Information Brief on DRSTOS-R
Administration and Performance for English
Education
(Fall 2007 – Fall 2011)
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
1
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration & Performance for English Education (2007-2011)
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration and
Performance for English Education
(Fall 2007 – Fall 2011)
Robert Tobias, Director
Kimberly Woo, Research Assistant
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary
IB-0612-05
July 2012
Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
Department of Teaching and Learning
The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development
New York University
© Copyright 2012 by the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-0612-05
i
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration & Performance for English Education (2007-2011)
Introduction
This report presents administrative and performance data on the Domain
Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R) for student
teachers in the English Education programs. The purpose of this report is to inform
program directors and program faculty of (1) the extent to which student teachers and
field supervisors in their program participate in DRSTOS-R assessment and (2) the
overall performance of program students and the patterns of their specific strengths and
weaknesses on the 21 essential skills of effective teaching that are measured by the scale.
The data in this report are intended to provide programmatic feedback that can be
used to support planning in several ways. Administrative data identifying field
supervisors who have and have not been trained to administer the protocol may aid in
discussions regarding the internal consistency of program standards and field supervision
and to help focus future efforts to expand the pool of trained supervisors. In addition, this
information provides a context for understanding student performance data and the extent
to which the results may be generalized to the full population of students in the program.
DRSTOS-R data on student performance, in conjunction with information from other
sources, may be used to identify skills in need of additional attention program-wide and
facilitate discussions concerning program improvement (e.g. increased emphasis in
course curricula and field mentorship, etc.).
While CRTL’s research database contains over 2,500 DRSTOS-R ratings for
student teachers in the semesters between fall 2004 and fall 2011, the information and
analyses contained in this report focus on data collected since fall 2007, with particular
emphasis on the most recent terms (fall 2010, spring 2011, and fall 2011). The ratings
are summative in that field supervisors complete them at the end of each student-teaching
placement using the full range of their experiences with each student teacher, including
formal and informal observations, conferences with the students and their cooperating
teachers, journals, portfolios, formal assignments, and any other relevant, observable
evidence. CRTL, in collaboration with NYU Teaching and Learning faculty and field
supervisors, developed DRSTOS-R in 2003 – 2004 with the first official administration
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-0612-05
ii
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration & Performance for English Education (2007-2011)
occurring in fall 2004. The DRSTOS-R is a process and protocol for assessing the
developing pedagogical proficiency of student teachers in 20 essential teaching skills
organized into four domains: Planning and preparation, classroom environment,
instruction, and professional responsibilities. Supervisors rate students on each of the
essential skills using a four-point scale as follows: (1) Not Yet Proficient, (2) Partially
Proficient, (3) Entry Level Proficient, and (4) Proficient. (Note: the DRSTOS-R protocol
was expanded once in 2009 to 21 items and again in spring 2012 to 23 items. The data
included in this report reflect the 21-item protocol included in the Appendix.)
The following report consists of four sections: (1) Submission History &
Supervisor Information, (2) Student Teacher Performance, (3) Item-Level Performance
by Placement, and (4) Historical Domain-Level Performance by Placement. Each section
should be interpreted with the knowledge that some means and comparisons may reflect
only a small number of students (N<5). The tables and charts presented are based on
ratings provided by DRSTOS-R-trained supervisors. Only a few ratings may be available
for certain academic years and/or student degree or placement groups due to low program
enrollment or term-to-term variation in the number of trained supervisors in the field and
the student teachers to whom they were assigned.
Section 1: Submission History & Supervisor Information
Section 1 provides a historical overview of the program’s participation in using
the DRSTOS-R since fall 2007. This section opens with an accounting of the number of
forms relating to English Education students contained in the DRSTOS-R database, as
determined by the identified program codes. Students for whom program codes could not
be determined were not included in this count.
Two tables summarize the submission history for the program. The first table
presents the total number of forms collected from English Education for each term of data
collection, as well as a breakdown by degree level of the student teacher. The second
table presents a comprehensive list of DRSTOS-R trained supervisors who have
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-0612-05
iii
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration & Performance for English Education (2007-2011)
submitted forms for English Education student teachers and each supervisor’s history of
returning completed forms.
