INTRODUCTION TO PORTFOLIO
RUBRIC
Trait / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Unacceptable / Beginning / Developing / Capable / Accomplished
Introduction to Portfolio / Does not define the purpose of the portfolio. / Vaguely defines the purpose of the portfolio. / Adequately defines the purpose of the portfolio. / Clearly and accurately delineates the purpose of the portfolio. / Defines the purpose of the TWS portfolio in a professional and articulate manner.
There is no description (or a very poor one) of the learning outcomes selected. / There is a brief description of outcomes, but the number is less than required. / There is an acceptable description of learning outcomes. / There is a specific description of the learning outcomes. / There is an exemplary description of the outcomes.
There are no connections made between the TWS elements, NASAD teaching competencies, NAEA Standards, and the COE Outcomes. / The connections made between the elements of the TWS, NASAD teaching competencies, NAEA Standards, and the COE Outcomes are minimal / The connections made between the elements of the TWS, NASAD teaching competencies, NAEA Standards, and the COE Outcomes are satisfactory. / The connections made between the elements of the TWS, NASAD teaching competencies, NAEA Standards, and the COE Outcomes are clear. / The connections made between the elements of the TWS, NASAD teaching competencies, NAEA Standards, and the COE Outcomes are clear and focused.
There is no description of the TWS portfolio organization. / The description of the organization of the TWS portfolio is vague and not easily understood. / The description of the TWS portfolio organization is acceptable. / The description of the TWS portfolio organization is logical and in an easy to understand format. / The description of the organization is excellent, well thought out, and logical.
PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT
RUBRIC
Trait / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Unacceptable / Beginning / Developing / Capable / Accomplished
Philosophy Statement / Offers no evidence that the candidate has the K-12 art student as the focus. / Offers minimal evidence that the candidate has the K-12 art student as the focus. / Offers adequate evidence that the candidate has the K-12 student as the focus. / Offers significant evidence that the candidate has the K-12 art student as the focus. / Offers superior evidence that the candidate has the K-12 art student as the focus.
Offers no evidence that NASAD teaching competencies and the SPECTRUM model is the framework / Offers minimal evidence that NASAD teaching competencies and the SPECTRUM model is the framework. / Offers adequate evidence that NASAD teaching competencies and the SPECTRUM model is the framework. / Offers significant evidence that NASAD teaching competencies and the SPECTRUM model is the framework. / Offers superior evidence that NASAD teaching competencies and the SPECTRUM model is the framework.
Offers no evidence that the candidate understands theory and research relevant to art education. / Offers minimal evidence that the candidate understands theory and research relevant to art education. / Offers adequate evidence that the candidate understands theory and research relevant to art education. / Offers significant evidence that the candidate understands theory and research relevant to art education. / Offers superior evidence that the candidate understands theory and research relevant to art education.
Offers no evidence that the candidate has gained insight into teaching and learning through field experiences and coursework. / Offers minimal evidence that the candidate has gained insight into teaching and learning through field experiences and coursework. / Offers adequate evidence that the candidate has gained insight into teaching and learning through field experiences and coursework. / Offers significant evidence that the candidate has gained insight into teaching and learning through field experiences and coursework. / Offers superior evidence that the candidate has gained insight into teaching and learning through field experiences and coursework.
Writing Mechanics and Organization
Rubric
Standard: TWS Portfolio is organized clearly, grammatically correct and written in standard English.
Trait / 1Unacceptable / 2
Beginning / 3
Developing / 4
Capable / 5
Accomplished
Writing Mechanics / The use of standard written English is unsatisfactory at this level. More than 10 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subject-verb agreement may exist or excessive fragments or run-ons may detract from the overall content of the writing. / The use of standard written English needs attention. More than 9 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subject-verb agreement may exist or 2 or more fragments or run-ons may exist. / The use of standard written English is adequate with no more than 8 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subject-verb agreement may exist or 1 or more fragments or run-ons may exist. / The use of standard written English is good with no more than 5 errors. / The use of standard written English is outstanding with no more than 2 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subject-verb agreement may exist. No fragments or run-ons may exist
Syntax / Syntax and word choice may be unsatisfactory, or the writing may lack cohesion. / Syntax and word choice may need attention, or the writing may lack cohesion. / Syntax and word choice are satisfactory, and the writing is cohesive. / Syntax and word choice are appropriate, and the writing is cohesive. / Syntax and word choice are clearly superior, and the writing is very cohesive.
