Draft ARP (b through i) Final ARP 3-Way Midterm Student Teaching Evaluation 3-Way Student Teaching Evaluation Electronic Portfolio Facilitate your supervisor’s visitation schedule and the timing of the evaluation sessions by communicating with both your cooperating teacher and your supervisor about the best times for all three of you. If you struggle in any area, discuss your difficulties with your cooperating teacher and supervisor. The student teaching seminar is also a place to talk about challenges and get support, feedback, and advice from the seminar instructor and your peers. Tips for Success Be prepared, personally and professionally, for each day's teaching. Be willing to assume responsibilities in the classroom and in the school. Take the initiative in formulating activities and projects. Seek and accept professional advice with an open mind. Utilize the cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and other professionals as valuable resources for maximizing development. Interact with students in a manner that expresses appreciation and concern for each individual while maintaining their respect as a teacher. Participate in school-community life. Establish a working relationship with all school personnel and members of the community as opportunities arise. Actively attempt to develop habits of self-analysis and reflection that will lead to continuous personal and professional growth. 14. Cooperating Teacher’s Responsibilities Conduct three 3-way meetings with CUA supervisors (approximately 1 hour each) Initial briefing meeting Midterm student teacher evaluation Final student teacher evaluation Complete end-of-semester paperwork (approximately 1 hour) Personal evaluation forms for: Student teacher University supervisor CUA teacher education program (including general impact of Action Research Project) Stipend Voucher Form(s) Application for Vendor Attendance Form Cooperating Teacher Qualifications and Diversity Form Provide daily supervision and immediate feedback on your student teacher’s Content knowledge Instructional strategies
2. Discussion of Problematic Situation and Dilemma ACEI-5.1 Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly state problematic situation and provide multiple examples of each behavior documented. Candidates provide rich description of dilemma based on research. Candidates identify well defined ARP problem statement in terms of measurable behaviors. Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly state problematic situation and provide at least 1 example of each behavior documented. Candidates identify at least 1 dilemma related to the issue. Candidates identify ARP problem statement. Evidence shows that: Candidates do not describe problematic situation clearly with sufficient examples. Candidates identify a dilemma not related to the issue. Candidates do not identify an ARP problem statement. 3. Identifying Causes Evidence that: Candidates use rich and varied data to support broad range of possible causes. Candidates show how some observations support more than one possible interpretation. Candidates include special needs as possible causes but do not categorize students without supporting formal assessment. Candidates organize data to clearly aid reader understanding. Evidence shows that: Candidates use observational data to support broad range of possible causes. Candidates include special needs as possible causes but do not categorize students without supporting formal assessment. Candidates organize data to aid reader understanding. Evidence shows that: Candidates use insufficient data to support limited range of possible causes. Candidates presume special needs categorization without supporting formal assessment. Candidates do not organize data in a meaningful manner that aids reader understanding. 4. Pre/Post Data Collection and Analysis ACEI-4.0 Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly identify pre/post measure(s) appropriate for stated problem statement. Candidates identify additional data sources to show clear plan for triangulation. Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly identify pre/post measure appropriate for stated problem statement. Candidates discuss additional data sources. Evidence shows that: Candidates do not identify pre/post measure appropriate for stated problem statement. Candidates do not consider additional data sources.
5. Proposed Solutions ACEI-5.1 Evidence shows that: Candidates describe broad range of possible interventions. Candidates use rich and varied data to justify selection of specific strategies. Candidates use CF (including multiple relevant dilemmas) to aid selection of strategies. Candidates clearly include interpretative and philosophical perspectives in decision-making process. Candidates clearly link causes and strategies in an organized manner that aids reader understanding. Evidence shows that: Candidates describe broad range of possible interventions. Candidates use varied data to justify selection of specific strategies. Candidates consider elements of the learning environment when selecting interventions. Candidates describe at least 2 dilemmas. Candidates clearly link causes and strategies in an organized manner that aids reader understanding. Evidence shows that: Candidates describe limited range of possible interventions. Candidates use insufficient data to justify selection of specific strategies. Candidates do not link causes and strategies clearly. Candidates’ use of the CF is limited. 6. Describing Individual Interventions Evidence shows that: Candidates systematically and thoroughly describe all strategies implemented. Candidates provide well developed picture of how all strategies were implemented using student and teacher artifacts (including lesson plans, thematic units or other instructional materials) as well as observational data. Evidence shows that: Candidates systematically and thoroughly describe all strategies implemented. Candidates provide supporting artifacts (to include lesson plans, thematic units or other instructional materials) and observational data. Candidates meaningfully discuss the impact of individual strategies. Evidence shows that: Candidates provide limited description of strategies implemented. Candidates provide little or no supporting evidence (e.g., lesson plans or other instructional materials). Candidates include little or no discussion of the impact of individual strategies. 7. Development, Evidence shows that: Candidates illustrate Evidence that: Candidates illustrate Evidence shows that: Candidates do not
