EDUC 508:
Integrated Project
Guidelines for Completion of the MAT Portfolio
2
Table of Contents
Integrated Project Protocol .…………………………………………………………………… 3
To-do list for completion of the portfolio
Final Review: Pre-grading Requirements .……………………………………………………… 4
Checklist to ensure you’ve properly set-up your portfolio
Committee Sign-off Sheet ...…………………………………………………………………… 5
For your information only
Sample Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………… 6
Add your information and include with your final portfolio
Sample Introductory Statement ………………………………………………………………. 8
Add your information and include with your final portfolio
Sample Goal Statement ……………………………………………………………………..… 9
Use as a guide for how your statements should look
Grade Criteria: Written .……………………………………………………………………… 12
For your information only
Grade Criteria: Oral .………………………………………………………………………… 15
For your information only
Integrated Project Exit Interview .………………………………………………………….… 18
To be printed by you and brought to your oral presentation
3
Integrated Project Protocol
To complete the Integrated Project (aka MAT Portfolio), the following steps are to be taken in
sequence.
The Role of the Student
The student will…
1.
Select a committee chair from the Education department and enroll in his or her
section of EDUC 508.
2.
Form a committee. The committee must consist of 1 member of the Education
department or 1 Ed.D or Ph.D from outside the department.
3.
Address the Five National Board Professional Teaching Standards in narrative form.
Each statement must include discussion of a minimum of 2 MAT courses, 2 artifacts,
and 2 theories.
4.
Organize the Integrated Project in the form of an electronic portfolio.
5.
Give finished portfolio to the chair of the committee for 1st reading.
6.
Schedule a day, time, and location for the oral presentation. The presentation
should take 30-45 minutes.
7.
Develop the oral presentation using PowerPoint. The oral presentation should be an
articulation of the written work.
8.
Complete the written exit Interview after the presentation. This form is included in
the EDUC 508 syllabus.
The Role of the Committee
9.
The chair will review the portfolio and determine if it is acceptable and ready to be
passed along to the other member of the committee.
10.
The committee member will grade the portfolio and communicate the results to the
committee chair. Grading criteria is included in the EDUC 508 syllabus.
11.
The committee will attend and grade the oral presentation. Grading criteria is
included in the EDUC 508 syllabus.
12.
The chair will supervise any necessary changes, additions, deletions, etc.
13.
The student’s final grade will be determined by the committee.
4
Final Review: Pre-grading Requirements
Criteria:
1. Portfolio is typed in Times New Roman 12 pt font style
2. All borders are 1 inch
3. Accepted standards of grammar, punctuation, and
American English dominate the written work
4. Content is organized electronically, on a flash drive,
webpage, or CD with student’s name highly visible
5. The flash drive, webpage, or CD includes a document
that reports a permanent address and states directions
for the disposing of the portfolio when the two-year
retention period is over.
Completed:
5
FINAL REVIEW FOR *student’s name*
_____________
Submitted on: *date*
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Master of Arts in Teaching
_____________
6
Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….5
Goal I ……………………………………………………………………………..6
Goal II …………………………………………………………………………….9
Goal III …………………………………………………………………………..12
Goal IV …………………………………………………………………………..16
Goal V ……………………………………………………………………………19
Exhibits
A.
Research Paper – Jerome Bruner
B.
Creative Problem Solving Project
C.
Plessy v. Ferguson Lesson Plan
D.
Review of Teaching Beyond the Book by Tomlinson & Jarvis
E.
Curriculum Management Plan
F.
Reflection Paper
G.
EDUC 563 Midterm Exam
H.
Performance Assessment
I.
Test Blueprint
…and so on (list all your exhibits here)
7
Final Review Portfolio for (name)
For the Masters of Arts in Teaching, the education faculty and the faculty of the college have endorsed
national certification of teachers, and have adopted the core proposals of the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards as the goals of the program that each candidate must meet to graduate.
When conducting best practices, teachers:
I.
Are committed to students and their learning;
II.
Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students;
III.
Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning;
IV.
Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience, and
V.
Are members of learning communities.
8
Goal III. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
Perhaps one of the most difficult parts of the education profession is how to manage and monitor
student learning. The management aspect stretches from proactive classroom behavior expectations to
the proper establishment of routines while the monitoring side includes proper assessment tools and
awareness of student understanding. My classes at Columbia College during the Master of Arts in
Teaching program gave me the tools to do both in my classroom as well as the philosophical reasons
behind them.
In EDUC 563 Management of the Classroom Environment, I learned that successful learning
begins with successful classroom management. In Exhibit G, a written midterm from EDUC 563, I
utilized our textbook to draw out key points in classroom management theory that would be applicable
to my own classroom. Our text, citing learning theorist Kounin, emphasized a “withit” attitude toward
classroom management where the teacher is proactive in identifying and dealing with potential behavior
issues before they are allowed to spiral into a disruption of the learning process. By knowing how to
manage space, time, transitions and the students in my classroom, I am able to also manage successful
learning.
