program report for the preparation of secondary ......november 7, 2009 "right brain teacher in a...

Program Report for thePreparation of Secondary Mathematics Teachers

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)2012 Standards - Option A

NCATE approved the 2012 NCTM Standards in 2012. Programs can use either the 2003 or the 2012 standards through Fall 2014. Beginning in Spring 2015, programs submitting reports must use the 2012 Standards.

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameEdinboro University of Pennsylvania

2. StatePennsylvania

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

09 / 15 / 2016

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Dr. Gwyneth PricePhone: Ext.

( ) -814 732 1542

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:Dr. Gwyneth Price

Phone: Ext.

( ) -814 732 1542

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's programSecondary Education- Mathematics

7. NCATE CategoryMathematics Education

8. Grade levels(1) for which candidates are being prepared

(1) e.g. 7-12, 9-12

7-12

9. Program TypeFirst teaching license

10. Degree or award level

Conf

ident

ial

Assessment for Instructional Plan

During your student teaching placement, you will create, teach, and evaluate an instructional plan. You must first conference with your cooperating teacher as to an appropriate concept of study. A decision about the concept for your plan must be emailed to your university supervisor by the second week of student teaching (first or second placement). The instructional plan must run for at least one week. The instructional plan must be typed and include at least five lessons. All documentation for the instructional plan should be submitted via Live Text and divided by appropriate sections as defined below.

1. Title: The title should reflect the central concept of the instructional plan.

2. Contextual factors: In this section, you should explain why you chose the concept. Discuss relevant factors and how they may affect the teaching-instructional process. In your discussion include:

• School Factors

i. Address school population- identify social-economic profile and race/ethnicity.

ii. ii. Describe the school environment- departmentalized, self-contained, number of classrooms per grade level.

• Classroom Factors

i. Address physical features, availability of technology, equipment, and resources and the extent of parental involvement- You might also discuss other relevant factors such as classroom roles and routines, grouping patterns, scheduling and classroom arrangement.

• Student Characteristics

i. Address student characteristics you might consider as you address instruction and assess learning include factors such as: age, gender, race, ethnicity, special needs, achievement, developmental levels, culture, language, interests, learning styles, modalities, or student skill levels. In your narrative, make sure you address student skills and prior learning that may influence the development of your learning objectives, instruction and assessment.

• Instructional Implications

i. Address how contextual characteristics of the classroom and students have implications for instructional planning and assessment. Include specific instructional implications for at least two characteristics and any other factors that will influence how you plan and implement the instructional plan.

ii. Based on the characteristics of your students and the classroom describe two instructional limitations or considerations that you will need to address as you plan and implement your instructional plan (i.e. whole group- how to modify- departmentalized- homogeneous grouping, students with special needs).

3. Learning Objectives: Provide and justify the learning objectives for the instructional plan.

· List the learning objectives (not the activities) that will guide the planning, delivery and assessment of your instructional plan. These objectives should define what you expect your students to know and be able to do at the end of the instructional plan. The objectives should be significant, challenging, varied and appropriate. Number or code each learning objective for reference later (no more than three). • Show how the objectives are aligned to PA Academic Standards.

· Describe the type and level of your learning objectives (Domains of learning Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor, Blooms taxonomy- include higher order thinking).

· Discuss why your learning objectives are important in terms of development, prerequisite knowledge, skills, and other student needs. This should reflect back to the contextual factors.

4. Assessment: Design an assessment plan to monitor student progress toward learning objectives. Use multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning objectives to assess student learning: before, during, and after instruction. These assessments should authentically measure student learning and may include: performance based tasks, paper and pencils tasks, or personal communication. Describe why your assessments are appropriate for measuring learning.

• Provide an overview of the assessment plan.

i. Using a table, chart, diagram or other visual organizer and align each learning objective with an appropriate assessment and show adaptations to meet the individual needs.

• Describe the pre and post assessments aligned to your learning objectives.

i. Each item on your pre/posttest needs to be numbered and aligned to that particular learning objective. ii. Include criteria you will use to determine if the students’ performance meets the learning objective. iii. Include copies of the assessment criteria for judging student performance (scoring rubric, checklists, test blueprint, answer key).

• Discuss your plan for formative assessment that will help you determine student progress during the instructional plan.

i. Describe the assessments you plan to use to check the students’ progress and comment on the importance of collecting that information. This evidence may include things such as: worksheets, journal entries, student work samples.

ii. Keep all assessments- student work samples- for evidence.

5. Materials, Resources, Technology: List the materials and resources that will be used to plan and teach this instructional plan as well as any technology used (e.g. calculators, web site, software applications, etc.).

6. Vocabulary/Word Bank: Identify the important words that students will need to know to facilitate understanding (for younger students it is important to create visuals of these words for reference, older students might record words in a vocabulary journal).

7. Scope of Instructional Plan: The instructional plan should include multiple lesson plans that address the objectives for a period of at least one week.

· If writing samples of project work is to be done, a rubric will need to be designed to fully evaluate their work.

8. Analysis of Student Learning: Analyze the assessment data to explain progress and achievement toward learning objectives demonstrated by your whole class.

· To analyze the process of the class, create a table that shows pre and post assessment results on every student on every learning goal.

· Create a graphic summary that shows the extent to which your students made progress from pre to post toward the learning criterion that you identified for each learning goal in the assessment plan section. 54

· Summarize what the graph tells you about your students learning in this instructional plan (i.e. the number of students that met the criterion).

9. Reflection and Self-Evaluation: Reflect on your performance as a teacher and link your performance to student learning results. Evaluate your performance and identify future actions for improved practice and professional growth. Self-Reflections should be written after each lesson and also at the end of the instructional plan. Identify the strengths and weaknesses, areas for future modification, and student achievement

· Select the learning goal where your students were most successful. Provide two or more possible reasons for this level of success; consider your objectives, instruction, and assessment along with student characteristics under your control

· Select the learning goal where your students were least successful. Provide two or more possible reasons for this level of success; consider your objectives, instruction, and assessment along with student characteristics under your control. Discuss what you could do differently or better in the future to improve your students’ performance.

· Identify two specific teaching/instructional strategies that you would modify or revise to effect student achievement (i.e. loss of instructional time, limited visuals, and organization of lesson) then describe two specific steps you will take to improve performance in the critical areas you have identified. This instructional plan is an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to design and implement long range planning, and assessment is an essential component for teacher candidacy and evaluation PDE 430. Evaluation Summary for Instructional Plan Assessment

TARGET: Consistently displayed the competency which one expects of a highly proficient or distinguished teacher

ACCEPTABLE: Is ready to work independently as a teacher beginning a professional career (competency achieved)

DEVELOPING: May need modest guidance and practice as the teacher continues to grow to full professional competence

UNACCEPTABLE: Will need regular guidance and practice in order to grow toward professional competence

Assessment 5- IAP Directions

Assessment 5: Impact on student learning

Brief Description:

Instructional Assessment Plan

Instrument Use and Purpose: The Instructional Assessment Plan (IAP) is a project developed during the capstone experience which demonstrates a candidate’s ability to design and reflect upon instruction. Through analysis and reflection of contextual factors and assessment data, candidates demonstrate the ability to plan lessons, design assessments, choose appropriate instructional strategies, collect and analyze data, and reflect on implications for future instruction. This is used by the program as a measure of impact on student learning as well as an evaluation of a candidate’s ability to meet the InTASC and SPA standards. Each student teacher will develop one IAP per certification pursued.

