Posted: March 12th, 2023

Clinical Field Experience C: Assessment Analysis Feedback

 

As a school administrator, you will be required to review data to determine student success at your school. Being able to analyze data is not enough; you also need to be able to communicate the data to teachers in order to collaboratively create an action plan to improve the school.

Allocate at least 1 hour in the field to support this field experience.

Obtain a copy of your school’s most recent state standardized test scores or benchmark assessments to review. After reviewing the data, meet with your principal mentor to discuss the results and their interpretation of the data.

Include the following in your discussion:

• How are teachers chosen to be part of the assessment and data analysis process? What responsibilities do they have in the process?
• What strategies are used to analyze the academic data?
• How will the data be disseminated to the teaching staff?
• What considerations and possible actions steps will be used to improve student scores on future assessments or benchmarks?
• How will this data be used to improve instruction and create the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan?

Use any remaining time from this field experience to assist the principal mentor and, provided permission, seek opportunities to observe and/or assist the principal mentor.

Summarize your experiences analyzing and interpreting assessment data in order to identify areas for improvement in a 150-250 word reflection. Incorporate PSEL Standard 4 into your reflection and describe how you will apply what you have learned to your future professional practice.

APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.

Clinical Field Experience C: Assessment Analysis Feedback – Rubric

Assessment and Data Analysis Process 5.25 points

Criteria Description

Assessment and Data Analysis Process

5. Target 5.25 points

Reflection thoroughly identifies how teachers are chosen to be part of the

assessment and data analysis process, including the responsibilities they have in

the process.

4. Acceptable 4.57 points

Reflection clearly identifies how teachers are chosen to be part of the assessment

and data analysis process, including the responsibilities they have in the process.

3. Approaching 3.89 points

Reflection marginally identifies how teachers are chosen to be part of the

assessment and data analysis process, including the responsibilities they have in

the process.

2. Insufficient 3.62 points

Reflection ineffectively identifies how teachers are chosen to be part of the

assessment and data analysis process, including the responsibilities they have in

the process.

1. No Submission 0 points

Academic Data and Dissemination to Sta� 5.25 points

Criteria Description

Academic Data and Dissemination to Staff

5. Target 5.25 points

Reflection substantially addresses strategies used to analyze the academic data and

comprehensively describes how data will be disseminated to the teaching staff.

4. Acceptable 4.57 points

Collapse All

Reflection reasonably addresses strategies used to analyze the academic data and

logically describes how data will be disseminated to the teaching staff.

3. Approaching 3.89 points

Reflection weakly addresses strategies used to analyze the academic data and

vaguely describes how data will be disseminated to the teaching staff.

2. Insufficient 3.62 points

Reflection unrealistically addresses strategies used to analyze the academic data

and poorly describes how data will be disseminated to the teaching staff.

1. No Submission 0 points

Considerations and Action Steps 5.25 points

Criteria Description

Considerations and Action Steps

5. Target 5.25 points

Reflection proficiently addresses considerations and possible action steps used to

improve

student scores on future assessments or benchmarks.

4. Acceptable 4.57 points

Reflection competently addresses considerations and possible action steps used to

improve student scores on future assessments or benchmarks.

3. Approaching 3.89 points

Reflection provides overly simplistic considerations and action steps used to

improve student scores on future assessments or benchmarks.

2. Insufficient 3.62 points

Reflection provides irrelevant considerations and action steps used to improve

student scores on future assessments or benchmarks.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Improve Instruction/CIP 5.25 points

Criteria Description

Improve Instruction/CIP

5. Target 5.25 points

Reflection skillfully describes how data will be used to improve instruction and

create the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan.

4. Acceptable 4.57 points

Reflection soundly describes how data will be used to improve instruction and

create the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan.

3. Approaching 3.89 points

Reflection inconsistently describes how this will be used to improve instruction and

create the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan.

2. Insufficient 3.62 points

Reflection unconvincingly describes how data will be used to improve instruction

and create the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

PSEL Standard 4 and Implications for Future Practice 8.75 points

Criteria Description

PSEL Standard 4 and Implications for Future Practice

5. Target 8.75 points

Reflection proficiently discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standard 4 are expertly incorporated into reflection.

4. Acceptable 7.61 points

Reflection logically discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standard 4 are accurately incorporated into reflection.

3. Approaching 6.48 points

Reflection inexplicitly discusses implications for application as a future practitioner.

Elements of PSEL Standard 4 are vaguely addressed.

2. Insufficient 6.04 points

Reflection unrealistically discusses implications for application as a future

practitioner. Elements of PSEL Standard 4 are inaccurately addressed.

1. No Submission 0 points

Organization 1.75 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 1.75 points

The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas

that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides

the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the

required word count.

4. Acceptable 1.52 points

The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The

content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is

within a reasonable range of the required word count.

3. Approaching 1.3 points

The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with

a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the

required word count.

2. Insufficient 1.21 points

An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The

ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the

summary is widely outside of the required word count.

Mechanics of Writing 3.5 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use

5. Target 3.5 points

Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-

developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are

varied and engaging.

4. Acceptable 3.05 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 2.59 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent

language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.

2. Insufficient 2.42 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

1 No Submission 0 points
Total 35 points