Supervisors must complete a full-day training to qualify as a DRSTOS-R
administrator, after which they are expected to submit forms for each data collection
cycle onwards, beginning with that semester. The submission histories include a date of
training and the number of forms the supervisor has submitted each term since. Blank
cells indicate data collection cycles in which the supervisor had not yet been trained.
Cells marked ‘0’ indicate data collection cycles in which a trained supervisor did not
return forms; these may include terms in which supervisors did not mentor student
teachers.
Section 2: Student Teacher Performance
This section provides a summary of the student teachers’ performance, organized
by degree and academic year (fall and spring, with summer data included when
available). Student teachers’ performance is determined by calculating the mean ratings
received on items within each of the four domains, as well as across the full DRSTOS-R
instrument. Students for whom degree information was missing were not included in the
calculation of these means.
In addition to the mean scores, this table also includes the percent and frequency
of student teachers whose domain or total mean scores have been determined as ‘meeting
standards’. In order to meet or exceed standards, a student teacher must receive a mean
score of 3.0 (‘Entry-Level Proficient’) or higher. ‘Entry Level Proficient’ is the rating
level used to describe behaviors that are expected of a recent graduate of a teacher
education program, demonstrating emerging professional skill but not yet at the level of
an experienced teacher. The frequencies and percents of student teachers ‘meeting
standards’ are also organized by degree and academic year. The percent meeting
standards data are used in our reports to our accreditation agency, the Teacher Education
Accreditation Council (TEAC). The program standard for TEAC reporting is 80% of our
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-0612-05
iv
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration & Performance for English Education (2007-2011)
student teachers in their final placements achieving mean scores of at least 3.0 in each
domain score and the total score.
Section 3: Item-Level Performance by Placement
As a summative tool, the DRSTOS-R provides a snapshot of student teachers’
professional practice at the end of each semester of student teaching. As student teachers
progress from earlier to later placements, it is expected that there should be observable
changes in their classroom performance. Expanding upon the student teacher
performance data in Section 2, the chart in Section 3 compares mean scores on each
DRSTOS-R item for student teachers who were in their first placement against those in
more advanced or final placements. These comparisons are cross-sectional in nature, not
longitudinal; students in the “first” and “late” categories are not necessarily the same
students.
Students whose first placement was their only placement were counted as part of
the “late/advanced” category. Only those students for whom placement information was
available were included in these comparisons. Descriptors for the 21 items can be found
on the full DRSTOS-R protocol in the appendix, in reverse-order to their presentation on
the comparative graph. This section focuses on data collected over the three most recent
terms: fall 2010, spring 2011, and fall 2011.
Section 4: Historical Domain-Level Performance by Placement
Expanding on the previous section, this section provides a historical perspective
comparing the performance of student teachers in their first and later placements.
Included in this section is a series of charts contrasting mean domain and total scores for
students in their first placement against those in later placements, organized by academic
year. Identification of students for inclusion and categorization were the same as in the
previous section and, like the previous section, the data included in these charts are crosssectional in nature.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-0612-05
v
DEP AR TM ENT OF TE AC HIN G AN D LE AR NING
Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
English Education
DRSTOS-R Summary
BASED ON THE DRSTOS-R DATABASE AS OF SUMMER 2012
Part I: Submission History & Supervisor Information
Total Number of
Forms In Database
Program
Codes
212
ENGE
ENGL
Number of DRSTOS-R Forms Submitted
By Degree and Semester
Degree
Fall 07
Spring 08
Fall 08
Spring 09
Summer 09
Fall 09
Spring 10
Fall 10 Spring 11 Fall 11
TOTAL
BS
8
7
8
5
0
6
11
12
14
12
83
MA
15
14
7
4
0
13
20
23
15
18
129
TOTAL
23
21
15
9
0
19
31
35
29
30
212
Number of DRSTOS-R Forms Submitted
By Supervisor and Semester
Supervisor
Diller, J.
First Trained
Fall 07
Spring
08
Fall 08
Prior to Fall 06
1
0
0
Domingo, M.
Spring Summer Fall 09
09
09
0
Spring
10
Fall 10
Spring
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
4
4
3
0
14
0
1
3
3
2
4
15
4
3
0
7
Fall 11
Fried, D.
Summer 09
Gouck, M.
Prior to Fall 06
Jeffrey, J.
Fall 10
Kenzer, E.
Fall 07
Lewis, A.
