Assessment 3: Planning - CI 702 Assessment and Planning for Critical Incidents
Category
Weak
Good
Exemplary
07 - 08
Means
08 - 09
09-10
10-11
11-12
19- 2
(14.3%)
18- 5
(35.7%)
17- 2
(14.3%)
16- 2
(14.3%)
15- 1
(7.14%)
14- 1
(7.14%)
10- 1
(7.14%)
20- 4
(28.6%)
18- 6
(42.9%)
16-2
(14.3%)
15- 1
(7.14%)
10-1
(7.14%)
20-8
(66.7%)
19-2
(16.7%)
17-2
(16.7%)
20- 7
(50.0%)
19-1
(7.14%)
18- 4
(28.6%)
15-1
(7.14%)
10- 1
(7.14%)
20-8
(66.7%)
19 -2
(16.7%)
18-2
(16.7%)
Writing
Mechanics (20
points)
There are multiple
grammatical,
organizational, or typing
errors to the point that it
detracts from
understanding.
The writing is clear with
minimal errors and fits
the tone of the incident
being described.
There are no writing errors.
The descriptive elements
make it clear to the reader
how the incident unfolded
and presented in an
interesting fashion.
19.9
20- 17
(77.3%)
18- 2 (9.1%)
15-2 (9.1%)
20- 14
(77.7%)
17- 2 (11.1%)
15- 2 (11.1%)
Description of
incident (20
points)
Insufficient information
is provided to fully
understand what
happened in the incident
or the full context is not
provided.
The author provides clear
information about the
incident, including all
contextual features, but is
also able to integrate the
features to see how they
function to create the full
setting of the incident.
20
20- 9 (86.4
%)
18- 2 (9.1%)
20- 11
(61.1%)
18- 1 (5.6%)
16- 1 (5.6%)
15- 5 (27.8%)
Description of
Initial Response
20 points)
The author's initial
response is not clearly
delineated from the
incident description or is
absent.
The reader clearly
understands what, when,
and how the incident
occurred. The author
includes information
about the professional
setting, his or her role in
the incident, and the
social or organizational
dynamics important to
the incident.
The author provides
information about his or
her initial response to the
incident, however the
flow from event to
response to reflective
issues and learning are
not apparent.
The author's initial response
is clearly described and
understandable in the context
of the incident. There is clear
use of the response in the
reflective and learning
elements of the discussion.
20
20- 17
(77.3%)
18- 2 (9.1%)
15 - 2 (9.1%)
20- 16
(88.9%)
15- 2 (11.1%)
20-8
(66.7%)
19-2
(16.7%)
17 -1
(8.3%)
15-1
(8.3%)
Outline or
Discussion of
Questions/Issue
s (20 points)
Questions or issues do
not appear to be clearly
linked or related to the
issue or initial response.
No second point of view
for looking at the
incident is shown.
Questions and issues
show a clear link and
evidence of stepping out
of the author's normal
stance to try on a new
point of view.
The author provides evidence
of using multiple points from
which they are viewing the
incident and use the
questions as a starting point
for developing new
information.
Summary of
potential or
actual learning
(20 points)
The author does not
indicate how the
incident has helped him
or her to better
understand their
practice or assumptions
that guide their practice.
The author indentifies
how the incident has
changed his or her view or
ideas of the typical
teaching situation, the
school context of goals of
teaching and learning.
The author provides clear
information about how the
incident caused them to think
differently about the process
of school. They also include
information about how the
reader may find the case
useful.
Total
N
18
19.5
97.5
19
20- 11
(50.0%)
18- 4
(18.2%)
17- 1 (4.5%)
15- 1 (4.5%)
13- 1 (4.5%)
10-3 (13.6%)
20- 8 (44.4%)
17- 1 (5.6%)
15- 8 (44.4%)
10- 1 (5.6%)
20- 11
(50.0%)
18- 4
(18.2%)
17- 1 (4.5%)
15- 1 (4.5%)
13-1 (4.5%)
10- 3
(13.6%)
20- 11
(61.1%)
17- 1 (5.6%)
15- 5 (27.8%)
10- 1 (5.6%)
22
18
20- 5
(35.7%)
19- 1
(7.14%)
18- 4
(28.6%)
16- 1
(7.14%)
15- 2
(14.3%)
10- 1
(7.14%)
20- 3
(21.4%)
18- 5
(35.7%)
17- 2
(14.3%)
16- 1
(7.14%)
15- 2
(14.3%)
10- 1
(7.14%)
14
20-8
(66.7%)
19-2
(16.7%)
18-1
(8.3%)
17-1
(8.3%)
20-9
(75%)
19-1
(8.3%)
17-1
(8.3%)
16-1
(8.3%)
12