Final Score2.29 (out of 4) See CalculationOverall comments.docx

Final Score:
2.29 (out of 4) See Calculation
Overall comments:
While an observation essay, lesson plan, and reflection are
present in the submission, revisions are needed in the plan as
presented (noted that as the plan differs from the template
format, there are aspects of the template plan not addressed in
the submitted plan), in a few reflection criteria areas, as well as
in mechanics. Feedback comments are provided to aid in the
revision process. Revise accordingly and resubmit when ready.
Detailed Results (Rubric used: EFT - ETP PCE 602.4.15-33, 35)
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
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
The candidate provides a precise description of the observed
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
The candidate provides a precise description of how the

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
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.

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
objective(s).
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
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
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
The candidate provides a precise description of the instructional
setting.
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
The candidate provides a credible and well-supported
explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
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.
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.
assessment of the success of the mathematics teaching model
used as it relates to the level of student learning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The candidate provides credible and well-supported predictions
of how this experience might affect personal ability to modify
teaching methods to improve instruction.
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.
explanation of insights gained from the observed video
regarding teaching multi-step math problems.
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.
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.
Final Score:
Does not Meet
Overall comments:
Overall, creative lesson plan. A few revisions are needed to
make the task complete. Review the comments, revise and
resubmit.
Detailed Results (Rubric used: EHT - ETP PCE 602.4.21-03)
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
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

B. Lesson Plan Components
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The lesson plan does not present information for each
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
Comments on this criterion: The lesson plan contains
appropriate information.
B. 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.
Comments on this criterion: Alignment is present.
B. 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
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
objective(s).
Comments on this criterion: The content is workable, but each
component is missing the approximate time each may take.
B1. Use of Different Types of Media
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The candidate’s lesson plan does not include the use of different
types of media.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The candidate’s lesson plan includes the use of different types
of media.
Comments on this criterion: Effective use of different types of
media.
D. 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
D. 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
Frequent use and application of relevant terminology
D1a. 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
The candidate provides a reasonable description of the
The candidate provides a precise description of the instructional
setting.
Comments on this criterion: The instructional setting is clearly
described.
D2a. Deviation From Prepared Lesson Plan
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The candidate does not explain any deviation from the prepared

lesson plan.
The candidate provides an illogical explanation regarding
The candidate provides a logical explanation regarding
explanation regarding deviation from the prepared lesson plan.
D3a. Pedagogical Strategy and Self-Directed Learning
(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 self-directed learning.
The candidate provides an illogical explanation of how a
pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to self-directed
learning.
The candidate provides a logical explanation of how a
pedagogical strategy used in the lesson relates to self-directed
learning.
explanation of how a pedagogical strategy used in the lesson
relates to self-directed learning.
Comments on this criterion: Self-directed learning used in the
lesson is explained. Direct teaching and group work are listed as
the pedagogical strategies used in the lesson. Take one of the
pedagogical strategies and explain how it relates to self-directed
learning.
D4a. Effectiveness of Media Incorporation
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The candidate does not evaluate how effectively different media

were incorporated into the lesson presentation.
The candidate provides an implausible evaluation of how
effectively different media were incorporated into the lesson
presentation.
Not applicable.
The candidate provides a plausible evaluation of how
effectively different media were incorporated into the lesson
presentation.
Comments on this criterion: The different types of media are
described. The different types of media need to be evaluated for
effectiveness. Describe if some media were more effectively
utilized than others and why.
D4b. 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.
Comments on this criterion: Once the media are appropriately
evaluated, explain the thinking process went through to
complete that evaluation.
D5a. Alternative Approach
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The candidate does not explain an alternative approach to
teaching an art lesson that could positively affect student
performance.

The candidate provides an illogical explanation of an alternative
approach to teaching an art lesson that could positively affect
student performance.
The candidate provides a logical explanation of an alternative
approach to teaching an art lesson that could positively affect
student performance.
The candidate provides a credible and well-founded explanation
of an alternative approach to teaching an art lesson that could
positively affect student performance.
Comments on this criterion: A valid alternative approach is
explained.
D5b. 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.
D6a. Ability to 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 an implausible prediction of how this
Not applicable.

The candidate provides a plausible prediction of how this
D6b. Explanation of Considerations
(1) Unacceptable
(2) Needs revision
(3) Meets standard
(4) Exemplary
The candidate does not explain what was considered regarding
personal and/or professional implications.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The candidate explains what was considered regarding personal
and/or professional implications.
E. 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.
in-text citations and/or references with minor deviations from
APA style.
in-text citations and/or references with no readily detectable
deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use
sources.
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.
. Observation and Description
a. Describe the instructional setting in which you taught your
art lesson.
Save Draft2. Analysis, Exploration, and Reasoning
a. Explain any deviations you made from your prepared lesson
plan.

Save Draft3. Connections to Other Effective Teaching Practices
a. Explain how a pedagogical strategy you used in the lesson
relates to self-directed learning.
Save Draft4. Evaluation
a. Evaluate how effectively you incorporated different media in
your lesson presentation.
<oltype=b><li>Explain the thinking process you went through
to complete this evaluation.
Save Draft5. Recommendations
a. Explain an alternative approach to teaching an art lesson that
could positively affect student participation.
Justify your choices of recommendations.

Save Draft6. Personal Meaning and Professional Growth
a. Predict how this experience might affect your ability to
modify teaching methods to improve your instruction.
<oltype=b><li>Explain what you considered as you formulated
ideas regarding personal and/or professional growth.
1. Observation and Description
a. Describe the instructional setting, including grade level,
number of students, seating arrangement, and any other criteria
necessary to present the instructional setting.
Save Draft2. Analysis, Exploration, and Reasoning
a. Explain why you did or did not deviate from your prepared
lesson plan.
Save Draft3. Connections to Other Effective Teaching Practices

a. Speculate how a proponent of cooperative learning might
suggest you modify your lesson presentation.
Save Draft4. Evaluation
a. Assess the success of the mathematics teaching model you
used as it relates to the level of student learning regarding a
multi-step math problem.
<oltype=b><li>Assess the effectiveness of the practice time you
provided students to solve problems that are structurally similar
to the ones you previously taught.<br><oltype=c><li>Explain
the thinking process you went through to complete this
evaluation.
Save Draft5. Recommendations
a. Explain an alternative approach to teaching a multi-step math
problem that could positively affect student learning.
<oltype=b><li>Justify your choices of recommendations.

Save Draft6. Personal Meaning and Professional Growth
a. Predict how this experience might affect your ability to
modify your teaching methods in order to improve instruction.
<oltype=b><li>Explain the insights you gained from the
observed video regarding teaching multi-step math
problems.<br><oltype=c><li>Explain what you considered as
you formulated ideas regarding personal and/or professional
implications.

Final Score2.29 (out of 4) See CalculationOverall comments.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Final Score2.29 (out of 4) See CalculationOverall comments.docx

Similar to Final Score2.29 (out of 4) See CalculationOverall comments.docx (20)

More from voversbyobersby

More from voversbyobersby (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Final Score2.29 (out of 4) See CalculationOverall comments.docx