SUMMATIVE EVALUATION
Drury University Teacher Work Sample II
Student Name:______________________________ Date: ____________
School: ____________________________________
Element 1: LEARNING CONTEXT
Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning-teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals and plan instruction and
assessment.
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 1.2.4 1.2.5; 1.2.6, 1.2.7; 1.2.8; 1.2.9; 1.2.11
The Student Teacher . . .
Criteria
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Emerging
1
Indicator Partially Met
2
Knowledge of
students’ varied
approaches to
learning (pre-post
conference)
Fails to demonstrate understanding
of a variety of approaches to
learning among students, i.e.
multiple intelligence and/or
learning modalities.
Knowledge of
students’ skills and
prior learning
(collected by prepost conference and
observation)
Arrangement of the
classroom
(collected by prepost conference and
observation)
Displays little if any knowledge of
students’ skills and previous
learning and does not indicate
either is important.
Demonstrates general
understanding of varied
approaches to learning. The
student teacher may know one
or two modalities but not a
variety.
Identifies the value of
understanding students’ skills
and previous knowledge but
demonstrates its importance for
the whole class only.
Demonstrates understanding of
varied approaches of learning.
The student teacher can
articulate numerous modalities
and articulate multiple
intelligences.
Identifies the value of
understanding students’ skills
and previous learning for the
group and individuals.
Makes no attempt to arrange
the classroom appropriately for
the planned activities or
instructional delivery.
Adjusts the classroom for the
activities or instructional delivery
or the activities and instructional
delivery are adjusted for the
classroom arrangement.
Creates a classroom that serves
as a resource for the activities
and instructional delivery.
School data used in
planning instruction
Makes no attempt to address
school data in detail of narrative
and no attempt to address
instruction
Attempts to address data in
narrative, but little detail for
instruction included
Attempts to address data in
narrative with some detail, but
does not add justification for
instructional implications
Met
3
Score
Point
Earned
Articulates an
understanding of varied
learning modalities and
multiple intelligences;
evidence is shown through
planning and teaching.
Displays knowledge of
students’ skills and previous
learning, including special
needs student; teaching
and planning demonstrates
knowledge.
Creates a classroom that
serves as a resource for
activities and instructional
delivery and allows
students to adjust for their
own learning.
Uses district and classroom
data in detail in narrative
with justification for
instructional implications
COMMENTS: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 1
Drury University
Element 2: INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN
Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and developmentally appropriate activities within the
learning context.
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 1.2.4; 1.2.5; 1.2.7; 1.2.8; 1.2.11
The student teacher . . .
Criteria
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Score
Point
Earned
Emerging
1
Indicator Partially Met
2
Displays basic content
knowledge but cannot articulate
connections with other parts of
the discipline or with other
disciplines.
Displays basic pedagogical
knowledge but does not
anticipate student
misconceptions.
Displays solid content knowledge
and makes connections between
the content and other parts of
the discipline.
Displays extensive content
knowledge.
Displays pedagogical practices
that reflect current research on
best pedagogical practice with
the discipline but without
anticipating student
misconceptions.
Develops many learning activities
that are suitable to students and
instructional goals; progression of
activities in the unit is fairly even.
Uses suitable pedagogical
practices anticipating
student misconceptions and
providing necessary
corrections.
Accurate
representation of
content (collected
by observation)
Makes content errors or does
not correct content errors made
by the students.
Knowledge of
content related
pedagogy (collected
by observation)
Displays little understanding of
pedagogical issues involved in
student learning of the content.
Use of a variety of
instructional
activities,
assignments and
resources
Lesson and unit
structure (collected
by pre-post
conference and
observation)
Develops learning activities
which do not follow an
organized progression and are
not suitable to students or
instructional goals.
Does not clearly define the unit
or lesson structure is chaotic;
time allocations are unrealistic.
Develops some learning
activities that are suitable to
students or instructional goals
but progression of activities in
the unit is uneven.
Provides a lesson or unit that has
a recognizable structure,
although the structure is not
uniformly maintained
throughout; most time
allocations are reasonable.
Instructional
material and
technology
resources (collected
by observation)
Includes materials and
technological resources that do
not support the instructional
goals or engage students in
meaningful learning.
Includes some of the materials
and technology resources that
support the instructional goals,
some engaging students in
meaningful learning.
Provides a unit that has a clearly
defined structure around which
activities are organized; time
allocations are reasonable.
Includes materials and
technological resources that
support the instructional goals,
most of which engage students in
meaningful learning.