While EDUC 563 equipped me with the tools to provide a ripe educational environment, several
other classes introduced me to methods to monitor student learning through authentic and effective
assessment. In EDUC 580 Methods of Effective Academic Evaluation, for example, I learned that
assessments should be used as a tool for furthering student learning by making them relevant to the
leaner and integrated into the curriculum. Our text, An Introduction to Student-Involved Assessment
FOR Learning by Rick Stiggins, gave a comprehensive approach to using assessments in an entirely
different way than the traditional test or exam. Stiggins uses assessments as a part of the learning
process, not as a culmination or ending of the learning process. Instead of giving multiple choice exams
at the end of every unit, Stiggins suggests teachers use many forms of performance assessment
throughout units to ensure students are meeting objectives and progressing in their learning.
9
I applied these concepts to the creation of my own authentic performance assessment in EDUC
580 (Exhibit H). In my assessment, I required students to choose a conflict post 1918 and trace its roots
back to World War I using tools of the historical trade and being creative. Important to this assessment
was the application of Stiggins’ procedures: allow students to enjoy decision making power and use a
rubric. Giving students control over their own learning involves them in the process and gives them a
stake in their progression. Solid rubrics eliminate gray areas and show student exactly what I am
looking for in the assessment. Without those two vital parts of the assessment, the authenticity and
effectiveness of the tool would be negated.
Also in EDUC 580, I created a blueprint along with an assessment from the blueprint that
ensured I knew how to monitor student learning through careful consideration of a written exam
(Exhibit I). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, I created objectives, and then derived questions from them that
either fell in the knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation areas of
Bloom’s cognitive domains. Bloom’s research demonstrated that traditional objective exam items
frequently remain on the lower half of the cognitive domains, knowledge and comprehension. And
while those do have merit, our objective as teachers is to bring students into the upper domains where
critical thinking and long term learning take place.
I know from my experiences at Columbia College that I want my students operating at higher
levels of thinking, and it is my job to successfully monitor where they are and create evaluative tools
that help me get there. I also know, though, that in order for that to occur, I must provide an
environment where students are able to be successful. It is my obligation to effectively manage my time
and space while keeping a proactive response to burgeoning problem behaviors. When the environment
is steady and students are involved in monitoring their learning, the classroom can be a fruitful place.
10
EDUC 508 Integrative Project
Evaluation Criteria for Written Portfolio
Student Name
Goal 1
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Writing
Total score:
5
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
5
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth. If a theory or theorist
is not well-known, a citation is
provided in correct APA
format.
4 3
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
If a theory or theorist is not
well-known, a citation is
provided but not in correct
APA format.
2 1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
2 1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow. A citation is
not provided for theory or
theorists that are not wellknown.
5
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
2 1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
5
Statement is well-written,
organized, clear, easy to read,
and is generally engaging and
appealing. Statement has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
4 3
Statement is relatively easy to
read but could be better
organized, and/or engaging,
and/or flow more smoothly.
Statement has 2-5
grammatical and /or structure
errors, and/or lacks some
level of professionalism.
2 1
Statement lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Statement has more than 5
grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing. Minimal
professionalism.
/20
11
Goal 2
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Writing
Total score:
5
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
5
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth. If a theory or theorist
is not well-known, a citation is
provided in correct APA
format.
4 3
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
If a theory or theorist is not
well-known, a citation is
provided but not in correct
APA format.
2 1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
2 1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow. A citation is
not provided for theory or
theorists that are not wellknown.
5
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
2 1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
5
Statement is well-written,
organized, clear, easy to read,
and is generally engaging and
appealing. Statement has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
4 3
Statement is relatively easy to
read but could be better
organized, and/or engaging,
and/or flow more smoothly.
Statement has 2-5
grammatical and /or structure
errors, and/or lacks some
level of professionalism.
2 1
Statement lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Statement has more than 5
grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing. Minimal
professionalism.
/20
12
Goal 3
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Writing
Total score:
5
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
5
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth. If a theory or theorist
is not well-known, a citation is
provided in correct APA
format.
4 3
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
If a theory or theorist is not
well-known, a citation is
provided but not in correct
APA format.
2 1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
2 1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow. A citation is
not provided for theory or
theorists that are not wellknown.
5
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
2 1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
5
Statement is well-written,
organized, clear, easy to read,
and is generally engaging and
appealing. Statement has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
4 3
Statement is relatively easy to
read but could be better
organized, and/or engaging,
and/or flow more smoothly.
Statement has 2-5
grammatical and /or structure
errors, and/or lacks some
level of professionalism.
