Table of Contents · PDF fileA formative and summative assessment during the student teaching practicum. ... Demonstrates Punctuality 90.6% 0.86 ... VARI-EPP panel discussion

Table of Contents • Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST) Form Summary

• CPAST Form

o Includes comments illustrating alignment with CAEP Instrument Rubric

• “Look Fors” Document

• Content of CPAST Form Training o Supervisor Training o Cooperating Teacher/Student Teacher Training

• CPAST Form Data 2015-2016

o Statewide means, overall and by program o Distributed to EPPs with their institutional means

• CAEP Instrument Rubric

o Includes comments illustrating how components of CPAST Form, training, and implementation align with the Rubric

Revised 1/19/17 1

Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST) Form Summary

What is the CPAST Form? A formative and summative assessment during the student teaching practicum.

• The 21-row rubric has two subscales: (1) Pedagogy and (2) Dispositions with detailed descriptors of observable, measurable behaviors, to guide scoring decisions.

• An additional “Look Fors” resource provides and elaborates on the qualities and behaviors for a given level of performance (i.e., evidence and sources of evidence).

• A self-paced 90-minute training module is available for users of the Form. What analyses did we perform on the Form data? We explored:

• Validity (content, construct and concurrent) • Reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability)

Who were the participants?

• During the academic year of 2015-2016 we collected valid data from 1203 teacher candidates from 23 EPPs in Ohio.

• Of the 1203 teacher candidates, 32 were recruited to participate in the inter-rater reliability study, in which each teacher candidate was evaluated by two supervisors – their primary university supervisor (i.e., the supervisor who was formally assigned by the EPPs to supervise the teacher candidate during the student teaching), and a secondary rater (i.e., a supervisor who completed a minimum of three observations of the teacher candidates throughout the semester).

What were the findings? Validity and reliability met standards for instrument development. Content Validity

• Investigated by calculating a content validity ratio (CVR; Lawshe, 1975) for the aspects of clarity, importance, and representativeness of the CPAST Form. [CVR=𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒−(𝑁𝑁/2)

𝑁𝑁/2, where E refers

to the number of experts who rated the item as equal to or above 3, and N refers to the total number of experts].

• Three experts (a K-12 teacher, a university teacher education professor, and a psychometrician) provided ratings of these aspects on a scale of one to four.

• Clarity: All items (except Row D in Pedagogy and Row G in Disposition), reached a CVR of 1. The average CVR for all the items was 0.94, exceeding the criterion of 0.8, indicating that the scale had strong content validity for clarity.

• Importance: All items reached a value of 1, revealing that all the item questions were important in measuring the constructs of pedagogy and disposition.

• Representativeness: All items (except Row H in Pedagogy and Row G in Disposition) reached a value of 1. The average CVR for all the items was 0.94, suggesting that the rows were representative of the theoretical domain of the constructs.

Construct Validity

• Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus Version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) to examine the construct validity.

Revised 1/19/17 2

• The estimator of weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment (WLSMV) was adopted, which was demonstrated to be suitable for handling ordinal data (Flora & Curran, 2004).

• The three indices selected for this study were the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the model fit was evaluated based on the following criteria: RMSEA <.06, CFI >.95, and TLI >.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

• The model fit indexes RMSEA (0.048), CFI (0.980) and TLI (0.978) indicated that the hypothesized two-factor model fit the data reasonably well; the loadings ranged from 0.676 to 0.841, all at .001 significance level, indicating that all the items are moderately or strongly associated with their corresponding latent factors. Figure 1 (p. 4) displays the two-factor model of CPAST Form.

• The Pedagogy and Dispositions scales were highly correlated (r= .873, p <.001), indicating a strong association between a teacher candidate’s teaching knowledge/skills and dispositions.

• The correlation between the two latent factors was in concordance with existent literature, which supports that teachers’ professional dispositions and teaching practice are closely linked to each other (Kuzborska, 2011).

Inter-rater Reliability

• Table 1 reports two reliability statistics: adjacent agreement and Kappa-n. Adjacent agreement refers to the proportion of cases in which two independent scorers assign either the exact same score or a score within 1 point of each other. When scoring complex performance assessment tasks, this approach is often used as a measure of rater agreement. In some cases, scorers will assign the same score simply by chance. Kappa-n 𝜅𝜅𝑛𝑛 adjusts the adjacent agreement rate to take into account this chance agreement.

• The average adjacent agreement rate was 98% and the average Kappa-n was 0.97. • Although several types of reliability analyses were conducted to examine agreement rates

between scorers on the CPAST Form, these two statistics were reported here because SCALE (2013) used them when assessing the inter-rater reliability of edTPA.

Table 1 Rubric Row Inter-rater Reliability

Item Agreement Rate

Kappa-N

Focus for Learning: Standards and Objectives/Targets 100% 1.00 Materials and Resources 100% 1.00 Assessment of P-12 Learning 100% 1.00 Differentiated Methods 100% 1.00 Learning Target and Directions 100% 1.00 Critical Thinking 100% 1.00 Checking for Understanding and Adjusting Instruction through Formative Assessment 100% 1.00 Digital Tools and Resources 100% 1.00 Safe and Respectful Learning Environment 96.9% 0.96 Data-Guided Instruction 100% 1.00 Feedback to Learners 100% 1.00 Assessment Techniques 100% 1.00 Connections to Research and Theory 100% 1.00 Participates in Professional Development 87.5% 0.83 Demonstrates Effective Communication with Parents or Legal Guardians 87.5% 0.85 Demonstrates Punctuality 90.6% 0.86 Meets Deadlines and Obligations 100% 1.00 Preparation 96.9% 0.96

Revised 1/19/17 3

Item Agreement Rate

Kappa-N

Collaboration 96.9% 0.96 Advocacy to Meet the Needs of Learners or for the Teaching Profession 96.9% 0.96 Responds Positively to Constructive Criticism 96.9% 0.96

Internal consistency reliability

• Examined by calculating the Cronbach Alpha coefficient using SPSS statistical package version 23.0.

• Results show the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.907 for the Pedagogy subscale, 0.831 for the Dispositions subscale, and 0.929 for the total scale, suggesting that the subscales and the total scale display good internal consistency.

Dissemination of Results

• Four webinars for participating EPPs to discuss: study procedures; implementation procedures; research findings

• Data (institutional and statewide means) distributed each semester to participating EPPs • Statewide Presentations

o Kaplan, C. S., Brownstein, E. M., Yao, X., Baylor, L., Corbin, S., & Price, A. (2016, October). Endeavoring to persevere: VARI-EPP panel discussion. Presentation at the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO), Columbus, Ohio.

o Brownstein, E. M., Day, K. J., Kaplan, C. S., & Yao, X., (2016, March). VARI-EPP student teaching form project: Using data to meet the needs of diverse learners. Presentation at the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO), Columbus, Ohio.

o Brownstein, E. M., Day, K. J., & Kaplan, C. S. (2015, October). VARI-EPP: The new student teaching instrument. Presentation at the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO), Columbus, Ohio.

• National Presentations o Brownstein, E.M., Kaplan, C.S. Kahrig, T. & Bowman, C. (2017, Fall) One for all and all for

one: Collaborating to improve the profession. Presentation at CAEPCon, St. Louis, Missouri. (Accepted)

o Brownstein, E. M., Kaplan, C. S., & Day, K. J. (2017, March). The wisdom of crowds: Collaboratively developing and establishing validity and reliability of a student teaching evaluation form. Presentation at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Tampa, Florida. (Accepted)

o Yao, X., Brownstein, E.M., Kaplan, C.S., Graham-Day, K.J. (2017, March) Wow! There’s a free valid and reliable student teaching instrument! Presentation at CAEPCon. (Accepted)

o Brownstein, E. M., Kaplan, C. S., & Day, K. J. (2016, February). Getting on the same page: Increasing rater consistency through training modules. Presentation at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Las Vegas, Nevada.

• Publication in press o Kaplan, C. S., Brownstein, E. M., & Graham-Day, K. J. One for all and all for one: Multi-

university collaboration to meet accreditation requirements. Issues in Educator Accreditation: Just in Time Topics for Educator Preparation Programs in the United States.

• Publication in preparation o Brownstein, E. M., Yao, X., Kaplan, C. S., & Graham-Day, K. J. Examining the validity and

reliability of the candidate preservice assessment for student teaching (CPAST) Form. Journal of Teacher Education.

Revised 1/19/17 4

References Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory

factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological methods, 9(4), 466. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional

criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers' beliefs and practices and research on reading. Reading in a foreign

language, 23(1), 102. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity1. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (2013) edTPA Field Test: Summary Report. Stanford Center

for Assessment, Learning and Equity. Retrieve from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref.

https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref

Revised 1/19/17 5

Figure 1. Two-factor Model of CPAST Form

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 1

Valid and Reliable Instruments for Educator Preparation Programs (VARI-EPP) Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST): Spring 2017

Rubric and assignments may not be shared without permission

• Pedagogy Evaluation • Dispositions Evaluation • Goals

Pedagogy Alignment Dispositions Alignment

Planning for Instruction and Assessment Professional Commitment and Behaviors A. Focus for Learning: Standards and Objectives/Targets OSTP 4.1

InTASC 7a A. Participates in Professional Development OSTP 7.2

B. Materials and Resources OSTP 4.7 InTASC 7b

B. Demonstrates Effective Communication with Parents or Legal Guardians OSTP 3.4 InTASC 10d

C. Assessment of P-12 Learning OSTP 2.3 InTASC 6b

C. Demonstrates Punctuality OSTP 7.1 InTASC 9o

D. Differentiated Methods OSTP 4.5 InTASC 2c

D. Meets Deadlines and Obligations OSTP 7.1 InTASC 9o

E. Preparation OSTP 7.1 InTASC 3d

Instructional Delivery Professional Relationships E. Learning Target and Directions OSTP 4.3

InTASC 7c F. Collaboration OSTP 6.3

InTASC 10b F. Critical Thinking OSTP 4.6

InTASC 5d G. Advocacy to Meet the Needs of Learners or for the Teaching Profession OSTP 6.3

InTASC 10j G. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting Instruction through

Formative Assessment OSTP 3.2 InTASC 8b

Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice

H. Digital Tools and Resources OSTP 4.7 CAEP 1.5

H. Responds Positively to Constructive Criticism InTASC 9n

I. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment OSTP 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 InTASC 3d

Assessment J. Data-Guided Instruction OSTP 3.3

CAEP 2.3

K. Feedback to Learners OSTP 3.4 InTASC 6d

L. Assessment Techniques OSTP: 3.1 InTASC 7d

Analysis of Teaching M. Connections to Research and Theory OSTP: 4.4

CAEP 1.2

Commented [CSK1]: •Administration & Purpose, Sufficient: Evaluation categories or assessment tasks are tagged to CAEP, InTASC or state standards

•Content of Assessment, Sufficient: Indicators assess explicitly identified aspects of CAEP, InTASC or state standards

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 2

Pedagogy Evaluation Student Teacher: ________________________________________ University Supervisor: ______________________________________ Cooperating Teacher/s: ______________________________________ Semester: ________________ Date: __________________________ Directions – The form will be used twice during the course of the term and will be provided by the Program Coordinator to the University Supervisor, Cooperating Teacher, and Student Teacher. Each member of the team (Cooperating Teacher, University Supervisor, and Student Teacher)

1) Completes the evaluation in week 5 or 6 (Mid-term) of the student teaching experience AND in week 13 or 14 (Final) 2) Brings the completed form to the mid-term and final 3-way conference

At the Mid-term 3-way conference 1) Goals are set for the remainder of the student teaching experience 2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 7

At the Final 3-way conference 1) Suggestions and comments are made to assist in the transition to teaching role 2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 14

Additional information about and support for using the form can be found in the VARI-EPP Student Teaching Form Training Modules, the “Glossary” and the “Look Fors” document.