Met
3
Develops learning activities
that are highly relevant to
students and demonstrates
organized progression of
activities in the unit.
Provides a lessons or unit
structure which is clear and
allows for different
pathways according to
student needs; time
allocation is well-planned
and implemented.
Includes materials and
technological resources that
engage students in
meaningful learning.
COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 2
Drury University
Element 3: ASSESSMENT PLAN
Standard: The teacher uses multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning goals to assess student learning before, during and after
instruction.
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.3; 1.2.4; 1.2.5; 1.2.7; 1.2.8
The student teacher(s) . . .
Criteria
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Emerging
1
Indicator Partially Met
2
Directions and
procedures
(collected by
observation)
Gives directions and procedures
which are confusing to students.
Gives directions and procedures
which are clarified after initial
confusion, or they are
excessively detailed.
Gives directions and procedures
which are clear to students and
contain an appropriate level of
detail.
Quality of
Questions
(collected by
observation)
Poses questions that are poorly
stated leading to confused
responses or no responses from
students.
Discussion
Techniques
(collected by
observation)
Formal and
Informal
Assessment
Interacts with students through
predominately recitation; mediates
all questions and answers.
Poses questions that are
generally lower quality, focusing
primarily on knowledge only with
minimal response from students;
no response time is provided
before moving on to further
questions or to lecture.
Attempts to engage students in a
true discussion, but continues to
mediate at times.
Poses questions that are mostly
of high quality and require higher
order thinking; the questions
generate meaningful responses
from the students and the
teacher provides some response
time.
Allows class interactions which
represent true discussion, with
teacher stepping aside when
appropriate.
Recognizes the importance of
formal and informal assessment ;
has developed tools for
assessment.
Has little awareness of formal
performance assessment.
Is aware of various performance
assessment but has not used one
within the classroom.
Met
3
Score
Point
Earned
Gives directions and
procedures that are clear to
students and anticipates
possible student
misunderstanding.
Poses questions that are of
high quality requiring higher
order thinking; the student
teacher allows response
time which generates
thoughtful answers.
Supervises students as they
assume responsibility for
the success of any
discussion.
Uses formal, informal
assessments and students’
self-assessments to
evaluate student
performance and program
effectiveness.
COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 3
Drury University
Element 4: INSTRUCTIONAL DECISION MAKING
Standard: The teacher uses ongoing analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.8, 1.2.9
The student teacher . . .
Criteria
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Emerging
1
Indicator Partially Met
2
Met
3
Most instructional decisions
are pedagogically sound
(i.e. they are likely to lead
to improved student
learning.)
Appropriate modifications
of the instructional plan are
made to address individual
student needs. These
modifications are informed
by the analysis of student
learning/performance, best
practice, or contextual
factors. Includes
explanation of why the
modification would
improve student
performance.
Modifications in instruction
are congruent with learning
goals.
Sound professional
practice (collected by
pre-post conference
and observation)
Instructional decisions are
inappropriate and not
pedagogically sound.
Many instructional decisions
are inappropriate and not
pedagogically sound.
Instructional decisions are mostly
appropriate, but some decisions
are not pedagogically sound.
Modifications based
on Analysis of
Student Learning
(collected by pre or
post conference and
observation)
Instruction inappropriate and
shows no sign of modification.
Teacher treats class as “one plan
fits all” with no modifications.
Some modifications of the
instructional plan are made to
address individual student needs,
but these are not based on the
analysis of student learning, best
practice, or contextual factors.
Congruence between
Modifications and
Learning Goals
(collected by
observation)
Few or no modifications are
evident and no relationship is
shown with learning goals.
Modifications in instruction lack
congruence with learning goals.
Modifications in instruction are
somewhat congruent with
learning goals.
Score
Point
Earned
COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 4
Drury University
Element 5: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT LEARNING
Standard: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student progress and achievement.
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.8, 1.2.9
The student teacher . . .
Criteria
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Emerging
1
Clarity and Accuracy
of Charts and Graphs
(collected by
observation)
Alignment with
Learning Goals
(collected by pre or
post conference and
observation)
No charts or graphs are
included.
Interpretation of
Data (collected by
observation)
Interpretation of data is inaccurate
or missing.
Interpretation of data is
inaccurate, and conclusions are
missing or unsupported by data.
Evidence of Impact
on Student Learning
(collected by
observation)
Analysis of student learning is
inaccurate or missing.
Analysis of student learning fails
to include evidence of impact on
student learning in terms of
numbers of students who
achieved and made progress
toward learning goals.