2 1
Statement lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Statement has more than 5
grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing. Minimal
professionalism.
/20
13
Goal 4
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Writing
Total score:
5
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
5
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth. If a theory or theorist
is not well-known, a citation is
provided in correct APA
format.
4 3
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
If a theory or theorist is not
well-known, a citation is
provided but not in correct
APA format.
2 1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
2 1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow. A citation is
not provided for theory or
theorists that are not wellknown.
5
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
2 1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
5
Statement is well-written,
organized, clear, easy to read,
and is generally engaging and
appealing. Statement has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
4 3
Statement is relatively easy to
read but could be better
organized, and/or engaging,
and/or flow more smoothly.
Statement has 2-5
grammatical and /or structure
errors, and/or lacks some
level of professionalism.
2 1
Statement lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Statement has more than 5
grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing. Minimal
professionalism.
/20
14
Goal 5
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Writing
Total score:
5
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
5
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth. If a theory or theorist
is not well-known, a citation is
provided in correct APA
format.
4 3
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
If a theory or theorist is not
well-known, a citation is
provided but not in correct
APA format.
2 1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
2 1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow. A citation is
not provided for theory or
theorists that are not wellknown.
5
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
4 3
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
2 1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
5
Statement is well-written,
organized, clear, easy to read,
and is generally engaging and
appealing. Statement has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
4 3
Statement is relatively easy to
read but could be better
organized, and/or engaging,
and/or flow more smoothly.
Statement has 2-5
grammatical and /or structure
errors, and/or lacks some
level of professionalism.
2 1
Statement lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Statement has more than 5
grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing. Minimal
professionalism.
/20
15
Holistic Score:
Overall Project
25 24
Each goal statement included
all required elements as
evidenced in the statement
checklists. All 12 courses
taken are mentioned.
Portfolio overall shows
exceptional professionalism,
reflection, and synthesis, and
is reflective of a master
teacher.
Total score:
/25
Total Points Possible:
Total Points Received:
Percentage:
Committee Review Member:
Date:
125
23 22 21
One statement was missing
one or two required
elements, or two statements
were missing one required
element, as evidenced in the
statement checklists.
Presentation overall shows
adequate professionalism,
reflection, and synthesis, and
shows evidence that the
candidate is working towards
becoming a master teacher.
20 or _____
More than one statement
was missing one or two
required elements, or more
than two statements were
missing one required
element, as evidenced in the
statement checklists.
Presentation overall lacks
professionalism, reflection,
and synthesis, and indicates
that this candidate is not yet
working towards becoming a
master teacher.
16
EDUC 508 Integrative Project
Evaluation Criteria for Oral Presentation
Student Name
Goal 1
Student discusses:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Presentation
Total score: /12
3
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
2
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow.
3
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth.
2
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
3
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
2
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
3
PowerPoint presentation is
well-written, organized, clear,
easy to read, and is generally
engaging and appealing.
Presentation has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
2
PowerPoint presentation is
relatively easy to read but
could be better organized,
and/or engaging, and/or flow
more smoothly. Presentation
has 2-5 grammatical and /or
structure errors, and/or lacks
some level of professionalism.
1
PowerPoint lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Presentation has more than
5 grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing.
Student speaks clearly and
articulately, shows a high level
preparedness, and looks and
behaves as a professional.
Student could speak more
clearly and/or more
articulately. Student could be
better prepared, and could be
more professional in
appearance and/or behavior.
Student does not speak
clearly or articulately.
Student appears
unprepared, and looks
and/or behaves
unprofessionally.
17
Goal 2
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Presentation
Total score: /12
3
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
2
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow.
3
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth.
2
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
3
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
2
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
3
PowerPoint presentation is
well-written, organized, clear,
easy to read, and is generally
engaging and appealing.
Presentation has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
2
PowerPoint presentation is
relatively easy to read but
could be better organized,
and/or engaging, and/or flow
more smoothly. Presentation
has 2-5 grammatical and /or
structure errors, and/or lacks
some level of professionalism.
1
PowerPoint lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Presentation has more than
5 grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing.
Student speaks clearly and
articulately, shows a high level
preparedness, and looks and
behaves as a professional.
Student could speak more
clearly and/or more
articulately. Student could be
better prepared, and could be
more professional in
appearance and/or behavior.
Student does not speak
clearly or articulately.
Student appears
unprepared, and looks
and/or behaves
unprofessionally.
18
Goal 3
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Presentation
Total score: /12
3
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
2
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow.
3
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth.
2
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
3
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
2
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
3
PowerPoint presentation is
well-written, organized, clear,
easy to read, and is generally
engaging and appealing.