General Directions

During your student teaching placement, you will create, teach, and evaluate an instructional plan. You must first conference with your cooperating teacher as to an appropriate concept of study. A decision about the concept for your plan must be emailed to your university supervisor as soon as possible. (The instructional plan must run for at least one week). The instructional plan must include at least 5 lessons. All documentation for the instructional plan should be submitted via LiveText and divided by appropriate sections as defined in the student teaching handbook.

(Please see the second attachment for full directions given to candidates for the Instructional Assessment Plan)

Interpretation:

The three completers scored Target or Acceptable on each standard element assessed except for one (developing). As such, they have met or exceeded the INTASC and SPA standards related to their ability to design and reflect on instruction.

Though the number of completers is low, the data clearly shows that candidates are having a positive impact on student learning. Completers scored Target or Acceptable on all components of the rubric. This demonstrates in particular that candidates are able to use the process of pre- and post-assessment to determine the impact of instruction on student learning, reflect on this impact, and make data driven decision about future teaching (NCTM 3, 5). Further, data demonstrates candidates are able to long-range plan based on contextual factors (NCTM 3) and knowledge of student learning differences (NCTM 3, 4). These unit plans are standards based (NCTM 3,4), include appropriate assessment plans (NCTM 3,5)), include a variety of developmentally appropriate instructional strategies (NCTM 3,4,5), and are appropriately adapted to student needs (NCTM 3,4).

Rubric

Alignment

Target

Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully and independently design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Acceptable

Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings with support

Developing

Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates the need for more practice in order to gain the ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Unacceptable

Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates a lack of understanding or willingness to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Knowledge of Learner Development and contextual factors

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(4a-4d)

Teacher candidate displays a comprehensive understanding of the contextual factors affecting learner development including location, school physical & financial factors, cultural factors and demographics.

Candidate appropriately connects contextual factors to implications for planning and assessment.

Teacher candidate displays knowledge of contextual factors affecting learner development but does not include all of the necessary factors such as location, school physical & financial factors, cultural factors and demographics.

Candidate connects contextual factors to implications for planning and assessment.

Teacher candidate lists contextual factors such as location and demographics but fails to reflect on either the school or cultural factors that may affect learning.

Candidate loosely connects or displays a disconnect for implications for planning and assessment.

Teacher candidate lists factors unrelated to those affecting student learning.

Candidate does not attempt to connect contextual factors to planning and assessment.

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students and Learning Differences

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

InTASC 2

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(4a-4d)

Teacher candidate displays understanding of student learning differences including cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development; interests; culture; abilities; and learning style.

Candidate appropriately connects differences to implications for planning and assessment.

Teacher candidate displays understanding of student learning differences but is not complete in reflecting on all aspects including cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development; interests; culture; abilities; and learning style.

Candidate connects differences to implications for planning and assessment

Teacher candidate displays limited knowledge of student differences and focuses on more obvious aspects such as interests and identified abilities/disabilities than on other developmental factors such as emotional, cultural or learning style differences.

Candidate loosely connects or displays a disconnect for implications for planning and assessment.

Teacher candidate displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences (e.g. ethnicity, age, abilities/disabilities).

Candidate does not attempt to connect differences to planning and assessment.

Planning

Goals and Objectives

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 7

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3a, 3c, 4b)

Goals and objectives are: both long and short term; aligned to state standards including PA Common Core; written at a variety of cognitive levels; are developmentally appropriate.

Goals and objectives are: both long and short term but are not balanced; aligned to state standards including PA Common Core; focus on a limited number of cognitive levels; vary on being developmentally appropriate.

Goals and objectives are: only long or short term; are not fully aligned to state standards or align only to PA Academic standards; focus on lower cognitive levels; vary on being developmentally appropriate.

Goals and objectives are: consistently missing; or are aligned to inappropriate standards or not aligned; are consistently too easy or too challenging for the developmental level of the students.

Use of Assessment

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 6

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3f, 3g, 5c)

Assessments are aligned to goals and objectives; every objective is assessed; candidate uses a multiple methods of assessment; formative assessments are used to inform teaching and learning; summative assessments are valid measures of goals and objectives.

Assessments are aligned to goals and objectives; goals are assessed but some objectives are not assessed; candidate uses a multiple methods of assessment but uses one main type; formative assessments are used to inform teaching or learning; summative assessments used to measure progress toward goals and objectives, however validity is not established.

Assessments are aligned to goals and objectives; goals and objectives are assessed in a limited fashion; candidate uses one main type of assessment; assessments may be informal but not use formatively; summative assessments used to measure progress toward goals and objectives, but are developed inappropriately.

Assessment of any type is limited and not aligned with goals and objectives.

Assessment Development

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 6

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3a, 3f, 3g)

Assessment criteria are clear and explicitly linked to objectives; scoring procedures are explained; all items or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students

Assessment criteria are clear and explicitly linked to objectives; scoring procedures are explained; items, prompts, and/or directions lack clarity or technical soundness.

Assessment criteria are presented but are not explicitly linked to objectives; scoring procedures, items, prompts, and/or directions lack technical soundness.

Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are absent or inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students.

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 6

InTASC 2

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4d)

Teacher candidate makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet all needs of all students. Candidate employs appropriate accommodations for all students with defined needs.

Candidate differentiates appropriately to meet the needs of all students.

Teacher candidate makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the needs of students. Candidate makes necessary accommodations but lacks differentiation for all students.

Teacher candidate only makes limited adaptations and accommodations based on the assessment or instruction. Differentiation is not apparent in the lesson.

Teacher candidate does not make adaptations to assessments to meet the needs of students or these assessments or lessons are inappropriate.

Content knowledge

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(1a, 2a-f, 3a)

Teacher candidate demonstrates understanding of central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline. Lessons reflect a connection between content and pedagogical knowledge.

Teacher candidate demonstrates an understanding of the central concepts shows a lack of confidence in the concept or lack of deeper understanding which leads to limited or inappropriate pedagogical choices.

Teacher candidate has a core understanding of the concepts but demonstrates some misunderstandings or misrepresentations which lead to inappropriate pedagogical choices that hinder student learning.

Teacher candidate demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concepts which lead to pedagogical choices that result in inaccurate student learning.

Lesson structure

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3a, 3c)

Lessons reflect an organized structure based on the UbD theory of instructional design; lessons demonstrate a planned flow and timing, and include all sections required by the program.