Summer 09
0
7
2
6
0
0
0
3
Fall 11 TOTAL
0
1
0
2
5
3
4
3
33
0
3
4
3
4
4
18
McDonald, J.
Fall 07
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
McGorry, L.
Summer 07
0
2
3
3
0
2
2
3
3
2
20
McLoughlin, C.
Summer 08
3
4
5
0
0
3
3
5
2
5
30
5
0
0
5
Spring 07
6
4
7
3
0
5
7
5
5
6
48
Rossi, R.
Spring 07
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Santvoord, S.
Spring 09
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Packer, R.
Fall 10
Rieman, M.
Soponis, T.
Fall 10
Wagner, C.
Summer 06
TOTAL
0
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
23
21
15
9
0
19
31
35
29
30
212
Note: Blank cells = Not trained; 0 = Trained but did not submit forms
Pless Hall, 82 Washington Square East, 7th Floor | New York, New York 10003-7599
212 998 5872 | 212 995 3636 fax | www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn
1
Part II: Student Teacher Performance
Mean Scores and Percents Meeting Standards
By Degree and Academic Year
Academic
Year
Scale Domain
Number
of
Students
Mean
Score
(1-4)
Standard
Deviation
%Meeting
Standard
(>=3)
Number
of
Students
Mean
Score
(1-4)
BS
D1: Planning &
Preparation
D2: Classroom
Environment
Fall 07/
Spring 08
Fall 08/
Summer
09
2.92
0.74
15
3.08
0.72
D3: Instruction
15
2.87
0.67
D4: Professional
Responsibilities
15
3.24
0.77
Total
15
3.01
0.70
13
3.05
0.63
13
3.08
0.55
D3: Instruction
13
2.94
0.60
D4: Professional
Responsibilities
13
3.10
0.64
Total
13
3.04
0.56
17
3.02
0.48
17
3.08
0.47
D3: Instruction
17
2.97
0.50
D4: Professional
Responsibilities
17
3.35
0.45
Total
17
3.08
0.42
26
3.06
0.38
26
3.15
0.42
D3: Instruction
26
3.10
0.40
D4: Professional
Responsibilities
26
3.262
8
0.60
Total
26
3.13
0.38
12
2.73
0.67
12
2.89
0.53
D3: Instruction
12
2.90
0.63
D4: Professional
Responsibilities
12
2.92
0.73
Total
12
2.85
0.57
D1: Planning &
Preparation
D2: Classroom
Environment
Fall 09/
Spring10
D1: Planning &
Preparation
D2: Classroom
Environment
Fall 10/
Spring 11
D1: Planning &
Preparation
D2: Classroom
Environment
Fall 11
1 = ‘Not Yet Proficient’
%Meeting
Standard
(>=3)
MA
15
D1: Planning &
Preparation
D2: Classroom
Environment
Standard
Deviation
2 = ‘Partially Proficient’
80.0%
12
73.3%
11
66.7%
10
80.0%
12
73.3%
11
76.9%
10
69.2%
9
61.5%
8
69.2%
9
53.8%
7
64.7%
11
64.7%
11
52.9%
9
88.2%
15
64.7%
11
69.2%
18
73.1%
19
65.4%
17
76.9%
20
65.4%
17
50.0%
6
50.0%
6
58.3%
7
58.3%
7
50.0%
6
29
3.14
0.54
29
3.16
0.49
29
3.07
0.48
29
3.50
0.54
29
3.19
0.46
11
3.41
0.40
11
3.49
0.43
11
3.38
0.49
11
3.55
0.40
11
3.45
0.41
33
3.06
0.46
33
3.21
0.36
33
3.09
0.42
33
3.35
0.49
33
3.16
0.37
38
3.11
0.49
38
3.20
0.46
38
3.16
0.50
38
3.29
0.47
38
3.18
0.43
18
3.19
0.60
18
3.32
0.47
18
3.27
0.59
18
3.28
0.50
18
3.26
0.51
3 = ‘Entry Level Proficient’
79.3%
23
65.5%
19
69.0%
20
89.7%
26
72.4%
21
100.0%
11
90.09%
10
72.7%
8
100.0%
11
81.8%
9
54.5%
18
72.7%
24
60.6%
20
87.9%
29
69.7%
23
65.8%
25
78.9%
30
65.8%
25
81.6%
31
60.5%
23
72.2%
13
72.2%
13
55.6%
10
83.3%
15
61.1%
11
4 = ‘Proficient’
2
Part III: Item-Level Performance by Placement (Fall 2010 – Fall 2011)
Note. Each item rated by field supervisors on a scale of 1-4 with 3 = Entry-Level Proficiency
3
Note. Each item rated by field supervisors on a scale of 1-4 with 3 = Entry-Level Proficiency
4
Part IV: Historical Domain-Level Performance by Placement
UNDERGRADUATE
GRADUATE
DOMAIN 1:
PLANNING &
PREPARATION
DOMAIN 2:
CLASSROOM
ENVIRONMENT
Note: Some means and comparisons reflect only a small number of students (N<5).
