Student Teaching/ Practicum Observation Rubric for

CHILDHOOD EDUCATION and QUEST QSTA 415.80 / CEDC 724, 725,726,727,728

Teacher Candidate's Name: Katherine Chanler
Supervisor's Name: Dr. Debbie Sonu
Instructor/Course Number: Sonu/ CEDC 774

School Site: P.S. 130

Grade Level: 4th Grade, TAG
Observation #: 3
Semester #: 3

Date: December 9th, 2016

Instructions: Performance expectations specific to subject and grade levels are established in the student teaching/practicum seminar. Use the rubric as a guide for evaluating teacher candidates

Not acceptable

Developing

Profcient

Exemplary

No Opportunity to Evaluate

during their observed lesson. The rubric provides general descriptions of the performance levels for each category. There are seven categories to evaluate. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 4. Fill in
the bubbles that best reflect candidate performance for each area (mark N/A if the category is not applicable for the particular lesson). See the Rubric Rating Guide addendum for more details on each
rubric category. Category scores should be given holistically, assessing the category as a whole, and should be awarded according to the following scale: 1.0-1.9= Not acceptable, 2.0-2.9=Developing,
3.0-3.9=Proficient, 4.0= Exemplary). Scores should be rounded to one decimal place (e.g., 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.). Calculate the overall score by adding the scores from the first six categories and dividing
by 6. In addition, attach a narrative with a brief description of the lesson, summary of candidate's strengths, & suggestions for improvements (in particular for areas that were underdeveloped or
developing).

1a. Used language appropriate to developmental and skill level

1b. Presented content appropriate to developmental and skill level
1c. Challenged students to think and/or develop skills at a more advanced level
1d. Used differentiated instruction to provide for individual student differences
Overall Performance for Dimension 1
2. Knowledge and Use of Subject Matter

1
1
3.3
3.2

2a. Provided accurate information about subject matter, including background or contextual information

3.1

2b. Delivered lessons that included key concepts, themes, and skills related to subject area

3.1

Performance
Indicators

Rating Key
(1) Not acceptable: Performance is less than adequate; considerable improvement needs to be made in this area.
(2) Developing: Performance is not consistent; periodic checks will be needed during student teaching.
(3) Profcient: Skill performed at appropriate level; meets expectations at this point.
(4) Exemplary: Performance is superior; exceeds expectations at this point.
Standard

1. Knowledge of Learners

2c. Presented subject matter in a way that appeared to be meaningful to students

2d. Used appropriate subject-specific pedagogy

Overall Performance for Dimension 2

3. Skill in Planning
3a. It was evident that a lesson plan was created, and the required elements of designated lesson plan format
were delivered in the classroom in an organized way
3b. Objectives were clearly stated in behavioral terms and made connections to prior activity or lesson

3.1

Rev. February 2015 |

(4) Exemplary: Performance is superior; exceeds expectations at this point.

3c. Established instructional routine

3d. Sequenced activities in a logical, developmental manner
3e. Selected appropriate instructional resources, materials, and technologies
Overall Performance for Dimension 3

3.1

EvaluateNo Opportunity to

(3) Profcient: Skill performed at appropriate level; meets expectations at this point.

Exemplary

(2) Developing: Performance is not consistent; periodic checks will be needed during student teaching.

Profcient

(1) Not acceptable: Performance is less than adequate; considerable improvement needs to be made in this area.

Developing

Rating Key

Not acceptable

Performance
Indicators

Rev. February 2015 |

Developing

Profcient

Exemplary

EvaluateNo Opportunity to

Not acceptable

Performance
Indicators

3.5

5.1

3.5

Rating Key
(1) Not acceptable: Performance is less than adequate; considerable improvement needs to be made in this area.
(2) Developing: Performance is not consistent; periodic checks will be needed during student teaching.
(3) Profcient: Skill performed at appropriate level; meets expectations at this point.
(4) Exemplary: Performance is superior; exceeds expectations at this point.
Standard

4. Skill in Teaching
4a. Used motivational techniques that created a classroom where most learners were motivated
4b. Used a variety of ways to engage most learners
4c. Distributed and managed instructional materials effectively to maximize instructional time
4d. Paced lesson effectively to accomplish objectives, including a conclusion at end of lesson
4e. Used more than one instructional approach, as appropriate
4f. Communicated clearly using verbal and nonverbal messages
4g. Used questioning strategies to elicit student responses at literal, analytical, & critical thinking
4h. Adjusted to unplanned circumstances
Overall Performance for Dimension 4
5. Skill in Developing Caring Learning Environments

3.4
3.4

5a. Showed rapport with students

5b. Established and maintained consistent standards for student behavior using a variety of classroom
management techniques
5c. Built class community with opportunity for student participation
5d. Used nonverbal cues and other "light touch" techniques to address distracting behavior and promote good
behavior
5e. Handled disruptive attention-getting behavior in a timely and appropriate way
5f. Showed patience with students
5g. Thoughtfully responded to student work
5h. Used positive reinforcement and corrected mistakes in a sensitive way
5i. Promotes sensitivity to diversity issues (e.g. ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status)
Overall Performance for Dimension 5
6. Skill in Assessment
6a. Used strategies to check if students understood information
6b. Provided helpful feedback to students
6c. Used assessment information to guide instruction