Lessons reflect an organized structure based on the UbD theory of instructional design; lessons include all sections required by the program but reflect a “choppy” flow or lack of reflection on timing.

Lessons show inconsistent use or inappropriate use of the UbD theory of instructional design; lessons are underdeveloped and lack specifics necessary for successful implementation.

Lessons show minimal planning and/or do not reflect an organized structure or philosophy.

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments, and Resources

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 8

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3c, 3f, 4e, 5b)

Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. Variety includes opportunities for meaningful learning. Multiple strategies lead to deeper learning.

Some variety in instruction, activities, assignments, or resources. Though multiple strategies are used, not all strategies are effective in producing deeper learning.

Strategies are limited in scope (e.g. predominantly lecture/discussion or presentation style)

The lack of variety reduces student engagement and fails to invoke deeper learning.

Little variety or instruction, activities, assignments, and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook or single resource (e.g. worksheets). Learning is hindered due to strategy choice.

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

CAEP 1.2

CAEP 4.1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3f, 3g, 5c)

Appropriate Pre- and Post- assessments are used to measure progress of students toward learning goals and objectives; Data from assessments has been collected and organized; Analysis demonstrates statistical evidence of impact on student learning.

Appropriate Pre- and Post- assessments are used to measure progress of students toward learning goals and objectives, however some goals or objectives may not be represented; Data from assessments has been collected and organized; Analysis is unclear with regard to statistical evidence of impact on student learning.

Appropriate Pre- and Post- assessments are developed to show progress toward only particular goals or objectives; Data from assessments is collected but organization makes analysis difficult and statistical evidence of impact on student learning is lacking or misrepresented.

Pre- and Post- assessments were not used appropriately (or at all) in order to measure impact on student learning.

Interpretation of Student Learning

CAEP 1.2

CAEP 4.1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(3g, 5c)

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals. Accurately reflects on instruments or assessment development, instructional choices, and contextual factors.

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section. Accurately explores at least one hypothesis for why some students did not meet learning goals including at least of the following: instruments or assessment development, instructional choices, and contextual factors.

Uses only selected pieces of evidence to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section or uses evidence not included in previous sections. Explores at least one hypothesis for why some students did not meet learning goals but chooses to reflect on unrelated factors.

No evidence for reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section.

Does not attempt to explore any hypotheses or the explanations presented are illogical or uninformed.

Implications for Future Teaching

CAEP 1.2

CAEP 4.1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012(5c)

Provides ideas for redesigning learning objectives, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning objectives, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning, however the explanations for redesign are not based in evidence, are not complete, or would not result in improvement.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning objectives, instruction, and assessment but offers no rational for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning objectives, instruction and assessment.

Data:

Spring 2016SEDU 695Instructional Assessment Plan

Target: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully and independently design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Acceptable: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings with support

Developing: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates the need for more practice in order to gain the ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Unacceptable: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates a lack of understanding or willingness to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

N/A

Knowledge of Learner Development and contextual factors

2

0

0

0

0

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students and Learning Differences

1

1

0

0

0

Planning Goals and Objectives

2

0

0

0

0

Use of Assessment

2

0

0

0

0

Assessment Development

2

0

0

0

0

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students

2

0

0

0

0

Content knowledge

2

0

0

0

0

Lesson structure

2

0

0

0

0

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments, and Resources

2

0

0

0

0

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

2

0

0

0

0

Interpretation of Student Learning

2

0

0

0

0

Implications for Future Teaching

2

0

0

0

0

Fall 2013SEDU 695Instructional Assessment Plan

Target: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully and independently design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Acceptable: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates an ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings with support

Developing: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates the need for more practice in order to gain the ability to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Unacceptable: Candidate performs at a level that demonstrates a lack of understanding or willingness to successfully design, implement and assess student learning in P-12 settings

Knowledge of School and Classroom Factors ...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students ...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Students' Varied Approaches to Learning ...

0

0

1

0

Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment...

1

0

0

0

Significance, Challenge and Variety...

1

0

0

0

Clarity ...

1

0

0

0

Appropriateness for Students ...

1

0

0

0

Alignment with State Standards ...

1

0

0

0

Alignment with Learning Objectives and Instruction...

1

0

0

0

Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance ...

1

0

0

0

Multiple Modes and Approaches...

1

0

0

0

Technical Soundness ...

1

0

0

0

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students...

1

0

0

0

Alignment with Learning Objectives...

1

0

0

0

Accurate Representation of Content ...

1

0

0

0

Lesson Structure...

1

0

0

0

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments, and Resources ...

1

0

0

0

Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources...

1

0

0

0

Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation ...

1

0

0

0

Alignment with Learning Objectives ...

0

1

0

0

Interpretation of Data ...

0

1

0

0

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning...

1

0

0

0

Interpretation of Student Learning ...

1

0

0

0

Insights on Effective Instrument and Assessment ...

1

0

0

0

Alignment Among Objectives, Instruction and Assessment ...

1

0

0

0

Implications for Future Teaching ...

1

0

0

0

Assessment 5- IAP

Assessment #1 Content Knowledge –

Data from licensure tests or professional examinations of content knowledge

Brief description:

Test Mathematics: Content Knowledge 5161/5061 is used. It measures general and subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge. The test is designed to reflect current standards for knowledge, skills, and abilities in mathematics, and is intended to demonstrate the student’s fundamental knowledge in the major areas of mathematics.

Educational Testing Service (ETS) works in collaboration with the CAEP and NCTM, along with teacher educators, higher education content specialists and accomplished practicing teachers in the field of mathematics to keep the test updated and representative of current standards. These tests feature multiple-choice and constructed-response items. Pennsylvania has adopted the PRAXIS series of professional educator assessments as one of the means to attract and maintain a quality teaching force in the state.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education instituted, in 2010, GPA qualifying scores as a means for students to obtain certification without meeting the set cut-off score of 160. Candidates with a GPA at or above 3.26 need to score a minimum of 157. Candidates with a GPA at or above 3.51 need to score a minimum of 155. Candidates with GPA at or above need to score a minimum of 152. The following chart for all certification areas can be found at

http://www.education.pa.gov/Teachers%20-%20Administrators/Certifications/Pages/Certification-Testing.aspx#tab-1

Instructional Certification Subject Area

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT TEST NAME & CODE

Qualifying Score 2.80-2.99 GPA

Passing Score





Test Registration Link

Mathematics

Mathematics: Content Knowledge (5161)

170

160

160

157

155

152

Mathematics

Interpretation:

As one can see the number of completers over the past 3 years has been very low in the Math PB program. However, 2 of the 3 completers passed the Praxis II without need for the sliding scale described above. In order to give a broader picture of the Math program, the rest of the data presented is from all candidates taking the exam – not just PB completers. Unfortunately, this data is slightly misleading in the sense that it is for all candidates taking the exam in that academic year – both UG and PB as well as those anywhere on the continuum of completion. This data is even more complex when one realizes that two tests were offered in the year with the lowest pass rate. The first year the 5061 was offered, the institutional average on that exam test categories was below the state and national averages. However, in the next academic year, when only the one test was offered, institutional pass rate was slightly above that of state and national averages. Due to the change in exam and the low number of completers in certain years and the indication that PB completers have a higher overall pass rate than the test categories indicated for all test takers, it will be necessary for the department to take this data under advisement and determine the cause of the issues. As has been done in the past successfully, the department will engage in conversations with the Math Department to determine where weaknesses in the Math curriculum may be shored up and what actions might be taken to increase the pass rate for future academic years. All completers must pass the praxis before certification.