5
DOMAIN 3:
INSTRUCTION
DOMAIN 4:
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
TOTAL MEAN
Note: Some means and comparisons reflect only a small number of students (N<5).
6
APPENDIX: DRSTOS-R PROTOCOL
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: ______________
DRSTOS-R
Student Teacher & Placement Information
Please check one:
€ Junior
Major/Program(s):
€ Senior
Undergraduate
€ Regular Track
Graduate
_____________________________________
Certification track?
€ Yes
€ No
Native English Speaker?
€ Yes
€ No
Placement
(check one)
Placement
Information
€ Fast Track
€
€
€
€
1
2
3
4
out
out
out
out
of
of
of
of
4
4
4
4
€
€
1 out of 2
2 out of 2
* Early Childhood Majors Only
€ 1 out of 3
€ 2 out of 3
€ 3 out of 3
€
General Education
€
0 - 25% English Language Learners
Grade(s) ______
€
Self-Contained Special Education
€
26 - 50% English Language Learners
Content/Specialty Area (if applicable)
€
CTT
€
51%+ English Language Learners
School Name/PS #
Additional Notes on Placement
(ex: push-in, pull-out, SETTS/Resource Room)
________________________________
____________________________________________________
Cooperating Teacher
____________________________________________________
Last __________________________
____________________________________________________
First __________________________
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
i
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: ______________
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
ELEMENT
NOT YET PROFICIENT
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
ENTRY LEVEL
PROFICIENT
PROFICIENT
EVIDENCE
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
1. PEDAGOGICAL
CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE
Student teacher displays
inadequate understanding of
pedagogical issues involved in
pupil learning of the content.
1
2. KNOWLEDGE OF
CONTENT
STANDARDS
Student teacher displays
inadequate evidence of
familiarity with content
standards.
1
3. LONG/SHORT
TERM PLANNING
Planning for instruction is not
connected to longer-term
goals or to the pedagogical
content knowledge of the
subject, the pupils, or the
standards, and are unclear to
most pupils in the class.
1
Student teacher displays
basic content knowledge
but does not articulate
connections among
content, pedagogy, and
pupil development.
2
Student teacher displays
basic knowledge of
content standards, without
evidence of connecting to
standards beyond the
current lesson.
2
Planning for instruction is
partially connected to
longer-term goals and
there is limited use of
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
2
Student teacher displays
sufficient content
knowledge but does not
sufficiently articulate
connections among
content, pedagogy, and
pupil development.
3
Student teacher displays
a sufficient understanding
of the city/state content
standards and makes
connections to other
standards within and/or
beyond content area.
Pedagogical practices
reflect current research on
best pedagogical practice
within the discipline and
the anticipation of potential
pupil misconceptions.
Student teacher makes
connections with or to
other disciplines.
4
Student teacher displays a
strong understanding of
the city/state content
standards and makes
connections to other
standards within and/or
beyond content area.
3
4
Planning for instruction
connects to longer-term
goals and sufficiently uses
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
Planning for instruction
connects to longer-term
goals and effectively uses
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
3
4
ii
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _____________
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
ELEMENT
4. CONSTRAINTS ON
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
5. CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
Student teacher plans and
teaches without regard to the
particular possibilities and
limits of his/her classroom
context.
Student teacher
understands some of the
curricular and resource
possibilities and
constraints of the context
but does not effectively
use them in planning or
teaching.
Student teacher
sufficiently understands
the curricular and
resource possibilities and
constraints of the context
and begins to use them in
planning or teaching.
1
2
3
The proposed approach
contains no clear criteria or
standards.
