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 Sh

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

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

4. Open/Get your copy of the LDM2 practicum portfolio submitted by school heads. Rate it according to the evalu
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 ent
to white once a value has been assigned. You may add qualitative feedback in the Remarks section to substantiate

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 Num

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
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 anyo
authorities for purposes of evaluation, validation and certification of participation/completion.
←Guide

Form 3.2P_LDM Practicum Portfolio - Summary of LDM2 Ratin

LAC Leader MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C. PENUS
Division GENERAL TRIAS CITY
Region IV-Calabarzon
Contact Details 09199909672/09565233069
LDM Coach REDEN H. PENUS

PART II LDM Implementation/ Practicum Por

SH School Name Name Numerical Rating

1 DIEGO MOJICA MEMRODEL D. TACCAD 4.45

2 DIEGO MOJICA MEMWILSON D. LAPOR 4.40
3 DIEGO MOJICA MEMMARY JOY R. PERELLO 4.45
4 DIEGO MOJICA MEMJOANNA PAULA P. SUNIGA 4.40
5 DIEGO MOJICA MEMMARY GRACE D. SATSATIN 4.50
6 DIEGO MOJICA MEMLONNELYN D. SALLUTAN 4.50
7 DIEGO MOJICA MEMJAMAICA E. TOLENTINO 4.40
8 DIEGO MOJICA MEMNANCY D. BRETAŇA 4.40
9 DIEGO MOJICA MEMLILIA O. PORTADES 4.45
10 DIEGO MOJICA MEMWINCHEZ A. PALLER 4.40
11 DIEGO MOJICA MEMNORMA C. RUBI 4.45
12 DIEGO MOJICA MEMJENNY S. OLIVA 4.40
13 DIEGO MOJICA MEMLILIBETH T. FRESCO 4.25
14 DIEGO MOJICA MEMEDELYN A. ROMERO 4.40
15 4.40
 olio - Summary of LDM2 Ratings of Teachers
LM. MONTON/CRISELDA C. PENUS
AL TRIAS CITY
arzon
9672/09565233069
H. PENUS

ART II LDM Implementation/ Practicum Portfolio

Descriptive Rating PD Credit Units

Very Satisfactory Earned PD credit units will be subjected to the PD credit units banking mechanism of DepEd NEAP
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Oustanding
Oustanding
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
Very Satisfactory
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Rep
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: RODEL D. TACCAD
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: rodel.taccad002@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9183359742
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Final Rating (FR) 4.450
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLE
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Description of FR Very Satisfactory
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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
IV-Calabarzon Part I Rating Description:
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C. Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
REDEN H. PENUS Part II Rating Description:

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

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

1.000 0.750
 PD Credit Units
to be determined
N/A
4.450 to be determined
Very Satisfactory

Organization of Portfolio Timeliness

5% 5%
5 5
The portfolio is logically organized, The output/s is/are submitted more
is insightful, and offers new than 3 days ahead of the deadline
perspective and insights

The portfolio is logically organized. The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The portfolio is generally well- The output/s is/are submitted on

organized with 1-2 items not well the deadline
placed in the overall organization

The portfolio has 3-4 items not The output/s is/are submitted 1-3
well placed in the overall days after the deadline
organization

The portfolio does not follow a The output/s is/are submitted more
logical order than 3 days after the deadline

0.250 0.250
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: WILSON D. LAPOR
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: wilson.lapor@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9474104867
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: MARY JOY R. PERELLO
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: maryjoy.perello@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9983654971
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
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

0.250
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: JOANNA PAULA P. SUNIGA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: joannapaula.suniga@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9263939584
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: MARY GRACE D. SATSATIN
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: marygrace.satsatin001@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9162305075
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.500

Description of FR Oustanding
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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.500
Oustanding
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: LONNELYN D. SALLUTAN
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: lonnelyn.sallutan@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9057666845
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.500

Description of FR Oustanding
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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.500
Oustanding
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: JAMAICA E. TOLENTINO
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: jamaica.tolentino@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9309559689
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
4
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
0.200
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Rep
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: NANCY D. BRETAŇA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: nancy.breta@depe.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9565233057
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Final Rating (FR) 4.400
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLE
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Description of FR Very Satisfactory
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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
IV-Calabarzon Part I Rating Description:
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C. Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
REDEN H. PENUS Part II Rating Description:

PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO

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

1.000 0.750
 PD Credit Units
to be determined
N/A
4.400 to be determined
Very Satisfactory

Organization of Portfolio Timeliness

5% 5%
5 4
The portfolio is logically organized, The output/s is/are submitted more
is insightful, and offers new than 3 days ahead of the deadline
perspective and insights

