Assessment 2: Departmental Review of Program Applicants

Narrative

(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: The English Education Program at Radford University has designed as Assessment 2, required by NCTE as an “[a]ssessment of content knowledge in English Language Arts,” a departmental review of applicants to the English Education Program.

(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our program’s Departmental Review Assessment aligns with NCTE standards under the categories Attitudes for English Language Arts (NCTE 2.0), Knowledge of English language arts (NCTE 3.0), and Pedagogy for English Language Arts (NCTE 4.0). As a part of the review process candidates complete an impromptu writing sample, which is scored holistically by English Education faculty using a 6-point scale; this part of the assessment aligns with NCTE standards encompassed by 3.2, as they relate to written literacy. Applicants to the program also submit a sample of their polished writing completed during their coursework in the English Department, accompanied by a reflection explaining why they chose the piece as representation of their best content work. Scored holistically, this part of the review process aligns with NCTE standards 3.2 (in terms of written literacy), 3.4 (application of writing process), and 3.5 (knowledge of literature and literary theory).

Applicants seek recommendations from non-English Education English faculty, who score them on the following qualities, using a five-point scale: (1) ability to speak clearly and coherently (standards encompassed in NCTE 3.2, as they relate to oral literacy), (2) ability to write clearly and coherently (standard 3.2 in terms of written literacy), (3) ability to analyze information, experiences, and ideas (NCTE 2.4), ability to carry tasks through to completion, and ability and willingness to implement suggestions for improvement. English faculty also answer questions related to the applicant’s understanding of course content (NCTE 3.1-3.7), his/her enthusiasm for course content, and perceived qualities that would enable the applicant to become an effective English language arts teacher (NCTE 2.1-2.6).

Teacher candidates are then interviewed individually by a group of English Education faculty, who ask questions intended to reveal each candidate’s perceptions of high school students and his/her ability to relate to those students (NCTE 2.0), the candidate’s commitment to teaching English, and the candidate’s attitudes and beliefs about how students acquire skills in reading, writing, and language (NCTE 2.0 and 4.0) Using the following questions, faculty assess candidates’ knowledge and attitudes:

1. What would you do to promote students’ interest in the topic or concept you’re teaching? (NCTE 4.1-4.9)2. What do you see as the purpose of literature study in the high school? (NCTE 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.8)3. What do you see as the purpose of grammar and language study in the high school? (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4)4. How demanding do you think teaching is, compared to other types of jobs—on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not demanding” and 10

being “very demanding”)

5. How can teachers best teach students to become effective writers? (NCTE 3.4)6. What work of literature would you most like to teach? Why? How would you help students become interested in this text? (NCTE 3.5,

4.8)7. Tell us about a situation in which you took initiative beyond what was expected.8. What makes you think you will like a career in teaching English?9. What are the most important or worthwhile qualities of a good teacher? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)10. Can teachers reach really difficult students, or are there students that we just have to give up on? What would you do with the student

who has no interest in English and seemingly no desire to do anything in class? (NCTE 2.1)11. Why do you want to teach English? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)12. Do you think of yourself as wanting to be (a) a teacher of literature, (b) a teacher of language, (c) a teacher of writing, (d) a teacher of

literacy, (e) a teacher of English language arts? Explain. (NCTE 3.1.2 3.7)13. How do you keep up with national, state, and local news? What economic, political, or social happenings see really important to you and

why? (NCTE 3.1.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2)

Each member of the English Education Committee scores applicants using the rubric entitled “Applicant Selection Process” in the Assessment Documentation section for Assessment 2.

Finally, faculty complete a transcript review of each applicant to the program, assessing each applicant’s completion of the coursework required to address the content he or she will teach, as reflected in the Virginia Standards of Learning and in NCTE standards (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7). Using the rubric entitled “Departmental Review” in the Assessment Documentation section for Assessment 2, faculty assess each applicant’s knowledge of content in the areas of a literature (NCTE 3.5), language and writing (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4), and content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1-4.9).

(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards: Analysis of data from the applicant review process reveals the following information:

On the Impromptu Writing Sample, the majority of applicants (59.6 % in 2009 and 66.66% in 2008) scored at the proficient level, with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures indicate strong writing skills among program applicants (NCTE 3.2 and 3.4)

On the Polished Writing Sample from applicants’ course work, the majority (58.8 in 2009 and 77.77% in 2008) scored at the proficient level, with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures indicate strong knowledge of writing process (NCTE 3.4), strong interpretive skills (3.3), understanding of literary theory and criticism (NCTE 3.5.4), and knowledge of literature (NCTE 3.5)

The majority of applicant interviewees (59.6% in 2009 and 55.55% in 2008) demonstrate clear competence in overall knowledge of content (NCTE 3.1-3.7).