1
6. FEEDBACK,
REFLECTION AND
USE FOR
PLANNING
ENTRY LEVEL
PROFICIENT
NOT YET PROFICIENT
Information from assessments
(tests, observations,
conferences, etc.) affects
planning for these pupils only
minimally.
1
Assessment criteria and
standards are unclear.
2
Student teacher uses
assessment results to
plan for the class as a
whole.
2
Assessment criteria and
standards are generally
appropriate and
sufficiently clear.
3
Student teacher uses
assessment results to
plan for individuals and
groups of pupils as well as
the class as a whole.
3
PROFICIENT
EVIDENCE
Student teacher
thoroughly understands
the curricular and resource
possibilities and
constraints of the context
and uses them effectively
in planning or teaching.
4
Assessment criteria and
standards are well
developed and explicit.
4
Student teacher uses
assessment results to plan
for individuals and groups
of pupils as well as the
class as a whole and uses
pupil input in assessment
planning.
4
iii
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _____________
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
7. STUDENT TEACHER
INTERACTION WITH
PUPILS
Student teacher’s voice
controls the classroom
environment. Students’
thoughts need to be nurtured
and validated.
1
8. CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
Classroom interactions are
frequently characterized by
conflict, sarcasm, or putdowns.
1
9. FUNCTIONING OF
LEARNING GROUPS
Pupils not working with the
student teacher are not
productively engaged in the
task(s). Students in groups
are off-task or are working
independently.
1
10. TRANSITIONS
Much time is lost during
transitions.
1
Student teacher is
beginning to elicit
students’ thoughts in the
classroom environment.
2
Classroom interactions
are occasionally
characterized by conflict,
sarcasm, or put-downs.
Student teacher regularly
provides students with a
venue to share their
thoughts and ideas.
3
Classroom interactions
are generally polite and
mutually respectful.
2
3
Tasks for group work are
partially organized,
resulting in some off-task
behavior when student
teacher is involved with
one group. Students sit
together to work but
interact minimally.
2
Tasks for group work are
organized, and groups are
managed so most pupils
are engaged most of the
time. Student teacher
facilitates interaction
between group members.
Transitions are
sporadically efficient,
resulting in some loss of
instructional time.
2
3
Transitions mostly occur
smoothly, with minimal
loss of instructional time.
3
The classroom
environment reflects a
balance of student
teacher’s and students’
thoughts. Students’
thoughts are nurtured and
encouraged.
4
Classroom functions as a
genuinely polite, caring
and mutually respectful
community.
4
Tasks for group work are
well organized, and
groups are managed so
most pupils are engaged
at all times and are
working collaboratively.
4
Transitions occur
smoothly, with almost no
loss of instructional time.
4
iv
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
11. MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES
12.
MUTUAL
EXPECTATIONS
Materials are handled
inefficiently, resulting in
significant loss of instructional
time.
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
sporadically efficient,
resulting in some
disruption of instruction.
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
mostly efficient, with
minimal disruption of
instruction.
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
consistently efficient.
1
2
3
4
Standards of conduct
appear to have been
established for most
situations, and most
pupils seem to understand
them.
Standards of conduct are
clear to all pupils.
2
3
4
Student teacher is
generally aware of pupil
behavior but may miss the
activities of some pupils.
Student teacher is alert to
pupil behavior at all times.
Student teacher is alert to
pupil behavior at all times
and pupils participate in
the monitoring process.
2
3
4
The lesson has a clearly
defined structure around
which the activities are
organized. Pacing of the
lesson is generally
appropriate with minimal
loss of instructional time.
The lesson’s structure is
highly coherent, so that
there is almost no loss of
instructional time. Pacing
of the lesson is
appropriate for all
students.
3
4
No standards of conduct
appear to have been
established, or pupils are
confused as to what the
standards are.
1
13.
AWARENESS OF
PUPIL BEHAVIOR
Semester: _____________
Pupil behavior is not
monitored, and student
teacher is unaware of what
pupils are doing.
1
Standards of conduct are
clear to all pupils, and
there is evidence of some
student participation in
their formulation.
INSTRUCTION
14. LESSON STRUCTURE
AND TIME
MANAGEMENT
The lesson has no clearly
defined structure. The pace of
the lesson is too slow, or
rushed or both. Classroom
time is not spent on instruction
or there is significant loss of
instructional time.
