This form is to be accomplished by the School LAC leader (MT, HT, or Senior Teacher).

Read this guide before using LDM Forms 3.1AP and 3.2BP.

1. Download this editable form by opening the file and clicking on the down arrow icon. Do not open it as Google Sheet.

2. Open Form 3.2BP Summary of Ratings of School Heads and enter the required data in the yellow cell. Data entere

3. Open Form 3.2AP School Head N / 3.2AP SH N, and enter the remaining required data in the Participant's Profile.

4. Open/Get your copy of the LDM2 practicum portfolio submitted by school heads. Rate it according to the evaluation r
Management Team, if necessary.
5a. Input the score for each criterion by clicking the down arrow icon in the yellow cell. You may also directly enter the
to white once a value has been assigned. You may add qualitative feedback in the Remarks section to substantiate the sc

5b. To change the score, click on Delete or Backspace, then do 5a again.

6. You may navigate across the different tabs by clicking the Summary of Ratings icon or the School Head Number in

7. Enter the required data in the yellow cell ONLY. Do not rename the tabs.
8. Once all ratings are in, rename and save this form, then submit it to the SDO LDM Program Management Team. Coordinate with th
Follow this file name format: SDO Name_LDMForm4P_LAC Leader 1_Last Name

This document is confidential. NO ENTRY in the LDM1P evaluation forms can be divulged with anyone e
authorities for purposes of evaluation, validation and certification of participation/completion.
←Guide

Form 3.2P_LDM Practicum Portfolio - Summary of LDM2 Ratin

LAC Leader
Division
Region
Contact Details
LDM Coach

PART II LDM Implementation/ Practicum Por

SH School Name Name Numerical Rating

10 0 0.00
20 0 0.00
30 0 0.00
40 0 0.00
50 0 0.00
60 0 0.00
70 0 0.00
80 0 0.00
90 0 0.00
10 0 0 0.00
11 0 0 0.00
12 0 0 0.00
13 0 0 0.00
14 0 0 0.00
15 0 0 0.00
 olio - Summary of LDM2 Ratings of Teachers

ART II LDM Implementation/ Practicum Portfolio

Descriptive Rating PD Credit Units

N/A Earned PD credit units will be subjected to the PD credit units banking mechanism of DepEd NEAP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report of L
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division: 0
School: Region: 0
Email Address: LAC Leader: 0
Contact Number: LDM Coach: 0

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATI

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
 #ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
 ividual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description:
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
0 Part II Rating Description:
RT II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15%
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately-
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.000 0.000
PD Credit Units
to be determined
N/A
0.000 to be determined
N/A
Organization of Portfolio
5%
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights
The portfolio is logically organized.
The portfolio is generally well-
organized with 1-2 items not well
placed in the overall organization
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization
The portfolio does not follow a
logical order
0.000
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:

PART II - LDM IMPLEME

Demonstration of Progress Quality of Reflection
of LDM Implementation
30% 25%
Partial Rating

5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and Reflection describes the

adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows in-depth
analysis and synthesis, and
excellently relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured Reflection describes the

the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals

3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent Reflection describes the

the progress of the LDM experience and relates them to the
implementation professional standards and
personal development goals

2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited Reflection describes the

extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals

1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the Reflection describes experience in

progress of the LDM the implementation of the LDM
implementation with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals

Weighted Rating 0.000 0.000

Final Rating (FR) 0.000

Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)

Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

Demonstration of Language and Overall Organization of Portfolio
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20% 15% 5%

The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The portfolio is logically organized,
is insightful, and offers new
perspective and insights

The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions

The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The ideas are expressed using
very basic words and structure
with incoherence in many areas
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The portfolio has 3-4 items not
well placed in the overall
organization

The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output

0.000 0.000 0.000

PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days ahead of the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted on

the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted 1-3

days after the deadline

The output/s is/are submitted more

than 3 days after the deadline

0.000