The majority of applicant interviewees (58.8% in 2009 and 88.88% in 2008) demonstrated clear competence in overall knowledge of content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1-4.9).

We noted that we added indicators to the interview rubric between the two administrations of the applicant interviews. A moderate drop in scores in knowledge of content pedagogy suggests that revisions to the rubric could have forged a more rigorous assessment of this area.

The majority of applicant interviewees scored “clearly competent” or “highly competent” in the following areas that align with NCTE standards: (1) Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed to actively engaging students (70.5% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008); (2) Predisposed to accept and value all students (76.4% in 2009; 88.88% in 2009); communicates clearly (100% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008); models professionalism (88.22 in 2009; 88.88 in 2008).

The majority of applicant interviewees demonstrated either clear competence or a high degree of competence in their knowledge of language (NCTE 3.1), knowledge of US British, world, multicultural, and YA literature (NCTE 3.5), and knowledge of the composing processes (NCTE 3.2.3).

Data for three administrations of from the Departmental Review Assessment demonstrate above-average or excellent performance of program applicants on overall academic preparation (88%); on subject matter knowledge as shown in transcripts (77%); on knowledge of literature, as shown in transcripts (83%); on knowledge of writing, grammar, and language, as shown in transcripts (79%); and on knowledge of content pedagogy, as shown in transcripts (88%)

Assessment Documentation

(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: English majors interested in teaching are identified when they are freshmen and are assigned to English Education faculty for their advising, teacher candidates formally apply to the English Education Program in January of their junior year. Following the application process, English Education faculty assess each applicant in these areas: (1) overall academic preparation based on examination of transcripts, verification of overall GPA and GPA in the English major, (2) subject matter assessment, (3) content knowledge assessment (literature, writing, grammar, and language, (4) knowledge of content pedagogy, (5) basic proficiency skills, as measured by Praxis I, SAT, or ACT, and the Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment.The Departmental Review has been adopted by most Radford University Teacher Preparation Programs. The English Education Program Screening included the following:

Part I: an impromptu essay Part II: submission of polished writing and reflection Part III: 2 recommendations from English faculty Part IV: an interview with English Education Committee (scheduled today)

Instructions Provided to Teacher candidates for the Screening Process for Departmental Review

Part I: Impromptu Essay on a Subject in English Education

As a teacher you will face many situations that require you to write on the spot, developing your ideas without time for extensive revision. Because you will need to be proficient at writing in impromptu situations, the English Education Committee would like for you to compose an essay that demonstrates your abilities as an impromptu writer. We will give you a list of topics from which to choose. You will have one hour immediately following the orientation meeting to compose and edit your essay.

As an impromptu writer, you will face certain restrictions: your time will be limited and you will not have the benefit of readers’ comments on your drafts. Working within these constraints, you should compose an essay that is as clear and well formed as possible. Remember that your audience will be the English Education Committee, a group of English teachers who are interested in what you have to say about teaching and learning.

The committee will assess your essay using a six-point scale and the following criteria:

The committee recognizes that in an impromptu situation you will not have the time to edit and revise as carefully as you would at home. Given your own habits as a writer, allow yourself adequate time to draft and edit your writing. Please put your name on the first page of your essay, and number your pages.

Part II: Submission of Polished Writing and Reflection

Select a piece of writing that you turned in for an English class and that represents your best writing. Attach to this sample of your best work a thoughtful and concise reflection explaining why you chose this particular piece as representative of your knowledge about English language, literature, and or literary theory. The writing sample will be assessed using the following criteria:

demonstrates highly effective writing skills organizes and develops ideas logically, making insightful connections between them demonstrates ability to interpret literature and effectively use examples from the text to support ideas supports a thesis and clearly explains key ideas, supporting them with well-chosen reasons, examples, or details displays effective sentence variety clearly displays facility in the use of language is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, an mechanics tone appropriate to your topic and audience;

The reflection will be assessed to determine your ability to use writing as a form of reflection, as well as the your ability to assess your own academic performance;

