Facultad de Educación.

Pedagogía en Educación Media en Inglés.

MUESTRA DESEMPEÑO DOCENTE 4

Valentina Acuña Zapata

English Teaching Experience IV
UCSC Supervisor: Astrid Guerra.
Mentor teacher: Carlos Solar.

June, 2019.
ESTÁNDAR IV
 Plan de Evaluación.

Estándar: El profesor o profesora en formación propone un plan de evaluación para monitorear

el aprendizaje de los estudiantes antes, durante y al finalizar el desarrollo de la unidad, que
incorpora modalidades e instrumentos diversos y congruentes con las metas y con las
actividades de aprendizaje.

Tarea 1
Diseñe un plan de evaluación que le permita recoger evidencias para monitorear el progreso de
los estudiantes y determinar el nivel de logro alcanzado en cada una de las metas de
aprendizaje.

Evaluation Plan

Unidad Countries, Cultures Subunidad Comparatives and

and Customs. superlatives.

Objetivo general de la unidad Students will be able to value and compare

different cultures and customs orally.

Metas de aprendizaje Propósito Modalidades Actividades e

instrumentos

L1: SWBAT compare Diagnostic Hetero-evaluation Students answer a

different places in question using the
written form. vocabulary they
know in relation to
the topic (adjectives)

Formative Students describe

pictures using the
vocabulary and the
grammar form that
was taught.

L2: SWBAT highlight a Formative Hetero-evaluation Students compare

quality among three or famous people from
more people from around the world
different nations using superlative
written. form.
 L3: SWBAT create a Formative Hetero-evaluation Students create a
brochure comparing brochure using
different places, people different places,
or festivities famous people,
family among others.
This is evaluated
using a short rubric.

L4: SWBAT answer a Summative Hetero-evaluation Students answer a

test on comparatives comparative and
and superlatives superlative written
adjectives written test.

Tarea 2

The activities, the evaluations and the learning objectives employed during these lessons were
selected and planned to make sure students practice and use the grammar content taught
previously in a useful context. The type of the assessments done was a hetero-evaluation a
hundred percent, mostly because the content was new for them so it is part of the monitoring
mode. There was a gradual advance as the lessons were passing by for students to comprehend
the entire content. For example, at the beginning students just had to transform adjectives into
the correct form whether comparative or superlative. After the initial activities that were pretty
basic in procedimental terms, students had had to actually apply what they had learned and
create a product, in this case a brochure, and eventually they had to answer a written test to
prove they understood when, why and how to use it.
For the first evaluation there was a short rubric for students to have an idea of the requirements
that would be considered. Besides, they were shown an example as a model for them to follow
and to understand better what they were supposed to do. Students are used to be evaluated with
the same rubric every time there is a formative mark, which contemplates three categories:
grammar, on time, presentation plus the comments section. However, it was decided to modify
it a little and to add two categories more: pronunciation and n° steps. The latter seeked that
students follow and comply every step that was required. For the second evaluation, students
had to answer a written test that was designed following the Bloom’s Taxonomy. The first items
goes from the bottom (describe, distinguish) to the top (critique, formulate).
What students receive after this process, apart from the mark obtained, is a feedback given for
them to understand the reason why they were evaluated in a certain way. For the formative
assessment, students usually receive comments right after the presentation, in case of being an
oral evaluation; if not, they will receive comments in their rubrics any way. It is relevant to
mention that this form of evaluation applies for every students without exceptions. The only
change or adaptation that is made has to do with the moment in which the student with special
needs is evaluated as it was mentioned in one of the last MDD. For the brochure, he worked
with one of the teachers being constantly helping him; while in the written evaluation he was
explained personally what he had to do and also he was given more time to finished it.

Tarea 3: Reflection

As it was mentioned before, it was decided to carry out activities in the order shown
above since in this way, students will know the vocabulary and content from a simpler point of
view. It was important to do the activities in this way since later they saw the contents in a real
way with written text. Therefore, I had the possibility to review the vocabulary during the first
steps to ensure that the children had learnt in an effective way to later, saw if they are able to
recognize it and use it in longer texts.

I think that one of the difficulties that I had to face in my lessons plans, was that the
students with higher knowledge finished the activities faster than those who did not have much
knowledge. For cases like this, I prepared shorter activities such as word search puzzles related
to the content for the students who finished first. This was very useful since higher knowledge
students did not get distracted with their cell-phones or with their talkative classmates.

Finally, in terms of the class to class evaluation, I did not face difficulties by the part of
the students since it is part of the summative / formative evaluation established by the teacher
for years.