Teacher CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT RESOURCES
Danielson Framework
Danielson's Framework for Teaching identified aspects of a teacher's responsibilities that are proven through empirical studies as promoting improvement in P-12 student learning. The framework divides the complex activity of teaching into 22 components across four domains of teaching responsibility:
- Planning and Preparation
- Classroom Environment
- Instruction
- Professional Responsibilities
The College of Education and Social Work’s Educator Preparation Programs have adopted the framework to provide support and feedback to candidates in preparation for the demands of teaching. This framework provides evidence of our candidates’ preparation to enter the teaching profession.
Student Performance Measures
Student Performance Measures (SPMs) are a semester- or year-long intensive learning plan that includes a variety of informal and formal assessments to support target learning objectives. Candidates will implement a modified version of the SPM process during their student teaching capstone experience with the goal of understanding the process and the importance of having a systematic approach to SPMs.
Please utilize the Student Performance Measure User Guide to learn more about the SPM process or download a specific appendix below.
SPM Rubric
Classroom Context and Goal (Stage 1)
| Criterion Name and Description (Alignment) | Distinguished (4) | Proficient (3) | Emerging (2) | Failing (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Identification of Standards Most outcomes represent rigorous and important learning in the discipline and are clear, are written in the form of student learning, and suggest viable methods of assessment. Outcomes reflect several different types of learning and opportunities for coordination, and they are differentiated, in whatever way is needed, for different groups of students. (Danielson Framework 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes) |
Thoroughly identifies all relevant PA Grade Level Standards and pre-requisite skills. | Identifies most relevant standards and skills. | Identifies some relevant standards but misses key areas. | Fails to identify relevant standards and skills. |
|
Diagnostic Assessment Design All the instructional outcomes may be assessed by the proposed assessment plan; assessment methodologies may have been adapted for groups of students. Assessment criteria and standards are clear. The teacher has a well-developed strategy for using formative assessment and has designed particular approaches to be used. (Danielson Framework 1f: Designing Student Assessments) |
Develops a comprehensive diagnostic assessment that effectively evaluates all pre-requisite skills. | Develops an adequate assessment evaluating most pre-requisite skills. | Assessment evaluates some skills but lacks clarity or effectiveness. | No effective diagnostic assessment created. |
|
Contextual Evidence The teacher understands the active nature of student learning and attains information about levels of development for groups of students. The teacher also purposefully acquires knowledge from several sources about groups of students’ varied approaches to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and interests and cultural heritages. (Danielson Framework 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students) |
Provides rich contextual evidence that clearly informs identification of student needs. | Provides adequate evidence to support identification of needs. | Limited evidence presented; lacks depth. | No evidence provided. |
Plan of Action (Stage 2)
| Criterion Name and Description (Alignment) | Distinguished (4) | Proficient (3) | Emerging (2) | Failing (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Response to Unfinished Learning All the instructional outcomes may be assessed by the proposed assessment plan; assessment methodologies may have been adapted for groups of students. Assessment criteria and standards are clear. The teacher has a well-developed strategy for using formative assessment and has designed particular approaches to be used. (Danielson Framework 1f: Designing Student Assessments) |
Detailed and strategic lesson plans that address all areas of unfinished learning effectively. | Lesson plans address most areas of unfinished learning. | Plans address some areas but lack specificity or effectiveness. | No clear response or plan for unfinished learning. |
|
Additional Resources The teacher displays awareness of resources beyond those provided by the school or district, including those on the Internet, for classroom use and for extending one’s professional skill, and seeks out such resources. (Danielson Framework 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources) |
Clearly identifies necessary additional expertise and resources to support instruction. | Identifies some resources but lacks clarity on their use. | Limited identification of additional resources. | No resources identified. |
|
Action Steps The teacher displays solid knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and how these relate to one another. The teacher demonstrates accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics. The teacher’s plans and practice reflect familiarity with a wide range of effective pedagogical approaches in the subject. (Danielson Framework 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy) |
Comprehensive outline of action steps for each lesson aligned with identified student needs. | Clear action steps outlined but may miss minor details. | Action steps are vague or incomplete. | No action steps provided. |
Performance Evidence Analysis (Stage 3)
| Criterion Name and Description (Alignment) | Distinguished (4) | Proficient (3) | Emerging (2) | Failing (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Evidence of Growth The teacher understands the active nature of student learning and attains information about levels of development for groups of students. The teacher also purposefully acquires knowledge from several sources about groups of students’ varied approaches to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and interests and cultural heritages. (Danielson Framework 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students) |
Utilizes diverse and effective performance evidence demonstrating significant growth across all areas. | Uses appropriate evidence with noticeable growth in most areas. | Limited evidence showing minimal growth. | No evidence of student growth provided. |
|
Achievement Evaluation Most of the learning activities are aligned with the instructional outcomes and follow an organized progression suitable to groups of students. The learning activities have reasonable time allocations; they represent significant cognitive challenge, with some differentiation for different groups of students and varied use of instructional groups. (Danielson Framework 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction) |
Clearly articulates the percentage of students meeting standards with specific, relevant examples. | Articulates student achievement with general examples. | Provides minimal data on student achievement. | No evaluation of student achievement provided. |
Reflection (Stage 3)
| Criterion Name and Description (Alignment) | Distinguished (4) | Proficient (3) | Emerging (2) | Failing (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Educator Reflection The teacher makes an accurate assessment of a lesson’s effectiveness and the extent to which it achieved its instructional outcomes and can cite general references to support the judgment. The teacher makes a few specific suggestions of what could be tried another time the lesson is taught. (Danielson 4a: Reflecting on Teaching) |
Reflects deeply on successes, barriers, and next steps; insightful and actionable. | Provides a clear reflection on successes and barriers; identifies some next steps. | Limited reflection; lacks depth and clarity on next steps. | No meaningful reflection provided. |
Appendices
- Appendix A: SPM Rubric (Word File | PDF File)
- Appendix B: SPM Template
- Appendix C: WCU Lesson Plan Template with Guiding Prompts
- Appendix D: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Educators (PDF File)
Unit/Lesson Plan
The unit/lesson plan can be completed in conjunction with or independent of the SLO. In both cases, the majority of the format is the same; however, the non-SLO lesson plan contains additional components. Programs and faculty may require inclusion of additional components specific to their discipline in either template. The Danielson Framework is used to evaluate the unit/lesson plan and any additional relevant activities.
Please utilize the Unit/Lesson Plan Template User Guide to learn more about the unit/lesson plan components or download a specific appendix below.