Data:

The following scores were compiled from the highest score obtained by completers over the past 3 years taking the test in the indicated academic year.

Testing Period

Number of Examinees

Mean Score

Range

% Passing

2015-2016

(5161)

2

153

135-170

50

2014-2015

(N061/5161)

0

2013-2014 (N061)

1

162

100

Due to the low number of completers in the Math Education program over the past three years, the following data is for ALL test takers in the listed academic years. In order to be more informed through the use of Test Category data, data from all candidates (PB and UG), not just completers, is used below. This data is taken from the Institutional Reports supplied by ETS.

It is important to note that this data does not reflect the “sliding scale” used by PA for determination of certification. This data is reflective of the cut score set nationally by ETS.

Testing Period

Number of Examinees

Mean Score

Median Score

Range

% Passing

2014-2015

12

156

160

135-177

75

2013-2014*

12

154

149

135-173

40

2012-2013

8

136

143

100-172

38

*Both 5061 and 5161 were offered.

Test Category

2014-2015

2013-2014*

Institution Average % Correct

State Average % Correct

National Average % Correct




Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, and Calculus

65%

63%

60%

47%

61%

59%

Geometry, Probability and Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics

64%

63%

61%

51%

61%

61%

Test Category

2013-2014*

2012-2013







Algebra and number theory

75

56

59

58

62

61

Measurement, Geometry, and Trig

62

57

61

61

59

60

Functions and Calculus

67

57

58

53

59

59

Data analysis and statistics, probability

85

73

72

69

74

72

Matrix algebra and discrete math

65

56

59

53

62

60

Assessment 1: Praxis

Assessment 3: Planning and Preparation

Instructional Techniques Unit Plan

Brief Description:

This assessment is a complete, teacher candidate constructed, six lesson unit plan, created during Secondary Education Block courses as the basis for instruction during their stage 3 field experience. It is important to note that this assessment is completed by candidates enrolled in the Instructional Techniques Course for Math. The course takes place in the semester prior to student teaching. Therefore, the data for this assessment reflects candidates enrolled in the course – not completer data.

Candidates completing the Secondary Math Unit Plan Assessment receive instruction for completing the assessment and the assessment rubric via Desire2Learn (D2L), the online learning management system used at Edinboro University. It is submitted via D2L or LiveText and scored by instructors via LiveText.

Directions to Candidates:

Your culminating project for your Secondary Block courses will be designing a complete unit plan integrating components that you have learned in each of your block classes. Your unit plan will include:

· A minimum 6 complete lessons, reflecting the lesson models covered in your Instructional Techniques class, using the Understanding by Design framework. Each lesson should reflect both state and national standards.

· All necessary materials that can be included should be posted along with the lesson plans including safety procedures, lab sheet, rubrics, etc.

· Each lesson will include a variety of formal and informal assessments described in and included with your lesson plan

· At least one example of an interdisciplinary lesson

· Lessons should demonstrate your ability to effectively implement technology to enhance student learning

· 1 Unit outline - This should be a table of contents for your unit showing the progression of lessons through the unit. Include the lesson title, teaching model, and a brief summary describing the lesson and any other pertinent information (technology used, disciplines involved, important teaching strategies used, etc.).

· The unit should be complete, including plans for all lessons necessary to adequately cover chosen material. This will demonstrate your long-term planning ability.

· For all submitted files, use the following naming convention: Your last name followed by when the lesson falls in the unit and the lesson type. Finish with a word telling what the file actually is (Plan, Rubric, Worksheet, etc.). Use an underscore between words. Do not use any spaces in the filename.

Standards:

Promotes understanding and problem-solving

NCTM-2012-2A

NCTM-2012-5A-5C

NCTM-2012-2D

NCTM-2012-2E

NCTM-2012-2C

NCTM-2012-3A-3G

Assesses understanding and problem- solving skills

NCTM-2012-3F-3G

Utilizes appropriate technological resources

NCTM-2012-3C

NCTM-2012-4E

NCTM-2012-5B

Supports positive learning environment

NCTM-2012-4A-4E

Engages in evaluation and reflective practice

NCTM-2012-5C

NCTM-2012-6B

Knowledge of Numbers & Operations

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Geometries

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Calculus

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability

NCTM-2012-1A

Knowledge of Measurement

NCTM-2012-1A

Interpretation:

All three candidates received Target on each standard element assessed. Though the number of candidates is low, it is evident from this data that candidates have the appropriate content knowledge in the various areas of concern including Numbers and Operations, Algebra, Geometries, Calculus, Discrete Mathematics, Statistics, Probability, and Measurement (NCTM 1). While having this content knowledge, candidates also demonstrate the ability to promote problem solving and understanding (NCTM 2,3,5) as well as to assess this understanding (NCTM 3). This data collected through this assessment assures the program that candidates are able to plan appropriately in order to use technology effectively (NCTM 3,4,5), engage in evaluation and reflection (NCTM 4), and develop a plan that supports a positive learning environment for all students (NCTM 5,6).

Rubric:

Target (6 pts)

Acceptable (4 pts)

Developing (2 pts)

Unacceptable (0 pt)

Promotes understanding and problem-solving (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-2A

NCTM-2012-5A-5C

NCTM-2012-2D

NCTM-2012-2E

NCTM-2012-2C

NCTM-2012-3A-3G

Consistent evidence of lesson plans and instruction that emphasize connections and engages students in mathematical discourse and tasks that promote conceptual and procedural understanding

Adequate evidence of lesson plans and instruction that emphasize connections and engages students in mathematical discourse and tasks that promote conceptual and procedural understanding

Limited evidence of lesson plans and instruction that emphasize connections and engages students in mathematical discourse and tasks that promote conceptual and procedural understanding

No evidence of lesson plans and instruction that emphasize connections and engages students in mathematical discourse and tasks that promote conceptual and procedural understanding

Assesses understanding and problem- solving skills (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-3F-3G

Consistent evidence of a variety of developmentally appropriate assessments that are aligned to objectives and standards and determine students’ understanding of and ability to do mathematics

Adequate evidence of some developmentally appropriate assessments that are aligned to objectives and standards and determine students’ understanding of and ability to do mathematics

Limited evidence of few developmentally appropriate assessments that are aligned to objectives and standards and determine students’ understanding of and ability to do mathematics

No evidence of developmentally appropriate assessments that are aligned to objectives and standards and determine students’ understanding of and ability to do mathematics

Utilizes appropriate technological resources (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-3C

NCTM-2012-4E

NCTM-2012-5B

Consistent evidence of a variety of technological resources that encourage full participation, respond to student interests and needs, and allow students to construct new meaning and extend prior knowledge.