4
4
4

3.1
3.1
3.5
3.3
5.1

3.2

Rev. February 2015 |

EvaluateNo Opportunity to

Exemplary

Profcient

Developing

Performance
Indicators

4
4

Not acceptable

6d. Matched assessment to instructional objectives

6e. By end of lesson, students demonstrated achievement of objectives or made progress
Overall Performance for Dimension 6

Rating Key
(1) Not acceptable: Performance is less than adequate; considerable improvement needs to be made in this area.
(2) Developing: Performance is not consistent; periodic checks will be needed during student teaching.
(3) Profcient: Skill performed at appropriate level; meets expectations at this point.
(4) Exemplary: Performance is superior; exceeds expectations at this point.
Standard

7. Commitment to Teaching and Professionalism

7a. Demonstrated a positive attitude throughout the lesson
7b. In post-conference, reflected on lesson and offered suggestions about how to enhance teaching
7c. Accepted suggestions for growth and, in subsequent observations, assimilated the suggestions
Overall Performance for Dimension 7

5.1
5.2
5.2

8. Narrative: Attach additional pages to describe the lesson briefly, highlight the teacher candidates strengths, and offer suggestions for improvements.
To Score this Observation Evaluation:
Step 1. Add up the scores from the frst 6 categories: __19_______
Step 2. Calculate average (Divide sum of scores by 6 & round score to nearest tenth): ___3.1_______
Step 3. Match score to the grade equivalent by looking below.
Step 4. Write in the grade in the box to the right-----
If average is 3.0 to 3.9 (B, B+, and A-)
If average is below 2.0 (F)= Not
If average is 2.0-2.9 (C, C+, and B-) =
= Proficient
Acceptable
Developing
Performance is less than adequate;
considerable improvement needs to be
made in this area. (below 70.0%)

Performance is not consistent; periodic

checks will be needed during student
teaching. (70.0-82.4%)

Performance at appropriate level;

meets expectations at this point. (82.592.4%)

Final Grade: B
If average is 4.0 (A and A+)=
Exemplary
Performance is superior; exceeds
expectations at this point. (92.5% and
above)

Rev. February 2015 |

8. Narrative:

This was the weakest lesson of the three that I created for observation this semester. I made a
few errors in planning this lesson that weakened its objective and instructional focus. First of all I did
not introduce the topic, Making Inferences with Non-fiction Text very clear. Instead, I wrote the
phrase, Interpretative Understandings on the board and managed to spell interpretative wrong and
got a bit flustered. I did not clearly draw a connection between the word work that we did as the
lesson introduction to the lesson activity. I put too much emphasis on following the lesson activitys
directions and not enough emphasis on the objective of the activity.
I had planned groups in advance of the lesson, but 11 children were pulled out for a Chorus
fieldtrip just before my lesson began and instead of redrawing groups in advance, I just had students
count off 1-6 to form their groups. This transition was not very smooth. A student that was in the
bathroom when I counted off was left without a group and I could tell that some kids had just
swapped into groups they wanted to. One group was extremely uncooperative with each other and it
was a clash of personalities that if I had my original plan from groups, it would not have happened.
At the end of this lesson, I felt pretty low about how it went. During the debrief conference with
my observing professor, we discussed that validity of the phrase, interpretative understandings as
another way to say making inferences. I think we agreed that in this context it does not really work
because I would like students to make inferences, or read between the lines, not to do free
associations. Although the practice of making inferences is fairly abstract, it is important for students

Rev. February 2015 |

to regulate their thinking to stick to the themes of the text. In other words, you have to be able to
justify your inference with the text.
My introduction failed to make this clear to students because I presented single words, out of
context. Next time, I will use a short passage to work with as a whole class. As a class, we can share
our ideas and ask, Does this make sense? Is this a reasonable inference? Then when students go
to the activity to read and make inferences in their small groups, they will have a better idea of what I
am expecting them to do. Overall this lesson was not a complete failure, because students were
engaged in the reading, and did use their worksheets to record their ideas and make inferences
about the text. The lesson just needs to be refined in order to be more effective and focused.
The text selection was short and interesting, and was slightly above the reading level of the
individual, but appropriate for a shared reading task. The majority of students utilized their close
reading strategies, such as underlining and writing notes in the margins. I circulated the classroom
and listened to students talk about what they made of this text. They took turns writing down ideas,
but when it came to choosing one fact to make an inference from, I noticed groups had trouble
deciding what to focus on. I also noticed that many of the inferences made were very much on the
surface of the reading and was hoping for students to make greater leaps.
This was the first lesson the students have had this year on making inferences with non-fiction
and based on my observations from this lesson I can see where we need to follow up with students.
This type of critical thinking can be very challenging for students, especially when they do not have a

Rev. February 2015 |

lot of previous knowledge on the topic that they are reading about. I think that I need to find text
examples that are as interesting but also more closely related to the students.

Rev. February 2015 |