|
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, word usage, ease of understandability)
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
No evidence of response to prompt
|
Weak articulation of response
|
Adequate articulation of response
|
Skillful articulation of response
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: Clarity of response to the task prompt is impeded by both mechanical errors as well as the the attached lesson plan lacks depth and detail specific to the prompt.
|
|
Accuracy of Mechanics (grammar, punctuation, spelling)
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
Presence of several major errors that disrupt the meaning or flow of response
|
Presence of a few major errors and/or many minor errors that interfere with clarity of the response
|
Presence of a few minor errors; absence of readily detectable major errors
|
Absence of readily detectable major or minor errors
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: Errors noted in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization that impede overall clarity of the submission.
|
|
B1. Observed Mathematics Teaching Model
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not describe the observed mathematics teaching model.
|
The candidate provides an imprecise description of the observed mathematics teaching model.
|
The candidate provides a reasonable description of the observed mathematics teaching model.
|
The candidate provides a precise description of the observed mathematics teaching model.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
B2. Observed Student Practice Time
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not describe how the observed teacher structures student practice time.
|
The candidate provides an imprecise description of how the observed teacher structures student practice time.
|
The candidate provides a reasonable description of how the observed teacher structures student practice time.
|
The candidate provides a precise description of how the observed teacher structures student practice time.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
C1. Lesson Plan Components
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The lesson plan does not present information for each component of the lesson plan format.
|
The lesson plan presents information for each component of the lesson plan format, but some or all of the information is inappropriate.
|
Not applicable.
|
The lesson plan presents appropriate information for each component of the lesson plan format.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: While a lesson plan is present in the submission, the plan lacks detail specific for the task. Also, as the plan is presented in separate format that the template format, there are aspects of the template lesson plan that are not apparently addressed and/or present in the submitted plan.
|
|
C1. Lesson Plan Alignment
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The lesson plan’s instructional plan/sequence of instruction and student assessment do not align with the standards and objectives.
|
The lesson plan presents flawed alignment between the instructional plan/sequence of instruction and student assessment and the standards and objectives.
|
Not applicable.
|
The lesson plan presents alignment between the instructional plan/sequence of instruction and student assessment and the standards and objectives.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: There is insufficient depth and detail in the lesson plan specifying standards, objective. Likewise, assessing via a test "to test their knowledge of the content" needs development as there is insufficient detail in the plan specifying what the content is (detail is needed beyond "solve complex Problems" as content).
|
|
C1. Lesson Plan Instructional Plan/Sequence of Instruction
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The lesson plan presents an instructional plan/sequence of instruction that does not meet the lesson’s objective(s).
|
The lesson plan presents a flawed and/or inappropriate instructional plan/sequence of instruction to meet the lesson’s objective(s).
|
The lesson plan presents a workable instructional plan/sequence of instruction to meet the lesson’s objective(s).
|
The lesson plan presents a consistent and appropriate instructional plan/sequence of instruction to meet the lesson’s objective(s).
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: Lesson plan doe not apparently present prerequisite skills. Depth and detail is needed beyond "projecting images and statistics of algebraic expressions". Similarly, stating to use a power point presentation to inform participants about the learning outcomes of the lesson and what is expected of them" lacks appropriate specificity. Depth and detail is needed in describing assessment beyond "perform algebraic expressions in real life situation". As the submitted lesson plan differs from the template format, there are aspects of the template plan that are not apparently addressed in the submitted plan.
|
|
E. Level of Objectivity
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
Evidence of inappropriate subjectivity, limited objectivity, or bias
|
Limited evidence of objectivity
|
Adequate evidence of appropriate objectivity
|
Strong evidence of appropriate objectivity
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: Criteria cannot be fairly evaluated per the lesson plan presented. Criteria will be reevaluated correlating to revisions to be made in the lesson plan.
|
|
E. Fluent Use of Relevant Educational Terminology
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
No evidence of use and/or application of relevant terminology
|
Weak use and/or application of relevant terminology
|
Adequate use and application of relevant terminology
|
Skilled use and application of relevant terminology
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
E1a. Instructional Setting
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not describe the instructional setting.
