NIET TAP Rubric Overview

Module 5

Research Supporting the NIET Teaching rubric

To create the TAP Teaching Standards, we reviewed instructional guidelines and standards developed by numerous national and state teacher standards organizations and from this information developed our standards for teacher evaluation. Selected guidelines and standards reviewed include:

• The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC)• The National Board for Professional Teacher Standards• Massachusetts Principles for Effective Teaching• California Standards for the Teaching Profession• Connecticut Beginning Educator Support Program• The New Teacher Center’s Developmental Continuum of Teacher Abilities• Rochester (New York) Career in Teaching Program• Douglas County (Colorado) Teacher’s Performance Pay Plan• Vaughn Next Century Charter School (Los Angeles) Performance Pay Plan• Rolla (Missouri) School District Professional Based Teacher Evaluation

The Rubrics: Four Domains

Planning Instruction

Professionalism Environment

Planning Instruction

ProfessionalismEnvironment

NIET Teaching Performance Standards:Skills, Knowledge & Responsibilities

• Instructional Plans• Student Work• Assessment

Planning

• Managing Student Behavior

• Expectations• Environment• Respectful Culture

Environment

• Standards & Objectives• Motivating Students• Presenting Instructional Content • Lesson Structure & Pacing• Activities & Materials• Questioning• Academic Feedback• Grouping Students• Teacher Content Knowledge• Teacher Knowledge of Students• Thinking• Problem Solving

Instruction

• Staff Development• Instructional Supervision• School Responsibilities• Reflecting on Teaching

Professionalism

NIET RubricNIET has defined a set of professional indicators, known as the Instructional Rubrics, to measure teaching skills, knowledge, and responsibilities of the teachers in a school.

Instruction

Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

Stan

dard

s and

Obj

ectiv

es

• All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.

• Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.

• Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.

• State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson.

• There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are clear.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that most

students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are vague.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that few students

demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Parts of the Rubric* Domains

Instruction

Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

Stan

dard

s and

Obj

ectiv

es

• All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.

• Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.

• Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.

• State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson.

• There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are clear.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that most

students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are vague.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that few students

demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Parts of the Rubric* Domains *Indicators

Instruction

Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

Stan

dard

s and

Obj

ectiv

es

• All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.

• Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.

• Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.

• State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson.

• There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are clear.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that most

students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are vague.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that few students

demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Parts of the Rubric• Domains *Indicators *Descriptors

Instruction

Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

Stan

dard

s and

Obj

ectiv

es

• All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.

• Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.

• Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.

• State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson.

• There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are clear.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that most

students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are vague.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that few students

demonstrate mastery of the objective.

Parts of the Rubric* Domains *Indicators *Descriptors *Performance Levels

Instruction

Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

Stan

dard

s and

Obj

ectiv

es

• All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.

• Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.

• Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high.

• State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson.

• There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are clear.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that most

students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

• Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.

• Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective.

• Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.

• Expectations for student performance are vague.

• State standards are displayed.• There is evidence that few students

demonstrate mastery of the objective.

The Rubric is HolisticThe NIET rubric is a holistic tool. What does this mean?

•Holistic: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems.

What does this mean about the use of this evaluation and observation tool?

•In order to use the rubric effectively, both observer and those being observed have to see that each of the parts of each domain can only be understood when put in context of the whole.

The Rubric is NOT a ChecklistThe rubric is not a checklist.

• Teaching, and observations of that teaching, cannot only be a “yes, no” type of scenario.

• Only through an understanding of the holistic nature of the rubric can we see that many of these parts have to be put in context with each classroom, and with reference to all the other “parts” that go into teaching.

Click here to learn how NAU has partnered with NIET to utilize the TAP rubric for Teacher Candidate

preparation.