WARNING: This in-course summative assessment is related to
the Admission to Student Teaching institutional gateway for physics teacher
education majors. In order to receive the positive recommendation of the PTE
coordinator required for Admission to Student Teaching, all candidates
must earn an overall average score of 2 (Acceptable) on this performance task.
In addition, no single dimension may be scored unacceptable.
Dimension |
Unacceptable (0
points) |
Inadequate (1 point) |
Acceptable (2 points) |
Excellent (3 points) |
| Basic Elements | Missing one or more basic elements, or individual elements inadequately addressed. | Inadequate attention paid to one for more elements including appropriate course name, instructor contact information, hypothetical class meeting dates and times, texts, readings, attendance policy, policies, responsibilities, grading criteria, and academic dishonesty statement. | Considerable attention paid to providing appropriate course name, instructor contact information, hypothetical class meeting dates and times, texts, readings, attendance policy, policies, responsibilities, grading criteria, and academic dishonesty statement. | An exemplary job of addressing basic elements; reader not left with any questions; hypothetical "data" provided as needed to prepare a working syllabus; great concern for detail. |
| Course Goals | Not included or confused with student performance objectives; inadequate concern shown for students developing appropriate content knowledge, intellectual skills, and dispositions. | Inadequate attention to providing a broad array of meaningful course goals; incomplete in relation to subject matter; | States expected outcomes of student participation in class, including content knowledge, intellectual skills, and dispositions. | Acceptable plus shows significant concern for developing student's social skills, and the intellectual and moral virtues contained in Teacher Education's Realizing the Democratic Ideal. |
| Alignments with Standards | Fails to align content and/or activities to any form of learning standard. | Does a piecemeal job of aligning content with standards. | Relates plans and resources to professionally-developed state and nation standards, including the National Science Education Standards. | Fine attention to detail shown. |
| Content Outline | Disorganized and difficulty to comprehend, does not include dates, or not included. | Basic content outline included, but does not address all the criteria relating to dates, readings, lab activities, and topics; adheres to required format; uses tables with appropriate headers. | Curriculum addresses the needs, interests, and abilities of all students; aligns dates, readings, lab activities, and topics; adheres to required format; uses tables with appropriate headers. | N/A |
| Emphasis | Emphasis appears to be strongly on breadth of coverage rather than depth of coverage. | Includes some emphasis on breadth of coverage over depth of coverage, but does not include enough depth to allow the development of a wide range of intellectual process skills. | Appropriate emphasis placed on depth of coverage as well as breadth of coverage; some topics taught in breadth, some taught in depth; consistent with recommendations contained in A Splintered Vision. | N/A |
| Assessments | Fails to include considerations for assessments; uses two or fewer types of assessment. | Uses three to four forms of traditional assessment only; no concern for alternative forms of assessment such as special projects, competitions, etc. | Uses a wide variety of student performance assessments suitable to assessing achievement of broadly stated goals, including tests, lab reports, quizzes, etc.; includes at least three alternative assessments. | Acceptable plus includes considerable detail about alternative assessment activities. |
| Writing Style | Too familiar (e.g., repeated use of "you"); rambling commentary; poorly formulated paragraphs; difficult reading. | Mixed style; somewhat familiar, somewhat professional, and/or poorly formulated paragraphs. | Professionally written; well formulated paragraphs; strong evidence of repeated revision and proofing; easy and interesting reading. | N/A |
| Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation | Poorly written with numerous spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation errors; essentially unreadable. | Reasonably well written, with few grammar and punctuation errors; no spelling errors. | Well written; no grammatical errors; insignificant number of punctuation errors; no spelling errors. | |
| Format | Disorganized, with a number of disjointed parts. | Fairly well structured, but organization of materials could be improved. | Professional looking; adheres to all general guidelines for format; visually appealing. | N/A |