|
The candidate provides an imprecise description of the instructional setting.
|
The candidate provides a reasonable description of the instructional setting.
|
The candidate provides a precise description of the instructional setting.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
Comments on this criterion: While much detail describes the physical aspects of the classroom, increased detail of the students, beyond "14 girls and 10 boys" would enhance the description.
|
|
E2a. Deviation From Lesson Plan
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate provides no explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
E3a. Speculation From Cooperative Learning Perspective
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not speculate how a proponent of cooperative learning might suggest that the lesson presentation be modified.
|
The candidate provides implausible speculation of how a proponent of cooperative learning might suggest that the lesson presentation be modified.
|
The candidate provides plausible speculation of how a proponent of cooperative learning might suggest that the lesson presentation be modified.
|
The candidate provides credible and well-supported speculation of how a proponent of cooperative learning might suggest that the lesson presentation be modified.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
E4a. Success of the Mathematics Teaching Model
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not assess the success of the mathematics teaching model used as it relates to the level of student learning.
|
The candidate provides an implausible assessment of the success of the mathematics teaching model used as it relates to the level of student learning.
|
The candidate provides a plausible assessment of the success of the mathematics teaching model used as it relates to the level of student learning.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported assessment of the success of the mathematics teaching model used as it relates to the level of student learning.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: There is some confusion correlating effectiveness as being focused on taking "less time to solve" problems when this objective (less time solving problems) is not specified in the lesson plan objective or the assessment.
|
|
E4b. Effectiveness of Practice Time
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not assess the effectiveness of the lesson presentation.
|
The candidate provides implausible assessment of the effectiveness of the lesson presentation.
|
The candidate provides plausible assessment of the effectiveness of the lesson presentation.
|
The candidate provides credible and well-supported assessment of the effectiveness of the lesson presentation.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: While the effectiveness of practice time is being focused on how problems "were solved with less time", there is confusion as this aspect is not specified in the lesson plan objective or the assessment description.
|
|
E4c. Explanation of Thinking Process
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not provide an explanation of personal thinking process used to complete the evaluation.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate provides an explanation of personal thinking process used to complete the evaluation.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: Clarification is needed in describing the thinking process as "higher level" Further, there is confusion in detailing "giving a time limit for each problems" which is not specified in the lesson plan.
|
|
E5a. Alternative Approach
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not provide an alternative approach that could positively affect student learning.
|
The candidate provides an implausible alternative approach to positively affect student learning.
|
The candidate provides a plausible alternative approach that could positively affect student learning.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-founded alternative approach that could positively affect student learning.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
E5b. Justification of Recommendations
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not provide a justification of choice of recommendations.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate provides a justification of choice of recommendations.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
|
|
E6a. Modify Teaching Methods
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not predict how this experience might affect personal ability to modify teaching methods to improve instruction.
|
The candidate provides implausible predictions of how this experience might affect personal ability to modify teaching methods to improve instruction.
|
The candidate provides plausible predictions of how this experience might affect personal ability to modify teaching methods to improve instruction.
|
The candidate provides credible and well-supported predictions of how this experience might affect personal ability to modify teaching methods to improve instruction.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
E6b. Insights From Observed Video
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain insights gained from the observed video regarding teaching multi-step math problems.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding teaching multi-step math problems.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding teaching multi-step math problems.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding teaching multi-step math problems.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: There is no apparent discussion pertaining to the observed video.
|
|
E6c. Explanation of Considerations
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not provide an explanation of what was considered regarding personal and/or professional implications.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate provides an explanation of what was considered regarding personal and/or professional implications.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: There is no apparent discussion pertaining to personal and/or professional implications.
|
|
General Teaching Dispositions as Indicated in the Teachers College Code of Ethics
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs Revision
|
(3) Meets Standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate demonstrates inappropriate professional teaching dispositions.
|
The candidate demonstrates questionable professional teaching dispositions.
|
The candidate demonstrates appropriate professional teaching dispositions.
|
The candidate demonstrates fully developed professional teaching dispositions.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
Favouritewriter
lal242512013mathscore.docx
0
