Rubic_Print_FormatCourse_CodeClass_CodeAssignment_TitleTotal

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
ELM-555	ELM-555-O500	Clinical Field Experience C: Implementing Formative Assessment	25.0
Criteria	Percentage	No Submission (0.00%)	Insufficient (69.00%)	Approaching (74.00%)	Acceptable (87.00%)	Target (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	100.0%
Mini-Lesson Plan: Learning Activity and Instructional Strategy	25.0%	Not addressed.	Mini-lesson plan template includes poor and irrelevant details related to content area, grade level, standard, learning objective, and unrealistic formative assessments before, during, and after instruction, with weak focus to practicum classroom.	Mini-lesson plan template includes vague and surface-level details related to content area, grade level, standard, learning objective, and partially proficient description of a learning activity and instructional strategy.	Mini-lesson plan template includes accurate details related to content area, grade level, standard, learning objective, and a detailed description of a learning activity and relevant instructional strategy.	Mini-lesson plan template is comprehensive and thorough with content area, grade level, standard, learning objective, and a well-developed description of a learning activity and insightful instructional strategy.
Mini-Lesson Plan: Assessments	15.0%	Not addressed.	Mini-lesson plan includes unrelated and ineffective pre- and formative assessment questions. The formative assessment inadequately assesses understanding at the end of the lesson.	Mini-lesson plan includes basic pre- and formative assessment questions that are missing key details. The formative assessment vaguely assesses understanding at the end of the lesson.	Mini-lesson plan template is complete with adequate and relevant pre- and formative assessment questions, with a realistic formative assessment to assess understanding at the end of the lesson.	Mini-lesson plan template is complete with in-depth and well developed pre- and formative assessment questions, with a proficient formative assessment to assess understanding at the end of the lesson.
Clinical Field Experience Reflection	15.0%	Not addressed.	Reflection includes an unfocused and irrelevant summary of the process of creating and implementing formative assessments, along with an explanation that is vague with limited details of the value of collecting and utilizing data for future instruction.	Reflection includes an overly simplistic and basic summary of the process of creating and implementing formative assessments, along with an explanation that is lacking details of the value of collecting and utilizing data for future instruction.	Reflection includes a clear and direct summary of the process of creating and implementing formative assessments, along with a realistic explanation of the value of collecting and utilizing data for future instruction.	Reflection includes a comprehensive and extensive summary of the process of creating and implementing formative assessments, along with a compelling explanation of the value of collecting and utilizing data for future instruction.
Clinical Field Experience Reflection: Future Professional Practice Application	15.0%	Not addressed.	Responses on applying conclusions to practice is inappropriate and do not reflect growth and development as a professional.	Conclusions and applications to future practice are broad in detail and reflect minimal professional growth.	Conclusions and applications to future practice are thoughtful, taking into consideration needs of the students, and reflect professional growth.	Conclusions and applications to future practice are insightful, taking into consideration needs of the students, and clearly reflect growth and development as a professional.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	30.0%	Not addressed.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Total Weightage	100%

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
ELM-555	ELM-555-O500	Strategies for Reaching All Students	100.0
Criteria	Percentage	No Submission (0.00%)	Insufficient (69.00%)	Approaching (74.00%)	Acceptable (87.00%)	Target (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	100.0%
Differentiating Based on Readiness	10.0%	Not addressed.	Differentiation presentation is unfocused in identifying student readiness and is not based on data from the Class Profile. Students are grouped insufficiently or inaccurately.	Differentiation presentation minimally identifies student readiness or is not based on data from the Class Profile. Student groupings are partially complete or groupings are partially accurate.	Differentiation presentation adequately identifies student readiness based on data from the Class Profile. Students are sufficiently grouped.	Differentiation presentation thoroughly identifies student readiness and is based on data from the Class Profile. Students grouped are thoughtfully and accurately.
Differentiating Based on Interest	10.0%	Not addressed.	Description of how to determine student interest is irrelevant. Strategy for capturing low interest level is inadequate.	Description of how to determine student interest is basic. Strategy for capturing low interest level is on the cusp of adequacy.	Description of how to determine student interest is sufficient and reasonable. Strategy for capturing low interest level is adequate.	Description of how to determine student interest is thoughtful. Insightful strategy for capturing low interest level is realistic and creative.
Differentiating Instruction	10.0%	Not addressed.	Instructional strategies are not considerate of learning preferences. Strategies are inconsistent with the qualitative data. Differentiation is insufficiently explained.	Instructional strategies are included with limited consideration of learning preferences. Strategies are somewhat based on qualitative data. Differentiation is inadequately explained.	Instructional strategies are included with consideration of some learning preferences. Strategies are based on qualitative data. Differentiation is realistic and accurately explained.	Instructional strategies are mindful of learning preferences and based on qualitative data. Differentiation is realistic and thoughtfully explained.
Differentiating with Technology Integration	10.0%	Not addressed.	Technology tool chosen does not consider different students and is a weak example for creating technology-rich learning experiences.	Technology tool is included, but is a weak example for creating technology-rich learning experiences.	Technology tool chosen considers different students and is a reasonable example for creating technology-rich learning experiences.	Technology tool chosen thoughtfully considers different students and is an outstanding example for creating technology-rich learning experiences.
Progress Goals	10.0%	Not addressed.	Differentiation plan incompletely explains how progress goals are formed and does not include progress goals for each student.	Differentiation plan demonstrates some understanding of how progress goals are formed, but does not include progress goals for each student, or the goals are not realistic, reasonable, or highlight students' strength.	Differentiation plan explains how progress goals are formed, including progress goals for each student that are realistic, reasonable, and highlight students' strengths.	Differentiation plan thoroughly and proficiently explains how thoughtful progress goals are formed for each student that are realistic, reasonable, and highlight students' strengths.
Learning Preferences	10.0%	Not addressed.	Description of how learning preferences are intentionally considered in instruction is inadequate.	Description of how learning preferences are intentionally considered in instruction is minimal.	Description of how learning preferences are intentionally considered in instruction is realistic and appropriate.	Description of how learning preferences are intentionally considered in instruction is thoughtful and persuasive.
Summary and Goal Setting	10.0%	Not addressed.	Summary vaguely explains how data informs instruction, and insufficiently identifies goals in the areas of using data for instructional decision-making, differentiating instruction, determining student interest, and using technology to differentiate instruction.	Summary minimally explains how data informs instruction and moderately identifies goals in the areas of using data for instructional decision-making, differentiating instruction, determining student interest, and using technology to differentiate instruction.	Summary is fluid in explaining how data informs instruction, with identified goals in the areas of using data for instructional decision-making, differentiating instruction, determining student interest, and using technology to differentiate instruction.	Summary is insightful and comprehensive in explaining how data informs instruction, with thoughtful and reasonable goals set in the areas of using data for instructional decision-making, differentiating instruction, determining student interest, and using technology to differentiate instruction.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)	15.0%	Not addressed.	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present.	Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Varieties of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language.	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.
Research Citations and Format	15.0%	Not addressed.	Many citations are missing where needed; or many of the sources are inappropriate for the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but many aspects are missing or mistaken.	Some citations may be missing where needed; or some of the sources do not support the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but some aspects are missing or mistaken.	All sources are credible, adequate, and support the submission. All required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission.	All sources are credible, appropriate, and strongly support the submission. All required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission.
Total Weightage	100%