Item Exceeds Expectations (3 points)

Meets Expectations (2 points)

Emerging (1 point)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0 points)

Row Score

Planning for Instruction and Assessment A. Focus for Learning: Standards and Objectives /Targets

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND Goals are measureable AND Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other AND Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners and attend to appropriate developmental progressions relative to age and content-area

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND Goals are measureable AND Standards, objectives/ targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other AND Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND/OR Some goals are measureable AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks, are loosely or are not consistently aligned with each other AND/OR Articulates some objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

Plans do not align to the appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND/OR Goals are absent or not measureable AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are not aligned with each other AND/OR Does not articulate objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

____

B. Materials and Resources

Uses a variety of materials and resources that 1. Align with all objectives/targets 2. Make content relevant to learners 3. Encourage individualization of learning

Uses a variety of materials and resources that 1. Align with all objectives/targets 2. Make content relevant to learners

Uses materials and resources that align with some of the objectives/targets

Materials and resources do not align with objectives/targets

____

C. Assessment

Plans a variety of assessments that Plans a variety of assessments that

Planned assessments Planned assessments 1. Are not included OR

____

Commented [CSK2]: •Informing Candidates, Sufficient: Instructions provided to candidates about what they are expected to do are informative and unambiguous

Commented [CSK3]: • Administration & Purpose, Sufficient: The point or points when the assessment is administered during the preparation program are explicit

Commented [CSK4]: • Informing Candidates, Sufficient: The basis for judgment (criterion for success, or what is “good enough”) is made explicit for candidates •Content of Assessment, Sufficient: Indicators unambiguously describe the proficiencies to be evaluated • Content of Assessment, Above Sufficient: Almost all evaluation categories or tasks (at least those comprising 95% of the total score) require observers to judge consequential attributes of candidate proficiencies in the standards • Scoring, Sufficient: The basis for judging candidate work is well defined •Scoring, Sufficient,: Each proficiency level is qualitatively defined by specific criteria aligned with indicators • Scoring, Sufficient: Proficiency level descriptions represent a developmental sequence from level to level (to provide raters with explicit guidelines for evaluating candidate performance and candidates with explicit feedback on their performance) • Scoring, Sufficient: Proficiency level attributes are defined in actionable, performance-based, or observable behavior terms. NOTE: If a less actionable term is used such as “engaged”, criteria are provided to define the use of the term in the context of the indicator • Scoring, Above Sufficient: Higher level actions from Bloom’s taxonomy are used such as “analysis” or “evaluation”

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 3

of P-12 Learning

1. Provide opportunities for learners of varying abilities to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards 3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge 4. Promote learner growth

1. Provide opportunities for learners to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards 3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge

1. Provide opportunities for some learners to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards

2. Do not align with the Ohio Learning Standards

D. Differentiated Methods

Lessons make meaningful and culturally relevant connections to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge 2. Previous lessons 3. Future learning 4. Other disciplines and real-world experiences AND Differentiation of instruction supports learner development AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible, relevant, and challenging for learners

Lessons make clear and coherent connections to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge 2. Previous lessons 3. Future learning AND Differentiation of instruction supports learner development AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible and relevant for learners

Lessons make an attempt to build on, but are not completely successful at connecting to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge, 2. Previous lessons, OR future learning AND Differentiation of instruction is minimal AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible for learners

Lessons do not build on or connect to learners’ prior knowledge AND/OR Explanations given are illogical or inaccurate as to how the content connects to previous and future learning AND/OR Differentiation of instruction is absent

____

Instructional Delivery E. Learning Target and Directions

Articulates accurate and coherent learning targets AND Articulates accurate directions/explanations throughout the lesson AND Sequences learning experiences appropriately

Articulates an accurate learning target AND Articulates accurate directions/ explanations AND Sequences learning experiences appropriately

Articulates an inaccurate learning target AND/OR Articulates inaccurate directions/explanations

Does not articulate the learning target OR Does not articulate directions/ explanations

____

F. Critical Thinking

Engages learners in critical thinking in local and/or global contexts that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections 3. Challenges assumptions

Engages learners in critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections

Introduces AND/OR models critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections

Does not introduce AND/OR model critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections ____

G. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting

Checks for understanding (whole class/group AND individual learners) during lessons using formative assessment AND

Checks for understanding (whole class/group) during lessons using formative assessment AND

Inconsistently checks for understanding during lessons using formative assessment

Does not check for understanding during lessons using formative assessment OR

____

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 4

Instruction through Formative Assessment

Differentiates through planned and responsive adjustments (whole class/group and individual learners)

Differentiates through adjustments to instruction (whole class/group)

AND Adjusts instruction accordingly, but adjustments may cause additional confusion

Does not make any adjustments based on learners’ responses

H. Digital Tools and Resources

Discusses AND uses a variety of developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills 3. Extend learners’ understanding of concepts

Discusses AND uses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills

Discusses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson AND Technology is not available

One of the following: A. Does not use technologies (digital tools and resources) to engage learners AND Technology is available in the setting OR B. Use of technologies is not relevant to the learning objectives/ targets of the lesson OR C. Does not discuss technologies AND Technology is not available in the setting

____

I. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment

Actively involves learners to create and manage a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners

AND Uses research-based strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)

Manages a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners


Attempts to manage a safe learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND/OR Attempts to establish constructive relationships to engage learners

AND/OR Attempts to use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)

Does not manage a safe learning environment OR Does not establish constructive relationships to engage learners OR Does not use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)

____

Assessment J. Data-Guided Instruction

Uses data-informed decisions (trends and patterns) to set short and long term goals for future instruction and assessment AND Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping and analysis

Uses data-informed decisions to design instruction and assessment AND Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping

Uses minimal data to design instruction and assessment

Does not use data to design instruction and assessment

____

K. Feedback to Learners

Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths AND areas for improvement 2. Is comprehensible 3. Is descriptive 4. Is individualized

Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement 2. Is comprehensible 3. Is descriptive

Provides minimal feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement OR

Does not provide feedback OR Feedback does not enable learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement OR

____

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 5

Professional Dispositions Evaluation

What are dispositions? The habits of professional action and moral commitments that underlie an educator’s performance (InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, p. 6.)

What else should a teacher candidate know? It is the student teacher’s responsibility to ask clarifying questions as well as demonstrate the expected dispositional behaviors. REMEMBER: Only those dispositions observed in student teaching can be measured, therefore it is up to the student teacher to demonstrate the dispositions.



Emerging (1 point)


Row Score

Professional Commitment and Behaviors

A. Participates in Professional Development (PD)

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshops, seminars, attending a professional conference, joining a professional organization) AND Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD AND Reflects on own professional practice with evidence of application of the knowledge acquired from PD during student teaching

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference) AND Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)

Does not participate in any professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)

____

B. Demonstrates Effective

Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district

Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in

Provides evidence of communication with

Does not provide evidence of communication with parents or ____

AND Provides timely feedback, guiding learners on how to use feedback to monitor their own progress

AND Provides timely feedback

Feedback is provided in a somewhat timely fashion

Feedback is not provided in a timely fashion

L. Assessment Techniques

Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative AND summative 3. Diagnostic 4. Varied

Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative AND summative

Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative OR summative

Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally inappropriate OR Not used ____

Analysis of Teaching Row Score

M. Connections to Research and Theory

Discusses, provides evidence of, and justifies connections to educational research and/or theory AND Uses research and/or theory to explain their P-12 learners’ progress

Discusses and provides evidence of connections to educational research and/or theory

Mentions connections to educational research and/or theory

No connections OR inaccurate connections to educational research and/or theory

____

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 6



Emerging (1 point)


Row Score

Communication with Parents or Legal Guardians

policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online) AND Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress AND Interacts with parents or legal guardians in ways that improve understanding and encourage progress (e.g. exchange of email, face-to-face discussion, etc.)

accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online) AND Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress

parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online)

legal guardians

C. Demonstrates Punctuality

Reports on time or early for daily student teaching AND Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Reports on time for daily student teaching AND Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Inconsistently reports on time for daily student teaching AND/OR Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Does not report on time for student teaching AND/OR Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

____

D. Meets Deadlines and Obligations

Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes without reminders

Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes

Most of the time meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs some stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides incomplete directions and lessons for substitutes

Frequently misses deadlines or obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND/OR Does not inform stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND/OR Does not provide directions and lessons for substitutes

____

E. Preparation Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND

Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND

Not consistently prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.)

Not prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND/OR

____

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 7

Materials are easily accessible AND organized AND Prepared for the unexpected and flexible

Materials are easily accessible AND organized

AND/OR Materials are easily accessible OR organized

Materials are not organized NOR easily accessible

Professional Relationships Row Score

F. Collaboration Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.) AND Works with and learns from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction to meet diverse needs of learners

Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.) AND Attempts to work with and learn from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction

Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)

Does not demonstrate collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)

____

G. Advocacy to Meet the Needs of Learners or for the Teaching Profession

Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices) AND Takes action(s) based upon identified needs, while following district protocols

Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)

Recognizes areas in need of advocacy, but cannot articulate the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)

Does not recognize areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices) ____

Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice H. Responds Positively to Feedback and Constructive Criticism

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally AND Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice AND Proactively seeks opportunities for feedback from other professionals

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally AND Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision AND/OR Incorporates feedback inconsistently

Is not receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision AND/OR Does not incorporate feedback

____

What went well? Areas of strength?

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 8

Goals for Improvement: Pedagogy and Dispositions Following the Three-way Midterm Evaluation between the Student Teacher, University Supervisor, and Cooperating Teacher, the Student Teacher will identify three specific and measurable goals for improvement for the duration of the student teaching experience. The University Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher will then affirm and/or suggest goals for the Student Teacher. As part of the final summary evaluation, goals for the Resident Educator Program should be identified.

Connection to 3-way form Goal (must have a minimum of one goal) with Details L. Assessment: Feedback to Learners I will focus on providing specific (not general) feedback to individuals and to groups – with a focus on task and process.

I will focus on “quick and quiet” feedback. I will prepare feedback ahead of time using data 1. 2.

