| Exit Portfolio Task #2 Case Study Rubric |
|
|
|
|
|
| Note:
All data taken from Mr. Scott Adams Access Database (Table 'Task 2) Under 'Internship'/ Exit Internship / Prot Folio / Portfolio
data Spring 2003 |
Criteria |
|
|
Evaluator's
Name |
# of Students |
Date |
Program |
Major |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Comments |
|
| Timothy Leggett |
1 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Byra Ramsey |
2 |
4/27/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Vague
objectives. Your case study on both students was very good, but you need to
clearly state your objectives. |
|
| linch |
3 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Do
not use slang, e.g. "busted", in professional communication
Student work and comments are powerful! What about academic background-not
just home? Used ODD modifications effectively! |
|
| Sammie
Stephenson |
4 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| sammie
stephenson |
5 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Gwen Morgan |
6 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Sid Womack |
7 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Well-written
report and appropriate scanned student work made this section a good one. |
|
| Byra Ramsey |
8 |
4/24/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Jane
has great social skills to (too). I
///had already ///seen saw Jane
This was interesting that you choose a student who finishes her work early. |
|
| sammie
stephenson |
9 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| David Bell |
10 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Sammie
Stephenson |
11 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Sammie
Stephenson |
12 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Timothy Leggett |
13 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Gwen Morgan |
14 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Timothy Leggett |
15 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| David Bell |
16 |
4/23/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Case
studies well written and documentation was sufficient. You reflections were detailed and on
target. |
|
| Sid Womack |
17 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Artifacts were in hard copy. |
|
| Byra Ramsey |
18 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| linch |
19 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
What
a learning experience for you and your ESL student! |
|
| David Bell |
20 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Selection
of work samples are excellent and chart of work was a great help. Very
specific and detailed. Well done. |
|
| Sid Womack |
21 |
4/27/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Scanned
student work was really complete. |
|
| David Bell |
22 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| David Bell |
23 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Interesting
to read about your interventions and how they worked. |
|
| Sammie
Stephenson |
24 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Byra Ramsey |
25 |
4/26/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Your
writing of the case study was very good. Your pre and post samples could have
had additional labeling and feedback. |
|
| Timothy Leggett |
26 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Byra Ramsey |
27 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Gwen Morgan |
28 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Byra Ramsey |
29 |
4/27/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Objectives
were not stated as objectives. Student work did not reflect pre and post on
the elements to be taught. |
|
| Sid Womack |
30 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Well-written
section, supported well with quantitative and qualitative data. |
|
| Byra Ramsey |
31 |
4/21/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Timothy Leggett |
32 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Gwen Morgan |
33 |
5/12/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Byra Ramsey |
34 |
4/27/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
perceptive
and to figure out the style of learner that Aaron is, the level he is
at, "style of the learner and his
level of learning" |
|
| Timothy Leggett |
35 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| Timothy Leggett |
36 |
4/29/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Gwen Morgan |
37 |
4/28/2003 |
ECED |
ECED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Linch |
38 |
4/30/2003 |
MLED |
math/ science |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Your
sensitivity toward and meeting individual needs seems to be a strength -
lucky students! |
|
|
|
|
| Linch |
39 |
4/28/2003 |
MLED |
math/
science |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Wonderful
use of data and IEP! These are a true case studies! Well done! |
|
| Linch |
40 |
4/27/2003 |
MLED |
math/
science |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Teacher
administered ethics/tolerance skill inventories. How do you set goals &
improve student learning with these? Case studies are informational but no
application to learning. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Connie Zimmer |
41 |
5/7/2003 |
SEED |
History |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Sherrie did a
good job of explaining what made each student fit the criteria of Task 2. |
|
|
|
|
| Sid Womack |
42 |
5/6/2003 |
SEED |
BIOL |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Connie Zimmer |
43 |
4/28/2003 |
SEED |
H/PE
K-12 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
There
is not as much information about "Mary" as there is about
"Mike" in the introductory material. There is a lot dealing with the dance
rubrics on Mary. I would have liked to
have seen how activities were modified for Mary. |
|
| Connie Zimmer |
44 |
4/25/2003 |
SEED |
H/PE
K-13 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
The
information on each student was comprehensive. There were a few sentence structure
occurrences but overall a highly effective presentation of Task 2. The
examples of student work were well chosen and showed what had been explained
in the narrati |
|
| Connie Zimmer |
45 |
4/25/2003 |
SEED |
Business |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
I
was pleased to see that student confidentiality was practices to the nth
degree. |
|
| Connie Zimmer |
46 |
5/7/2003 |
SEED |
Business |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
I
would have preferred that "John" be described as "typically
developing" even though he does have problems dealing with the
"fractured family". |
|
| Connie Zimmer |
47 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
Spanish |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
I
was pleased to see that progress was made with these students. A good depth of understanding of what it
takes to make learning take place is the classroom is shown. |
|
| Gwen Morgan |
48 |
4/28/2003 |
SEED |
English |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Patricia B.
