accompanied by a member of the social sciences teaching team, the student benefits from trial and error, comments, suggestions, and questions formulated by the internship supervisor and the teaching staff to improve the presentation of the subject content, teaching methods, and assessment procedures.
The student is supported in this design work by a member of the social sciences disciplinary teaching team.
In the reflective practices report that concludes the training, the student must demonstrate their ability to identify among the approaches and processes implemented during the didactics training those that were effective and/or efficient, those that were not, the aspects of their professional practice that could be improved, the difficulties and obstacles encountered in developing lesson sequences, and the strategies implemented to overcome them. In other words, the goal is not to limit oneself to listing the obstacles that arose during the training; after demonstrating the ability to overcome these obstacles, the student must be able to retrospectively use the strategies that enabled them to do so.
This final stage of the training aims to verify whether the student has internalized the "reflective practitioner" standard.
The report is divided into two parts: first, a reflective review of all the services provided during the various internships and their preparation, during the lessons and exercises, the writing of the QRA and the public lesson. The critical analysis approach must be based on the two reference standards (the Missions decree and the Socratic oath); second, the analysis of a didactic problem imposed by the teaching team. This problem is linked to one of the services provided by the student concerned.
Learning outcomes of the learning unit
At the end of the individual work of designing a lesson sequence on an imposed theme and the various feedbacks to which he has been subjected, the student demonstrates his capacity, on the one hand, to write a course material which supports an active learning approach and which can be made available to a social sciences teacher and, on the other hand, to carry out a reflective return on his training course and on the process of acquiring a professional identity (posture of the reflective practitioner).
Prerequisite knowledge and skills
Knowledge and skills related to the previous stages of training in social sciences teaching.
Planned learning activities and teaching methods
Individual work to design a course material on the theme set for the second individual internship.
Class session dedicated to the design and use of problem situations.
Presentation of a guidance note to the social sciences teaching team; discussion around this note.
Presentation of the public lesson package to a panel composed of a university expert on the topic covered and members of the social sciences teaching team. Evaluation of the admissibility of the package. Discussion on the content and didactic transposition.
Drafting of an improved version of the lesson (if admissible).
Validation of the final version by a panel composed of a member of the social sciences teaching team and two secondary school teachers.
Drafting of a reflective practices note on the training program followed. Discussion of this note during a final interview with the social sciences teaching team.
Mode of delivery (face to face, distance learning, hybrid learning)
Face-to-face course
Further information:
Individual work; presentation of this work to a jury; use of feedback provided by the jury.
Course materials and recommended or required readings
Written work / report
Further information:
A student who repeatedly and unjustifiably fails to attend class sessions or arrives late for class sessions will be penalized for serious deficiencies.
The student's performance will be assessed based on the public lesson record and a reflective practice grade.
Reflective Practice Grade (out of 30 points)
The student will write a comprehensive report (maximum 5 pages, 1.5 spacing) and a reasoned explanation highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching approaches implemented during their training, the difficulties encountered, and the opportunities seized to design a learning program that complies with legal requirements (French Code of Basic and Secondary Education; Socratic Oath).
This report is presented and discussed during a final interview between the student and the teaching team.
If the student fails to attend the final interview, their performance will be assessed as a serious deficiency.
The quality of the first part of the final report is assessed based on the following criteria (in descending order of importance): the student's ability to integrate the comments and advice provided during the course, to adopt a critical attitude towards their presentation, and the quality of the critical analysis report (reflexivity, structure, coherence, arguments); the ability to distinguish between essential and non-essential material; and the formal, syntactic, and spelling presentation.
The quality of the second part of the final report is assessed based on the relevance of the response to the assigned teaching problem and the quality of the justification for this response.
Public Lecture (out of 50 points)
The public lecture may only be submitted for assessment by the jury if the student has written and presented a brief on this public lecture at the end of the B teaching placement. The deadline for submitting the brief is March 9, 2026, or March 16, 2026 (depending on the date set for the B teaching placement debriefing). Feedback interviews for this brief are March 18, 2026.
The public lecture file is evaluated in two stages.
A first grade (out of 20 points) is set following the presentation before an "internal" jury composed of a university expert and two members of the social sciences teaching team.
A second assessment (out of 30 points) will be set following the assessment of the lesson file corrected by a member of the teaching team and two teachers active in the secondary school.
Only public lesson applications awarded a grade of 10/20 or higher by the "internal" jury will be submitted for a second evaluation, after marking. Applications awarded a grade of less than 10/20 must be presented at another examination session.
How does the "internal" jury assess the admissibility and quality of the public lesson?