Part III: Recommendations from English Faculty

RU English majors: You will choose two professors from the English Department who know your work and are willing to recommend you for the English Education Program. Choose professors other than Dr. Williams, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Hamm, or Dr. Mathews, since they will be participating in the screening. Before passing the recommendation forms to your professors, fill out the top half of each, signing the waiver statement and filling in your name under the section “To: RU English Faculty Member.” (Candidates who waive their right to access are indicating no need to review what the recommendation reports.)Others: Choose two recommenders—such as former teachers, professors, or employers—who would be able to comment on your suitability for teaching. Before passing the recommendation forms to your recommenders, fill out the top half of each, signing the waiver statement and filling in your name under the section “To: Recommender” (Candidates who waive their right to access are indicating no need to review what the recommendation reports.)

Part IV: Interview

You must make an appointment to meet with members of the English Education Committee for an interview. During the interview the committee will ask you to address general questions about teaching and learning in the English classroom. They may also ask questions about the ideas you expressed in either or both your impromptu essay and your submitted writing sample. This interview will last 15-20 minutes and will allow the committee to further understand your interests in teaching. Interviewees will be evaluated using a five-point scale and the following criteria:

knowledge of English language arts (reading/literature, writing, language, speaking) attitudes about learners and learning commitment to teaching and learning effective communication (i.e., interviewee speaks in a coherent, fluent, and engaging manner, explaining ideas, and supporting ideas.) ability to assume professional behavior and accept responsibility

(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: Scoring guides for the various parts of the review process follow.

The impromptu essay is scored using this holistic scoring rubric:

The polished writing is scored using this holistic rubric:

Impromptu Essay Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2)

6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well organized and well developed; uses details clearly and properly to support a thesis or illustrate ideas; displays consistent ability in the use of language; demonstrates variety in sentence structure and proper word choice)5 Proficient (paper may address some parts of the task more effectively than others; is generally well organized and developed; uses details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; displays ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in sentence structure and range of vocabulary)4 Satisfactory (paper addresses the writing topic adequately but does not meet all of the goals of the task; is adequately organized and developed; uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; shows adequate but possibly inconsistent ability with sentence structure; may contain some usage errors that make the meaning unclear)3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or development; poor choice of details or does not provide enough details to support or illustrate generalizations; a noticeably improper choice of words or word forms; numerous errors in sentence structure and/or usage)2 Seriously Flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or underdevelopment; little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics; serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage; serious problems with focus1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped; may contain severe and persistent writing errors)

Polished Writing Sample Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2, 3.4, 3.5)

6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well organized and well developed; paper shows strong interpretation of literature and effectively uses examples from the text to support ideas; supports a thesis or illustrates ideas; displays consistent ability in the use of language; makes use of literary theory and sources; demonstrates variety in sentence structure and proper word choice)5 Proficient (paper is generally well organized and developed; shows ability to interpret and explain literature; uses examples from text and details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; displays ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in sentence structure and range of vocabulary)4 Satisfactory (paper is adequately organized and developed; shows some ability to interpret and explain literature; uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; shows adequate but possibly inconsistent ability with sentence structure; may contain some usage errors that make the meaning unclear)3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or development; shows limited ability to interpret and explain literature; shows poor choice of details or does not provide enough details to support or illustrate generalizations; includes a noticeably improper choice of words or word forms; includes numerous errors in sentence structure and/or usage)2 Seriously flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or underdevelopment; shows little ability to interpret and explain literature; includes few examples from text and little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics; includes serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage; shows serious problems with focus1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped; may contain severe and persistent writing errors)

English faculty use the following form to recommend applicants for the English Education Program:

English Education: Recommendation of Applicant

To be completed by the candidate:Under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974:

_____I have retained my right of access to this form. OR_____I have waived my right of access to this form.

Failure to indicate one of the above determines this form to be non-confidential.

Signature of candidate: _______________________________ Year of graduation: _______

To: Recommender

_______________________ is a candidate for Radford University English Department’s English Education Program. To help us select students with the potential for success both in our program and in their field placements, the English Education Committee requests your feedback on the following questions.

Please check the level at which the applicant consistently performs in the following areas:

Superior Above Average Meets expectations Below expectations cannot comment

ability to speak clearly and coherentlyability to write clearly and coherentlyability to analyze information, experiences, and ideasability to carry tasks through to completionability and willingness to implement suggestions for improvement

What classes has this student taken from you?

