Clinical Field Experience C: Professional Development for Improving Teaching Strategies

Clinical Field Experience C: Professional Development for Improving Teaching

Strategies - Rubric

Professional Development Presentation and Evaluation 15 points

Criteria Description

Professional Development Presentation and Evaluation

5. Target 15 points

Reflection on professional development presentation, including discussion of

evaluation received and changes that could be made to improve the presentation,

engage teachers, and create accountability is thorough and includes substantial

supporting details.

4. Acceptable 13.05 points

Reflection on professional development presentation, including discussion of

evaluation received and changes that could be made to improve the presentation,

engage teachers, and create accountability is complete and contains supporting

details.

3. Approaching 11.1 points

Reflection on professional development presentation, including discussion of

evaluation received and changes that could be made to improve the presentation,

engage teachers, and create accountability is vague and lacks supporting details.

2. Insufficient 10.35 points

Reflection on professional development presentation, including discussion of

evaluation received and changes that could be made to improve the presentation,

engage teachers, and create accountability is incomplete.

Peer Evaluation 10 points

Criteria Description

Peer Evaluation

5. Target 10 points

Reflection on sharing the presentation with a peer and suggested improvements is

thorough and includes substantial supporting details.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

Collapse All

Reflection on sharing the presentation with a peer and suggested improvements is

complete and contains supporting details.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

Reflection on sharing the presentation with a peer and suggested improvements is

vague and lacks supporting details.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

Reflection on sharing the presentation with a peer and suggested improvements is

incomplete.

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.

1. No Submission 0 points Total 50 points