learning, and motivation: Connections to course theories ACEI-1.0 rich understanding of knowledge creation, developmentally effective teaching strategies and content knowledge through choice of activities, diverse instructional strategies and student centered problem solving. understanding of knowledge creation, developmentally effective teaching strategies and content knowledge through choice of activities, diverse instructional strategies and student centered problem solving. have a thorough knowledge of developmental characteristics of students, knowledge creation, developmentally effective teaching strategies or content knowledge. 8. Reflecting on P-12 Impact ACEI-5.1 Evidence shows that: Candidates base conclusions on the conceptual framework and support them with multiple sources of data. Candidates thoroughly discuss original problem statement. Candidates clearly discuss the impact of the overall project on P-12 student development including student artifacts as appropriate. Candidates directly compare pre and post measures. Evidence that: Candidates base conclusions on the conceptual framework and support them with multiple sources of data. Candidates thoroughly discuss original problem statement. Candidates give at least one alternative explanation and at least one recommendation for classroom teacher. Candidates clearly discuss impact of overall project on P-12 student development including student artifacts as appropriate. Candidates directly compare pre and post measures. Evidence that: Candidates support conclusions with few sources of data. Candidates’ use of the conceptual framework is limited. Candidates do not discuss original problem statement. Candidates miss either alternative explanations or recommendations for classroom teacher. Candidates do not compare pre and post measures directly. 9. Collaboration with Colleagues ACEI-5.2 Evidence shows that: Candidates develop collaborative relationships with specialists and respect the contribution and uniqueness of all Evidence that: Candidates can identify the appropriate specialists within the schools to support K-6 Evidence shows that: Candidates are not able to identify the appropriate specialists within the schools to support
members of the school community as they support students’ learning and well-being in a productive learning environment. students’ learning and wellbeing. students’ learning and well-being. 10. Use of Literature ACEI 5.1 Evidence shows that: Candidates thoughtfully use a variety of professional resources. Candidates clearly integrate literature into discussion of causes and strategy to demonstrate that literature helped shape understanding of topic. Evidence shows that: Candidates thoughtfully use a variety of professional resources. Evidence shows that: Candidates’ literature review appears to be added in a haphazard manner without enriching candidate understanding. 11. Professional Presentation Evidence that: Candidates carefully proofread paper resulting in error-free writing (including APA format). Candidates used clear and concise language to convey ideas smoothly. Candidates’ intro abstract/essay provide clear summary of project. Evidence that: Candidates carefully proofread paper resulting in essentially error-free writing (including APA format). Candidates used clear language to convey ideas smoothly. Candidates’ intro abstract/essay provide clear summary of project. Evidence that: Candidates’ writing and APA format include obvious errors in. Candidates’ intro/ abstract/essay are confusing or misleading.
framework, using all required artifacts and other carefully chosen evidence to support their reflection. using all required artifacts to support their reflection. and/or do not include all required artifacts to support their reflection. 4. SPA and DCPS P-12 Standards Discussion Evidence shows that: Candidates provide comprehensive evidence of and reflection on their own achievement of all standards and extensively reflect on their students' achievement of DCPS P-12 standards. Evidence shows that: Candidates provide evidence of their own achievement of all standards and reflects on their students' achievement of DCPS standards. Evidence shows that: Candidates provide insufficient evidence of their own achievement of all standards and/or fail to reflect on their students' achievement of DCPS standards. 5. Organization and Writing Mechanics Evidence that: The candidates’ portfolios are focused and well organized; evidence is clearly presented and explicitly linked to standards. Candidates use nearly writing, which reflects clear Evidence that: The candidates’ portfolios are complete and organized; evidence is presented and linked to standards. Candidates make occasional grammatical errors with few typos. Evidence shows that: The candidates’ portfolios lack organization; evidence is limited and not directly linked to standards. Candidates make frequent errors in spelling, grammar,
understanding and thorough proofreading. and punctuation. 6. EP Oral Presentation ACEI-5.1 Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly and concisely articulate key aspects of personal philosophy including discussion of at least one educational dilemma. Candidates fluidly access parts of the EP that demonstrate both philosophy and successful completion of SPA standards. Candidates confidently answer questions using the EP to support responses. Candidates give brief overview of entire EP but direct attention to key examples of own work and impact on student learning. Evidence shows that: Candidates clearly articulate personal philosophy. Candidates present parts of the EP that demonstrate both personal philosophy and successful completion of SPA standards. Candidates answer follow-up questions using the EP to support responses. Candidates give overview of entire EP but direct attention to most key examples of own work and impact on P-12 student learning. Evidence shows that: Candidates do not explain their personal philosophy clearly and sufficiently. Candidates do not present EP adequately and do not demonstrate personal philosophy and successful completion of SPA standards. Candidates do not answer follow-up questions clearly and fully. Candidates do not use EP artifacts to support responses. Candidates do not present the entire EP and do not address key examples of own work and impact
Waits long enough for answers to encourage thinking and volunteering ACEI 3.3 Fosters group and cooperative learning ACEI 3.5 Checks for student understanding ACEI 4.0 Assesses student progress and makes appropriate adjustments ACEI 4.0 Keeps adequate records of student progress and uses them in planning ACEI 4.0 Makes methods of assessment clear and purposeful ACEI 4.0 Is discrete about confidential matters ACEI 5.1 COMMENTS Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill: ACEI Language arts–-Demonstrates a high level of competence in use of English language arts and knows, understands, and uses concepts from reading, language and child development, to teach reading, writing, speaking, viewing, listening, and thinking skills and to help students successfully apply their developing skills to many different situations, materials, and ideas ACEI 2.1 Science—Knows, understands, and uses fundamental concepts of physical, life, and earth/space sciences. Designs and implements age-appropriate inquiry lessons to teach science, to build student understanding for personal and social applications, and to convey the nature of science ACEI 2.2 Mathematics—Knows, understands, and uses the major concepts and procedures that define number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. Consistently supports problem solving, reasoning and proof, ACEI 2.3 2.7