Comments

Possible opportunities for growth

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 9

Glossary of Terms Advocacy: Any action within professional boundaries that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or defends, or pleads on behalf of others. This may be to advocate for the profession, an individual student, or other ideas. Analysis: Careful and critical examination of data and/or processes to identify key components and potential outcomes. Assessment: “Process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on, and adjusting teaching and relearning to ensure that learners reach high levels of Achievement.”1 Contemporary Tools: Electronic/digital record-keeping tools such as an online gradebook and progress monitoring systems, spreadsheet software, etc. Cooperating Teachers: (Also known as “mentor teachers”) Teachers in schools who mentor and supervise student teachers in their classrooms for the duration of a student teaching and/or field experience. Critical Thinking: Refers to the “kind of thinking involved in problem solving” and includes an ability to “examine assumptions, discern hidden values, evaluate evidence, and assesses conclusions.”2 Culturally Relevant: Incorporating the tenets of culturally relevant/responsive teaching (i.e., “teachers create a bridge between students’ home and school lives, while still meeting the expectations of the district and state curricular requirements. Culturally relevant teaching utilizes the backgrounds, knowledge, and experiences of the students to inform the teacher’s lessons and methodology.”).3 Data-informed decisions: “Focuses on using student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.”4 Developmental Theory (General): Theories that describe the stages of development of children/adolescents (e.g., Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, Behavioral Theories, and Sociocultural Theories). Developmental Theory (Content-Specific): Content-specific teaching that organizes activities and learning tasks to help learners move from one level to the next.5 Diagnostic Assessment: (Also known as “pre-assessment”) “Involves the gathering and careful evaluation of detailed data using students’ knowledge and skills in a given learning area.”6 Differentiation of Instruction: “To respond to variance among learners” (e.g., learners with exceptional needs, second language learners, gifted learners) by modifying “content, and/or process, and/or products, and/or the learning environment” according to learners’ “readiness, interest, or learning profile.”7 Digital Tools: Technologies that enable learners to engage with the teacher and/or content on an individual level. Examples: SMART Boards, learner response systems (i.e., clickers), and computers, tablets, etc. Evidence: Artifacts that document and demonstrate how [the student teacher] planned and implemented instruction8 Feedback: “Information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning.”9 Formative Assessment: “Assessment used continuously throughout learning and teaching, allowing teachers to adjust instruction to improve learner achievement.”1 Fosters: To promote the growth or development of, encourage.10 Funds of Knowledge: “Historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being.”11 Goals: See definition for “Measurable Goals.” Learner: Any P12 student in the student teacher’s classroom. Learning Environment: Any setting where learning occurs. The term may refer to the physical environment (e.g., the classroom), as well as the classroom management procedures and activities that enable teaching and learning to take place. “Look Fors” Document: A document accompanying this form containing a non-exhaustive list to describe examples of the qualities and behaviors a student teacher is expected to demonstrate for a given level of performance. Measurable Goals: “Provides information for describing, assessing, and evaluating student achievement.”12 Mentor Teachers: See definition for “Cooperating Teachers.” Objectives/Targets: P12 student (learner) learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson or learning segment.13 Ohio Learning Standards: Clearly defined statements and/or illustrations of what all learners, teachers, schools and districts are expected to know and be able to do,” as determined by the Ohio Department of Education.14

1 Arizona K12 Center. (2012). Standards continuum guide for reflective teaching practice. Northern Arizona University 2 http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic265890.files/Critical_Thinking_File/06_CT_Extended_Definition.pdf 3 http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4474#note1 4 http://www.clrn.org/elar/dddm.cfm#A 5 Stevens, S., Shin, N., & Krajcik, J. (2009, June). Towards a Model for the Development of an Empirically Tested Learning Progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA. 6 http://www.education.nt.gov.au/parents-community/assessment-reporting/diagnostic-assessments/diagnostic-assessments 7 Carol Ann Tomlinson http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/elementary.html 8 Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE). (2015). edTPA world language assessment handbook. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. 9 Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. 10 Merriam Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foster) 11 Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 132-141. 12 https://education.alberta.ca/media/525540/ipp7.pdf 13 https://www.csun.edu/science/courses/555/pact/glossary.html 14 http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Ohios-Learning-Standards/Ohios-Learning-Standards/Ohio-Learning-Standards-Resources/Ohio-Learning-Standards-Terminology

Revised 8/1/2016 © 2016 10

Standards can include content standards, performance standards, and operating standards. Content Standards describe the knowledge and skills that students should attain, often called the "what" of "what students should know and be able to do." Performance Standards are concrete statements of how well students must learn what is set out in the content standards, often called the "be able to do". Finally, operating Standards describe the conditions for learning. 15 Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (OSTP): “The Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession were developed for use as a guide for teachers as they continually reflect upon and improve their effectiveness as educators throughout all of the stages of their careers. In the Standards for the Teaching Profession, seven standards are delineated under three larger organizers. Each of the seven Standards is a broad category of teacher knowledge and skills. Within each Standard are Elements. The Elements are the statements of what teachers should know, think and do to be effective teachers.”16 Problem solving: A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue. Program Coordinator: Faculty or staff member from a college or university who coordinates/manages the administrative components of a teacher educator licensure program. Research: “The use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge.”17 Student Teacher: (Also known as “intern”) An individual participating in a full-time field experience in a P12 classroom in order to obtain professional education licensure/certification. Summative Assessment: “Assessment activities used at the culmination of a given period of time to evaluate the extent to which instructional objectives have been met.”18 Targets: See definition for ‘Objectives/Targets.’ Technologies: See definition for ‘Digital Tools.’ University Supervisor (US): The university instructor assigned to the student teacher who regularly observes his/her performance to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The US coordinates the student teacher’s evaluation, and is responsible for recording the consensus scores using this form. Form developed by:

The Ohio State University: Beickelman, F., Bendixen-Noe, M., Bode, P., Brownstein, E., Day, K., Fresch, M., Kaplan, C., Warner, C. and Whittington, M.

Bowling Green State University: Gallagher, D. University of Toledo: Stewart, V. University of Akron: Jewell, W. Ohio University: C. Patterson

Cleveland State University: Price, A., Crell, A. Wilmington College: Hendricks, M Wright State University: Kahrig, T. Kent State University: Arhar, J., Turner, S.

Wittenberg University: Brannan, S., Whitlock, T. University of Dayton: Bowman, C.

15 http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Equity/Ohio-s-Educator-Standards/Rev_TeachingProfession_aug10.pdf.aspx 16 http://ramcewing.people.ysu.edu/OhioStandards.pdf 17 http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/KeyPrograms/EducationResearchandResearchPolicy/AERAOffersDefinitionofScientificallyBasedRes/tabid/10877/Default.aspx 18 Melaville, A. & Blank, M.J. (1998). Learning together: The developing field of school-community initiatives. Flint, MI: Mott Foundation.

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 1

“Look Fors” For the VARI-EPP Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching Form

(CPAST): Pedagogy and Dispositions Content may not be shared without permission

Introduction: This document is a resource guide for supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers to use in conjunction with the CPAST Form. It includes a suggested, non-exhaustive list of examples of qualities that may be useful in defining a student teacher’s level of performance. It describes where a supervisor may find evidence for a particular row of the rubrics (“Sources of Evidence”), as well as how a student teacher may achieve a particular rating (i.e., the qualities of their actions, found in “Possible Evidence”).

• Supervisors and cooperating teachers should use their professional judgment and consider the context-specific factors of the learning environment when using this document and determining a consensus score for the student teacher.

• It is not expected that student teachers will demonstrate evidence/behaviors for all the suggested “Look Fors” in a row.

This document was developed with input from a variety of sources and stakeholders, including university supervisors and members of the CPAST Development Team. Because development of this form is ongoing, some rows are more fully developed with examples than others. It is anticipated this document will undergo further revisions moving forward, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed at: https://osu.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5gqVD8pO9CSgmnb Please take particular note of “Look Fors” for the following rows: Pedagogy Rows E, F, H and I. These rows received low Inter-Rater Reliability scores in the spring 2016 data collection. Resources: Boston Public Schools Teacher Rubric with Suggested Teacher and Student Look Fors edTPA “Understanding the Rubric Progressions” InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers ISTE Essential Conditions Rubric Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model by Washington State Criteria Rubric for Teacher Candidate During Clinical Experience NASSP Recognizing Rigorous and Engaging Teaching and Learning

https://osu.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5gqVD8pO9CSgmnb

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/cms/lib07/MA01906464/Centricity/Domain/147/PriorityElementsLookfors.pdf

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf

http://electronicportfolios.com/reflect/EssenCondRubric.pdf

http://tpep-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/Marzano-Rubrics-by-criteria.pdf

http://www.slu.edu/Documents/public_service/Teacher%20Candidate%20Performance%20Rubric-Spring2015.pdf

http://www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?topic=Recognizing_Rigorous_and_Engaging_Teaching_and_Learning

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 2



Emerging (1 point)


Planning for Instruction and Assessment A. Focus for Learning: Standards and Objectives /Targets

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND Goals are measureable AND Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other AND Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners and attend to appropriate developmental progressions relative to age and content-area

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND Goals are measureable AND Standards, objectives/ targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other AND Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

Plans align to appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND/OR Some goals are measureable AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks, are loosely or are not consistently aligned with each other AND/OR Articulates some objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

Plans do not align to the appropriate Ohio Learning Standards AND/OR Goals are absent or not measureable AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are not aligned with each other AND/OR Does not articulate objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners

Sources of Evidence:

• Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative lesson plans

o Student learning objectives o Evidence of differentiation o Use of Ohio Learning Standards

• Posted learning objectives/ targets Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Student teachers’ plans: appropriately “connect content to standard”

(Marzano, p. 27).

• “Goals are: specific, measurable and timebound; based on multiple sources of available data that reveal prior student learning; aligned to content standards; appropriate for the context, instructional interval and content standard(s); demonstrating a significant impact on student learning of content (transferable skills)” (Marzano, p. 36).

• “Goals may be missing one or more of the following qualities: specific, measurable and timebound. Goals are not based on prior available student learning. Goals are partially aligned to content standards. Goals may be missing one or more of the following: appropriate for the context, instructional interval and content standard(s). Goal is not connected to a significant impact on student learning of content” (Marzano, p. 36).

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 3



Emerging (1 point)


Planning for Instruction and Assessment B. Materials and Resources

Uses a variety of materials and resources that 1. Align with all objectives/targets 2. Make content relevant to learners 3. Encourage individualization of learning

Uses a variety of materials and resources that 1. Align with all objectives/targets 2. Make content relevant to learners

Uses materials and resources that align with some of the objectives/targets

Materials and resources do not align with objectives/targets


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative lesson plans

o Evidence of differentiation in lesson plan • Instructional materials

o Appropriate citations for resources Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • “The [student] teacher identifies the available materials that can enhance

student understanding and the manner in which they will be used” (Marzano, p. 28).