Adequate evidence of some technological resources that encourage full participation, respond to student interests and needs, and allow students to construct new meaning and extend prior knowledge.

Limited evidence of few technological resources that encourage full participation, respond to student interests and needs, and allow students to construct new meaning and extend prior knowledge.

No evidence of technological resources that encourage full participation, respond to student interests and needs, and allow students to construct new meaning and extend prior knowledge.

Supports positive learning environment (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-4A-4E

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that allows for collaboration, promotes confidence, respects curiosity and diversity, and encourages full participation by all students

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that allows for collaboration, promotes confidence, respects curiosity and diversity, and encourages full participation by all students.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that allows for collaboration, promotes confidence, respects curiosity and diversity, and encourages full participation by all students

No evidence of lesson planning that allows for collaboration, promotes confidence, respects curiosity and diversity, and encourages full participation by all students

Engages in evaluation and reflective practice (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-5C

NCTM-2012-6B

Consistent evidence from a variety of sources of the teacher-candidate analyzing own planning and teaching, and deliberating with peers and supervisor

Adequate evidence from some sources of the teacher-candidate analyzing own planning and teaching, and deliberating with peers and supervisor

Limited evidence from few sources of the teacher-candidate analyzing own planning and teaching, and deliberating with peers and supervisor

No evidence of the teacher-candidate analyzing own planning and teaching, and deliberating with peers and supervisor

Knowledge of Numbers & Operations (1.000, 8%) NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates computational proficiency, including a conceptual understanding of numbers, ways of representing numbers, relationships among numbers and number systems, and meanings of operations.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates computational proficiency, including a conceptual understanding of numbers, ways of representing numbers, relationships among numbers and number systems, and meanings of operations.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates computational proficiency, including a conceptual understanding of numbers, ways of representing numbers, relationships among numbers and number systems, and meanings of operations.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates computational proficiency, including a conceptual understanding of numbers, ways of representing numbers, relationships among numbers and number systems, and meanings of operations.

Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in relationships among quantities including functions, ways of representing mathematical relationships, and the analysis of change.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in relationships among quantities including functions, ways of representing mathematical relationships, and the analysis of change.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in relationships among quantities including functions, ways of representing mathematical relationships, and the analysis of change.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in relationships among quantities including functions, ways of representing mathematical relationships, and the analysis of change.

Knowledge of Geometries (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in use of spatial visualization and geometric modeling to explore and analyze geometric shapes, structures, and their properties.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in use of spatial visualization and geometric modeling to explore and analyze geometric shapes, structures, and their properties.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in use of spatial visualization and geometric modeling to explore and analyze geometric shapes, structures, and their properties.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates proficiency in use of spatial visualization and geometric modeling to explore and analyze geometric shapes, structures, and their properties.

Knowledge of Calculus (1.000, 8%)

NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates a conceptual understanding of limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and a thorough background in techniques and application of calculus.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates a conceptual understanding of limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and a thorough background in techniques and application of calculus.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates a conceptual understanding of limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and a thorough background in techniques and application of calculus.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates a conceptual understanding of limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and a thorough background in techniques and application of calculus.

Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics (1.000, 8%) NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems.

Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability (1.000, 8%) NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates understanding of concepts and practices related to data analysis, statistics, and probability.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates understanding of concepts and practices related to data analysis, statistics, and probability.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates understanding of concepts and practices related to data analysis, statistics, and probability.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates understanding of concepts and practices related to data analysis, statistics, and probability.

Knowledge of Measurement (1.000, 8%) NCTM-2012-1A

Consistent evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply and use measurement tools.

Adequate evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply and use measurement tools.

Limited evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply and use measurement tools.

No evidence of lesson planning that demonstrates ability to apply and use measurement tools.

Data:

Spring 2013SEDU 671Math Instructional Techniques Unit Plan

Target(6 pts)

Acceptable(4 pts)

Developing(2 pts)

Unacceptable(0 pts)

Promotes understanding and problem-solving...

1

0

0

0

Assesses understanding and problem- solving skills...

1

0

0

0

Utilizes appropriate technological resources...

1

0

0

0

Supports positive learning environment...

1

0

0

0

Engages in evaluation and reflective practice...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Numbers & Operations...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Geometries...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Calculus...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability...

1

0

0

0

Knowledge of Measurement...

1

0

0

0


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)


1 (100%)

Target

Acceptable

Developing

Unacceptable

Fall 2015SEDU 671Math Instructional Techniques Unit Plan

Target(6 pts)

Acceptable(4 pts)

Developing(2 pts)

Unacceptable(0 pts)


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2

0

0

0


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)


2 (100%)

Target

Acceptable

Developing

Unacceptable

Assessment 3: Unit Plan

Assessment 4: Classroom Performance

Brief Description:

Instructions and Purpose:

This is a slightly modified version of Danielson’s Framework for Teaching rubric. Originally designed for in-service teachers, the rubric has been modified only to use language referring to “candidates” instead of “teachers”. Distinguished has been greyed out on the advice of the Danielson Group in order to allow student teachers the ability to strive for this level but to instill realistic expectations. The Unit chose this instrument in order to expose candidates to the evaluation tool that will be used in their in-service evaluations and to align with other state required instruments.

Student Teaching-- This instrument is to be used by the University Supervisor and the Cooperating Teacher twice during the student teaching semester, once at the end of each placement. In the event that the student teacher has one 15 week placement, it will be used at midterm and at the end of the placement. It is expected that a successful and effective student teacher will reach “proficient” in a majority of categories. “Distinguished” is greyed out due to the expectation that student teachers will strive to reach this scoring level, but only those performing above expectation will reach that level.

Directions:

The University Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher will complete this evaluation by selecting the correct level of performance and providing comments for the selection.

Interpretation:

All completers scored Distinguished or Proficient in all standard elements assessed. As such, they have met or exceeded the expectations.

Though the number of completers is low, looking at this data as well as data across several academic years and across levels (PB and UG), it is clear that candidates are meeting the performance standards. The rubric, based on the widely accepted Danielson Framework for Teaching, takes into account all aspects of performance in the classroom and ensures a focus on developmentally appropriate planning & preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professionalism. The data reflects that Math candidates are scoring at the Distinguished or Proficient level in all components of the Framework. Though “distinguished” was greyed out on the rubric, it was still a choice for the supervisor and therefore was available as an evaluative level. The Math candidates in the last 2 cycles of data reflect performances equal to those of effective to exemplary student teachers. According to the data, candidates have a deep knowledge of their content and pedagogy, knowledge of their students (NCTM 4a), and their knowledge of resources (NCTM 6a-c). Candidates are able to create an appropriate learning environment for students by organizing the physical space (NCTM 4e), establishing a culture of learning (NCTM 4a, 4d), and managing procedures (NCTM 3c, 3d, 3e) as well as student behavior (NCTM 4a, 4c). In addition, candidates are able to design and implement coherent instructional and assessment strategies (AMLE 4a,b,c), communicate with and engage students (NCTM 2a,b,d,e), and demonstrate flexibility in meeting students’ needs (NCTM 3c,d,e). Finally, though opportunities may have been limited in some cases, candidates demonstrated professionalism through reflection (NCTM 5a,b,c), communication (NCTM 6b), and participation in the professional community (NCTM 6a,b).

