pr007 work product

please carefully review the instructions, along with my feedback throughout the rubric, and let me know if you have any questions.

Rubric Name: PR007 Rubric

This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Criteria

0 - Not Present

1 - Needs Improvement

2 - Meets Expectations

3 - Exceeds Expectations

LO1.1: Critique a preschool lesson plan designed to promote language development.

Critique of a preschool lesson plan designed to promote language development is missing.

Response includes a vague or invalid critique of the appropriateness of learning objectives for the children in the case presented and/or their alignment to early childhood standards, or the critique is missing.

Response includes a vague or invalid critique of the activities, strategies, and grouping structures that will be used to promote language development in terms of their potential for achieving the learning objectives, or the critique is missing.

Response includes a vague or valid critique of inputs that informed the teacher’s planning, such as assessment data, children’s needs, and differences; or the critique is missing.

Response identifies fewer than two examples of the children’s individual language needs and/or provides a vague or invalid critique of how the instruction will be differentiated to meet varying needs.

Response includes a vague and/or invalid critique of the informal assessments that will be used during lesson implementation, or the critique is missing.

Response includes a clear and valid critique of the appropriateness of learning objectives for the children in the case presented and their alignment to early childhood standards.

Response includes a clear and valid critique of the activities, strategies, and grouping structures that will be used to promote language development in terms of their potential for achieving the learning objectives.

Response includes a clear and valid critique of inputs that informed the teacher’s planning, such as assessment data, children’s needs, and differences.

Response identifies two examples of the children’s individual language needs and includes a clear and valid critique of how the instruction will be differentiated to meet those needs.

Response includes a clear and valid critique of the informal assessments that will be used during lesson implementation.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes a reference to an academic/professional resource to support the insights.

LO1.2 Critique the implementation of preschool language development lesson.

Record of an observation of a preschool language development lesson is missing.

Response vaguely describes and critiques the overall level of children’s engagement during the lesson and includes two specific examples, or only one example is given.

Response provides and critiques fewer than three clear examples of children’s responses to the activities and strategies conducted during the lesson, and/or the examples/critiques are vague or missing.

Response vaguely describes and critiques examples of how the teacher adjusted the lesson based on informal assessments conducted during implementation, or the examples are missing.

Response clearly describes and critiques the overall level of children’s engagement during the lesson and includes two specific examples.

Response provides and critiques three examples of children’s responses to the activities and strategies conducted during the lesson.

Response clearly describes and critiques examples of how the teacher adjusted the lesson based on informal assessments conducted during implementation.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes an explanation of other actions the teacher could have taken during the lesson to support the children’s learning.

L01.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of a preschool language development lesson.

Evaluation of the results of a preschool language development lesson is missing.

Response vaguely explains whether the activities and strategies implemented were successful or not, and/or an explanation of why they were or were not successful is missing.

Response cites fewer than two examples of evidence, or the examples are not relevant.

Response vaguely explains whether or not the learning objectives were achieved and/or does not include examples.

Response clearly explains whether the activities and strategies implemented were successful or not, and why.

Response cites at least two examples of evidence.

Response clearly explains whether or not the learning objectives were achieved and includes examples.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes a reference to an academic/professional resource to support the actions.

Criterion Feedback

Lua, please carefully review the instructions and note that this must be completed based on a lesson you observed. Given the pandemic, this can be a video of a lesson; but it should not be a reflection on a lesson you once planned.

LO2.1: Critique a preschool lesson plan designed to promote phonemic awareness and phonics.

Critique of a preschool lesson plan designed to promote phonemic awareness and phonics is missing.

Response includes a vague or illogical critique of the appropriateness of learning objectives for the children in the case presented and/or their alignment to early childhood standards, or the critique is missing.

Response includes a vague or illogical critique of the activities and strategies that will be used to promote phonemic awareness and phonics in terms of their potential for achieving the learning objectives, or the critique is missing.

Response identifies fewer than two examples of the children’s individual literacy needs and explains how those needs will be met according to the plan, or the explanations are unclear or missing.

Response vaguely describes informal assessments that will be used during lesson implementation, or the description is missing.

Response includes a critique of the appropriateness of learning objectives for the children in the case presented.

Response includes a critique of the activities and strategies that will be used to promote phonemic awareness and phonics in terms of their potential for achieving the learning objectives.

Response identifies two examples of the children’s individual literacy needs and explains how those needs will be met according to the plan.

Response describes informal assessments that will be used during lesson implementation.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes a reference to an academic/professional resource to support the insights.

LO2.2 Critique the implementation of a preschool phonemic awareness and phonics development lesson.

Record of an observation of a preschool phonemic awareness and phonics lesson is missing.

