Clinical Field Experience B: Improving New Teacher Induction Strategies

Clinical Field Experience B: Improving New Teacher Induction Strategies -

Rubric

Bene�ts of Induction Plan 10 points

Criteria Description

Benefits of Induction Plan

5. Target 10 points

Reflection explicitly explains what the induction plan included and expertly includes

how beneficial the plan is in the specified areas.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

Reflection clearly explains what the induction plan included and reasonably

includes how beneficial the plan is in the specified areas.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

Reflection marginally explains what the induction plan included and vaguely

includes how beneficial the plan is in the specified areas.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

Reflection irrelevantly explains what the induction plan included and does not

include how beneficial the plan is in the specified areas.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Teacher Induction Plan Interview 10 points

Criteria Description

Teacher Induction Plan Interview

5. Target 10 points

Reflection on the teacher induction plan interview, including discussion of plan

strengths and opportunities for improvement, is thorough and includes substantial

supporting details.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

Collapse All

Reflection on the teacher induction plan interview, including discussion of plan

strengths and opportunities for improvement, is complete and contains supporting

details.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

Reflection on the teacher induction plan interview, including discussion of plan

strengths and opportunities for improvement, is vague and lacks supporting details.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

Reflection on the teacher induction plan interview, including discussion of plan

strengths and opportunities for improvement, is incomplete.

1. No Submission 0 points

New Knowledge and Two More Questions 5 points

Criteria Description

New Knowledge and Two More Questions

5. Target 5 points

Reflection skillfully includes what is known now that should have been included in

the induction plan as well as specifically provides answers to two additional

questions.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

Reflection considerably includes what is known now that should have been included

in the induction plan as well as soundly provides answers to two additional

questions.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Reflection ambiguously includes what is known now that should have been included

in the induction plan as well as weakly provides answers to two additional

questions.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

Reflection inadequately includes what is known now that should have been

included in the induction plan and does not provide answers to two additional

questions.

PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and Implications for Future Practice 15 points

Criteria Description

PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and Implications for Future Practice

5. Target 15 points

Reflection proficiently discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and any other standards that apply are

expertly incorporated into reflection.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

Reflection logically discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and any other standards that apply are

accurately incorporated into reflection.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

Reflection inexplicitly discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and any other standards that apply are vaguely

addressed.

2. Insufficient 10.35 points

Reflection unrealistically discusses implications for application as a future

practitioner. Elements of PSEL Standards 6 and 7 and any other standards that

apply are inaccurately addressed.

Organization 5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 5 points

The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas

that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides

the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the

required word count.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The

content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is

within a reasonable range of the required word count.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with

a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the

required word count.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The

ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the

summary is widely outside of the required word count.

Mechanics of Writing 2.5 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use

5. Target 2.5 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 2.18 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent

language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.

2. Insufficient 1.72 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 2.5 points

Criteria Description

citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and

style

5. Target 2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style. Format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

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

key formatting and citation errors are present.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Total 50 points