EDF Task 2 Feedback

How would you adjust this feedback?

C6c. A commendable SMART goal is presented as training once weekly to learn about being a good teacher. The goal submitted lacks a measurable element and a more clearly defined training outcome.

• I would change the positive evaluative term to something more impactful.

• I would add a submission-specific example about the presented SMART goal.

• I would remove the language about needing a more clearly definded training outcome.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The feedback is properly formatted according to stoplight guidelines. However, the step 2 comment extends beyond the rubric by asking for additional information, specifically a more clearly defined training outcome.

How would you adjust this feedback? (Choose two)

C1. The teacher's views on standards, influences, identity, and ways to grow professionally are nicely summarized in the paper. An explanation of personal agreement or disagreement with the teacher's views is needed. 

• I would add a submission-specific example to the step 1 comment.

• I would add more specific details regarding what is missing to the step 2 comment.

• I would include a step 3 comment to emphasize revisions.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The step 1 comment needs an example unique to the student's submission. The step 2 comment should indicate which of the given points needs to be analyzed (standards, internal influence, external influence, teacher identity, and professional growth).

How would you adjust this feedback?

C4. Apt explanations of personal agreement with the teacher's views on the application of the state standards, a relaxed and flexible identity, and improving in the profession by attending trainings and reading are provided in the work. The response is incomplete because an explanation of why there is personal agreement or disagreement with the teacher's view on the internal influence of meeting students' SEL needs and the external influence of a diverse population is not detected.

• I would remove the specific details about the influence in the step 2 comment.

• I would specifically add that the step 2 comment is missing "the candidate's" opinion of the influences.

• I would change the positive evaluative adjective "apt" to the positive evaluative adverb "aptly."

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

Though this feedback is long, it effectively highlights the competent response to the multicomponent aspect and then explicitly states what is needed for revisions. Indicating the specific internal and external influences better ensures success for the student and efficiency for the next Evaluator upon resubmission.

How would you adjust this feedback?

C1. A valid link to the state standards for California was included in the response. A summary of the teacher's responses could not be found in the work. 

• The step 1 comment is lacking a submission-specific example.

• The step 2 comment is missing details that specify what is needed to be summarized.

• The step 1 comment needs a positive evaluative term.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The step 1 comment includes the evaluative term "valid," and the indication of California is an acceptable submission-specific example. The step 2 comment should list the given points (standards, influences, identity, and professional growth) that need to be summarized. This benefits both the student and the next Evaluator.

How would you adjust this feedback?

C5b. The paper aptly details one change to the interview: creating and asking personal questions at the end of the interview. The paper is incomplete as it is unclear how the change would improve the interview experience. 

• The step 1 comment needs a submission-specific example.

• The step 1 comment needs an additional positive evaluative term.

• The step 2 comment does not clearly indicate what is needed for revisions.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The feedback is completely calibrated with team expectations. The step 1 comment helpfully indicates the suggested change, which is relevant to what is needed to demonstrate competency.

How would you adjust this feedback? (Choose two)

C4. A discussion of personal opinions with each of the given topics is logically provided, noting that the identity of dialogue as much as monologue is important to help students feel safe. It is unclear whether a personal agreement or disagreement is given with the teacher's views on each topic. 

• The step 1 comment is missing a submission-specific example from the student's response.

• The step 2 comment needs to list each topic required to be discussed during revisions.

• The step 1 comment is contradictory to the step 2 comment.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

It is so important to list each of the given topics that need to be addressed in revisions. Also, the step 1 comment states personal opinions of each topic is provided but then asks for agreement or disagreement in the step 2 comments. The student's personal opinions could fulfill the requirement of analyzing the teacher's responses.

How would you adjust this feedback? (Choose two)

C1. Competently presented is a transcript of the teacher interview. Missing is a summary of the teacher's views of the application of the content standards, internal and external influences that impact education, professional development, and teacher identity.

• The step 1 comment needs a submission-specific example.

• The step 1 comment should not refer to the transcript as competent because it does not demonstrate competency according to the rubric.

• The step 2 comment should not list each of the given points that need to be summarized.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

Since a transcript is not acceptable for this task, we should not recognize it as competent. Additionally, an example unique to this submission is not recognized in the step 1 comment.

How would you adjust this feedback? (Choose two)

C6b. A clear description of personal strengths and weaknesses related to multiple mindframes is provided in the submission. Not provided is a description of a personal strength and weakness related to the mind frame described in aspect C6a. 

• The step 2 comment is not aligned with the language included in the rubric.

• The step 1 comment does not include a submission-specific example unique to the student's response.

• The step 1 comment is contradictory to the CRD because strengths and weaknesses related to any mindframe are acceptable.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

According to our recent CRD change, we now accept strengths and weaknesses related to any mindframe, so it appears this aspect should have passed. The step 1 comment is also missing a submission-specific example.

How would you adjust this feedback?

C5ai. A succinct summary of what was learned is provided in the work for part C5a, noting being excited to work alongside teachers who hold similar beliefs and who are to better their students. What cannot be found is an explanation of how the interview influenced the personal understanding of a teacher's role. 

• The step 1 comment does not include an appropriate positive evaluative term.

• The step 1 comment needs a submission-specific example from the student's response.

• The step 2 comment fails to explicitly indicate what is needed to demonstrate competency upon resubmission.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The feedback is aligned with team expectations. It does a great job of highlighting a competent and relevant aspect that demonstrates competency while using rubric language to state what is missing.

How would you adjust this feedback?

C6b. Nicely explained is how building trust and relationships can lead to teacher success because the more comfortable and safer students feel, the more engaged they are. Missing is a description of a personal strength and a personal weakness related to the mindframe presented. 

• The step 1 comment fails to recognize a submission-specific example with a positive evaluative term.

• The step 2 comment needs to mention "the candidate's" strength and weakness are missing.

• The step 2 comment should not indicate that the personal strength and weakness has to be related to the described mindframe.

• I would not edit the feedback because it is aligned with team expectations.

Answer explanation

The feedback does an excellent job of highlighting the competent response while using rubric language to indicate what is missing from the response. The step 2 comment should still ask for the strength and weakness to be related to the described mindframe because we aim to guide our students toward competency as opposed to minimal competency.