I hope this helps! It's from the NBs Goddess, Bobbie Faulkner:

There are many questions regarding the vagueness of Feedback Statements. Info about the Feedback Statements are found in the Scoring Guide on the NB website starting on p. 26. The feedback statements may seem vague at first glance, but they're actually connected to both particular prompts and also to the 5 Core Propositions and the NB Standards. One needs to look for key words in each. They are Component and Score-Level specific although some are found in all components. I'll use C3, Level 2 examples: "Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.

1: "You may wish to provide clearer evidence of your knowledge of the subject as you appropriately design and deliver your classroom lessons.

2: You may wish to provide clearer evidence that demonstrates your ability to apply the appropriate pedagogy to facilitate classroom and/or small-group engagement between students and with you.

3: You may wish to provide clearer evidence that you develop and deliver relevant
learning sequences and use diverse instructional strategies to engage all students.

#1 suggests that subject knowledge submitted might be general rather than specific, or shallow rather than deep. Maybe delivery wasn't clear. The video might show kids have lots of procedural or content questions before they could start work.

#2 refers to pedagogy which suggests that strategies, techniques, activities chosen may not have engaged students, or didn't actually address the goal of the lesson. EX: K teacher with stations set up to teach life cycle of a pumpkin. Kids count pumpkin seeds, eat pumpkin foods, color pumpkins in a garden etc. Not ONE of those has to do with the LIFE CYCLE. Maybe strategies chosen for small group learning would fit better in another format.

#3:Lesson may have been disjointed, the teacher wasn't prepared or used only 1 strategy such as lecture. The lesson may have been too teacher directed or student interactions were minimal or nonexistent.

These are just possible examples - not exhaustive - based on C3 videos and writing. The WRITING is the bulk of the C3 score. I'VE USED C3 AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT THE PREMISE APPLIES TO COMPONENTS 2, 3, AND 4. The feedback statements must be analyzed, then applied to the lesson/writing submitted. Going back and reading the Standards attached to each Proposition is incredibly helpful.

The statements can also be attached to specific prompts in each component. For example #2 above might connected to the C3 prompt that asks for examples from the video that shows a variety of strategies, techniques etc. So with some digging, one can actually gain a lot of information that can help one see where one could say more. Usually what was needed was more specificity in the writing..specific examples rather than general statements that aren't backed up with evidence (examples). I hope it helps candidates see how the feedback statements work and can be used for improvement.

Teressawac, are you going to redo C2? I didn't certify the first time by two points. I got a 1.5 on C2 so I decided to redo that. I got a 119 the second time around when my C2 score went to a 3.0. Her book really helped me, along with Zia, and some co-workers who read over my work. I would be happy to look over it when the time comes!

I'll be redoing C2 and possibly parts of C1 (still thinking about it) in 2020 and will be checking out the book at some point. Good to know that the book has helped you out.

middlestsis yes I am redoing C2 and I WILL be using her book, Zia, and anyone else on here that will be willing to help me. I got a 2 on the first try, so I am hoping for at least a 2.5 this time but shooting for a 3.0. I will also be redoing the SR, Data & Analysis, and Geometry from C1, since I know more about what I am expected to do.

Angie, there is no such thing as a "passing score" on an individual component. On C1, it needs to exceed a floor score of 1.75, which yours does. There are multiple ways to make that magic 110 number you need to certify. C2-C4 scores must AVERAGE 1.75 to count toward certification.

That's not to say getting 1.75 on all components will certify. But there are a myriad of different scores that equal 110. You can play with the score calculator to try a few different combinations.

Okay. I have looked over my feedback and looked at the things in Bobbie Faulkner's book and I am still a little confused about what I did wrong with the C2.

I got the feedback "You may wish to provide clearer evidence of your own knowledge of the subject through instruction and assignments that develop individual student's ability."

On the C2 that I did first time the instructional sequence was from the same lesson per se, but the instructional strategies were different. I did the lesson on adding and subtracting positive and negative numbers, with the first activity being done with red and black counters and the second activity being done with drawing the circles.

I believe I did it wrong. I believe they were wanting me to show how I differentiated within the lesson for example. I am think about the first lesson on this one being on adding positive and negative number (6th grade) with the differentiation coming from 4 different strategies (number lines with me working with this group one on one, a deck of playing cards with face cards taken out, independent work online, and for the ones that got a 100 on the pretest, working on 7th-grade work that follows the 6th-grade work they just got a 100 on. Then the next activity will come from the next lesson backs of of this particular lesson and doing the same thing again

Am I totally off here or is what I'm thinking about this time more of what they are looking for?

Last edited by teressawac; 12-11-2019 at 06:51 PM..
Reason: Add more

Read your instructions very carefully because I am not Math (I am AYA Social Studies), but for my C2 it wanted to see how I differentiated based on my students abilities which helped them to grow. So I broke my students down into three groups based on a variety of data, and my groups were basically Above Grade Level, At Grade Level and Below Grade level. I then chose differentiated strategies (graphic organizers, modified assignments etc., student choice) that targeted those different groups needs so they they could meet the Learning Goals for the Instructional Sequence.

dreamerg15 I think that is what I was to do with mine and I think that is what I messed up.
This is what mine C2 says,

Quote:

Select a unit of study or instructional sequence from which you will select the student work
created in response to two instructional activities. The instructional sequence must be one in
which students are engaged in thinking and reasoning mathematically and building
understanding of a major idea in mathematics. The mathematical thinking and reasoning
involved in mathematical application can occur at any level, but the unit that you feature for
this entry should not be one in which students are only memorizing procedures or are
otherwise involved in rote learning. If the unit concerns the learning of and use of procedures,
the focus for the activities selected should relate to the reasoning behind the procedures
and/or to identifying patterns to explain different approaches to problems the procedures help
solve.

After reading it and looking at the What Works book by Bobbie Faulkner, I believe that the way you did yours should have been the way I do mine to show my different levels of differentiation based off of what my pretest and my initial intro to the lesson is.

Purchased Bobbie's book on C1 and C2 over the weekend and it arrived yesterday. Wish I would've ordered it earlier. There are so many helpful tips and will be great to use moving forward as I retake C2 in the spring.