Contextual Factors Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.
Rating →Indicator ↓ / 1
Unacceptable / 2
Beginning / 3
Developing / 4
Capable / 5
Accomplished / Score
Knowledge of Community, School and Classroom Factors / Displays no knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom. / Displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom. / Displays some knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning. / Displays a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning. / Displays and explains an in-depth understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning with specific data, cited sources, and/or statistics.
Knowledge of Characteristics of Students / Displays no knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities). / Displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities). / Displays general knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities). / Displays general and specific knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities). / Displays and explains in-depth knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Knowledge of Students’ Varied Approaches to Learning / Fails to demonstrate understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students, e.g., multiple intelligences and/or learning modalities. / Demonstrates general understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students and may know one or two learning modalities but not a variety. / Demonstrates general understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students and can distinguish between multiple modalities. / Articulates an understanding of varied learning modalities and multiple intelligences. / Articulates general and specific understanding of varied learning modalities and multiple intelligences.
Knowledge of Students’ Skills and Prior Learning / Displays no knowledge of students’ skills and previous learning and does not indicate either is important. / Identifies the value of understanding students’ skills and previous learning but demonstrates its importance for the whole class only. / Identifies the value of understanding students’ skills and previous learning for the group and individuals. / Displays knowledge of understanding students’ skills and previous learning, including special needs students. / Articulates an in-depth understanding of students’ skills and previous learning for the group and individuals including special needs students.
Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment / Does not provide implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics or provides inappropriate implications. / Provides minimal implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics or provides inappropriate implications. / Provides general implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, or classroom characteristics. / Provides specific implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics. / Provides specific implications and analyzes decisions for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences (ELL and inclusion students) and community, school, and classroom characteristics.
Learning Goals
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.
Rating →Indicator ↓ / 1
Unacceptable / 2
Beginning / 3
Developing / 4
Capable / 5
Accomplished / Score
Significance, Challenge and Variety / Goals are not in evidence. / Goals reflect only one type or level of learning / Goals reflect several types or levels of learning but lack significance or challenge / Goals reflect several types or levels of learning and are significant and challenging. / Goals are significant and challenge thought and expectations including three or more levels and types.
Clarity / Goals are vague or not in evidence. / Goals are not stated clearly and are activities rather than learning outcomes. / Some of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes. / Most of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes / Goals are clearly stated in behavioral terms.
Appropriateness for Students / Goals presented are inappropriate for the class or set unrealistic expectations for students. / Goals are not developmentally appropriate; nor address pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences, or other student needs. / Some goals are developmentally appropriate and address some pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences, and other student needs. / Most goals are developmentally appropriate; addresses pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences and other student needs are considered. / Goals demonstrate realistic expectations for all students in addition to providing for students’ critical thinking and reflection.
Alignment with National, State or Local Standards / Fails to develop goals aligned with NAEA, state and COE standards / Goals are not aligned with NAEA, state or COE standards. / Some goals are aligned with NAEA, state or COE standards. / Most of the goals are explicitly aligned with NAEA, state and COE standards. / Goals are aligned with NAEA, state, COE standards and are articulated through the lesson presentations. Alignments are explained.
Assessment Plan
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.