• “The [student] teacher identifies the available materials that can enhance learner understanding but does not clearly identify or describe the manner in which they will be used” (Marzano, p. 28).

• Student teacher relies on lecture with no supporting materials

• Does not allow for learner use of materials (all teacher demonstration)

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 4



Emerging (1 point)


Planning for Instruction and Assessment C. Assessment of P-12 Learning

Plans a variety of assessments that 1. Provide opportunities for learners of varying abilities to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards 3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge 4. Promote learner growth

Plans a variety of assessments that 1. Provide opportunities for learners to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards 3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge

Planned assessments 1. Provide opportunities for some learners to illustrate competence (whole class) 2. Align with the Ohio Learning Standards

Planned assessments 1. Are not included OR 2. Do not align with the Ohio Learning Standards


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative lesson plans • Variety of formative and summative assessments • Posted learning objectives/ targets

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Student teacher is able to inform learners, and discuss learner

progress, using formative data • Plans submitted include assessment/evaluation components • Assessments are clearly aligned to congruent standards • Assessment is included in the daily procedures • Student teacher uses a variety and balance of assessment techniques

• Relies on learner self-grading/self-correcting • Plans include vague data collection techniques • Assessments are misaligned • Planned assessments are not aligned to procedures • Assessments are not developmentally appropriate or

grade-level appropriate • Relies heavily on publisher generated tests

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 5



Emerging (1 point)


Planning for Instruction and Assessment D. Differentiated Methods

Lessons make meaningful and relevant connections to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge 2. Previous lessons 3. Future learning 4. Other disciplines and real-world experiences AND Differentiation of instruction supports learner development AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible, relevant, and challenging for learners

Lessons make clear and coherent connections to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge 2. Previous lessons 3. Future learning AND Differentiation of instruction supports learner development AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible and relevant for learners

Lessons make an attempt to build on, but are not completely successful at connecting to 1. Learners’ prior knowledge, 2. Previous lessons, OR future learning AND Differentiation of instruction is minimal AND Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible for learners

Lessons do not build on or connect to learners’ prior knowledge AND/OR Explanations given are illogical or inaccurate as to how the content connects to previous and future learning AND/OR Differentiation of instruction is absent


• Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative lesson plans

o Evidence of differentiation in planning and/or instruction (activities, responsiveness to prior knowledge – including proactively preparing for possible misconceptions)

o Description of connections between lessons Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • “[Student] teacher plans and delivers lessons that are logically

structured, well-scaffolded, and reasonably paced, with differentiated content and timing as necessary” (BPS, p. 5).

• “[Student] teacher frequently uses learners’ learning styles, interests, and needs to plan lesson and homework tasks, design assessments, group students, and differentiate the timing and content of assigned tasks” (BPS, p. 13).

• “[Student] teacher divides students into groups that support student

learning and build on learners’ strengths” (BPS, p.5). • “ The [student] teacher identifies and effectively employs interventions

that meet the needs of specific subpopulations (e.g., ELL, special education, [gifted] and students who come from environments that offer little support for learning)” (Marzano, p. 24).

• “[Student] teacher plans or delivers lessons with either too much or insufficient time allocated to activities, or timing and content that is not suitably differentiated” (BPS, p. 5).

• “[Student] teacher inconsistently plans or delivers

lessons or assessments designed to reach learners with diverse, learning styles, and needs” (BPS, p. 13).

• “The [student] teacher identifies interventions that

meet the needs of specific subpopulations (e.g., ELL, special education, and students who come from environments that offer little support for learning), but does not ensure that all identified students are adequately served by the interventions” (Marzano, p. 24).

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 6

* This row received low Inter-Rater Reliability scores in the first round of data collection.



Emerging (1 point)


Instructional Delivery E. Learning Target and Directions

*

Articulates accurate and coherent learning targets AND Articulates accurate directions/explanations throughout the lesson AND Sequences learning experiences appropriately

Articulates an accurate learning target AND Articulates accurate directions/ explanations AND Sequences learning experiences appropriately

Articulates an inaccurate learning target AND/OR Articulates inaccurate directions/explanations

Does not articulate the learning target OR Does not articulate directions/ explanations


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Posted learning objectives/targets

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Targets are prominently and visibly posted in the classroom

o “Learning target/goal is a clear statement of knowledge or skill as opposed to an activity or assignment” (Marzano, p.1).

• Begins lesson by stating target and/or goals • Revisits targets and goals throughout the lesson • Summarizes the targets at the end of the lesson • Directions are concise, systematic, and logical

o Learners know what they should be doing in the classroom • Learning tasks align with targets

• Targets/goals are NOT prominently and visibly posted • Begins lesson without discussing targets or goals • Sequence of lesson is not logical • Directions to learners are confusing and include too

much/too little information o Learners seem confused or ask many

questions to know what to do

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 7




Emerging (1 point)


Instructional Delivery F. Critical Thinking

*

Engages learners in critical thinking in local and/or global contexts that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections 3. Challenges assumptions

Engages learners in critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections

Introduces AND/OR models critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections

Does not introduce AND/OR model critical thinking that 1. Fosters problem solving 2. Encourages conceptual connections


• Observation of teaching o Classroom discourse: students questioning each other and discussing the content o Higher-order questioning

• Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations The student teacher:

• Asks questions which probe learner thinking • Scaffolds and supports learners’ problem-solving • Encourages learners to support assertions with evidence • Encourages connections with learners’ previous knowledge and/or

interdisciplinary connections • Allows learners to question/challenge peers’ ideas (edTPA, NASSP) • “Models thinking activities and encourages students to share their

own thinking” (Rubric for Teacher Candidate, p.11 )

The student teacher: • Understands “how to generate goals that stretch

student thinking” ( Rubric for Teacher Candidate, p.11 )

• “Knowledgeable of different types of questioning to generate…critical thinking and analysis” ( Rubric for Teacher Candidate, p.11 )

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 8




Emerging (1 point)


Instructional Delivery G. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting Instruction through Formative Assessment

*

Checks for understanding (whole class/group AND individual learners) during lessons using formative assessment AND Differentiates through planned and responsive adjustments (whole class/group and individual learners)

Checks for understanding (whole class/group) during lessons using formative assessment AND Differentiates through adjustments to instruction (whole class/group)

Inconsistently checks for understanding during lessons using formative assessment AND Adjusts instruction accordingly, but adjustments may cause additional confusion

Does not check for understanding during lessons using formative assessment OR Does not make any adjustments based on learners’ responses


• Observation of teaching o Frequent opportunities for student responses o Modification of instruction based on student needs o Implementation of interventions, remediation, reinforcement, and/or enrichment to provide differentation

• Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Student teacher:

o asks questions of learners o requies active learner responses through discussion, group

work, asking questions, closely monitoring seat work o attends to individuals, changes explanation, provides

prompting or enrichement when appropriate o “organizes content into small chunks, has learners interact

about each chunk of content, provides guidance as to which information is most important, asks inferential and elaborative questions, has students summarize content” (Marzano, p.4)

• Student teacher: o Follows a written lesson plan without

deviation, although student responses/interest may suggest a need to do so

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 9




Emerging (1 point)


Instructional Delivery H. Digital Tools and Resources

*

Discusses AND uses a variety of developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills 3. Extend learners’ understanding of concepts

Discusses AND uses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills

Discusses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson AND Technology is not available

One of the following: A. Does not use technologies (digital tools and resources) to engage learners AND Technology is available in the setting OR B. Use of technologies is not relevant to the learning objectives/ targets of the lesson OR C. Does not discuss technologies AND Technology is not available in the setting


• Observation of teaching (Refer to VARI-EPP Student Teaching Form Glossary for definition of “Digital Tools”) • Pre/post observation conferences • Cumulative lesson plans • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations Student teacher uses and discusses the some of the following digital tools: • Computers • Websites • Blogs • Mobile devices • Interactive whiteboards • Online media • Online study tools

Student teacher uses digitals tools in the following ways: • Relevant- Directly support access to the objectives for the lesson(s) • Engaging- Learners are actively using the digital tools instead of the

teacher just using the tools and learners are passive • Extending- Learners are given independent assignments to use digital

tools to continue exploring a topic

Student teacher: • Uses technology “on stage” with little student

interaction (ISTE Essential Conditions Rubric) • “Uses technology for own productivity in relationship

to teaching and learning” (ISTE Essential Conditions Rubric)

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 10




Emerging (1 point)


Instructional Delivery I. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment

*

Actively involves learners to create and manage a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners


Manages a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners


Attempts to manage a safe learning environment through the use of routines and transitions AND/OR Attempts to establish constructive relationships to engage learners

AND/OR Attempts to use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)

Does not manage a safe learning environment OR Does not establish constructive relationships to engage learners OR Does not use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Classroom ground rules implemented by teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations Exceeds: • “The [student] teacher actively involves learners in managing

the learning environment and making full use of instructional time. S/he employs strategies to build learner self-direction and ownership of learning” (INTASC).

Meets: • “The [student] teacher manages the learning environment,

organizing, allocating and coordinating resources (e.g., time, space, materials) to promote learner engagement and minimize loss of instructional time” (INTASC).

Both The [student] teacher: • uses technology to expand learner options in order to maintain

and increase student engagement. • Learning environment considers learner developmental level • provides evidence for how they have used findings from

research to maintain learners’ attention

Emerging: • Attempts to address the criteria in the “meets” level of

performance (e.g., “is knowledgeable about the importance of managing transitions to protect essential learning time” and “understands the importance of appropriate pacing to effective teaching and learning” (Rubric for the Teacher Candidate, p. 16).

Does Not Meet: • No attempt is made to address the criteria in the “Meets” level

of performance

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 11



Emerging (1 point)


Assessment J. Data-Guided Instruction

Uses data-informed decisions (trends and patterns) to set short and long term goals for future instruction and assessment AND Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping and analysis

Uses data-informed decisions to design instruction and assessment AND Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping

Uses minimal data to design instruction and assessment

Does not use data to design instruction and assessment


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative planning documents • Formative and summative assessments • P-12 learner work samples • Student growth measures • Data from graphs, online gradebook, reflection • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Evidence of consistent reflection on data • Data are communicated to students, other teachers, parents and/or

administrators • Discussions in data teams (Teacher Based Teams – TBTs) • Student growth measures discussed

• Limited or no evidence of data collection and/or data usage/analysis

• Limited or no discussion/communication of data to stakeholders (student – to monitor own growth)

• Limited or no participating in TBTs • Student growth measures are not discussed

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 12



Emerging (1 point)


Assessment K. Feedback to Learners

Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths AND areas for improvement 2. Is comprehensible 3. Is descriptive 4. Is individualized AND Provides timely feedback, guiding learners on how to use feedback to monitor their own progress

Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement 2. Is comprehensible 3. Is descriptive AND Provides timely feedback

Provides minimal feedback that 1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement OR Feedback is provided in a somewhat timely fashion

Does not provide feedback OR Feedback does not enable learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement OR Feedback is not provided in a timely fashion


• Observation of teaching o How student teacher gives feedback to learners (e.g., immediate, mini-conferences)

• Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Formative and summative assessments • P-12 learner work samples • Student growth measures • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • “[Student] teacher provides frequent assessment feedback that is

specific and extends learner thinking” (BPS, p. 6). • “[Student] teacher answers learners’ questions accurately and provides

feedback that extends their thinking. (BPS, p. 4). • Written feedback to learners is accurate and clearly understood

• “Evidence exists that feedback provided to students results in a positive

change in learning” (Rubric for the Teacher Candidate, p. 8)

Emerging: • “[Student] teacher may offer assessment feedback, but

feedback is general and does not further learner learning (BPS, p. 6).” (e.g., checkmarks, X’s, yes/no)

• “[Student] teacher answers learners’ questions accurately, but does not provide feedback that furthers their learning” (BPS, p. 4). (e.g., “Good!” “Thank you.”)