Roach |
49 |
4/24/2003 |
SEED |
Music |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Excellent
insight into students and learning. |
|
| Scott Adams |
50 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
HPE |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Good
detail on adaptations made for students |
|
| Scott Adams |
51 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
English |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Clear
writing, with good evidence of adaptations made for students |
|
| Sid Womack |
52 |
5/7/2003 |
SEED |
MUED |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Tim Carter |
53 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
Music |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Pretests
and posttests showed what students had learned over the course of your time
with them. It was clear that multiple
assessment devices were used. |
|
| Tim Carter |
54 |
4/27/2003 |
SEED |
Math |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
From
the homework assignments submitted it can be inferred that students learned
in your class. However, a pretest
result before the unit began would remove any doubt. |
|
| Tim Carter |
55 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
HPE |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
You
discussed student learning in detail, but there are no work samples to
support (as physical evidence) that students learned. If you have this evidence and want to use
this portfolio for hiring purposes, it would be wise to include this student
w |
|
| Tim Carter |
56 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
Art |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Your
artwork supports that learning did occur with your students. It is also clear from your reflections that
you had high expectations for each student in your class. |
|
| Tim Carter |
57 |
4/29/2003 |
SEED |
HPE |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
You
have strong supporting evidence (artifacts) demonstrating that students
learned both skills and knowledge under your instruction. |
|
| Scott Adams |
58 |
4/23/2003 |
SEED |
Life
Science |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Good
job with the adaptations on the second student. It shows you observed
students carefully. |
|
| Scott Adams |
59 |
4/24/2003 |
SEED |
HPE |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Paragraphs
should not be 2 pages long. You should have proofed the documents before
including them in the portfolio. |
|
| Scott Adams |
60 |
4/24/2003 |
SEED |
HPE |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
It
would have improved your essay to be more specific on the adaptations made
for your second case study. |
|
| Sid Womack |
61 |
5/5/2003 |
SEED |
MUED |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Judith
did a really good job of describing both students. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scroll Down &
Over to See Summary By Programs |
Task 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Programs N= |
62 |
62 |
62 |
62 |
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Count |
%
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 3 |
34 |
22 |
27 |
28 |
23 |
134 |
43.51% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 2 |
27 |
37 |
31 |
33 |
38 |
166 |
53.90% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
2.60% |
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 3 |
54.84% |
35.48% |
43.55% |
45.16% |
37.10% |
308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 2 |
43.55% |
59.68% |
50.00% |
53.23% |
61.29% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in
Category 1 |
1.61% |
4.84% |
6.45% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ECED N= |
36 |
36 |
36 |
36 |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Count |
%
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 3 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
14 |
12 |
65 |
36.52% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 2 |
21 |
24 |
19 |
21 |
23 |
108 |
60.67% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
2.81% |
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 3 |
38.89% |
27.78% |
41.67% |
38.89% |
33.33% |
178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 2 |
58.33% |
66.67% |
52.78% |
58.33% |
63.89% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in
Category 1 |
2.78% |
5.56% |
5.56% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MLED N= |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Count |
%
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
60.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
40.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 3 |
100.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 2 |
0.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in
Category 1 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEED N= |
22 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Count |
%
Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 3 |
16 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
8 |
53 |
48.18% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 2 |
6 |
12 |
11 |
11 |
14 |
54 |
49.09% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Category 1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2.73% |
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 3 |
72.73% |
40.91% |
40.91% |
50.00% |
36.36% |
110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in Category 2 |
27.27% |
54.55% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
63.64% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Times in
Category 1 |
0.00% |
4.55% |
9.09% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|