Advancement to Student Teaching Interview Rubric Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Context for Learning (TPEs 6, 7, 8, 11)
The candidate provided little evidence of understanding how context influences planning.
Level 1
The candidate provided evidence of a general understanding of the context factors teachers need to consider that was unrelated to the lesson plan.
In addition to level 2, the candidate provided an example of one way the lesson plan draws on students’ experiential backgrounds, interests, or prior learning to help them reach the learning outcomes.
Planning: (TPE 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10)
The candidate provided no rationale for the lesson based on content standards for the grade level and subject chosen. OR The candidate provided no examples of how student learning was supported across the lesson.
Assessment: (TPE 2, 3)
The candidate could not explain how students would be assessed on the learning tasks. OR The candidate could not explain how the learning tasks, content standards and assessment(s) were related.
*The candidate provided a rationale for the lesson activities based on the standards and learning objectives chosen. *The candidate provided vague explanations of how student learning was supported across the lesson. *The candidate provided specific examples of where in the lesson the students had opportunities to learn what was assessed. *The candidate provided vague links between the content standards and the learn tasks or assessments.
Reflection (TPEs 7, 8, 13)
The candidate’s reflections were not grounded in evidence of student understanding.
*The candidate’s reflections were based on evidence of student understanding. *The candidate indicated, based on that evidence, some general ways to improve the lesson.
Academic Language Demands of the Lesson (TPEs 1, 4, 5, 7, 8)
The candidate’s description of the language demands of the lesson was superficial or unclear.
The candidate’s description of the language demands of the lesson focused on vocabulary that will be challenging to students.
Modeling of Academic Language
The candidate’s answers contained vocabulary, grammar, and/or syntax that was too informal or inappropriate to the role of teaching.
The candidate answered questions using vocabulary and grammar appropriate for the demands of teaching, with only minor errors that did not affect meaning.
*The candidate provided a clear rationale for the lesson activities based on the standards and learning objectives chosen. *The candidate’s explanation referenced an example of a strategy used to build student learning across the lesson. *The candidate provided specific examples of where in the lesson the students had opportunities to learn and practice what was assessed. *The candidate explained how the learning tasks and assessment(s) were related to the content standards. *The candidate’s reflections were based on evidence of student understanding. * The candidate indicated, based on that evidence, specific changes that would improve learning for the students taught. The candidate’s description of the language demands of the lesson focused on challenging vocabulary, and indicated scaffolding devised used to support student understanding. The candidate’s answers modeled the academic vocabulary and grammar used in teaching and demonstrated knowledge of vocabulary used in the profession.
In addition to level 3, the candidate provided examples of multiple ways the lesson plan was tailored to recognize and utilize students’ experiential backgrounds, interests, or prior learning to help them reach the learning outcomes. In addition to level 3, the candidate demonstrated creativity and flexibility in applying various strategies for building student learning across the lesson.
February 2008
In addition to level 3, the candidate discussed how the assessment(s) were designed to address deep understanding of the content.
In addition to level 3, the candidate provided specific and strategic ways to improve learning for both the students taught and students with different needs and characteristics. In addition to level 3, the candidate thought beyond vocabulary and described text types (ways information is presented) that would challenge students. In addition to level 3, the candidate demonstrated confidence in his/her professional language usage.