How would you characterize this person’s attitude toward the content of your class?

Please comment on this student’s enthusiasm for literature, language, and/or writing.

In your opinion, what qualities does this person possess that would enable him/her to become a good secondary English teacher? (You might consider qualities such as respect for others, an ability to work without close supervision, level of energy and enthusiasm, good judgment, others.)

Please add any additional comments not covered by the above questions.

Signature: _____________________________________________ Date:__________

Name of Recommender (printed) ___________________________________

We are currently in the process of screening applicants for the English Education Program and would appreciate receiving your comments as soon as possible. Please return to Carolyn Mathews, Russell 027.

English Education Faculty use the following rubric to evaluate applicants during the application interview:

Radford UniversityEnglish Education Program

Applicant Selection Process: Assessment of Interview

Applicant’s Name : ____________________________________ Year of Application: ________

Evaluator’s name: ___________________________________

Criteria 1 --Poor/not eligible 2 --below average 3 --average 4 --above average 5 --excellent

Overall Knowledge of content (NCTE 3.1-3.7)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of literature and language and shows no evidence of understanding fundamentals of teaching writing

Applicant demonstrates limited knowledge of literature and language—showing only limited knowledge of American/British literature, uses the word grammar only to refer to conventions and usage; shows little evidence of understanding fundamentals of the teaching of writing.

Applicant demonstrates knowledge of literature and language—mentions a range of literature, but may not mention literary chronology or genre; mentions at least one key concept about language study; has good instincts about ways to teach writing.

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and language; distinguishes American/British literature, mentions literary chronology or schools of critical thought; mentions more than one key concept related to language—e.g., linguistic inquiry, dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing, etc.; can discuss composition theory (workshop model/process writing)

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and language; clearly distinguishes American/British literature, understands literary chronology and schools of critical thought; understands key concepts related to language—e.g., linguistic inquiry, dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing; discusses composition theory using names of researchers/writers in the field

Overall Knowledge of content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1- 4.10)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails to mention group work

Applicant demonstrates only limited knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails to mention group work or other techniques for group interaction and

Applicant demonstrates some knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied structures and

Applicant demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied structures and techniques for group interaction, and gives at least one specific way to engage students.

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant is versed in varied structures and techniques for group interaction and gives at least 2 specific ways to engage students.

or other techniques for group interaction and provides no specific ways to engage students.

provides no specific ways to engage students.

techniques for group interaction OR gives at least one specific way to engage students.

Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed to actively engaging students.Score:

Applicant shows no understanding of student-centeredness or of actively engaging students.

Applicant understands only in a limited way the importance of student-centeredness or of actively engaging students.

Applicant describes a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Predisposed to accept and value all students (NCTE 2.1, 2.2)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate the belief that all students can learn; applicant shows no understanding of a teacher’s responsibility to help all students succeed,

Applicant demonstrates only a limited belief that all students can learn; applicant shows little understanding of a teacher’s responsibility to help all students succeed.

Applicant somewhat demonstrates a belief that all students can learn; applicant somewhat demonstrates an understanding of a teacher’s responsibility to help all students succeed.

Applicant demonstrates belief that all students can learn and mentions the need to help all students succeed. Applicant alludes to the importance of a supportive, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.

Applicant demonstrates a strong belief that all students can learn and a commitment to helping all students succeed. Applicant describes a supportive, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.

Commitment to lifelong learning

Score:

Applicant demonstrates no commitment to language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading and names no specific works; applicant shows no awareness of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant demonstrates little commitment to language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading and names no specific works; applicant shows limited awareness of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant likes language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant likes to read but names no specific works; applicant is somewhat aware of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant shows a love of language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant expresses a fondness for reading and particular books; applicant is aware of cultural, economic, political and social environments.

Applicant makes very clear a love of language, writing, and /or literature; applicant is an avid reader who names specific works enjoyed; applicant is very aware of cultural, economic, political and social environments.