Response vaguely describes the overall level of children’s engagement during the lesson and includes two specific examples, or only one example is given.

Response provides fewer than three clear examples of children’s responses to the activities and strategies conducted during the lesson, and/or the examples are not clear.

Response vaguely describes examples of how the teacher adjusted the lesson based on informal assessments conducted during implementation, or the examples are missing.

Response clearly describes the overall level of children’s engagement during the lesson, and includes two specific examples.

Response provides three clear examples of children’s responses to the activities and strategies conducted during the lesson.

Response clearly describes examples of how the teacher adjusted the lesson based on informal assessments conducted during implementation.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes an explanation of other actions the teacher could have taken during the lesson to support the children’s learning.

L02.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of a preschool phonemic awareness and phonics lesson.

Evaluation of the results of a preschool phonemic awareness and phonics lesson is missing.

Response vaguely explains whether the activities and strategies implemented were successful or not, and/or an explanation of why they were or were not successful is missing.

Response cites fewer than two examples of evidence, or the examples are not relevant.

Response vaguely explains whether or not the learning objectives were achieved and/or does not include examples.

Response clearly explains whether the activities and strategies implemented were successful or not, and why.

Response cites at least two examples of evidence.

Response clearly explains whether or not the learning objectives were achieved and includes examples.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response includes a reference to an academic/professional resource to support the actions.

Criterion Feedback

It seems here that you met with another teacher, but the details of the lesson need to be much clearer throughout this critique. There is a lot of discussion here, but very little detail related to the actual lesson you observed.

LO3.1 Provide foundational information for a preschool literacy lesson that supports vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, and writing.

Foundational information for a preschool literacy lesson that supports vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension is missing.

Response vaguely or incompletely identifies: - Vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension content areas - Developmental domains - Pre-K literacy learning standards - Learning goals/objectives - Materials/technology/equipment/resources

Response clearly identifies: - Vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension content areas - Writing skill(s) to be addressed - Developmental domains - Pre-K literacy learning standards - Learning goals/objectives - Materials/technology/equipment/resources

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains how foundational elements are aligned.

LO3.2 Describe the lesson introduction/anticipatory set.

Lesson introduction/anticipatory set is missing.

Response vaguely describes one or more activities that establish a warm connection and captures children’s attention.

Response clearly describes one or more activities that establish a warm connection and captures children’s attention.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains the decision-making process used in determining the introduction/anticipatory set.

LO3.3 Explain steps in the lesson for building knowledge and skills.

Steps in the lesson for building knowledge and skills are missing.

Response describes generally or in random sequence what the teacher and the children will do in all activities and transitions that are part of this learning experience.

Explanation given for how the activity might be differentiated to meet the needs of individual children, including children with exceptionalities is vague, does not reflect research-based strategies, or is missing.

Response describes specifically, and in a step-by-step fashion, what the teacher and the children will do in all activities and transitions that are part of this learning experience.

Explanation, for each activity, is given for how the activity might be differentiated to meet the needs of individual children, including children with exceptionalities.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains the decision-making process used in determining steps in the lesson for building knowledge and skills.

LO3.4 Describe strategies that will be used to assess children’s learning.

Strategies that will be used to assess children’s learning are missing.

Response vaguely explains how children’s learning will be assessed during and/or after the lesson.

Assessment does not use observation/documentation.

Assessment is not aligned with lesson goals/objectives.

Response clearly explains how children’s learning will be assessed during and/or after the lesson.

Assessment includes observation/documentation.

Assessment is aligned with lesson goals/objectives.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains the decision-making process used in determining strategies that will be used to assess children’s learning.

Learning Objective 4.5: Describe a lesson closure activity.

Lesson closure activity is missing.

Closure activities/strategies that will be used to bring closure to the lesson are misaligned with the lesson.

Closure activities/strategies do not involve summarizing, reviewing, and/or reflecting on the learning that has taken place during the lesson.

Response describes one or more activities/strategies that will be used to bring closure to the lesson.

Closure activities/strategies involve summarizing, reviewing, and/or reflecting on the learning that has taken place during the lesson.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains the decision-making process used in determining a lesson closure activity.

Learning Objective 4.6: Engage in critical reflection of lesson implementation.

Critical reflection of lesson implementation is missing.

Response vaguely describes children’s responses during the lesson that show whether or not children are grasping the literacy skills and concepts being targeted.

Response vaguely describes adjustments made during the lesson based on children’s responses.

Response vaguely explains whether or not the adjustments were effective and why.

Response clearly describes children’s responses during the lesson that show whether or not children are grasping the literacy skills and concepts being targeted.