The portfolio is logically organized. The output/s is/are submitted 1-2

days before the deadline

The portfolio is generally well- The output/s is/are submitted on

organized with 1-2 items not well the deadline
placed in the overall organization

The portfolio has 3-4 items not The output/s is/are submitted 1-3
well placed in the overall days after the deadline
organization

The portfolio does not follow a The output/s is/are submitted more
logical order than 3 days after the deadline

0.250 0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: LILIA O. PORTADES
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: lilia.portades@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9295689095
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: WINCHEZ A. PALLER
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: winchez.paller@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9156590650
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: RIO MARIZ M. ARANDELA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: riomariz.arandela@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9565233068
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: NORMA C. RUBI
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: norma.rubi@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9099724929
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: JENNY S. OLIVA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: jenny.oliva@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9218246372
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: LILIBETH T. FRESCO
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: lilibeth.fresco@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9565233060
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.250

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.250
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: EDELYN A. ROMERO
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: edelyn.romero@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9356740649
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: JOAN D. ROQUE
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: joan.roque@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9457521195
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: RHEALYN R. IDANAN
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: rhealy.idanan@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9565615973
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.200

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.200
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: CARMELITA S. SARIQUE
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: carmelita.sarique002@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9979500399
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.050

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.050
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: JOAN R. BARRERA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: joan.barrera021@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9391313494
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: MERGIERITA M. TUGUNEN
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: mergierita.tugunen@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9355324426
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: ALMEIDA B. SATSATIN
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: almeida.satsatin001@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9161968083
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: MARILOU A. GUBAT
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: marilou.gubat@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9565233052
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.400

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.400
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: CYNTHIA E. RODERNO
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: cynthia.roderno@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9636091647
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: ROMA S. SACAGUING
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: roma.sison@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9193439142
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.500

Description of FR Oustanding
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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.500
Oustanding
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: CORAZON V. BUSTAMANTE
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: corazon.bustamante@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9152140434
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: MICHELLE N. MORALES
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: michelle.nietes@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9514787541
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 5
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.250
Final Rating (FR) 4.450

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
4 5
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
0.800
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.750
N/A
4.450
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200
 ←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: FEBRUARY P. GULLA
School: DIEGO MOJICA MEMORIAL SCHOOL
Email Address: february.gulla@deped.gov.ph
Contact Number: 9274072065
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
4 4
5 - Excellent The outputs clearly and
adequately captured the progress
of the implementation of the LDM,
showing innovations that
contribute to its smooth
implementation
4 - Very Satisfactory The outputs adequately captured
the progress of the implementation
of the LDM
3 - Satisfactory The outputs reflect to a big extent
the progress of the LDM
implementation
2 - Marginal The outputs reflect to a limited
extent the progress of the LDM
implementation
1 - Unsatisfactory The outputs do not show the
progress of the LDM
implementation
Weighted Rating 1.200
Division:
Region:
LAC Leader:
LDM Coach:
PART II - LDM IMPLEME
Quality of Reflection
25%
Reflection describes the
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
Reflection describes the
experience in the LDM
implementation, shows some
analysis, and relates it to the
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the
experience and relates them to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
Reflection describes the
experience in the implementation
of the LDM with limited attempt to
relate it to the professional
standards and personal
development goals
Reflection describes experience in
the implementation of the LDM
with no attempt to relate it to the
professional standards and
personal development goals
1.000
Final Rating (FR) 4.250

Description of FR Very Satisfactory

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
GENERAL TRIAS CITY
IV-Calabarzon
MARICELM. MONTON/CRISELDA C.
REDEN H. PENUS
PART II - LDM IMPLEMENTATION / PRACTICUM PORTFOLIO
Demonstration of Language and Overall
Professional Standards Presentation of the Output
20%
5 4
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5
or more indicators of relevant
strands in professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3
indicators of relevant strands in
professional standards
The outputs clearly demonstrate
the 2 indicators of relevant strands
in professional standards
The outputs do not demonstrate
any indicator in the professional
standards
1.000
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Part I Rating Description:
Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
Part II Rating Description:
15%
The ideas are expressed in clear,
coherent, and appropriately-
worded language with no errors in
structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed in clear
language with very minimal errors
in structure and/or writing
conventions
The ideas are expressed well but
with incoherence in some areas
and few errors in structure and/or
writing conventions
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 ideas are jumbled and difficult
to understand; errors in structure
and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
0.600
N/A
4.250
Very Satisfactory
Organization of Portfolio
5%
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
0.250
PD Credit Units
to be determined

to be determined

Timeliness

5%
4
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

0.200