Class Profile

Student Name	English Language Learner	Socio-economic Status	Ethnicity	Gender	IEP/504	Other	Age	Reading Performance Level	Math Performance Level	Parental Involvement	Internet Available at Home
Arturo	Yes	Low SES	Hispanic	Male	No	Tier 2 RTI for Reading	Grade level	One year below grade level	At grade level	Med	No
Bertie	No	Low SES	Asian	Female	No	None	Grade level	One year above grade level	At grade level	Low	Yes
Beryl	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	NOTE: School does not have gifted program	Grade level	Two years above grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Brandie	No	Low SES	White	Female	No	Tier 2 RTI for Math	Grade level	At grade level	One year below grade level	Low	No
Dessie	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	Tier 2 RTI for Math	Grade level	Grade level	One year below grade level	Med	Yes
Diana	Yes	Low SES	White	Female	No	Tier 2 RTI for Reading	Grade level	One year below grade level	At grade level	Low	No
Donnie	No	Mid SES	African American	Female	No	Hearing Aids	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Eduardo	Yes	Low SES	Hispanic	Male	No	Tier 2 RTI for Reading	Grade level	One year below grade level	At grade level	Low	No
Emma	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Low	Yes
Enrique	No	Low SES	Hispanic	Male	No	Tier 2 RTI for Reading	One year above grade level	One year below grade level	At grade level	Low	No
Fatma	Yes	Low SES	White	Female	No	Tier 2 RTI for Reading	Grade level	One year below grade level	One year above grade level	Low	Yes
Frances	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	Diabetic	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Francesca	No	Low SES	White	Female	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	High	No
Fredrick	No	Low SES	White	Male	Learning Disabled	Tier 3 RTI for Reading and Math	One year above grade level	Two years below grade level	Two years below grade level	Very High	No
Ines	No	Low SES	Hispanic	Female	Learning Disabled	Tier 2 RTI for Math	Grade level	One year below grade level	One year below grade level	Low	No
Jade	No	Mid SES	African American	Female	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	One year above grade level	High	Yes
Kent	No	High SES	White	Male	Emotion-ally Disabled	None	Grade level	At grade level	One year above grade level	Med	Yes
Lolita	No	Mid SES	Native American/ Pacific Islander	Female	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Maria	No	Mid SES	Hispanic	Female	No	NOTE: School does not have gifted program	Grade level	At grade level	Two years above grade level	Low	Yes
Mason	No	Low SES	White	Male	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Nick	No	Low SES	White	Male	No	None	Grade level	One year above grade level	At grade level	Med	No
Noah	No	Low SES	White	Male	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Sharlene	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	None	Grade level	One year above grade level	At grade level	Med	Med
Sophia	No	Mid SES	White	Female	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Stuart	No	Mid SES	White	Male	No	Allergic to peanuts	Grade level	One year above grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Terrence	No	Mid SES	White	Male	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	At grade level	Med	Yes
Wade	No	Mid SES	White	Male	No	None	Grade level	At grade level	One year above grade level	Med	Yes
Wayne	No	High SES	White	Male	Learning Disabled	Tier 3 RTI for Math	Grade level	One year below grade level	Two years below grade level	High	Yes
Wendell	No	Mid SES	African American	Male	Learning Disabled	Tier 3 RTI for Math	Grade level	One year below grade level	Two years below grade level	Med	Yes
Yung	No	Mid SES	Asian	Male	No	NOTE: School does not have gifted program	One year below grade level	Two years above grade level	Two years above grade level	Low	Yes

Mini-Lesson Plan Template

Part 1: Implementing Formative Assessments

Class/Subject
Grade level
Standard
Learning objective
Description of learning activity
Instructional sStrategy
2Two pre-assessment question(s) that assess students’ prior knowledge
Two2 formative assessment question(s) that assess students’ progress:
Formative assessment to assess students’ understanding at the end of the lesson

Part 2: Reflection

blog2

Rubic_Print_Format

Rubic_Print_Format

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.