Alignment with learning goals is
not evident in the work sample.
Charts and graphs are not
clear nor accurate; they do
not accurately reflect the
data.
Analysis of student learning is
not aligned with learning goals.
Indicator Partially Met
2
Met
3
Charts and graphs are
understandable and contain few
errors.
Charts and graphs are easy
to understand and contain
no errors of
represenatation.
Analysis is fully aligned with
learning goals and provides
a comprehensive profile of
student learning for the
whole class, subgroups, and
at least two individuals.
Analysis of student learning is
partially aligned with learning
goals and/or fails to provide a
comprehensive profile of student
learning relative to the goals for
the whole class, subgroups, and
at least two individuals.
Interpretation of data is
technically accurate, but
conclusions are missing or not
fully supported by data.
Analysis of student learning
includes incomplete evidence of
the impact on student learning in
terms of numbers of students
who achieved and made progress
toward learning goals.
Score
Point
Earned
Interpretation is
meaningful and appropriate
conclusions are drawn from
the data.
Analysis of student learning
includes evidence of the
impact on student learning
in terms of number of
students who achieved and
made progress toward each
learning goal.
COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 5
Drury University
Element 6: REFLECTION AND SELF-EVALUATION
Standard: The student teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction, disposition, and student learning in order to improve teaching practice..
MoSTEP Standards: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11
The student teacher . . .
Criteria
Oral and written
language
(collected pre-post
conference and
during observation)
Lesson adjustment
(collected pre-post
conference and
during observation)
Persistence
(collected pre-post
conference)
L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E
Indicator not Met
0
Emerging
1
uses spoken language which is
inaudible; written language
which is illegible; spoken or
written language may contain
many grammar and syntax
errors.
adheres rigidly to an
instructional plan, even when a
change will clearly improve a
lesson.
either gives up or blames the
student or the environment for the
student’s lack of success.
uses spoken language which is
audible; written language which
is legible; both are used with
some errors.
uses spoken and written
language which are clear and
correct.
Uses spoken and written
language which are correct
and expressive, with well
chosen vocabulary that
enriches the lesson.
attempts to adjust a lesson, with
mixed results.
smoothly makes minor
adjustments to a lesson.
accepts responsibility for the
success of all students but has
only a limited repertoire of
instructional strategies.
has a generally accurate
impression of a lesson’s
effectiveness and the extent to
which instructional goals and
objectives were met.
persists in seeking approaches for
students who have difficulty
learning, possessing a moderate
repertoire of strategies.
makes an accurate assessment of
a lesson’s effectiveness and the
extent to which it achieved its
goals and objective, and can cite
general references to support the
judgment.
Demonstrates support and
cooperation with colleagues.
Successfully makes and
assures clarity of the
objectives through
adjustments to the lesson.
persists in seeking effective
strategies for students who
need help.
Accuracy (collected
pre-post
conference)
does not know if a lesson was
effective or achieved its goals, or
profoundly misjudges the success
of a lesson.
Relationships with
colleagues
(collected pre-post
conference)
has a negative or non-existent
relationship with colleagues.
demonstrates cordial
relationships with colleagues to
meet the duties that the teacher
preparation program requires.
Use in future
teaching (collect
pre-post
conference)
has no suggestions for how a lesson
may be improve for the future.
makes general suggestions about
how a lesson may be improved.
Indicator Partially Met
2
makes a few specific suggestions
for improvement of lessons in the
future.
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 6
Met
3
Score
Point
Earned
makes a thoughtful and
accurate assessment of
each lesson’s effectiveness
and extent to which it
achieved its goals and
objectives.
Demonstrates a
professional and positive
attitude of collegial support
and cooperation.
draws on a repertoire of
skills, offering specific
alternative action, complete
with probable successes of
different strategies for
various lessons.
Drury University
Family, School and
Community
Involvement
demonstrates little interest in
family, school and/or community
involvement.
is involved when necessary.
seeks opportunities to develop
relationships with family, school,
and/or community.
demonstrates professional
and positive attitude when
working with family, school,
and community in support
of student learning and
well-being .
COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Supervisor: ________________________ Date: _____ Cooperating Teacher: _________________________ Date:_____
Student Teacher: __________________________________ Date: ______ Grade Level/Content Area______________________
Overall Comments:
Developed using resources from the Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project: http://fp.uni.edu/itq and Southeast Missouri State Univ.
7/31/2017 Supervisor Initials______ Student: _____________ Page 7
Drury University