1
The lesson has a
recognizable structure,
although it is not uniformly
maintained throughout the
lesson. Pacing of the
lesson is inconsistent.
There is some loss of
instructional time.
2
v
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
15. CLARITY OF GOALS
Goals are inappropriately
selected and are not suitable
for most pupils.
1
16. KNOWLEDGE OF
STUDENTS: PUPILS’
SKILLS , CULTURAL
HERITAGE,
KNOWLEDGE,
INTERESTS,
LEARNING STYLES
INSTRUCTIONAL
NEEDS
17. STUDENT TEACHER/
PUPIL
COMMUNICATIONS
DISCUSSION
STYLE
Goals are sufficiently
selected in their content
and level of expectations
and are suitable for most
pupils in the class.
Goals are highly sufficient
in their selection of
content and level of
expectations and are
suitable for most pupils in
the class.
2
3
Student teacher
recognizes the value of
understanding pupils’
skills, knowledge and
learning styles, but
displays this knowledge
for the class only as a
whole and rarely for those
with special needs.
Student teacher
demonstrates a sufficient
knowledge of pupils’ skills,
knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils
including those with
special needs and
recognizes the value of
this knowledge.
2
Student teacher’s or
pupils’ spoken language is
audible, and written
language is legible. Both
are used correctly.
Student teacher
vocabulary is correct but
limited or is not
appropriate to pupils’ ages
or backgrounds.
2
3
Student teacher’s and
pupils’ spoken and written
language are sufficiently
clear and appropriate to
pupils’ age and interests.
4
Student teacher’s spoken
and written language is
clear, correct, and
enhances the learning of
the subject. Pupils are
mastering the standard
written language as
writers and readers.
3
4
Interaction between student
teacher and pupils is
predominantly recitation style,
with student teacher mediating
all questions and answers.
Student teacher attempts
to engage pupils in
discussion, with uneven
results.
Most classroom
interaction represents
discussion, with student
teacher taking a
facilitating role.
1
2
Student teacher demonstrates
an inadequate knowledge of
pupils’ skills, knowledge and
learning styles, and does not
indicate that such knowledge
is valuable.
1
Student teacher’s or pupils’
spoken language is inaudible,
or written language is illegible.
Spoken or written language
may contain many grammar
and syntax errors. Vocabulary
may be inappropriate, vague,
or used incorrectly, leaving
pupils confused.
1
18.
Goals are appropriately
selected and partially
suitable for most pupils.
Semester: _____________
3
4
Student teacher
demonstrates a strong
knowledge of pupils’ skills,
knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils
and recognizes the value
of this knowledge
including those with
special needs.
Classroom interaction
represents discussion,
with student teacher
stepping, when
appropriate, to the side so
pupil-pupil talk dominates.
4
vi
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _____________
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
19. RELATIONSHIPS WITH
ADULTS:
SUPERVISOR,
COOPERATING
TEACHER, TEACHERS,
SCHOOL STAFF, &
PARENTS/
GUARDIANS.
20. CULTURAL
CONTEXT OF
SCHOOL AND
COMMUNITY
21.
ABILITY TO
Student teacher’s relationships
with adults are negative or
self-serving.
Student teacher maintains
cordial relationships with
adults.
Support and cooperation
characterize relationships
with others.
Student teacher is able to
maintain positive
relationships with adults
and functions effectively
as part of a team.
1
2
3
4
Student teacher
demonstrates knowledge
of the cultural context of
the school and the
community.
Student teacher
demonstrates sufficient
knowledge of the cultural
context of the school and
the community.
2
3
Student teacher
demonstrates an
expanding knowledge of
the cultural context of the
school and the
community.
4
Student teacher is a
reflective practitioner, is
able to learn from
mistakes and successes
and adjusts accordingly.
Student teacher appears to be
unaware of the cultural context
of the school and community.
1
Student teacher has no
suggestions for how a lesson
may be improved another
time.
Student teacher makes
general suggestions about
how a lesson may be
improved.
REFLECT
1
2
Student teacher is
becoming a reflective
practitioner and makes a
few specific suggestions
of what might be tried if
the lesson was taught
again.
3
4
vii
Student teacher Name: ___________________________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _____________
OTHER COMMENTS
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
INSTRUCTION
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
viii