Does Not Meet: • Assessments/learner work marked incorrectly, or with

score only (does not provide explanation/feedback) • Student teacher does not respond to learners’

questions

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 13



Emerging (1 point)


Assessment L. Assessment Techniques

Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative AND summative 3. Diagnostic 4. Varied

Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative AND summative

Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally appropriate 2. Formative OR summative

Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally inappropriate OR Not used


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher • Cumulative planning documents • Formative and summative assessments • P-12 learner work samples

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations • Incorporates a balance of publisher and teacher-made assessments • Clearly states varied teacher performance • Pre-submitted assessments were aligned to lesson content • Assessments are referenced in daily procedures • Student teacher can inform learners the “hows and whys” of formative

assessment, and where the class is in the learning process

• Relies heavily on publisher generated test banks and assessments

• Assessments are not aligned to what was taught • Assessments are not appropriate for age and/or grade

level • Inadequate data collected to discern student growth

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 14



Emerging (1 point)


Analysis of Teaching M. Connections to Research and Theory

Discusses, provides evidence of, and justifies connections to educational research and/or theory AND Uses research and/or theory to explain their P-12 learners’ progress

Discusses and provides evidence of connections to educational research and/or theory




• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Reflections (written or oral) on lessons • Teaching journals • Cumulative planning documents • Appropriate citations for research and theory • Student learning objectives • Connections between methodology and research/theory

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations Exceeds: The student teacher:

• makes multiple and specific references to theory and research to support why a task was chosen, how an assessment is appropriate/aligns to instruction, etc.

• is able to go “in-depth” about the relationship between research/theory and their teaching (i.e., they are able to discuss applications and rationales in depth)

Meets: The student teacher can:

• use theory and research to support why a task was chosen, how an assessment is appropriate/aligns to instruction

• elaborate on their teaching/assessment practices referring to specific research-based strategies/methods (e.g., “When I was doing X in the classroom, it was based on Y’s research-based method.”)

Emerging: • Connections are grade/developmental level

appropriate The student teacher:

• consistently refers to only one general connection, or s/he relays the same connection within multiple lessons

• is a “name dropper” of theorists and researchers, but cannot articulate how his/her teaching integrates concepts from research and theory

Does not Meet: • Student teacher makes no attempt to draw

connections to research and theory

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 15



Emerging (1 point)



A. Participates in Professional Development (PD)

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshops, seminars, attending a professional conference, joining a professional organization) AND Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD AND Reflects on own professional practice with evidence of application of the knowledge acquired from PD during student teaching

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference) AND Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD

Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)

Does not participate in any professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)


• Certificates of attendance • Materials from conference/meeting • Feedback on learner work samples • Post-conference written reflection/logs Examples of professional development activities may include: school/district workshops to address individual teacher growth and/or classroom practices and student development; self-assessment and analysis of student learning evidence; webinars; modules (e.g., Battelle for Kids, OLAC, Iris), programs offered by college/university career services office, etc.

Possible Evidence:

Exceeds/Meets Expectations Emerging/ Does Not Meet Expectations

Exceeds: • Student teacher articulates ideas/relevance of professional

development and demonstrates how themes from professional development were implemented in practice

Meets: • Articulates main idea/relevance from professional development.

Describes how the knowledge acquired applies to his/her own practice

Emerging: • Student teacher is unable to articulate learning relevance of

PD • Professional development opportunity is not connected to

field or grade band

Does not Meet: • Does not participate in PD

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 16



Emerging (1 point)



B. Demonstrates Effective Communication with Parents or Legal Guardians

Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online) AND Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress AND Interacts with parents or legal guardians in ways that improve understanding and encourage progress (e.g. exchange of email, face-to-face discussion, etc.)

Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online) AND Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress

Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent-teacher conferences, communication via email or online)

Does not provide evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians


• Introductory letters to parents and families at the beginning of the year • Communication through school website or portal • Communication notebook • School Events and functions (e.g. Math Night, Science Fair, Pi Day, Band Performance) • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


• Invites two-way communication • Connects communication to the learning of content and promotes

connection to the curriculum • Takes initiative to communicate with parents/legal guardians • Uses face to face and written communication • Ongoing in nature • Balanced communication (positives and negatives presented) • Timely response to parent/guardian initiated communication

• One-way (singular) informative communications • Communications are principally negative in focus (i.e., only

when problems arise) • Allows cooperating teacher to take initiative to

communicate • Relies more on written communication • Completes only required communications (e.g., monthly

newsletters, permission slips) • Does not respond in a timely manner to parent/guardian

inquiries

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 17



Emerging (1 point)



C. Demonstrates Punctuality

Reports on time or early for daily student teaching AND Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Reports on time for daily student teaching AND Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Inconsistently reports on time for daily student teaching AND/OR Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)

Does not report on time for student teaching AND/OR Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)


• School placement sign-in sheet (in office) • Student teacher time log • Email/correspondence to stakeholders • School video • Timeliness of submission of documents (lesson plans, grades, reports, IEP documentation, etc.) • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


• Consistent school and student teacher time logs • Timely communication with stakeholders • Timely and orderly submission of documents

• Gaps in sign-in data, or lacking confirmation • Fails to communicate with stakeholders • Fails to complete or submit documents

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 18



Emerging (1 point)



D. Meets Deadlines and Obligations

Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes without reminders

Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes

Most of the time meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND Informs some stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND Provides incomplete directions and lessons for substitutes

Frequently misses deadlines or obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor AND/OR Does not inform stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence AND/OR Does not provide directions and lessons for substitutes


• Lesson plans • Substitute file • Assignments/materials provided to cooperating teacher when requested • Calls, emails, text messages to inform of absence • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


• Teacher call log • Signs in at school front desk daily • Teacher candidate submits weekly plans to cooperating teacher by

deadline • Follows university and district policy about absence notice (at minimum

the district policy) • Sub plans include detailed explanations about dates/assignments

• No or inadequate plans provided (e.g., plans tell sub to have students read)

• Deadlines not met (grades turned in late, no notification of absences)

• Notification of absence occurs at last minute, after school day starts, or at an untimely time

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 19



Emerging (1 point)



E. Preparation Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND Materials are easily accessible AND organized AND Prepared for the unexpected and flexible

Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND Materials are easily accessible AND organized

Not consistently prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND/OR Materials are easily accessible OR organized

Not prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.) AND/OR Materials are not organized NOR easily accessible


• Lesson plans • Manipulatives • Handouts • Resources • Observations of teaching • Substitute file • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


• Materials are easily accessible • Agenda/advanced organizer on the board • Classroom is organized and orderly • Materials are prepared and easily located • Has a “Plan B” – additional activities are prepared and ready if

lesson ends early

• Student teacher searches for materials • Limited directions posted for teacher/learners (advanced

organizers) • Classroom is disorganized and chaotic • Excess time at the beginning/end of class where learners

are not engaged in productive, academic tasks • If resources/materials are not available or not functioning,

teacher is unable to describe or proceed

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 20



Emerging (1 point)


Professional Relationships

F. Collaboration Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.) AND Works with and learns from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction to meet diverse needs of learners

Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.) AND Attempts to work with and learn from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction

Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)

Does not demonstrate collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)


• Observed behavior o Interactions observed between teacher candidate and cooperating teacher

• Reports of behavior from other teachers and/or principals • Conversations during post-observation and three-way conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


Exceeds: The student teacher:

• plans for collaborations • can describe ways they have partnered with others • can articulate how and what they have learned from others

Meets: The student teacher:

• is able to name specific individuals with whom s/he has collaborated

• exemplifies behaviors of a “strong school citizen” • can appropriately describe the roles of other professionals

Emerging: • The student teacher responds to requests for collaborations (i.e., collaborations initiated by others) Does not meet: The student teacher:

• makes no effort to connect with other professionals

• exhibits passive behaviors, e.g. does not follow through with establishing relationships

• displays evidence of disrespect, e.g.: o Rolling of eyes o Disregarding cooperating teacher feedback o Complaining

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 21



Emerging (1 point)


Professional Relationships


Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices) AND Takes action(s) based upon identified needs, while following district protocols

Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)

Recognizes areas in need of advocacy, but cannot articulate the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)

Does not recognize areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)


Advocating for and advancing students’ best interests regarding: - Academic needs - Physical needs (e.g. glasses, coats, lunch) - Emotional needs (e.g. mental health) - Social needs (e.g. skill deficits, bullying) - Cultural needs - Adequate Resources (e.g. technology) - Equitable opportunities Advocating for the profession by: - Attending professional development (e.g. support for teacher’s use of technology) - Appropriate use of technology - Documentation of sources - Respectful use of social media - Social justice - Communicating with mentor teacher, intervention specialist, or other community or school personnel (e.g. social worker, probation officer)

Possible Evidence:


• Engages in discussions with other professionals in the building about the needs of the learners (i.e., speaking with the School Nurse about vision screening, School Counselor related to mental health needs, etc.)

• Evidence of proactive (instead of reactive) thinking and actions • Collects information related to perceived areas of need (i.e., reading

news articles/research studies to support actions for the area of need, referencing the applicable laws)

• There is an obvious need for a learner and candidate does not recognize or discuss it with others

• Reactive thinking and actions • Does not engage in fact-finding, readings related to

areas of need, or does not know appropriate resources to consult

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 22



Emerging (1 point)


Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice

H. Responds Positively to Feedback and Constructive Criticism

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally AND Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice AND Proactively seeks opportunities for feedback from other professionals

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally AND Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice

Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision AND/OR Incorporates feedback inconsistently

Is not receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision AND/OR Does not incorporate feedback


• Observation of teaching • Pre/post observation conferences • Conversations with and/or documentation from the mentor teacher

Possible Evidence:


Exceeds: • Seeks opportunities for feedback from others • Incorporates feedback in a timely manner (next opportunity) without

reminders.

