Benchmark – Literacy Work Sample Presentation

Benchmark – Literacy Work Sample Presentation - Rubric

Literacy Work Sample (LWS) 60 points

Criteria Description

Literacy Work Sample (LWS)

5. Target 60 points

Each section of the LWS is thoroughly addressed and insightfully illustrates the

intervention and assessment process, progress made by each student, and next

steps for each student.

4. Acceptable 52.2 points

Each section of the LWS is clearly addressed and effectively illustrates the

intervention and assessment process, progress made by each student, and next

steps for each student.

3. Approaching 44.4 points

The LWS is minimally discussed. The intervention and assessment process, progress

made by each student, and next steps are somewhat addressed.

2. Insufficient 41.4 points

The LWS is inadequately addressed. Discussion of the intervention and assessment

process, progress made by each student, and next steps is incomplete.

1. No Submission 0 points

Collaboration: Design and Align Instructional Practices (B) 30 points

Criteria Description

Collaboration: Design and Align Instructional Practices (C6.2)

5. Target 30 points

Effective collaboration strategies during decision-making to design and align

instructional practices and interventions within and across classrooms are realistic.

4. Acceptable 26.1 points

Effective collaboration strategies during decision-making to design and align

instructional practices and interventions within and across classrooms are

Collapse All

reasonably addressed.

3. Approaching 22.2 points

Collaboration strategies during decision-making to design and align instructional

practices and interventions within and across classrooms are unclearly addressed.

2. Insufficient 20.7 points

Collaboration strategies during decision-making to design and align instructional

practices and interventions within and across classrooms are unrealistic.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed

Collaboration: Assessing and Aligning Instructional Practices (B) 30 points

Criteria Description

Collaboration: Assessing and Aligning Instructional Practices (C6.3)

5. Target 30 points

Effective collaboration strategies during decision-making to assess and align

instructional practices and interventions within and across classrooms are

thoroughly addressed.

4. Acceptable 26.1 points

Effective collaboration strategies during decision-making to assess and align

instructional practices and interventions within and across classrooms are

reasonably addressed.

3. Approaching 22.2 points

Collaboration strategies during decision-making to assess and align instructional

practices and interventions within and across classrooms are vaguely addressed.

2. Insufficient 20.7 points

Collaboration strategies during decision-making to assess and align instructional

practices and interventions within and across classrooms are insufficiently

addressed.

1. No Submission 0 points

Collaboration (B) 30 points

Criteria Description

Collaboration: Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating Literacy Instructional

Practices and Curriculum (C2.7)

5. Target 30 points

Effective collaboration strategies to develop, implement, and evaluate literacy

instructional practices and curriculum are insightfully addressed.

4. Acceptable 26.1 points

Effective collaboration strategies to develop, implement, and evaluate literacy

instructional practices and curriculum are logically addressed.

3. Approaching 22.2 points

Collaboration strategies to develop, implement, and evaluate literacy instructional

practices and curriculum are superficially addressed.

2. Insufficient 20.7 points

Collaboration strategies to develop, implement, and evaluate literacy instructional

practices and curriculum are implausible.

1. No Submission 0 points

Di�erentiation of Instructional Approaches (B) 45 points

Criteria Description

Differentiation of Instructional Approaches (C2.6)

5. Target 45 points

Instructional approaches and practices were innovatively differentiated to meet the

diverse literacy needs of each student.

4. Acceptable 39.15 points

Instructional approaches and practices were effectively differentiated to meet the

diverse literacy needs of each student.

3. Approaching 33.3 points

Instructional approaches and practices were ambiguously differentiated to meet

the diverse literacy needs of each student.

2. Insufficient 31.05 points

Instructional approaches and practices were ineffectively differentiated to meet the

diverse literacy needs of each student.

Re�ecting on Personal Practice (B) 45 points

Criteria Description

Reflecting on Personal Practice (C6.1)

5. Target 45 points

The process used to reflect on personal practice as a reading/literacy specialist in

light of current research, policy, and practice is well-crafted and meaningful.

4. Acceptable 39.15 points

The process used to reflect on personal practice as a reading/literacy specialist in

light of current research, policy, and practice is appropriate.

3. Approaching 33.3 points

The process used to reflect on personal practice as a reading/literacy specialist in

light of current research, policy, and practice is lacking details.

2. Insufficient 31.05 points

The process used to reflect on personal practice as a reading/literacy specialist in

light of current research, policy, and practice is unfitting.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Title Slide, Slide Notes, and Research Citations 15 points

Criteria Description

Title Slide, Slide Notes, and Research Citations

5. Target 15 points

Title slide and thorough slide notes are present. In-text citations and a reference

slide are complete and correct. Sources are credible. The documentation of cited

sources is free of error.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

Title slide and slide notes are present. In-text citations have few errors. References

used are reliable and reference slide lists all cited sources with few errors.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

Title slide, and/or slide notes, and/or reference slide are not present. Sources do

not fully support claims, or sources are not all credible. Sources are documented,

although several errors are present.

2. Insufficient 10.35 points

No title slide or slide notes. Reference slide includes errors and/or inconsistently

used citations. Sources are noncredible.

1 No Submission 0 points

Visual Appeal 15 points

Criteria Description

Visual Appeal

5. Target 15 points

The presentation is visually pleasing for the audience. There is a good variety and

use of graphics, colors, and fonts. The arrangement of material is logically

organized for presentation.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

Thematic graphic elements are used, but not always in context. Visual connections

mostly contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships.

Differences in type size or color are used well and consistently.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

Minimal use of graphic elements is evident. Elements do not consistently contribute

to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. There is some variation

in type size, color, and layout.

2. Insufficient 10.35 points

There are few or no graphic elements. No variation in layout or typography is

evident.

Mechanics of Writing 15 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Target 15 points

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

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

varied and engaging.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few are present. A

variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech are used, as well as

appropriate practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension.

Effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related

language.

2. Insufficient 10.35 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

Documentation of Sources 15 points

Criteria Description

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

appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Target 15 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

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

minor formatting errors are present.

2. Insufficient 10.35 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Total 300 points