Presentation has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
2
PowerPoint presentation is
relatively easy to read but
could be better organized,
and/or engaging, and/or flow
more smoothly. Presentation
has 2-5 grammatical and /or
structure errors, and/or lacks
some level of professionalism.
1
PowerPoint lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Presentation has more than
5 grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing.
Student speaks clearly and
articulately, shows a high level
preparedness, and looks and
behaves as a professional.
Student could speak more
clearly and/or more
articulately. Student could be
better prepared, and could be
more professional in
appearance and/or behavior.
Student does not speak
clearly or articulately.
Student appears
unprepared, and looks
and/or behaves
unprofessionally.
19
Goal 4
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Presentation
Total score: /12
3
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
2
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow.
3
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth.
2
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
3
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
2
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
3
PowerPoint presentation is
well-written, organized, clear,
easy to read, and is generally
engaging and appealing.
Presentation has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
2
PowerPoint presentation is
relatively easy to read but
could be better organized,
and/or engaging, and/or flow
more smoothly. Presentation
has 2-5 grammatical and /or
structure errors, and/or lacks
some level of professionalism.
1
PowerPoint lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Presentation has more than
5 grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing.
Student speaks clearly and
articulately, shows a high level
preparedness, and looks and
behaves as a professional.
Student could speak more
clearly and/or more
articulately. Student could be
better prepared, and could be
more professional in
appearance and/or behavior.
Student does not speak
clearly or articulately.
Student appears
unprepared, and looks
and/or behaves
unprofessionally.
20
Goal 5
The narrative includes:
At least 2 graduate courses
At least 2 theorists
At least 2 artifacts
Coursework
Theory
Artifacts
Articulation and
Presentation
Total score: /12
3
Coursework is highly relevant
to the proposition, and the
connection is described indepth and is clear.
2
Coursework is relevant to the
proposition but description of
the connection lacks depth
and/or clarity. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Coursework is not relevant
to the proposition and/or
description of the
connection is missing and/or
highly lacking. Less than 2
courses are mentioned.
1
Theory is not relevant to the
proposition, and/or
description is inaccurate
and/or shallow.
3
Theory is highly relevant to
the proposition and is
described accurately and indepth.
2
Theory is relevant to the
proposition but description
lacks depth and/or accuracy.
3
Artifacts are highly relevant to
the proposition, each artifact
is described with adequate
depth, and the connection to
the proposition is described indepth and is clear.
2
Artifacts are relevant to the
proposition, but the
description of one or more
artifacts is lacking in depth,
and/or the connection to the
proposition lacks depth or
clarity.
1
Artifacts are not relevant to
the proposition, and/or the
description of one or more
artifacts is missing, and/or
the connection to the
proposition is missing or
unclear.
3
PowerPoint presentation is
well-written, organized, clear,
easy to read, and is generally
engaging and appealing.
Presentation has 0-2
grammatical and /or structure
errors and shows exceptional
professionalism.
2
PowerPoint presentation is
relatively easy to read but
could be better organized,
and/or engaging, and/or flow
more smoothly. Presentation
has 2-5 grammatical and /or
structure errors, and/or lacks
some level of professionalism.
1
PowerPoint lacks
organization, and/or
readability, and/or an easy
flow. Minimal appeal.
Presentation has more than
5 grammatical and/or
structure errors and/or
awkward phrasing.
Student speaks clearly and
articulately, shows a high level
preparedness, and looks and
behaves as a professional.
Student could speak more
clearly and/or more
articulately. Student could be
better prepared, and could be
more professional in
appearance and/or behavior.
Student does not speak
clearly or articulately.
Student appears
unprepared, and looks
and/or behaves
unprofessionally.
21
Holistic Score:
Overall Project
15 14
Each goal statement included
all required elements as
evidenced in the statement
checklists. All 12 courses
taken are mentioned.
Presentation overall shows
exceptional professionalism,
reflection, and synthesis, and
is reflective of a master
teacher.
Total score:
/15
Total Points Possible:
Total Points Received:
Percentage:
Committee Review Member:
Date:
75
13 12 11 10
One statement was missing
one or two required
elements, or two statements
were missing one required
element, as evidenced in the
statement checklists.
Portfolio overall shows
adequate professionalism,
reflection, and synthesis
overall, and shows evidence
that the candidate is working
towards becoming a master
teacher.
9 or _____
More than one statement
was missing one or two
required elements, or more
than two statements were
missing one required
element, as evidenced in the
statement checklists.
Portfolio overall lacks
professionalism, reflection,
and synthesis overall, and
indicates that this candidate
is not yet working towards
becoming a master teacher.
22
EDUC 508
Integrated Project
Exit Interview
Student’s Name
Date
Chair
Committee Member
1. Strengths of the MAT:
2. Weaknesses of the MAT:
3. Suggestions for change:
4. Other: