|
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: 3.00
|
|
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: Many mechanical and spelling errors are present.
|
|
A. 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 this is a good lesson plan, it does not fulfill the requirements of the task. The task requires another subject area be integrated into a social science lesson plan. Please revise the lesson to include social science. Make sure to include a standard, objective, etc. that correlates social science.
|
|
A. 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: A reading standard is provided and it aligns with the lesson plan components. A social science standard, objective, instructional plan, assessment, etc. need to be included.
|
|
A. 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: The instructional plan is a good outline, but each component needs to include more detail. For example, describe how the new information will be presented. Describe how the groups will be chosen, etc.
In addition, the approximate time for each component needs to be provided.
|
|
A1. Hands-On Activities
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate’s lesson plan does not include appropriate hands-on activities.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate’s lesson plan includes appropriate hands-on activities.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
Comments on this criterion: The hands-on activity is appropriate.
|
|
A2. Primary Resources
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate’s lesson plan does not include appropriate primary resources.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate’s lesson plan includes appropriate primary resources.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
Comments on this criterion: The game park and photos are appropriate primary resources.
|
|
C. Revised Lesson Plan
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not submit a lesson plan that clearly indicates revised portions.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate submits a lesson plan that clearly indicates revised portions.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
Comments on this criterion: The revisions are highlighted.
|
|
D1. Importance of Effective Collaboration
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain the importance of collaborating effectively with colleagues to support student development, learning, and well-being.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of the importance of collaborating effectively with colleagues to support student development, learning, and well-being.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of the importance of collaborating effectively with colleagues to support student development, learning, and well-being.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of the importance of collaborating effectively with colleagues to support student development, learning, and well-being.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: The importance of collaborating is explained. The response needs to focus more on how effective collaboration can help support student development, learning, and well-being.
|
|
D2. 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 collaborative planning.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding collaborative planning.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding collaborative planning.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of insights gained from the observed video regarding collaborative planning.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The video is mentioned, but two clear insights gained from the video regarding collaborative planning is not evident.
|
|
D3. Analysis of Collaborative Process
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not analyze the process of collaboration with the classroom teacher.
|
The candidate provides an illogical analysis of the process of collaboration with the classroom teacher.
|
The candidate provides a logical analysis of the process of collaboration with the classroom teacher.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported analysis of the process of collaboration with the classroom teacher.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
D4. Impact on Teaching Strategies and Instruction
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain how the collaborative process impacted personal teaching strategies and instructional plan/sequence of instruction.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of how the collaborative process impacted personal teaching strategies and instructional plan/sequence of instruction.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of how the collaborative process impacted personal teaching strategies and instructional plan/sequence of instruction.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of how the collaborative process impacted personal teaching strategies and instructional plan/sequence of instruction.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: A lot of the explanation appears to be theoretical. Specifically explain the teaching strategies and sequence of instruction that was impacted.
|
|
D5. Explanation of Revisions
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain why the revisions were made to the lesson plan based on the collaboration.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of why the revisions were made to the lesson plan based on the collaboration.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of why the revisions were made to the lesson plan based on the collaboration.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of why the revisions were made to the lesson plan based on the collaboration.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
Comments on this criterion: The revisions are briefly explained.
|
|
G. 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: 3.00
|
|
G. 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
|
|
G1a. 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: The instructional setting is clearly described.
|
|
G2a. Level of Student Learning
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not analyze the level of student learning as it relates to use of appropriate hands-on instructional activities and primary resources.
|
The candidate provides an illogical analysis of the level of student learning as it relates to use of appropriate hands-on instructional activities and primary resources.
|
The candidate provides a logical analysis of the level of student learning as it relates to use of appropriate hands-on instructional activities and primary resources.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported analysis of the level of student learning as it relates to use of appropriate hands-on instructional activities and primary resources.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The hands-on activity is briefly described. An analysis of the level of student learning as it relates to the hands-on activity and the primary resources is needed.
|
|
G3a. Pedagogical Strategy and Theory of Multiple Intelligences
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain how a pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to the theory of multiple intelligences.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of how a pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to the theory of multiple intelligences.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of how a pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to the theory of multiple intelligences.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of how a pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to the theory of multiple intelligences.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: A pedagogical strategy is not listed or explained or related to the theory of multiple intelligences. Direct teaching is listed in the lesson plan as the pedagogical strategy being used. Explain how direct instruction relates to the theory of multiple intelligences.
|
|
G4a. Appropriateness of Hands-On Activity
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not analyze the appropriateness of the hands-on activity for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides an illogical analysis of the appropriateness of the hands-on activity for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides a logical analysis of the appropriateness of the hands-on activity for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported analysis of the appropriateness of the hands-on activity for the lesson.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: The hands-on activity is described. Provide an analysis of the appropriateness of the hands-on activity for the lesson.
|
|
G4b. Appropriateness of Primary Resources
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not analyze the appropriateness of the primary resources for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides an illogical analysis of the appropriateness of the primary resources for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides a logical analysis of the appropriateness of the primary resources for the lesson.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported analysis of the appropriateness of the primary resources for the lesson.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: This component has not been addressed. Provide an analysis of the appropriateness of the primary resources for the lesson.
|
|
G4c. 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: This component has not been addressed. Provide an explanation of the personal thinking process used to complete the evaluation.
|
|
G5a. Alternative Approach
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not explain an alternative approach that could have been used to combine social sciences and one or more other disciplines.
|
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of an alternative approach that could have been used to combine social sciences and one or more other disciplines.
|
The candidate provides a logical explanation of an alternative approach that could have been used to combine social sciences and one or more other disciplines.
|
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported explanation of an alternative approach that could have been used to combine social sciences and one or more other disciplines.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
Comments on this criterion: A valid alternative approach is explained.
|
|
G5b. 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: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The alternative approach has not been justified. Explain why the alternative approach is valid.
|
|
G6a. Personal Teaching Methods
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
The candidate does not predict how this experience might affect personal teaching methods.
|
The candidate provides an implausible prediction of how this experience might affect personal teaching methods.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate provides a plausible prediction of how this experience might affect personal teaching methods.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
|
|
G6b. 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: This component has not been addressed. Explain what was considered regarding personal and/or professional implications.
|
|
H. Sources
|
|
(1) Unacceptable
|
(2) Needs revision
|
(3) Meets standard
|
(4) Exemplary
|
|
If the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and/or references for each source used.
|
If the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and/or references with major deviations from APA style.
|
If the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and/or references with minor deviations from APA style.
|
If the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and/or references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.
|
|
Criterion Score: 4.00
|
|
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
lal242612013scoresocialscience2.docx
0