Rubric:

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Alignment

Component

Distinguished

Candidate performance reflects that of an exemplary pre-service teacher or an effective in-service teacher

Proficient

Candidate performance reflects that of an effective student teacher

Needs Improvement

Candidate performance reflects a developing student teacher in need of more practice

Unsatisfactory

Candidate performance reflects that of an ineffective student teacher

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3a

NCTM-2012-3b

NCTM-2012-3c

NCTM-2012-3e

1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

· Candidate’s plans and practice demonstrate evidence of extensive knowledge and application of the important concepts and structure of the discipline.

· Candidate actively builds on knowledge of prerequisistes and misconceptions when designing instruction, and designs strategies for causes of student misunderstandings.

· Candidate shows strong evidence of building alignment with academic state standards.

· Candidate differentiates for student progress in planning.

· Candidate’s plans and practice demonstrate evidence of the application of the important concepts in the discipline.

· Candidate builds on prerequisite relationships between concepts and instructional practices specific to that discipline and their alignment to the academic state standards.

· Candidate’s plans and practice demonstrate evidence of knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline.

· Candidate is aware of prerequisite relations between concepts and instructional practices specific to that discipline and their alignment to academic state standards

· Candidate’s plans and practice demonstrate evidence of little to no knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline.

· Candidate has little knowledge of the prerequisite relationship between concepts and instructional practices specific to that discipline and alignment to academic state standards.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

IntTASC 2

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-4a

NCTM-2012-4b

NCTM-2012-4c

NCTM-2012-4d

1.b: Demonstrating knowledge of students

· Candidate actively seeks knowledge of students’ levels of development, backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs from a variety of sources.

· Candidate uses this knowledge regularly in planning for the benefit of individual students.

· Candidate understands the active nature of student learning and attains information about levels of development for groups of students.

· Evidence that candidate actively seeks knowledge of students; backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs.

· Candidate seeks to incorporate that knowledge into the planning for specific groups of students.

· Candidate shows awareness of the importance of understanding students’ developmental levels, backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs.

· Candidate has added to knowledge for the class as a whole.

· Candidate’s plans contain little or no evidence of knowledge of students’ developmental levels, backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs.

· Candidate has does nothing to seek information to gain understanding of students and their individual needs.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3a

NCTM-2012-3c

NCTM-2012-33

NCTM-2012-3f

1.c: Setting instructional outcomes

· Instructional outcomes are stated as goals that can be assessed, reflecting rigorous learning and academic state standards.

· Outcomes are clear, are written in the form of student learning and, where appropriate, represent opportunities for both coordination and integration.

· Outcomes take into account the varying needs of individual students

· Instructional outcomes are stated as goals reflecting high-level learning and curriculum standards.

· All instructional outcomes are clear, are written in the form of student learning, and suggest viable methods of assessment.

· Outcomes reflect several different types of learning and opportunities for coordination.

· Outcomes take into account the varying needs of groups of students.

· Instructional outcomes are of moderate rigor and are suitable for some students but consist of a combination of unrelated activities and goals; some of which permit viable methods of assessment.

· Outcomes reflect more than one type of learning, but candidate makes no attempt at coordination or integration.

· Most of the outcomes are suitable for most of the students in the class in accordance with global assessments of student learning.

· Instructional outcomes are unsuitable for students, represent trival or low-level learning, do not relate to the academic state standards or are stated only as activities.

· Outcomes do not permit viable methods of assessment.

· Outcomes reflect only one type of learning and only one discipline or strand and are suitable for only some students.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-6a

NCTM-2012-6b

NCTM-2012-6c

NCTM-2012-4e

NCTM-2012-3b

NCTM-2012-3c

1.d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources

· Candidate seeks out resources in and beyond the school or district in professional organizations, on the Internet, and in the community to enhance own knowledge.

· Candidate uses a variety of resources in teaching and to meet individual student needs.

· Candidate is fully aware of resources available not only through the school or district, but also through sources external to the school and on the Internet – available for classroom use.

· Candidate uses these resources to develop and maintain a database or list of resources.

· Candidate uses a variety of resources in teaching or to meet individual student needs.

· Candidate displays basic awareness of school or district resources available for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, and for students, but no knowledge of resources available more broadly beyond the clinical site.

· Candidate is unaware of school or district resources for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, or for the students and relies heavily on others for resource ideas.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

IntASC 4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3a

NCTM-2012-3c

NCTM-2012-3d

NCTM-2012-3e

NCTM-2012-4b

1.e: Designing coherent instruction

· Plans represent the coordination of in-depth content knowledge, understanding of different students’ needs, and available resources (including technology), resulting in a series of learning activities designed to engage students in high-level cognitive activity.

· Learning activities are differentiated appropriately for individual learners.

· Instructional groups are varied appropriately with some opportunity for student choice.

· The lesson or unit’s structure is clear and allows for different pathways according to diverse student needs.

· Candidate coordinates knowledge of content, of students, and of resources, to design a series of learning experiences aligned to instructional outcomes and suitable to groups of students.

· The learning activities have reasonable time allocations; they represent significant cognitive challenge, with some differentiation for different groups of students.

· The lesson or unit has a clear structure, with appropriate and varied use of instructional groups.

· Some of the learning activities and materials are suitable to the instructional outcomes and represent a moderate cognitive challenge but with no differentiation for different students.

· Instructional groups partially support the instructional outcomes, with an effort by the candidate at providing some variety.

· The lesson or unit has a recognizable structure; the progression activities are uneven, with most time allocations reasonable.

· The series of learning experiences is poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes and does not represent a coherent structure.

· The activities are not designed to engage students in active intellectual activity and have unrealistic time allocations.

· Instructional groups do not support the instructional outcomes and offer no variety.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 6

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3f

NCTM-2012-3g

NCTM-2012-5c

1.f: Designing student assessments

· Candidate’s plan for student assessment is fully aligned with the instructional outcomes and has clear criteria and standards that show evidence of student contribution to their development.

· Assessment methodologies have been adapted for individual students, as needed.

· The approach to using formative assessment is well designed and includes student as well as candidate use of the assessment information.

· Candidate intends to use assessment results to plan future instruction for individual students.

· Candidate’s plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes; assessment methodologies have been adapted for groups of students.

