| |
1
No Evidence
0.00% |
2
Nominal Evidence
69.00% |
3
Unacceptable Evidence
74.00% |
4
Acceptable Evidence
87.00% |
5
Target Evidence
100.00% |
| 100.0 %Criteria |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Purpose of Schooling COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with the purpose of schooling. |
Submission is overly simplistic. It does not adequately describe the purpose of schooling and related considerations within a realistic context. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Includes a basic description of the purpose of schooling and related considerations within a realistic context. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Thoughtfully describes evolving issues and conditions related to the purpose of schooling, including the ability to adapt to evolving issues and consideration as time and situations change, and making wise decisions according to time, place, and populations. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Nature of Learners COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with the nature of learners. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Position does not promote learners and their abilities. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Describes a basic learner-centered philosophy that supports the position that all children can learn. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Clearly supports the position that all children can learn and addresses the need for understanding students’ abilities, interests, individual aspirations, and values to motivate and support student learning and development. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Curriculum COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with curriculum. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Does not adequately address the responsibility of developing knowledge and skills in the various disciplines. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Describes the general responsibility of developing knowledge and skills in the various disciplines. Provides basic, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Thoughtfully describes the responsibility of developing knowledge and skills in the various disciplines, including the need to make independent analyses and value judgments about content. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Instructional Methods COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with instructional methods. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Does not adequately address the importance of intentional teaching methods. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Generally describes the role of appropriate teaching methods. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Thoughtfully describes the importance of purposeful, appropriate teaching methodologies, instructional techniques, and learning technologies. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Classroom Management COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with the classroom management. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Does not adequately describe the need for planned classroom management practices. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Broadly describes the importance of planned classroom management practices. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Thoughtfully describes the importance of classroom management best practices, professional decisions, and actions, including their impact on students. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Assessment Practices COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with assessment practices. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Does not adequately describe the importance of planned assessment practices for measuring student progress and adapting methodologies and practices. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Broadly describes the importance of planned assessment practices for measuring student progress and adapting methodologies. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Clearly describes the value of purposeful, well-designed assessment practices for evaluating the outcomes of teaching and learning and to use as a basis for experimenting with, reflecting on, and revising practice. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 10.0 %Philosophy of Special Education: Professional Relationships with Family and Community COE Program D6 C6.1 |
No submission. |
Submission has little or nothing to do with professional relationships with family and community. |
Submission is overly simplistic. Does not provide support for developing relationships between teachers, families, and the community. Evidence is lacking supportive details and/or examples. |
Broadly describes the interdependence between teachers, families, and the community, including personal growth that can result from those relationships. Provides general, related supporting details and/or examples. |
Thoroughly describes the effects of professional decisions and actions on families and other professionals in the learning community as well as a desire to actively seek opportunities to grow professionally. The philosophy is supported by well-developed practice-related details and/or examples. |
|
| 15.0 %Organization |
No submission. |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. Argument is illogical. Conclusion does not support the claims made. |
Purpose statement is vague, and claims do not thoroughly support it. Argument and conclusion are orderly, but present unconvincing justification of claims. |
Purpose statement and conclusion are clear. Argument shows logical progression. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. |
Purpose statement and related conclusion are clear and convincing. Information is well organized and logical. Argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. |
|
| 10.0 %Research Citations |
No submission. |
Reference page includes errors and/or inconsistently used citations. Sources are not credible. |
Reference page lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriate and documented, although errors are present. |
In-text citations have few errors. References used are reliable, and reference page lists all cited sources with few errors. |
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. Sources are credible. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
|
| 5.0 %Mechanics |
No submission. |
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. Inconsistent language and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is lacking. |
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, as well as some practice and content-related language. |
Submission is nearly/completely free of mechanical errors and has a clear, logical conceptual framework. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice- and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
|
| 100 %Total Weightage |
|
|
