Candidate Assessment Resources

Teacher CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT RESOURCES

Danielson Framework / PDE-430

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.

Pennsylvania Department of Education: PDE 430 – Student Teacher Assessment
(under “Field Directors, Field Supervisors, and Certifying Officers”)
Pennsylvania Department of Education: Framework for Evaluation Pre-Service Teacher
(under “Field Directors, Field Supervisors, and Certifying Officers”)

Anthology Training Guides and Video Tutorials

Documents

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 document or appendix below.

SPM User Guide (DOCX)

SPM Template (DOCX)

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.

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.

Criterion Name and Description (Alignment)

Distinguished (4)

Proficient (3)

Emerging (2)

Failing (1)

Response to Unfinished Learning

(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.

Criterion Name and Description (Alignment)

Distinguished (4)

Proficient (3)

Emerging (2)

Failing (1)

Evidence of Growth

(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.

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.

Unit / Lesson Plan

The unit / lesson plan can be completed in conjunction with or independent of the SPM. Programs and faculty may require inclusion of additional components specific to their discipline in the template. The WCU Lesson Plan Rubric is used to evaluate the unit / lesson plan and any additional relevant activities.

WCU LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE (DOCX)

WCU Lesson Plan Rubric

Criterion Name and Description (Alignment)	Distinguished (4)	Proficient (3)	Basic (2)	Unsatisfactory/ Not Addressed (1)
A. Introductory Information 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)	Intentionally left blank – Not applicable	All introductory information is included and accurate including: Date of lesson Grade level Topic/subject Type of instruction Audience Student/group characteristics [if teaching the lesson]	Introductory information is missing one element however complete elements are accurate.	Introductory information is missing more than one element or information is not accurate.
B. 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)	Intentionally left blank – Not applicable	Appropriate standards, including technology standards (if applicable), are identified, and are connected to: Objectives Instruction Assessment AND Additional relevant standards (e.g., literacy, career, alternate, etc.) are included.	Appropriate standards, including technology standards (if applicable), are identified, and are connected to two of the following: Objectives Instruction Assessment AND/OR Plan may be missing additional relevant standards (e.g., literacy, career, alternate, etc.).	Appropriate standards are not included. OR Standards do not align to the following: Objectives Instruction Assessment
C. Objectives 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)	Intentionally left blank – Not applicable	Teacher candidate identifies what is expected of students by the end of this lesson. Objectives are clearly connected to all standards, assessment, and instruction.	Teacher candidate identifies some but not all expectations students should meet by the end of this lesson; AND connects objectives to instruction. AND/OR Teacher candidate may connect to some, but not all standards, and/or some, but not all assessments.	Teacher candidate did not include objectives. OR Teacher candidate has not connected to one or more of the following areas: standards, assessments, and instruction.
D. Assessment 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)	Teacher candidate meets all proficient criteria and addresses both the formal and informal assessments occurring throughout the lesson.	Teacher candidate includes tool/method of assessment AND describes the information to be gathered from the method/tool AND the tool/method is clearly connected to all standards, all objectives, and instruction.	Teacher candidate includes tool/method of assessment AND connects to instruction, AND MAY provide limited description of the information to be gathered from the method/tool, AND/OR may connect to some but not all standards, and/or some but not all objectives.	Teacher candidate did not include tool/method of assessment, AND/OR does not provide description of the information to be gathered from the tool, AND/OR does not connect to one or more of the following areas: standards, objectives, instruction.
E. Teacher Content Knowledge 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)	Teacher candidate meets all proficient criteria and includes extensive or sophisticated attention to examples/non-examples, misconceptions, AND MAY include considerations of challenging syntax and/or discourse.	Teacher candidate identifies topics/concepts. AND Teacher candidate lists specific words students should understand and/or be able to use before the start of the lesson, AND words students should be able to use by the end of the lesson. AND Teacher candidate includes one student-friendly definition, explanation, or example for each word.	Teacher candidate identifies topics/concepts. AND Teacher candidate lists words that students will be exposed to by the end of the lesson for each topic/concept AND MAY provide either dictionary definitions or student-friendly definitions.	Teacher candidate did not identify topics/concepts developmentally appropriate or may be missing key elements. Teacher candidate did not include considerations of academic language in the lesson plan.
F. Materials / 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)	Intentionally left blank – Not applicable	Teacher candidate listed all materials for the lesson, included all materials (to the extent reasonable), and used materials that are age/ developmentally appropriate.	Teacher candidate listed materials for the lesson and included materials (to the extent reasonable) but materials are either not age or developmentally appropriate.	Teacher candidate did not list materials for the lesson within the lesson plan.
G. Instructional Steps: Lesson Opening 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)	Teacher candidate provides detailed steps for how to introduce the lesson so that it could be replicated with integrity. Teacher candidate developed lesson opening that meets all proficient criteria AND it is exceptionally motivating and engaging for students.	Teacher candidate provides steps for introducing the lesson. Teacher candidate designed lesson opening to be developmentally, age, or topically appropriate, is connected to instructional activities, and draws upon at least one of the following: The purpose and strategy/concept or skill; Activating and building students’ prior knowledge; Motivating and engaging students in the lesson topic; Differentiating based on the needs of the students	Teacher candidate provides steps for introducing the lesson. Teacher candidate connects lesson opening to objectives and instructional activities; But, lesson opening may be: limited to identifying the lesson’s topic, skill/concept not developmentally, age, or topically appropriate (too long/too short)	Teacher candidate lacks step for introducing the lesson. AND/OR Lesson opening may be: distracting from the lesson’s objective not connected to instructional activities not present
