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 pointsTotal 50 points
…
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL – NO PLAGIARISM
(USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS
About Our Service
We are an online academic writing company that connects talented freelance writers with students in need of their services. Unlike other writing companies, our team is made up of native English speakers from countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.
Qualified Writers
- At ClassicWritersBay.com, most of our writers are degree-holding native speakers of English who are familiar with various writing styles. Our writers are proficient in many fields, including Economics, Business, Accounting, Finance, Medicine, Chemistry, Literature, Mathematics, Statistics, and many others.
- Making our customers happy is an important part of our service. So do not be surprised if you get your paper well before the deadline!
- We pay a lot of attention to ensuring that you get excellent customer service. You can contact our Customer Support Representatives 24/7. When you order from us, you can even track the progress of your paper as it is being written!
- We are attentive to the needs of our customers. Therefore, we follow all your instructions carefully so that you can get the best paper possible.
- It matters to us who writes for you, and we are serious about selecting the best candidates.
- Our writers are always learning something new, so they are familiar with the latest developments in the scientific world and can write papers with updated information and the latest findings.
Our Guarantees:
- Quality original papers that follow your instructions carefully.
- On time delivery – you get the paper before the specified deadline.
- Attentive Customer Support Representatives available 24/7.
- Complete confidentiality – we do not share you details or papers with anybody else.