The "internal" jury for public lessons, when evaluating the application submitted to it, takes the following criteria into consideration.
First, compliance with formal requirements.
1. The file is an original work: there is no plagiarism. The use of AI is specified and detailed.
2. The bibliographic sources consulted are mentioned.
3. The topic is approached from the perspective of the social sciences and not from another discipline or a philosophy and citizenship education course.
4. The document is operational and effectively implements an active learning approach. The reader must be able to perceive the meaning, nature, and content of the proposed teaching approach. The pages are numbered; the headings are coherent and orderly; spelling and syntax codes are respected; the materials provided are accessible and readable. The student is encouraged to work on the learning process: this is not a file for a lecture or conference.
A major failure in any of these first three requirements is punishable by a grade of serious deficiency.
Second, mastery of disciplinary content and methodology.
1. Mastery of disciplinary content: accuracy, precision, clarity, and rigor in the content; updating of concepts (particularly when the analysis of the topic requires mobilizing the legal framework).
2. The adequacy of the disciplinary content to the needs and abilities of the target audience.
3. Prudence or epistemological vigilance: approaching the facts in their complexity, avoiding any form of simplification or oversimplification.
4. Methodological rigor: presence of a common thread in the approach, with a link between the starting point (initial problem situation) and the end point (summative assessment), and the presence of an intermediate measurement period (formative assessment). In other words, the file must necessarily include an initial problem situation, a formative assessment and a summative assessment.
Repeated failures in these four requirements are likely to be assessed with a grade of serious deficiency or insufficient. It is up to the jury to assess the extent of the deficit.
Third, mastery of teaching methods, i.e., the quality of the teaching transposition: presence of a summary text covering the essential elements of the lesson; quality of the initial problem situation (linked to the essential elements retained for the lesson; plausible; degree of precision of the question posed after the presentation of the situation); quality of the summative assessment (linked to the essential elements of the lesson; goes beyond a restitution of knowledge); relevance of the documents used during the lesson and the instructions given; justification of the approaches chosen (individual work, group work, collective work).
Repeated flaws or failures in teaching transposition are likely to be assessed with a grade of insufficient. It is up to the jury to assess the extent of the deficit.
If the public lesson submission meets the formal requirements, if it offers mastered disciplinary content and methodology, and if the teaching methods are deemed acceptable, the presentation will receive a grade of at least 10/20. The grade awarded to the submission is assessed based on the student's level of mastery of the teaching methods.
The comments, remarks, and suggestions made by the jury are communicated to the student electronically. It is then up to the student to consider all the comments and conduct a reasoned and thoughtful selection process, based on the essential principles of teaching transposition.
A corrected version of the public lesson must be submitted by the date set by the social studies teaching team. The quality of this corrected version is subject to assessment by one member of the social studies teaching team (who, among other things, verifies whether the student has taken into account the comments made) and two social studies teachers working in a secondary school (who provide an overall assessment of the quality of the work submitted based, among other things, on its suitability for use as is in a classroom).
Both public lesson files (initial version and corrected version) must be submitted within the set deadlines.
Deadline for the initial version: April 27, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
Deadline for the corrected version: June 5, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
If one of the applications is submitted late, the student's performance will be assessed as a serious deficiency. In the event of a serious deficiency in the public lecture presented to the jury, the student's overall performance for the ZENS0298 course will be assessed as a serious deficiency. In the event of a serious deficiency in the corrected lecture submitted to the Social Sciences Teaching Team (failure to take into account questions and comments, incomplete documents, incorrect content, etc.), the student's overall performance for the ZENS0298 course will be assessed as a serious deficiency.
Work placement(s)
Organisational remarks and main changes to the course
Please note !
Writing the public lesson report is a task that falls to the student alone: ??they must demonstrate their ability to design a learning sequence independently (see expected outcomes).
The teaching team may be called upon in case of blockage or significant hesitation. In this case, a one-on-one meeting will be scheduled; assistance cannot be provided through a "simple" email exchange. The student prepares specific questions or requests that relate to a specific element of content or methodology. The teaching team does not respond to requests such as: "Tell me what I should do" or "What would you do in my place?"
Contacts
Jean-François Guillaume, Professeur.
Jean-Francois.Guillaume@uliege.be
France Heuveneers, Assistante pédagogique
fheuveneers@uliege.be
Edgar Tasia, Assistant
edgar.tasia@uliege.be
04/366.35.03
Bureau 1.90, Bâtiment B31, Quartier Agora, Place des Orateurs, Université de Liège, Sart Tilman