· Assessment criteria and standards are clear.

· Candidate has a well-developed strategy for using formative assessment and has designed particular approaches to be used.

· Candidate intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for groups of students.

· Some of the instructional outcomes are assessed through the proposed approaches, but others are not.

· Assessment criteria and standards have been developed, but they are not clear.

· Approach to the use of formative assessment is rudimentary, including only some of the instructional outcomes.

· Candidate intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for the class as a whole.

· Assessment procedures are not congruent with instructional outcomes; the proposed approach contains no criteria or standards.

· Candidate has no plan to incorporate formative assessment in the lesson or unit nor any plan to use assessment results in designing future instruction.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 3

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-4a

NCTM-2012-4b

NCTM-2012-4c

NCTM-2012-4d

2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport

· Classroom interactions among the candidate and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth, caring and sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of development.

· Students themselves ensure high levels of civility among members of the class.

· Evidence that the candidate places a high priority on appropriate and respectful behavior.

· Interaction and behavioral standards are clear and consistent.

· Classroom interactions, between candidate and students and among students are polite and respectful, reflecting general warmth and caring.

· Classroom interactions are appropriate to the cultural and developmental differences among groups of students.

· Standards of behavior are clear and visible.

· There is evidence that standards are consistently maintained.

· Classroom interactions, both between the candidate and students and among students, are generally appropriate and free from conflict but may be characterized by occasional displays of insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to cultural or developmental differences among students.

· Minimal evidence of clear standards of behavior being visible in the classroom.

· Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students are negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds.

· Interactions are characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.

· Standards of behavior are not clear or visible in the classroom.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 3

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-4a

NCTM-2012-4d

2.b: Establishing a culture for learning

· The classroom culture is a cognitively vibrant place, characterized by a shared belief in the importance of learning.

· The candidate conveys high expectations for learning by all students and insists on hard work.

· Students assume responsibility for high quality by initiating improvements, making revisions, adding detail, and/or helping peers.

· The classroom culture is a cognitively busy place where learning is valued by all, with high expectations for learning being the norm for most students.

· The candidate conveys that with hard work students can be successful.

· Students understand their role as learners and consistently expend effort to learn.

· Classroom interactions support learning and hard work.

· The classroom culture is characterized by little commitment to learning by candidate or students.

· The candidate appears to be only going through the motions, and students indicate that they are interested in completion of a task, rather than quality.

· The candidate conveys that student success is the result of natural ability rather than hard work

· High expectations for learning are reserved for those students thought to have a natural aptitude for the subject.

· The classroom culture is characterized by a lack of candidate or student commitment to learning and/or little or no investment of student energy into the task at hand.

· Hard work is not expected or valued.

· Medium or low expectations for student achievement are the norm.

· High expectations for learning are reserved for only one or two students.

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3c

NCTM-2012-3d

NCTM-2012-3e

2.c: Managing classroom procedures

· Instructional time is maximized because of efficient classroom routines and procedures.

· Students contribute to the management of instructional groups, transitions, and the handling of materials and supplies.

· Routines are well understood and may be initiated by students.

· There is little loss of instructional time because of effective classroom routines and procedures.

· The candidate’s management of instructional groups and the handling of materials and supplies are consistently successful.

· With minimal guidance and prompting students follow established classroom routines.

· Some instructional time is lost through only partially effective classroom routines and procedures.

· The candidates’ management of instructional groups, transitions, and/or the handling of materials and supplies is inconsistent, resulting in some disruption of learning.

· With regular guidance and prompting, students follow established routines.

· Much instructional time is lost through inefficient classroom routines and procedures.

· There is little or no evidence that the candidate is managing instructional groups, transitions, and/or the handling of materials and supplies effectively.

· There is little evidence that students know or follow established routines.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 3.4

InTASC 2

InTASC 3

NCTM-2012-4a

NCTM-2012-4d

2d: Managing student behavior

· Standards of conduct are clear, with evidence of student participation in setting and maintaining them.

· The candidate’s monitoring of student behavior is subtle and preventive.

· The candidate’s response to student misbehavior is sensitive to individual student needs.

· Students take an active role in monitoring the standards of behavior.

· Evidence that standards of conduct are clear to students.

· Candidate monitors student behavior against those standards.

· Candidate response to student misbehavior is consistent, appropriate and respects the students’ dignity.

· Evidence that the candidate has made an effort to establish standards of conduct for students.

· The candidate tries with uneven results, to monitor student behavior and respond to student misbehavior.

· No evidence that standards of conduct have been established.

· Little or no teacher monitoring of student behavior.

· Response to student misbehavior is inconsistent, repressive, or disrespectful of student dignity.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 1.5

InTASC 3

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-4e

NCTM-2012-3e

2e: Organizing physical space

· The classroom is safe, and the physical environment ensures the learning of all students, including those with special needs.

· Opportunities are available to all learning styles.

· Students contribute to the use or adaptation of the physical environment to advance learning.

· Technology is used skillfully, as appropriate to the lesson.

· The classroom is safe, and learning is accessible to all students.

· The candidate ensures that the physical arrangement is appropriate to the learning activities.

· Candidate makes effective use of physical resources, including computer technology.

· The classroom is safe, and essential learning is accessible to most students.

· Candidate’s use of physical resources, including computer technology is moderately effective.

· Candidate may attempt to modify the physical arrangement to suit learning activities, with partial success.

· The physical environment is unsafe, or some students do not have access to learning.

· There is poor alignment between the physical arrangement and the lesson activities.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 5

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3d

NCTM-2012-3e

NCTM-20120-4c

NCTM-2012-2a

NCTM-2012-2b

NCTM-2012-2d

NCTM-2012-2e

3a: Communicating with students

· The candidate links the instructional purpose of the lesson to student interests.

· The directions and procedures are clear and anticipate possible student misunderstanding.

· The candidate’s explanation of content is thorough and clear, developing conceptual understanding through artful scaffolding and connecting with students’ interests.

· Students contribute to extending the content and help explain concepts to their classmates.

· The candidate’s spoken and written language is expressive.

· The candidate finds opportunities to extend students’ vocabularies.

· The candidate asks the students questions designed to promote thinking and understanding.

· The candidate creates a genuine discussion among students, providing adequate time for students to respond and stepping aside when appropriate.

· Candidate successfully engages most students in the discussion employing a range of strategies to ensure that most students are heard.

· Candidate’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry with answers seemingly determined in advance.

· Alternatively, the candidate attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved.

· Candidate attempts to engage all students in the discussion and encourages them to respond to one another, but with uneven results.

· Candidate’s questions are of low cognitive challenge, require single correct responses, and are asked in rapid succession.

· Interaction between candidate and students is predominantly recitation style with the candidate mediating all questions and answers.

· A few students dominate the discussion.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 1

InTASC 3

InTASC 5

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3d

NCTM-2012-3e

NCTM-2012-4b

NCTM-2012-4c

3c: Engaging students in learning

· Students are highly intellectually engaged throughout the lesson in significant learning.

