Clinical Field Experience D - Further Implementation and Colleague Support

Clinical Field Experience D: Further Implementation and Colleague Support -

Rubric

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Revisionss 10.5 points

Criteria Description

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Revisionss

5. Target 10.5 points

Revisions are expertly made to the intervention based on previous interventions

and the discussion with the mentor.

4. Acceptable 9.14 points

Revisions are logically made to the intervention based on previous interventions

and the discussion with the mentor.

3. Approaching 7.77 points

Revisions to the intervention based on previous interventions and the discussion

with the mentor are weak.

2. Insufficient 7.24 points

Revisions to the intervention based on previous interventions and the discussion

with the mentor are irrelevant.

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Research 10.5 points

Criteria Description

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Research

5. Target 10.5 points

Articles/resources to support the interventions are timely and skillfully align to

individual student needs.

4. Acceptable 9.14 points

Articles/resources to support the interventions are credible and appropriate for

individual student needs.

3. Approaching 7.77 points

Collapse All

Articles/resources to support the interventions are overly simplistic and vaguely

align with student needs.

2. Insufficient 7.24 points

Articles/resources fail to support the interventions or are unfitting for student

needs.

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Observations/ Progress Monitoring Data 14 points

Criteria Description

LWS: Intervention Day 3 – Observations/ Progress Monitoring Data

5. Target 14 points

Observations and progress monitoring data for each student are expertly recorded.

4. Acceptable 12.18 points

Observations and progress monitoring data for each student are clearly recorded.

3. Approaching 10.36 points

Observations and progress monitoring data for each student are recorded but may

include extraneous information.

2. Insufficient 9.66 points

Observations and progress monitoring data for each student are insufficient.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Journal: Summary of Support 10.5 points

Criteria Description

Journal: Summary of Support

5. Target 10.5 points

A comprehensive summary of the experience supporting the selected colleague by

providing strategies and resources is included.

4. Acceptable 9.14 points

A detailed summary of the experience supporting the selected colleague by

providing strategies and resources is included.

3. Approaching 7.77 points

Summary of the experience supporting the selected colleague by providing

strategies and resources is lacking detail.

2. Insufficient 7.24 points

Summary of the experience supporting the selected colleague by providing

strategies and resources is inadequate.

1 No Submission 0 points

Journal: Justi�cation of Each Resource 10.5 points

Criteria Description

Journal: Justification of Each Resource

5. Target 10.5 points

The reasoning for each resource provided is insightful. Specific examples of how

and when the resources will be used and how this will help the teacher and class in

meeting the identified literacy goals are included.

4. Acceptable 9.14 points

The reasoning for each resource provided is credible. Relevant examples of how

and when the resources will be used and how this will help the teacher and class in

meeting the identified literacy goals are included.

3. Approaching 7.77 points

The reasoning for each resource provided is minimal. Examples of how and when

the resources will be used and how this will help the teacher and class in meeting

the identified literacy goals are weak.

2. Insufficient 7.24 points

The reasoning for each resource provided is ineffective. Examples of how and when

resources will be used and how this will help the teacher and class in meeting the

identified literacy goals irrelevant or not included.

Template Format 3.5 points

Criteria Description

Template Format

5. Target 3.5 points

Content is well-presented and easy to read. All template and format elements are

correct.

4. Acceptable 3.05 points

Content is clear. Appropriate template is fully used. There are very few errors in

formatting style.

3. Approaching 2.59 points

Content is somewhat unfocused. Appropriate template is used, but formatting

includes several minor errors or some lack of clarity.

2. Insufficient 2.42 points

Content is confusing. Template is missing key elements or includes pervasive

errors. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. No Submission 0 points

Documentation of Sources 3.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as

appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Target 3.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 3.05 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 2.59 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although several

minor formatting errors are present.

2. Insufficient 2.42 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors

Mechanics 7 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Target 7 points

Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-

developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are

accurate and engaging.

4. Acceptable 6.09 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. Effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice

and content-related language.

3. Approaching 5.18 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present and are somewhat

distracting to the reader; or inconsistent language or word choice is present; or

sentence structures are often incorrect or lacking clarity.

2. Insufficient 4.83 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

1. No Submission 0 points Total 70 points