OOM1 — OOM1 TASK 1: COLLABORATING WITH TEAM MEMBERS TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEAR

OOM1 — OOM1 TASK 1: COLLABORATING WITH TEAM MEMBERS TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING
THE COLLABORATIVE LEADER — D188
PRFA — OOM1
TASK
REVISION NEEDED
Overall Evaluator Comments
EVALUATOR COMMENTS
You did a good job of outlining a collaborative plan to support a writing goal for second grade students. You logically noted how each collaborator will fulfill an assigned role within weekly PLC meetings. Please see the rubric for an element that requires revision.
SOE PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS AND ETHICS.
COMPETENT
A. Instructional Goal
COMPETENT
A1. Instructional Strategies
COMPETENT
A2. Vision
COMPETENT
A3. Goal Achievement
COMPETENT
B1. Collaborators
COMPETENT
B2. Collaboration Model
COMPETENT
B2a. Justification
COMPETENT
B3. Implementation
COMPETENT
B4. Collaboration Assessment
COMPETENT
C. Reflection on Success
COMPETENT
C1. Collaborator Feedback
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Approaching CompetenceThe submission does not summarize feedback received from each of the collaborators identified in part B1.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
A discussion of what kind of data each collaborator will share is noted. This discussion is incomplete because it does not include the specific feedback that was noted during this process.
C2. Success Factor
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Approaching CompetenceThe submission identifies 1 factor that contributed to the success of the collaboration, but the identified factor is irrelevant, or the submission does not plausibly justify how this factor contributed to the plan’s success using specific feedback from part C1 and personal observations.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
Collaboration is noted as a success. This selection is insufficient because it is not clearly connected to specific feedback from identified collaborators.
C3. Future Implementation
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Approaching CompetenceThe submission identifies 1 factor that would be done differently in the future if the candidate were to collaborate again for a different goal, but the identified factor is irrelevant, or the submission does not plausibly justify why the collaboration would be done differently using specific feedback from part C1 and personal observations.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
Future goals connected to pacing are shared. This selection is incomplete because it does not clearly identify aligned feedback from collaborators to support this observation.
D. APA Sources
COMPETENT
E. Professional Communication
COMPETENT