State Pedagogy InstrumentSCORING RUBRICCandidate Supervisor Cooperating Teacher School School District Grade Level(s) PAA Administration Dates: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1. The teacher candidate sets learning targets that address the Essential Academic Learning Requirements and the state learning goals.Source of Evidence: Instructional Plan, Instructional Plan RationaleCriterion Not Met Met Comments (evidence of performance)A. AlignmentThe plan's learning targets are not alignedwith EALRs, state learning goals, district goals, and school and classroom goals.The plan's learning targets are explicitly aligned with EALRs, state learning goals, district goals, and school and classroom goals. Met Not Met Not ObservedB. Meaningfulness/ImportanceThe plan's learning targets represent trivial learning and lack potential for fostering student critical thinking and problem solving.The plan's learning targets represent valuable learning and foster student critical thinking and problem solving. Met Not Met Not ObservedC. Developmental and Instructional AppropriatenessThe plan's learning targets are not appropriate for the development, pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences, and backgrounds of students or student characteristics and needs.The plan's learning targets are suitable for all students in the class and are adapted where necessary to the needs of individual students. Met Not Met Not ObservedD. AccuracyThe plan's learning targets represent activities rather than learning outcomes and cannot be assessed.The plan's learning targets define learning outcomes and can be assessed. Met Not Met Not ObservedE. Multicultural PerspectivesThe plan's learning targets lack transformative multicultural knowledge, reasoning, performance skills, products, or dispositions.The plan's learning targets are grounded in transformative multicultural knowledge, reasoning, performance skills, products, or dispositions. Met Not Met Not ObservedState Pedagogy Instrument2. The teacher candidate demonstrates knowledge of the characteristics of students and their communities.Source of Evidence: Instructional Plan, Instructional Plan RationaleCriterion Not Met Met Comments (evidence of performance)A. Developmental CharacteristicsThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of students’ developmentalcharacteristics.The plan reflects understanding of students’ developmental characteristics. Met Not Met Not ObservedB. ExceptionalitiesThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of students’ exceptionalities and special learning needs.The plan reflects understanding of students’ exceptionalities and special learning needs. Met Not Met Not ObservedC. Cultural Backgrounds, Ethnicity, Language Development, Socioeconomic Status (SES), GenderThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, first language development, English acquisition, SES, and gender.The plan reflects understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, first language development, English acquisition, SES, and gender. Met Not Met Not ObservedD. Approaches to LearningThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of students’ varied approaches to learning.The plan reflects understanding of students’ varied approaches to learning. Met Not Met Not ObservedE. Prior Knowledgeand SkillsThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of students’ knowledge andskills relative to the learning targets.The plan reflects understanding of students’ knowledge and skills relative to the learning targets for each student, including those with special needs. Met Not Met Not ObservedF. Community Factors that ImpactStudent LearningThe plan reflects minimal or inaccurate understanding of community factors that impact student learning.The plan reflects understanding of how to use students’ community as support for activities, resources, and learning strategies. Met Not Met Not ObservedState Pedagogy Instrument3. The teacher candidate plans and establishes effective interactions with families to support student learning and well-being.Source of Evidence: Plan for using personal contact with families (e.g., telephone, home visit, family conferences, and/or written messages) Criterion Not Met Met Comments (evidence of performance)A. AppropriatenessThere are no plans for interactions with families OR interactions presented in the plan are inappropriate for the language and level of understanding of families.The plan’s interactions with families are specifically adapted to the language and level of understanding of each student and his or her family, including low-status/historically marginalized families. Met Not Met Not ObservedB. PurposeInteractions in the plan focus primarily on negative student behavior and performance.The plan for family interaction provides and elicits information regarding student learning and well being, including low-status/historically marginalized families. Met Not Met Not ObservedC. Cultural ResponsivenessInteractions in the plan are routine with little or no effort to make interactions culturally responsive. The plan’s interactions with families are culturally responsive for each student and his or her family. Met Not Met Not ObservedD. Two-Way CommunicationsThe plan provides limited opportunities forfamilies to engage in communication about the learning progress and well being of their children.The plan provides adequate opportunities for families to engage in communication or activities to support student learning and well being. Met Not Met Not ObservedState Pedagogy Instrument4. The teacher candidate designs assessment strategies that measure student learning.Source of Evidence: Instructional Plan. Include descriptions or documentation related to the assessment strategies (e.g., copy of assignments, description of strategies, rubric)Criterion
View Full Document
Unlocking...