Meets: • Welcoming of, and grateful for, feedback offered by others

Emerging: • May immediately incorporate feedback, but reverts to

prior behavior/practice • Lacks timeliness (incorporates feedback inconsistently)

Does not Meet: • Student teacher demonstrates negative attitudes,

resistance, and/or defensiveness toward feedback • No effort is made to incorporate feedback

Spring 2017

Updated 8/1/16 © 2016 23

Look Fors developed by: The Ohio State University: Bendixen-Noe, M., Brownstein, E., Day, K., Kaplan, C., and Warner, C.

Bowling Green State University: Gallagher, D. University of Toledo: Stewart, V. University of Akron: Jewell, W. Ohio University: C. Patterson

Cleveland State University: Price, A., Crell, A. Wilmington College: Hendricks, M Wright State University: Kahrig, T. Kent State University: Arhar, J., Turner, S.

Wittenberg University: Brannan, S., Whitlock, T. University of Dayton: Bowman, C.

1

Chapter 1:

Introduction to the Candidate Preservice

Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST) Form

and Training

Developed by the VARI-EPP* Collaboration*Valid and Reliable Instruments for Educator Preparation Programs

Agreement

By participating in this training, you agree to:

• not alter the training

• not share or use it beyond the intended purpose

• respect others by not speaking about the contentuntil after they have completed the training

Chapter 1 Side 2 of 9

Training Table of Contents

The training consists of three Chapters.

• Chapter 1: Introduction to the CPAST Form & Training

• Chapter 2: Organization & Scoring of CPAST Form

• Chapter 3: Three-Way Conference & Goals

Before continuing, please ensure you have a copy ofthe following supplementary materials…

Chapter 1 Side 3 of 9

List of Supplementary Materials

General Description of the VARI-EPP Project

CPAST Form

“Look Fors” Document

Supervisor Checklist

Consensus Form (to collect scores at the three-way conference)

Chapter 1 Slide 4 of 9

Learning Objectives

In this chapter, you will learn:

• how and why the Candidate Preservice Assessment ofStudent Teaching Form (CPAST Form) was created

• the purpose of the CPAST Training

• the overall structure of the CPAST Training chapters


How the CPAST Form Was CreatedOPTIONAL ACTION: If you are interested in the history and the development of the CPAST Form, and the Valid and Reliable Instruments for Educator Preparation (VARI-EPP) Project you may watch this brief introductory video.

Additional information is also available in the General Description of the VARI-EPP Project document included with this training.

Introduction to VARI-EPP Video Clip (3 minutes)Chapter 1 Slide 6 of 9

SUPERVISOR TRAINING

2

Purpose of the CPAST Form Training

This training serves several important purposes. Specifically, it will:

• familiarize CPAST Form users with the structure of theinstrument and the research-based expectations fora student teacher’s performance

• help Form users understand how and when theinstrument is implemented

• increase the inter-rater reliability of the instrumentChapter 1 Slide 7 of 9

Training StructureThese training chapters were designed to be viewed at your own pace, and should take approximately 1.5 - 2 hours to complete.

• You do not need to review all of the chapters at one time.

• You may revisit any chapter at any point.

• At the conclusion of some chapters, you may be asked totake a quiz.• In order to receive credit for completion of the training, you

must receive a score of 80% on the ten quiz questions.Chapter 1 Slide 8 of 9

Whatever your role, thank you for participating in the VARI-EPP Project and using the CPAST Form!

There is no quiz for this chapter. Please continue to CPAST Training Chapter 2.


1

Chapter 2: Organization, Structure, and

Resources of the Candidate Preservice

Assessment of Student Teaching

(CPAST Form)


Slide 1 of 15Chapter 2

CPAST Form Training Agreement






Learning ObjectivesIn this chapter, you will learn about the CPAST Form:

Slide 3 of 15

Sections

Row Structure

Levels of Performance

Formatting

Scoring

Resources

Chapter 2

CPAST Form Sections: Pedagogy & Dispositions

Slide 4 of 15

Dispositions• 8 rows• 3 subsections

Pedagogy• 13 rows• 4 subsections

CPAST rows are aligned to OSTP, CAEP, & InTASC Standards

Chapter 2

CPAST Form: Row Structure

There are four levels of performance

Each row receives a whole number score


CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Does Not Meet Expectations & Emerging


NOTE: At the mid-term evaluation, most student teachers will earn a “0” or “1” in some areas.

2

CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Meets Expectations

“Meets Expectations” indicates a student teacher is proficient at a given skill and has demonstrated he or she is able to independently use that skill in a P-12 classroom at

the level expected of an entry level teacher.

Slide 7 of 15

EXAMPLE: To earn a score of ‘2’ in Row J, a student teacher needs to: -demonstrate a pattern of using data to design instruction and assessment; AND -demonstrate evidence of the use of contemporary tools for collecting and organizing that data

Chapter 2

CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Exceeds Expectations

Exceeds Expectations = ROCK STAR!!• This level represents performance beyond what is

expected for a beginning teacher

• Student teachers will earn few, if any, “Exceeds Expectations” (similar to OTES)

• Midterm: Extraordinary occurrence• Final: Few, if any, “Exceeds Expectations”

• Are there exceptions?• For some dispositions (e.g., punctuality and meets deadlines),

candidates may have a score of a “3” at both midterm and final. Slide 8 of 15 Chapter 2

CPAST Formatting: Italics

Slide 9 of 15

Italics indicates what is distinct or has changed between adjacent columns.

Chapter 2

• A student teacher must provide evidence for ALL descriptors in a level of performance in order to earn the column rating.

• This short video explains the use of enumerated lists in the CPAST Form’s Rows.

https://youtu.be/YDkqfZtONos

CPAST Formatting: AND/OR, Lists

If a student teacher consistently - communicates

accurate directions for activities to learners AND

- sequences learning experiences appropriately,

But does not communicate accurate learning targets- he or she should not earn a 2 on this row.


• A score of “not applicable” is notan option for any row

• Raters are• strongly discouraged from

lowering scores at the midterm conference or inflating scores at the final conference simply to show growth

• Although a student teacher will likely show growth in some areas assessed by the form, it is expected a student teacher will • earn consistent scores in some

rows at the midterm and final

CPAST Form Scoring: Special Notes


CPAST Resources: Glossary

Slide 12 of 15

Definitions for many terms are

found in the Glossary, at the

end of the CPAST Form.



Emerging (1 point)



Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical,social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g.technology integration, research‐based practices)

AND Takes action(s) based upon identified needs, while following district protocols

Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g.academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research‐based practices)

Recognizes areas in need of advocacy, but cannot articulate the 1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research‐based practices)

Does not recognize areas in need of advocacy, including the 1. Needs of learners (e.g.academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities) OR 2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research‐based practices)

Chapter 2

3

CPAST Resources: “Look Fors” Document• The Look Fors document is intended to

• assist the student teacher, cooperating teacher and university supervisor in determining a score and

• provide suggestions for possible sources of evidence, as well as further elaboration of the characteristics for each level of performance.

WHY is it used? The ‘Look Fors’ document is intended to: • reduce confusion; and • promote inter-rater

reliability of the form (i.e., that all users areusing the form to evaluate student teachers the sameway).


SummaryIn this chapter, you learned about the CPAST Form:

Slide 14 of 15

Sections

Row Structure

Levels of Performance

Formatting

Scoring

Resources

Chapter 2

1

Chapter 3: Using the CPAST Form in the Three-Way Conference and Developing Goals for

Professional Growth


© 2016

CPAST Form Training Agreement






Learning ObjectivesIn this chapter, you will:

Chapter 3

Learn the purpose of the Three-Way Conference

Learn about the Three-Way Conference

Examine examples of interactions that may occur during the Conference

Learn the timeline for goal development

Learn the content and structure of the goals

Learn how to support student teachers in their goal progress

Slide 3 of 20

What is the Three-Way Conference? • The meeting

• Includes the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher (mentor), and the student teacher (intern).

• Ensures the perspectives of each member of the team are taken into consideration when evaluating the student teacher using the CPAST Form.

• Occurs twice: Formative Mid-term and Summative Final

The Three-Way Conference


When does the Three-Way Conference occur?


The second Three-Way ConferenceServes as the summative

assessment for the student teaching experience

Takes place in the in the final week of the student teaching

experience

Helps the ST identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth in his/her future teaching

career

The first Three-Way Conference

Provides an opportunity for self and formative assessment

Takes place midway through the student teaching

experience

Helps the student teacher (ST) identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth in the remaining time in the placement

Review expectations at the beginning of the semester

The CPAST Form is intended to: • Accurately reflect the ST performance at the middle and the end of the student teaching experience.

• Provide formativefeedback to the student teacher.

The CPAST Form is used: At any time during the student teaching experience, but it may be particularly useful in preparing for the midterm and final Three-Way Conferences.

Who participates in the Conference?Cooperating Teacher

Supervisor

Student Teacher

The Three-Way ConferenceChapter 3 Slide 6 of 20

2

How should each participant prepare for the conference?


Each team member involved in the evaluation process should bring:

• a suggested score

• evidence to support his/her score

Where do I find evidence to support my score?

• Remember to consult the“Look Fors” document for suggestions for possiblesources of evidence, as well as further elaborationof the characteristics for each level of performance.

• A note for Row M: • Evidence may be

gathered from • lesson plans, teaching, reflections, conferences, etc.




Emerging (1 point)

Does Not Meet Expectations(0 points)

Analysis of TeachingM. Connections to Research and Theory

Discusses, provides evidence of, and justifiesconnections to educational research and/or theory

ANDUses research and/or theory to explain their P‐12 learners’ progress

Discusses and provides evidence ofconnections to educational research and/or theory



Sources of

Evidence:

Observation of teaching Pre/post observation conferences Reflections (written or oral) on lessons Teaching journals Cumulative planning documents

Appropriate citations for research and theory Student learning objectives Connections between methodology and research/theory

Possible

Evidence:


Exceeds:The student teacher: makes multiple and specific references to theory and research to support

why a taskwas chosen, how an assessment is appropriate/aligns to

instruction, etc.

is able to go “in‐depth” about the relationship between research/theory and their teaching (i.e., they are able to discuss applications and rationales

in depth)

Meets:The student teacher can: use theory and research to support why a task was chosen, how an

assessment is appropriate/aligns to instruction elaborate on their teaching/assessment practices referring to specific

research‐based strategies/methods (e.g., “When I was doing X in the classroom, it was based on Y’s research‐based method.”)

Emerging:

Connections are grade/developmental level appropriate

The student teacher: consistently refers to only one general connection, or

s/he relays the same connection within multiple lessons

is a “name dropper” of theorists and researchers, butcannot articulate how his/her teaching integratesconcepts from research and theory

Does not Meet:

Student teacher makes no attempt to draw connectionsto research and theory

Row M: “Look Fors”

How should I prepare dispositional evidence for the Three-Way Conference?

When completing the Dispositions section, there may be some subjectivity. It is necessary for the student teacher (ST), cooperating teacher (CT), and university supervisor (US) to use their professional judgment when determining the final score.

• Several observations of a student teacher’s performance are requiredto gather sufficient evidence.

• In some cases, it may be helpful for the supervisor to arrive early and/or stay late after an observation of a lesson to obtain evidence.