Rating →Indicator ↓ / 1
Unacceptable / 2
Beginning / 3
Developing / 4
Capable / 5
Accomplished / Score
Alignment with Learning Goals and Instruction / Minimal plans for pre and post assessments are provided; assessments do not measure learning goals. / Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack cognitive complexity. / Some of the learning goals are assess through the assessment plan, but many are not congruent with learning goals in content and cognitive complexity. / Each of the learning goals is assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning goals in content and cognitive complexity. / All learning goals are assessed by the assessment plan, and provide students with constructive feedback on their learning.
Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance / The assessments contain no criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals. / Assessments contain poorly stated criteria for measuring student performance leading to student confusion. / Assessment criteria have been developed, but they are not clear or are not explicitly linked to the learning goals. / Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning goals. / Assessment criteria are linked to learning goals; accurately documenting student learning.
Multiple Modes and Approaches / The assessment plan fails to demonstrate evidence of student assessment other than after instructions. Limited knowledge of formal/informal assessments / The assessment plan includes only one assessment mode and does not assess students before, during, and after instruction. / The assessment plan includes multiple modes but all are product based (studio) or pencil/paper based (i.e., they are not performance assessments) and/or do not require the integration of knowledge, skills and critical thinking. / The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes (including studio performance, artistic process, written reports, research projects, discussion skills, finalized studio work, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional sequence. / The assessment plan uses formal/informal assessments and student’s self-assessments to assess student performance and effectiveness of the instructional sequence.
Technical Soundness / Assessments are not designed to measure lessons goals and objectives; scoring procedures are inaccurate. / Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students. / Assessments appear to have some validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items or prompts are clearly written; some directions and procedures are clear to students / Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written; directions, demonstrations, and studio procedures are clear to students. / Assessments appear to be valid and clearly written. Assessments data used to document students’ strengths as well as opportunities for learning.
Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of Students / Teacher does not address or link assessments to identified contextual factors. / Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the individual needs of students or these assessments are inappropriate. / Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of some students. / Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of most students. / Teacher’s adaptations of assessments for all students needs to be met. Adaptations are creative and show evidence of outstanding problem-solving skills by teacher candidate.
Design for Instruction
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts.
Rating →Indicator ↓ / 1
Unacceptable / 2
Beginning / 3
Developing / 4
Capable / 5
Accomplished / Score
Alignment with Learning Goals / No lesson is linked to learning goal. No learning activities are aligned to learning goals. / Few lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Few learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Not all learning goals are covered in the design. / Most lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Most learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Most learning goals are covered in the design. / All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are covered in the design. / All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals, demonstrating critical thinking and reflection in activities and assignments.
Accurate Representation of Content / Teacher does not demonstrate purpose and relevancy of content. / Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger conceptual structure. / Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline. / Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline. / Teacher provides cross-content approach to student learning, stressing depth and breadth of content.
Lesson and Unit Structure / The lessons within the unit do not demonstrate knowledge of how content is created and developed. / The lessons within the unit are not logically organized
(e.g., sequenced). / The lessons within the unit have some logical organization and appear to be somewhat useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals. / Most lessons within the unit are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals. / All lessons within the unit demonstrate how knowledge of content is created and organized and integrates knowledge from other fields of content.
Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources / A single, instructional modality is used with textbook as only reference. / Little variety of instruction, activities, assignments, and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook or single resource (e.g., work sheets). / Some variety in instruction, activities, assignments, or resources but with limited contribution to learning. / Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to learning. / Instructional strategic assignments are varied to accommodate individual learners and to achieve lesson goals.
Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources / Instruction has not been based upon knowledge of subject matter, students or pre-assessment data. / Instruction has been designed with very limited reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student. / Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Some activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student. / Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student. / All instruction addresses the diverse needs of individual students and contextual factors of community, school and class.
Use of Technology / Teacher does not use technology during instruction. / Technology is inappropriately used and inappropriate rationale is provided. / Teacher uses technology but it does not make a significant contribution to teaching and learning or teacher provides limited rationale for not using technology. / Teacher integrates appropriate technology that makes a significant contribution to teaching and learning or provides a strong rationale for not using technology. / Teacher integrates a variety of media and technology into instruction and relates both directly to lesson goals.
Instructional Decision-Making