· Students make relevant and substantive contributions to the activities, student groupings, and materials.

· There is evidence of some student initiation of inquiry and of student contribution to the exploration of important content.

· The pacing of the lesson provides students the time needed to intellectually engage with and reflect upon their learning and to consolidate their understanding.

· Students may have some choice in how they complete tasks and may serve as resources for one another.

· Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are fully appropriate and effective for the instructional outcomes and students’ cultures and levels of understanding.

· The learning tasks and activities are aligned with the instructional outcomes and designed to challenge student thinking.

· Most students display active intellectual engagement with important and challenging content and are supported in that engagement by candidate scaffolding.

· The pacing of the lesson is appropriate, providing most students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

· Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are partially appropriate and effective for the instructional outcomes, or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in moderate intellectual engagement.

· The learning tasks and activities are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by student, allowing most to be passive or merely compliant.

· The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged.

· Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are inappropriate and ineffective to the instructional outcomes, or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in little intellectual engagement.

· The learning tasks and activities, materials, resources, instructional groups and technology are poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes or require only rote responses.

· The pace of the lesson is too slow or too rushed.

· Few students are intellectually engaged or interested.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 1.5

InTASC 6

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3f

NCTM-2012-3g

3d: Using assessment in instruction

· Assessment is fully integrated into instruction through extensive use of formative assessment.

· Students appear to be aware of, and there is some evidence that they have contributed to, the assessment criteria.

· Students self-assess and monitor their progress.

· A variety of feedback, from both their candidate and their peers, is accurate, specific, and advances learning.

· Questions, prompts, assessment are used regularly to diagnose evidence of learning by individual students.

· Appropriate technology is used to gather and analyze assessment data.

· Assessment is used regularly by candidate and/or students during the lesson through monitoring of learning progress and results in accurate, specific feedback that advances learning.

· Students are aware of the assessment criteria.

· Some students engage in self-assessment.

· Questions, prompts, assessments are used to diagnose evidence of learning.

· Candidate utilizes appropriate technology for gathering and analyzing assessment data.

· Assessment is used sporadically by candidate and/or students to support instruction through some monitoring of progress in learning.

· Feedback to students is general.

· Students appear to be only partially aware of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work

· Few students assess their own work.

· Questions, prompts, and assessments are rarely used to diagnose evidence of learning.

· Candidate seldom utilizes appropriate technology for gathering and analyzing assessment data.

· There is little or no assessment or monitoring of student learning.

· Feedback is absent or of poor quality.

· Students do not appear to be aware of the assessment criteria.

· Students do not engage in self-assessment.

· Candidate does not utilize technology for gathering and analyzing assessment data.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 5

CAEP 1.4

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3c

NCTM-2012-3d

NCTM-2012-3e

NCTM-2012-4e

3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness

· Candidate seizes an opportunity to enhance learning, building on a spontaneous event or expression of student interests.

· Candidate persists in seeking effective approaches for students who need help, using an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies and soliciting additional resources from the school or community.

· Candidate ensures the success of all students, using an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies.

· Candidate shows evidence of actively seeking new strategies.

· Candidate promotes the successful learning of all students, making adjustments as needed to instructional plans.

· Drawing on a broad repertoire of strategies, the candidate persists in seeking approaches for students who have difficulty learning.

· Candidate attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success.

· Candidate accepts responsibility for student success but has only a limited repertoire of strategies to draw upon.

· Candidate adheres to instructional plan, even when a change would improve the lesson or students’ lack of interest.

· Candidate ignores student questions, when students experience difficulty.

· Candidate blames the students or their home environment for learning difficulties.

· Candidate lacks a repertoire of strategies to allow for adaptation of the lesson.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 1.2

InTASC 9

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-5a

NCTM-2012-5b

NCTM-2012-5c

4a: Reflecting on teacher and student learning

· Candidate’s reflection accurately and effectively assesses the lesson’s effectiveness and the degree to which outcomes were met.

· Reflection cites specific examples, offers specific alternative actions drawing on an extensive repertoire of skills.

· Candidate offers specific alternative actions, complete with the probable success of different courses of action.

· Candidate’s reflection accurately assesses the lesson’s effectiveness and the degree to which outcomes ere met.

· Refection cites evidence to support the judgment.

· Candidate makes a few specific suggestions of what could be used another time the lesson is taught.

· Candidate’s reflection is sometimes an accurate impression of a lesson’s effectiveness,

· Reflection cites the degree to which outcomes were met

· Candidate makes general suggestions about how a lesson could be improved.

· Candidate’s reflection does not accurately assess the lesson’s effectiveness or the degree to which outcomes were met.

· Candidate profoundly misjudges the success of a lesson.

· No suggestions for how a lesson could be improved were cited.

CAEP 1.1

CAEP 1.5

InTASC 10

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-3g

4b: Maintaining accurate records

· Candidate successfully utilizes the school’s existing technology infrastructure for maintaining information.

· Candidate’s information management system for student completion of assignments, student progress in learning and non-instructional activities is fully effective and is used frequently to guide planning.

· Students contribute to the maintenance and/or interpretation of the information.

· Candidate utilizes the school’s existing technology infrastructure for maintaining information.

· Candidate’s information management system for student completion of assignments, student progress in learning and non-instructional activities is fully effective.

· Candidate seldom utilizes the school’s existing technology infrastructure for maintaining information.

· Candidate’s information management system for student completion of assignments, student progress in learning and non-instructional activities is ineffective or rudimentary, not maintained and/or requires frequent monitoring for accuracy.

· Candidate does not utilize the school’s existing technology infrastructure for maintaining information.

· Candidate’s information management system for student completion of assignments, student progress in learning and non-instructional activities is either absent, incomplete or in disarray.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 10

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-6b

4c: Communicating with families

· Candidate provides frequent, culturally appropriate information to families with student input.

· Successful efforts are made to engage families in the instructional program to enhance student learning.

· Candidate provides frequent, culturally appropriate information to families about the instructional program, student progress and responses to family concerns.

· Frequent successful efforts to engage families in the instructional program are the result of flexible communication.

· Candidate provides minimal and/or occasionally insensitive, communication and response to family concerns.

· Partially successful attempts are made to engage families in the instructional program with no attention to adaptations for cultural issues.

· Candidate provides little/no culturally appropriate information to families about the instructional program, student progress or responses to family concerns.

· Families are not engaged in the instructional program.

CAEP 1.1

InTASC 9

CAEP 3.4

NCTM-2012-6a

NCTM-2012-6b

4d: Participating in a professional community

· Professional relationships are characterized by mutual support, cooperation and initiative in assuming leadership in promoting a culture of inquiry.

· Candidate makes substantial contributions to school/district projects.

· Professional relationships are characterized by mutual support and participation in promoting a culture of inquiry.

· Candidate volunteers and actively participates in all school/district activitie

program report for the preparation of secondary ......november 7, 2009 "right brain teacher in a...

Documents