• All Three-Way Conference participants should bring evidence tosupport their proposed scores for each row.


What will happen during the conference?• At this conference, each participant

(ST, CT and US) will share the ratingsand evidence he or she wrote on the form.

• The university supervisor will record the consensus. • An optional consensus form, like the one to the

right, can be found in the supplementary materials for these training chapters.

• The official score that an ST receives will be the consensus of this Three-WayConference.


Optional Consensus Score Sheet

NOTE: The consensus score is required to be a whole number(i.e., no decimals).

• The university supervisor should mediate the conversation to bring all participants to an agreement.

• In cases where there is disagreement, the supervisor shouldmake the final decision.

Time saving tip! If all conference participants agree on a row score, there is no need to discuss the student teacher’s performance in that area in depth.


2Yes

1.5No

A consensus score of a “1 or 0” alerts the team that the student teacher: •Needs to focus on that specific area; and •Needs support and resources from the university supervisor and

cooperating teacher.The cooperating teacher and university supervisor are obligated to support the student teacher.

What if the midterm consensus score is ‘0’ or ‘1’ on a row?

Support ExampleSuggesting resources Readings, articlesReflection questions Post conference questions related to the area

for improvementProviding opportunities For the student teacher to demonstrate

competenceCo-teaching To model and supportChapter 3 Slide 12 of 20

3

NOTE: In addition to self-assessing his/her progress the ST should:

• Complete the “Goals” section of the CPASTForm

• Refine his/her goals after discussing them withthe US and CT at the Three-Way conference

• More information about the goal developmentand refinement process is available later in thischapter.


Let’s look at what conversations may look like in four mock Three-Way Conferences.

Situation Website Link

Example #1: The team agreeing easily on a score

https://youtu.be/cNWDT3IRvHA

Example #2: The ST indicating s/he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate a particular skill

https://youtu.be/VMJT738RMyw

Example #3 – A team member indicating s/he has not had an opportunity to observe the student teacher demonstrating evidence for a specific skill

https://youtu.be/A39KGYMjYlQ

Example # 4 – The team disagreeing on a score

https://youtu.be/Kkr4mF2jzVo


What is the timeline for goal development? Goals are developed during the:

• Midterm Three-Way Conference• To be achieved by the end of the semester.

• Final three-way conference

• To drive professional improvement in the first years of teaching.

• Goal development is a collaborative effort between the cooperating teacher(CT), universitysupervisor (US), and student teacher (ST).

• Goals are finalized at the end of the Three-Way Conference with input from all team members.


The content of the goals should focus on scores on the CPAST Form that could be improved. This may include:

• Skills the ST has not yet had an opportunity to practice/demonstrate

• Rubric rows receiving a score of ‘0’ or ‘1’

What is the content of the goals?

NOTE: The specific nature of the learning environment will determine the focus of the goals.

• One goal is required

• Two to three goals are recommended


How should the goals be structured? Goals must be specific and measurable

Example of inappropriate

goals established

during a midterm

Three-Way Conference

Example of appropriate

goals established

during a midterm



How can a supervisor and cooperating teacher support the student teacher’s

goal progress? After the midterm conference, the ST’s progress toward goals should be monitored and regularly discussed. The US and CT can support the ST in the following ways:

• Encouraging the ST to reflect on his/her progress related to the goals (i.e., provide evidence related to the goals) during each post-observation conference;

• Giving feedback related to the goals as part of post-observation conferences;

• Providing the ST with resources (journal articles, sample materials, etc.) related to the focus of his/her goals. Chapter 3 Slide 18 of 20

4

SummaryIn this chapter, you:

Chapter 3

Learned the purpose of the Three-Way Conference

Learned about the Three-Way Conference

Examined examples of interactions that may occur during the Conference

Learned the timeline for goal development

Learned the content and structure of the goals

Learned how to support student teachers in their goal progress

Slide 19 of 20

1

Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher Training Chapter for the

Candidate Preservice Assessment for Student Teachers (CPAST) Form

Developed by the VARI-EPP* Collaboration

*Valid and Reliable Instruments for Educator Preparation Programs

Slide 1 of 16

Learning ObjectivesIn this chapter, you will:

Slide 2 of 16

Learn the CPAST Form: Sections, Row Structure, Levels of Performance, Formatting, Scoring, and Resources

Learn the purpose of the Three-Way Conference

Learn the timing of the Three-Way Conference

Learn how to prepare for the Three-Way Conference

Examine examples of interactions that may occur during the Conference

CPAST Form Sections: Pedagogy & Dispositions

Slide 3 of 16

Dispositions• 8 rows• 3 subsections

Pedagogy• 13 rows• 4 subsections

CPAST rows are aligned to OSTP, CAEP, & InTASC Standards

CPAST Form: Row Structure

There are four levels of performance

Each row receives a whole number score

Slide 4 of 16

CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Does Not Meet Expectations & Emerging

Slide 5 of 16

NOTE: At the mid-term evaluation, most student teachers will earn a “0” or “1” in some areas.

A consensus score of a “1 or 0” alerts the team that the student teacher: •Needs to focus on that specific area; and •Needs support and resources from the university supervisor and

cooperating teacher.The cooperating teacher and university supervisor are obligated to support the student teacher.

What if the midterm consensus score is ‘0’ or ‘1’ on a row?

Support ExampleSuggesting resources Readings, articlesReflection questions Post conference questions related to the area

for improvementProviding opportunities For the student teacher to demonstrate

competenceCo-teaching To model and support Slide 6 of 16

Cooperating Teacher/Student Teacher Training

2

CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Meets Expectations

“Meets Expectations” indicates a student teacher is proficient at a given skill and has demonstrated he or she is able to independently use that skill in a P-12 classroom at

the level expected of an entry level teacher.

Slide 7 of 16

EXAMPLE: To earn this score on Row J, a student teacher needs to: -demonstrate a pattern of using data to design instruction and assessment; AND -demonstrate evidence of the use of contemporary tools for collecting and organizing that data

CPAST Form Levels of Performance: Exceeds Expectations

Exceeds Expectations = ROCK STAR!!• This level represents performance beyond what is

expected for a beginning teacher

• Student teachers will earn few, if any, “Exceeds Expectations” (similar to OTES)

• Midterm: Extraordinary occurrence• Final: Few, if any, “Exceeds Expectations”

• Are there exceptions?• For some dispositions (e.g., punctuality and meets deadlines),

candidates may have a score of a “3” at both midterm and final. Slide 8 of 16

• A score of “not applicable” is notan option for any row

• Raters are• strongly discouraged from

lowering scores at the midterm conference or inflating scores at the final conference simply to show growth

• Although a student teacher will likely show growth in some areas assessed by the form, it is expected a student teacher will • earn consistent scores in some

rows at the midterm and final

CPAST Form Scoring: Special Notes

Slide 9 of 16

• A student teacher must provide evidence for ALL descriptors in a level of performance in order to earn the column rating.

• This short video explains the use of enumerated lists in the CPAST Form’s Rows.

https://youtu.be/YDkqfZtONos

CPAST Formatting: AND/OR, Lists

If a student teacher consistently - communicates

accurate directions for activities to learners AND

- sequences learning experiences appropriately,

But does not communicate accurate learning targets- he or she should not earn a 2 on this row.

Slide 10 of 16

CPAST Resources: “Look Fors” Document• The Look Fors document is intended to

• assist the student teacher, cooperating teacher and university supervisor in determining a score and

• provide suggestions for possible sources of evidence, as well as further elaboration of the characteristics for each level of performance.

WHY is it used? The ‘Look Fors’ document is intended to: • reduce confusion; and • promote inter-rater

reliability of the form (i.e., all users are using the form to evaluatestudent teachers thesame way).

Slide 11 of 16

What is the Three-Way Conference? • The meeting

• Includes the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher (mentor), and the student teacher (intern).

• Ensures the perspectives of each member of the team are taken into consideration when evaluating the student teacher using the CPAST Form.

• Occurs twice: Formative Mid-term and Summative Final

The Three-Way Conference

Slide 12 of 16

3

When does the Three-Way Conference occur?

Slide 13 of 16

The second Three-Way ConferenceServes as the summative

assessment for the student teaching experience

Takes place in the in the final week of the student teaching

experience

Helps the ST identify areas of strength and opportunities for

growth in his/her future teaching career

The first Three-Way ConferenceProvides an opportunity for self

and formative assessmentTakes place midway through the

student teaching experience

Helps the student teacher (ST) identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth in the

remaining time in the placement

Review expectations at the beginning of the semester

The CPAST Form is intended to: • Accurately reflect the ST performance at the middle and the end of the student teaching experience.

• Provide formativefeedback to the student teacher.

The CPAST Form is used: At any time during the student teaching experience, but it may be particularly useful in preparing for the midterm and final Three-Way Conferences.

How should each participant prepare for the conference?

Slide 14 of 16

Each team member involved in the evaluation process should bring:

• a suggested score

• evidence to support his/her score

In addition to self-assessing his/her progress the Student Teacher should: complete the “Goals” section of the CPAST Form refine his/her goals after discussing them with the US and CT at the


Let’s look at what conversations may look like in two mock Three-Way Conferences.

Situation Website Link

Example #1: A team member indicating s/he has not had an opportunity to observe the student teacher demonstrating evidence for a specific skill

https://youtu.be/A39KGYMjYlQ

Example #2: The ST indicating s/he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate a particular skill

https://youtu.be/VMJT738RMyw

Slide 15 of 16

This is the end of the training chapter. Thank you for taking the time to review the content. If you have any questions, please consult a University Supervisor

or your program contact for more details. We wish you a successful

semester! Slide 16 of 16

Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST) Form Data 2015-2016

Table 1 Statewide Pedagogy and Disposition in Midterm and Summative Assessments (n=1203)

Pedagogy Disposition Midterm 2.05 2.32

Summative 2.45 2.64

Table 2 Statewide Pedagogy in Summative Assessment by Row (n=1203)

Programs Row A

Row B

Row C

Row D

Row E

Row F

Row G

Row H

Row I

Row J

Row K

Row L

Row M

Art Education 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 Early Childhood Education

2.63 2.69 2.43 2.51 2.62 2.40 2.58 2.65 2.76 2.35 2.57 2.40 2.22

AYA/Secondary English Language Arts

2.48 2.59 2.41 2.23 2.40 2.57 2.29 2.63 2.53 2.18 2.48 2.36 1.98

AYA/Secondary Foreign Language

2.17 2.24 2.10 2.00 2.21 1.97 2.17 2.24 2.14 2.00 2.24 2.10 1.86

AYA/Secondary Math 2.39 2.36 2.24 2.20 2.49 2.17 2.47 2.43 2.43 2.06 2.46 2.31 1.91

Middle Childhood Education

2.59 2.65 2.48 2.44 2.63 2.43 2.51 2.66 2.64 2.39 2.53 2.50 2.20

Music Education 2.36 2.31 2.05 2.33 2.26 2.13 2.21 2.31 2.59 1.90 2.38 2.18 1.77

Physical Education 2.36 2.50 2.43 2.43 2.64 2.21 2.50 2.14 2.64 2.00 2.36 2.21 2.29