H. Instructional Steps: Lesson 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)	Teacher candidate provides detailed steps for how to teach the lesson so that it could be replicated with integrity. Teacher candidate includes how tasks are differentiated based on needs of students. Teacher candidate displays extensive evidence of supporting students’ developing thought process(es). Teacher candidate provides clear information about the content.	Teacher candidate provides steps for teaching the lesson. Includes how tasks are differentiated based on needs of students. Teacher candidate displays some evidence of supporting students’ developing thought process(es). Teacher candidate provides some instructions that could be communicated to students. Teacher candidate provides information about the content.	Teacher candidate provides steps for teaching the lesson. Teacher candidate is missing one of the following or contains limited information for two of the following: How tasks are differentiated based on needs of students Displays minimal evidence of supporting students’ developing thought process(es) Provides information about the content.	Teacher candidate lacks steps for teaching the lesson. The lesson is not easy to follow. AND/OR Teacher candidate is missing two or three, or contains limited information for all of the following: How tasks are differentiated based on needs of students Displays minimal evidence of supporting students’ developing thought process(es) Provides information about the content.
I. Instructional Steps: Lesson Closure 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)	Teacher candidate provides detailed steps for how to close the lesson so that it could be replicated with integrity. Teacher candidate clearly integrates the following: What students have learned. How what the students learned will extend beyond this lesson. Differentiate closure based on the needs of the students.	Teacher candidate provides steps for how to close the lesson. Teacher candidate integrates the following: What students have learned. How what the students learned will extend beyond this lesson. Differentiate closure based on the needs of the students.	Teacher candidate provides steps for how to close the lesson. Teacher candidate is missing one of the following or contains limited information for two of the following: What students have learned. How what the students learned will extend beyond this lesson. Differentiate closure based on the needs of the students.	Teacher candidate does not include steps to close the lesson or the steps provided are not clear or do not connect to the lesson. AND/OR Teacher candidate is missing two or three, or contains limited information for all of the following: What students have learned. How what the students learned will extend beyond this lesson. Differentiate closure based on the needs of the students.
J. Differentiation / Adaptations / Accommodations / Modifications 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)	Teacher candidate includes more than two methods of differentiation/ adaptations/ accommodations/ modifications for cultural/linguistic diversity, student (dis)abilities, and other student characteristics including assets/strengths. AND Teacher candidate includes differentiation/ adaptations/ accommodations/ modifications for multiple students in each characteristic (cultural/linguistic diversity, student (dis)abilities, and other student characteristics).	Teacher candidate includes identification of more than one appropriate method for differentiation/ adaptations/ accommodations/ modifications for cultural/linguistic diversity, (dis)abilities, and additional characteristics including assets/strengths.	Teacher candidate includes identification of at least one appropriate method for differentiation/ adaptations/ accommodations/ modifications for cultural/linguistic diversity, (dis)abilities, and additional characteristics of students.	Teacher candidate did not complete this section. AND/OR Teacher candidate suggested methods for differentiation, and/or adaptations, and/or accommodations, and/or modifications do not match the students’ cultural and linguistic diversity, (dis)abilities and/or additional characteristics.
K. Rationale on Planning Process 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)	Teacher candidate’s rationale meets all proficient criteria and may include: reference to relevant research and/or professional literature. AND Teacher candidate provides a nuanced consideration of the relationship between various lesson components and student characteristics including assets.	Teacher candidate’s rationale that answers all questions included in the guidelines. AND Rationale demonstrates that the teacher candidate is appropriately considering the various components of a lesson plan. AND Rationale demonstrates that the teacher candidate is appropriately considering student characteristics including assets.	Teacher candidate’s rationale that answers all questions included in the guidelines. AND Rationale demonstrates that the teacher candidate is appropriately considering the various components of a lesson plan. OR Rationale demonstrates that the teacher candidate is appropriately considering student characteristics.	Teacher candidate’s rationale may not answer all questions in the guidelines. AND/OR Rationale may demonstrate the teacher candidate has misconceptions regarding one or more components of an effective lesson. AND/OR Rationale may demonstrate the teacher candidate considers student needs but no other characteristics.
L. Reflection on Instruction 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)	Teacher candidate’s reflection meets all proficient criteria and includes further attention to student engagement and comprehension considering student characteristics.	Teacher candidate’s reflection addresses all questions and does so with discussion of specific students, moments, assessment data, in relation to their teacher moves, responses or potential revisions.	Teacher candidate’s reflection addresses all questions in the guidelines but lacks accuracy or specificity.	Teacher candidate’s reflection does not address one or more questions in the guidelines.

Assessment and Accreditation