Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
10 0 0.00
20 0 0.00
30 0 0.00
40 0 0.00
50 0 0.00
60 0 0.00
70 0 0.00
80 0 0.00
90 0 0.00
10 0 0 0.00
11 0 0 0.00
12 0 0 0.00
13 0 0 0.00
14 0 0 0.00
15 0 0 0.00
olio - Summary of LDM2 Ratings of Teachers
N/A Earned PD credit units will be subjected to the PD credit units banking mechanism of DepEd NEAP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Re
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher:
School:
Email Address:
Contact Number:
Demonstration of Progress
of LDM Implementation
30%
Partial Rating
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
total recog indicators
PPSH indicators
credit units
2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
Division: 0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
Region: 0 Part I Rating Description:
LAC Leader: 0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio)
LDM Coach: 0 Part II Rating Description:
Reflection describes the The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear,
experience in the LDM or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately-
implementation, shows in-depth strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in
analysis and synthesis, and structure and/or writing
excellently relates it to the conventions
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear
experience in the LDM indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
implementation, shows some professional standards in structure and/or writing
analysis, and relates it to the conventions
professional standards and to
professional and personal
development goals
Reflection describes the The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but
experience and relates them to the indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas
professional standards and professional standards and few errors in structure and/or
personal development goals writing conventions
Reflection describes the The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using
experience in the implementation the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure
of the LDM with limited attempt to in professional standards with incoherence in many areas
relate it to the professional and several errors in structure
standards and personal and/or writing conventions
development goals
Reflection describes experience in The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult
the implementation of the LDM any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure
with no attempt to relate it to the standards and writing conventions are almost
professional standards and everywhere in the output
personal development goals
5% 5%
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
0.000 0.000
←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of
Ratings Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000
←Summary of Ratings
Form 3.2AP_LDM2 Practicum Portfolio - Individual Report
←Guide
PARTICIPANT'S PROFILE
Teacher: Division:
School: Region:
Email Address: LAC Leader:
Contact Number: LDM Coach:
Description of FR N/A
Remarks Type feedback here.
(Optional)
Descriptive Rating
4.50 - 5.00 Outstanding
3.50 - 4.499 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.499 Satisfactory
1.50 - 2.499 Unsatisfactory
1.00 - 1.499 Poor
recog indicators hit 94
total recog indicators 112
PPSH indicators 16
#ERROR!
credit units 13.4285714285714
- Individual Report of LDM2 Rating of Teachers
PARTICIPANT'S PERFORMANCE
0 Part I Rating (Module-based Outputs)
0 Part I Rating Description: N/A
0 Part II Rating (Practicum Portfolio) 0.000
0 Part II Rating Description: N/A
The outputs clearly demonstrate 5 The ideas are expressed in clear, The portfolio is logically organized,
or more indicators of relevant coherent, and appropriately- is insightful, and offers new
strands in professional standards worded language with no errors in perspective and insights
structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 4 The ideas are expressed in clear The portfolio is logically organized.
indicators of relevant strands in language with very minimal errors
professional standards in structure and/or writing
conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate 3 The ideas are expressed well but The portfolio is generally well-
indicators of relevant strands in with incoherence in some areas organized with 1-2 items not well
professional standards and few errors in structure and/or placed in the overall organization
writing conventions
The outputs clearly demonstrate The ideas are expressed using The portfolio has 3-4 items not
the 2 indicators of relevant strands very basic words and structure well placed in the overall
in professional standards with incoherence in many areas organization
and several errors in structure
and/or writing conventions
The outputs do not demonstrate The ideas are jumbled and difficult The portfolio does not follow a
any indicator in the professional to understand; errors in structure logical order
standards and writing conventions are almost
everywhere in the output
to be determined
Timeliness
5%
0.000