Response clearly describes adjustments made during the lesson based on children’s responses and explains whether or not the adjustments were effective and why.

Response explains what could be done differently next time and what next steps can be taken to promote learning.

Response explains how families and others can be involved to support the children’s literacy learning.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response explains how the planning, implementation, and reflection experiences supported professional growth and learning.

Criterion Feedback

I'm thinking you may have mis-labeled your submissions, and that this was supposed to be part I. I'm going to send this back to you, as not only is the submission unclear but the content of what has been submitted needs to be more directly responsive to the prompts. Additionally, in Part III, you should be using the provided template.

Learning Objective PS 1.1: Use proper grammar, spelling, and mechanics.

Multiple major and minor errors in grammar, spelling, and/or mechanics are highly distracting and seriously impact readability.

Multiple minor errors in grammar, spelling, and/or mechanics are distracting and negatively impact readability.

Writing reflects competent use of standard edited American English.

Errors in grammar, spelling, and/or mechanics do not negatively impact readability.

Grammar, spelling, and mechanics reflect a high-level of accuracy in standard American English and enhance readability.

Learning Objective PS 1.2: Organize writing to enhance clarity.

Writing is poorly organized and incoherent. Introductions, transitions, and conclusions are missing or inappropriate.

Writing is loosely organized. Limited use of introductions, transitions, and conclusions provides partial continuity.

Writing is generally well organized. Introductions, transitions, and conclusions provide continuity and a logical progression of ideas.

Writing is consistently well organized. Introductions, transitions, and conclusions are used effectively to enhance clarity, cohesion, and flow.

Learning Objective PS 1.3: Support writing with appropriate resources.

Writing does not integrate appropriate resources and content in support of ideas and argument.

Writing loosely integrates some appropriate resources and content in support of ideas and argument.

Writing sufficiently integrates appropriate resources (which may include peer-reviewed resources) and content in support of ideas and argument.

Writing effectively integrates appropriate resources (which may include peer-reviewed resources) and content to support and expand upon ideas and arguments.

Learning Objective PS 1.4: Apply APA style to written work.

APA conventions are not applied.

APA conventions for attribution of sources, structure, formatting, etc., are applied inconsistently.

APA conventions for attribution of sources, structure, formatting, etc., are generally applied correctly in most instances. Sources are generally cited appropriately and accurately.

APA conventions for attribution of sources, structure, formatting, etc., are applied correctly and consistently throughout the paper. Sources are consistently cited appropriately and accurately.

Learning Objective PS 1.5: Use appropriate vocabulary and tone for the audience and purpose.

Vocabulary and tone are inappropriate and negatively impact clarity of concepts to be conveyed.

Vocabulary and tone have limited relevance to the audience.

Vocabulary and tone are generally appropriate for the audience and support communication of key concepts.

Vocabulary and tone are consistently tailored to the audience and effectively and directly support communication of key concepts.

Learning Objective PS 5.1: Analyze assumptions and fallacies.

Analysis of assumptions is missing.

Response is weak in assessing the reasonableness of assumptions in a given argument.

Response does not adequately identify and discuss the implications of fallacies or logical weaknesses in a given argument.

Response generally assesses the reasonableness of assumptions in a given argument.

Response identifies and discusses the implications of fallacies and/or logical weaknesses in a given argument.

Response clearly and comprehensively assesses the reasonableness of assumptions in a given argument.

Response provides a detailed and compelling analysis of implications of fallacies and logical weaknesses in a given argument.

Learning Objective PS 5.2: Generate reasonable and appropriate assumptions.

Assumptions are missing.

Response does not adequately present and discuss key assumptions in an original argument.

Response presents and discusses key assumptions in an original argument.

Response justifies the reasonableness and need for assumptions in an original argument.

Learning Objective PS 5.3: Assess multiple perspectives and alternatives.

Assessment of multiple perspectives is missing.

Response does not identify nor adequately consider multiple perspectives or alternatives.

Response identifies and considers multiple perspectives and alternatives.

Response justifies selection of chosen alternative relative to others.

Learning Objective PS 5.4: Use problem-solving skills.

Problems and solutions are not identified.

Response presents solutions but they are ineffective in addressing the specific problem.

Response presents solutions that are practical and work in addressing the specific problem.

Response presents compelling supporting arguments for proposed solutions.

Criterion Feedback

Please carefully proofread your submissions, as there were a number of errors in grammar/formatting throughout and also places where your writing is unclear.

Overall Score

Overall Score

0 - Not Present

1 - Needs Improvement

2 - Meets Expectations

3 - Exceeds Expectations

Score
Not Yet Achieved
Feedback Date
May 29, 2020 9:23 AM