AYA/Secondary Science

2.36 2.44 2.34 2.24 2.38 2.38 2.30 2.62 2.46 2.06 2.44 2.32 2.04

AYA/Secondary Social Studies

2.50 2.67 2.38 2.39 2.48 2.46 2.40 2.73 2.58 2.24 2.39 2.41 2.13

Special Education 2.61 2.64 2.39 2.53 2.57 2.30 2.49 2.51 2.68 2.33 2.54 2.32 2.17

State 2.55 2.61 2.39 2.42 2.55 2.38 2.48 2.59 2.63 2.27 2.50 2.38 2.13

Figure 1. State Pedagogy Midterm and Summative Assessment Comparison by Row

Table 3 Statewide Disposition in Summative by Row

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

2.70

PA PB PC PD PE PF PG PH PI PJ PK PL PM

final term State mean middle term State mean

Contact: Erica Brownstein: [email protected] OCTEO 2016

Programs Row A

Row B

Row C

Row D

Row E

Row F

Row G

Row H

Art Education 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50

Early Childhood Education 2.62 2.50 2.88 2.80 2.79 2.83 2.51 2.85

AYA/Secondary English Language Arts

2.39 2.28 2.78 2.70 2.76 2.68 2.36 2.70

AYA/Secondary Foreign Language

2.14 2.21 2.52 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.00 2.45

AYA/Secondary Math 2.33 2.19 2.73 2.70 2.63 2.54 2.21 2.76

Middle Childhood Education 2.50 2.41 2.85 2.77 2.74 2.74 2.49 2.75

Music Education 2.41 2.08 2.72 2.69 2.54 2.62 2.15 2.69

Physical Education 2.36 1.93 2.64 2.57 2.71 2.71 2.36 2.79

AYA/Secondary Science 2.36 2.10 2.68 2.68 2.70 2.50 2.26 2.74

AYA/Secondary Social Studies

2.54 2.32 2.82 2.70 2.71 2.66 2.46 2.75

Special Education 2.59 2.36 2.84 2.77 2.75 2.75 2.52 2.78

State 2.52 2.37 2.82 2.75 2.74 2.73 2.44 2.78

Figure 2. State Disposition Midterm and Summative Comparison by Row

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

2.70

2.90

DA DB DC DD DE DF DG DH

final term State mean middle term State mean

mailto:[email protected]

CAEP INSTRUMENT RUBRIC June 2016

1

CAEP EVALUATION TOOL FOR EPP-CREATED ASSESSMENTS USED IN ACCREDITATION

For use with: assessments created by EPPs including observations, projects/ assignments and surveys

For use by: EPPs, CAEP assessment reviewers and Site Visitors

EXCERPT from the CAEP ACCREDITATION HANDBOOK on “Optional Early Instruments Evaluation” Early in the accreditation process, providers can elect to submit to CAEP the generic assessments, surveys, and scoring guides that they expect to use to demonstrate that they meet CAEP standards. The purpose of this review is to provide educator preparation providers (EPPs) with formative feedback on how to strengthen assessments, with the ultimate goal of generating better information on its candidates and continuously improving its programs. This feature is a part of CAEP’s specialty/ license area review under Standard 1.

EXAMPLES OF ATTRIBUTES BELOW SUFFICIENT LEVEL

CAEP SUFFICIENT LEVEL EXAMPLES OF ATTRIBUTES ABOVE SUFFICIENT LEVEL

- • Use or purpose are

ambiguous or vague

1. ADMINISTRATION AND PURPOSE (informs relevancy) • The point or points when the assessment is administered

during the preparation program are explicit • The purpose of the assessment and its use in candidate

monitoring or decisions on progression are specified and appropriate

• Evaluation categories or assessment tasks are tagged to CAEP, InTASC or state standards

+ • Purpose of assessment

and use in candidate monitoring or decisions are consequential

• Limited or no basis for

reviewers to know what information is given to respondents

• Instructions given to respondents are incomplete or misleading

• The criterion for success is not provided or is not clear

2. INFORMING CANDIDATES (informs fairness and reliability) • The candidates who are being assessed are given a description

of the assessment’s purpose • Instructions provided to candidates about what they are

expected to do are informative and unambiguous • The basis for judgment (criterion for success, or what is “good

enough”) is made explicit for candidates

• Candidate progression

is monitored and information used for mentoring

• Candidates are informed how the instrument results are used in reaching conclusions about their status and/or progression

• Category or task link

with CAEP, InTASC or state standards is not explicit

• Category or task has only vague relationship with content of the standards being informed

• Category or task fails to reflect the degree of difficulty described in the standards

3. CONTENT OF ASSESSMENT (informs relevancy) • Indicators assess explicitly identified aspects of CAEP, InTASC

or state standards • Evaluation indicators reflect the degree of difficulty or level of

effort described in the standards • Indicators unambiguously describe the proficiencies to be

evaluated • When the standards being informed address higher level

functioning, the indicators require higher levels of intellectual behavior (e.g., create, evaluate, analyze, & apply). For example, when a standard specifies that candidates’ students “demonstrate” problem solving, then the category or task is specific to students’ application of knowledge to solve problems

• Almost all evaluation

categories or tasks (at least those comprising 95% of the total score) require observers to judge consequential attributes of candidate proficiencies in the standards

Commented [CSK1]: CPAST Instrument (Instructions)

Commented [CSK2]: •CPAST Instrument (Instructions) •Supervisor Training

Commented [CSK3]: CPAST Instrument (Page 1 – Alignments)

Commented [CSK4]: • CPAST Instrument (Instructions) • Programmatic Discretion (?)

Commented [CSK5]: • CPAST Instrument (Instructions) • Candidate Training

Commented [CSK6]: • CPAST Instrument (Instructions) • Candidate Training

Commented [CSK7]: Programmatic Discretion (?)

Commented [CSK8]: CPAST Instrument (Page 1 – Alignments)

Commented [CSK9]: CPAST Instrument Per determinations made by: • The Development Team; • Context Expert Evaluation Process; and • Surveys/focus groups of supervisors.


In this document, we identify which components of the CPAST Form/Training Process meet each performance descriptor.

ckaplan

Highlight

ckaplan

Highlight


2



• Evaluation categories or tasks not described or ambiguous

• Many evaluation categories or tasks (more than 20% of the total score) require judgment of candidate proficiencies that are of limited importance in CAEP, InTASC or state standards

• Most indicators (at least those comprising 80% of the total score) require observers to judge consequential attributes of candidate proficiencies in the standards

• Rating scales are used in

lieu of rubrics; e.g., “level 1= significantly below expectation” . . “level 4 = significantly above expectation”.

• Levels do not represent qualitative differences and provide limited or no feedback to candidates specific to their performance.

• Proficiency level attributes are vague or not defined, and may just repeat from the standard or component

4. SCORING (informs reliability and actionability) • The basis for judging candidate work is well defined • Each proficiency level is qualitatively defined by specific

criteria aligned with indicators • Proficiency level descriptions represent a developmental

sequence from level to level (to provide raters with explicit guidelines for evaluating candidate performance and candidates with explicit feedback on their performance)

• Feedback provided to candidates is actionable • Proficiency level attributes are defined in actionable,

performance-based, or observable behavior terms. NOTE: If a less actionable term is used such as “engaged”, criteria are provided to define the use of the term in the context of the indicator

• Higher level actions

from Bloom’s taxonomy are used such as “analysis” or “evaluation”

• Plan to establish validity

does not inform reviewers whether validity is being investigated or how

• The instrument was not piloted prior to administration

• Validity is determined through an internal review by only one or two stakeholders.

• Described steps do not meet accepted research standards for establishing validity.

• Plan to establish reliability does not inform reviewers

5.a DATA VALIDITY • A description or plan is provided that details steps the EPP has

taken or is taking to ensure the validity of the assessment and its use

• The plan details the types of validity that are under investigation or have been established (e.g., construct, content, concurrent, predictive, etc.) and how they were established

• If the assessment is new or revised, a pilot was conducted. • The EPP details its current process or plans for analyzing and

interpreting results from the assessment • The described steps generally meet accepted research

standards for establishing the validity of data from an assessment

5.b DATA RELIBILITY • A description or plan is provided that details the type of

reliability that is being investigated or has been established (e.g., test-retest, parallel forms, inter-rater, internal

• A validity coefficient is

reported • types of validity

investigated go beyond content validity and move toward predictive validity

• A reliability coefficient

is reported • Raters are initially,

formally calibrated to


Commented [CSK12]: Supervisor Training

Commented [CSK13]: •CPAST Instrument (Rubric Content) o Established by Development Team & Content Experts

• “Look Fors” Document

Commented [CSK14]: See document “CAEP Summary V&R CPAST”


3



whether reliability is being investigated or how.

• Described steps to not meet accepted research standards for reliability.

• No evidence, or limited evidence, is provided that scorers are trained and their inter-rater agreement is documented.

consistency, etc.) and the steps the EPP took to ensure the reliability of the data from the assessment

• Training of scorers and checking on inter-rater agreement and reliability are documented

• The described steps meet accepted research standards for establishing reliability

master criteria and are periodically formally checked to maintain calibration at levels meeting accepted research standards

WHEN THE INSTRUMENT IS A SURVEY: Use Sections 1 and 2, above, as worded and substitute 6.a and 6.b, below for sections 3, 4 and 5.

• Individual item are

ambiguous or include more than one subject

• Items are stated as opinions rather than as behaviors or practices

• Dispositions surveys provide no explanations of their purpose

• Scaled choices are

numbers only, without qualitative description linked with the item under investigation

• Limited or no feedback provided to candidates

• No evidence that questions are piloted

6.a. SURVEY CONTENT • Questions or topics are explicitly aligned with aspects of the

EPP’s mission and also CAEP, InTASC or state standards • Questions have a single subject; language is unambiguous • Leading questions are avoided • Items are stated in terms of behaviors or practices instead of

opinions, whenever possible • Surveys of dispositions make clear to candidates how the

survey is related to effective teaching

6.b DATA QUALITY • An even number of scaled choices helps prevent neutral

(center) responses • Scaled choices are qualitatively defined using specific criteria

aligned with key attributes identified in the item • Feedback provided to the EPP is actionable • EPP provides evidence that questions are piloted to determine

that candidates interpret them as intended and modifications are made, if called for Criteria listed below are evaluated on site:

• EPP provides evidence that candidate responses are compiled and tabulated accurately

• Interpretations of survey results are appropriate for the items and resulting data

• Results from successive administrations are compared (for evidence of reliability)

• Scoring is anchored in

performance or behavior demonstrably related to teaching practice

• Dispositions surveys make an explicit connection to effective teaching

• EPP provides evidence

of survey construct validity derived from its own or accessed research studies

Commented [CSK15]: See document “CAEP Summary V&R CPAST”