Communicates clearly

Score:

Applicant speaks very unclearly, fails to use conventional forms of Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks unclearly, fails to use conventional forms of Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks fairly clearly, uses mostly conventional forms of Edited American English, speaks in relatively complete sentences; speech may be a bit peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in relatively complete sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers

Applicant speaks very clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in complete sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers

Models professionalism (NCTE 2.3)

Applicant has not dressed professionally, does not model professional behavior

Applicant has not dressed professionally, models in a very limited manner professional behavior or the dispositions needed

Applicant has dressed somewhat professionally, mostly models professional behavior and exhibits

Applicant has dressed professionally, models professional behavior and exhibits some of the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care

Applicant has dressed professionally, superbly models professional behavior and exhibits many of the dispositions needed for teaching (e.g., ability to make

Score: or the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

some of the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

for students, a plan for professional development.)

connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Total Score: __________

To aid in Departmental Review of Applicants, please make notes and rank the student on competence in specific content knowledge

Criteria 1 --seriously flawed 2 --needs improvement 3 --competent 4 --proficient 5 --distinguished

Knowledge of language (high competence would demonstrate knowledge of language acquisition, dialects, of history of language, of English grammars) (NCTE 3.1)Knowledge of extensive range of literature (high competence would demonstrate knowledge of US, British, world, multicultural, and young adult literature) (NCTE 3.5)Knowledge of composing processes (NCTE 3.2.3)

The applicant review process culminates with English Education faculty assessment of candidates, using the following scoring guide:

 Departmental ReviewRubric Content | Rubric Points | Print | eReport

URL:  http://rgrade.radford.edu/PRINT_RUBRIC.asp?RUBRIC_ID=185Description: Departmental Review

Updated: 2/19/2009 4:08:49 PMAuthor: Radford University Unit Assessment

N/A  Poor/ Not eligible   Below Average   Average   Above average   Excellent 

Overall Academic Preparation Overall academic preparation (based on RU GPA and overall GPA)    

N/A Not eligible = <2.50 2.50-2.74 2.75-2.99 3.0-3.5 3.6-4.0

PRAXIS II Subject Matter Assessment PRAXIS II Subject Matter Assessment    

N/A <172 172-174 175-180 181-184 >185

Subject Matter Knowledge Subject Matter Knowledge - The applicant has completed academic coursework    

N/A The applicant has not completed the academic coursework required to adequately address the content he or she will teach as reflected in the VA Standards of Learning and national standards

The applicant has completed the minimum possible academic coursework required to adequately address the content he or she will teach as reflected in the VA Standards of Learning and national standards

The applicant has completed the academic coursework required to adequately address the content he or she will teach as reflected in the Va Standards of Learning and national standards

The applicant has completed with distinction the academic coursework required to address well the content he or she will teach as reflected in the VA standards of Learning and national standards

The applicant has completed with excellence the academic coursework required to strongly address the content he or she will teach as reflected in the VA Standards of Learning and the national standards

Content KnowledgeLiterature     

N/A The applicant has earned C's, D's and or F's in several courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned C's in 75% of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 80% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 90% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's in 80% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

Content Knowledge Writing, Grammar, and Language   

N/A The applicant has earned C's, D's and or F's in several courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned C's in 75% of courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 80% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 90% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

The applicant has earned A's in 80% or more of the courses addressing the content he or she will teach as reflected in national and state standards

Knowledge of content pedagogy     

N/A The applicant has earned C's, D's and or F's in several courses addressing pedagogy in the English language arts classroom

The applicant has earned C's in 75% of the courses addressing pedagogy in the English language arts classroom

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 80% or more of the courses addressing pedagogy in the English language arts classroom

The applicant has earned A's and B's in 90% or more of the courses addressing pedagogy in the English language arts classroom

The applicant has earned A's in 100% or more of the courses addressing pedagogy in the English language arts classroom

Basic Proficiency Skills (Praxis I, SAT or ACT) Praxis I, SAT or ACT    

N/A <532 532-539 540-549 550-559 560-570

Basic Proficiency Skills (VCLA) VCLA    

N/A <470 470-505 506-541 542-577 578-600

Professional Characteristics and Dispositions (as demonstrated

N/A Below expectations(5 or less total points on sections III-VII)

Needs improvement in one or two areas(6-10 total points on sections III-VII)

Meets expectations(11-15 total points on sections III-VII)

Above expectations(16-20 total points on sections III-VII)

Greatly exceeds expectations(21-25 total points on sections III-VII)

in applicant interviews; rubric sections III-VII)

Content of rubric may be copyrighted by the author(s)

rGrade © 2003-2007 by Ball State University, under license to Educational Informatics, LLC.Other content © 2005-2007 by Educational Informatics, LLC.

All rights reserved.

add to institution reports