|
General overview
Directions – The form will be used twice during the course of the term and will be provided by the Program Coordinator to the University Supervisor, Cooperating Teacher, and Student Teacher.
Each member of the team (Cooperating Teacher, University Supervisor, and Student Teacher)
1) Completes the evaluation in week 5 or 6 (Mid-term) of the student teaching experience AND in week 13 or 14 (Final) 2) Brings the completed form to the mid-term and final 3-way conference
At the Mid-term 3-way conference
1) Goals are set for the remainder of the student teaching experience
2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 7 At the Final 3-way conference
1) Suggestions and comments are made to assist in the transition to teaching role
2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 14
Additional information about and support for using the form can be found in the VARI-EPP Student Teaching Form Training Modules, the “Glossary” and the “Look Fors” document.
How to apply scoring
Advocacy: Any action within professional boundaries that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or defends, or pleads on behalf of others. This may be to advocate for the profession, an individual student, or other ideas.
Analysis: Careful and critical examination of data and/or processes to identify key components and potential outcomes.
Assessment: “Process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on, and adjusting teaching and relearning to ensure that learners reach high levels of Achievement
Contemporary Tools: Electronic/digital record-keeping tools such as an online gradebook and progress monitoring systems, spreadsheet software, etc.
Cooperating Teachers: (Also known as “mentor teachers”) Teachers in schools who mentor and supervise student teachers in their classrooms for the duration of a student teaching and/or field experience.
Critical Thinking: Refers to the “kind of thinking involved in problem solving” and includes an ability to “examine assumptions, discern hidden values, evaluate evidence, and assesses conclusions.”
Culturally Relevant: Incorporating the tenets of culturally relevant/responsive teaching (i.e., “teachers create a bridge between students’ home and school lives, while still meeting the expectations of the district and state curricular requirements. Culturally relevant teaching utilizes the backgrounds, knowledge, and experiences of the students to inform the teacher’s lessons and methodology.”).
Data-informed decisions: “Focuses on using student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.”
Developmental Theory (General): Theories that describe the stages of development of children/adolescents (e.g., Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, Behavioral Theories, and Sociocultural Theories).
Developmental Theory (Content-Specific): Content-specific teaching that organizes activities and learning tasks to help learners move from one level to the next.
Diagnostic Assessment: (Also known as “pre-assessment”) “Involves the gathering and careful evaluation of detailed data using students’ knowledge and skills in a given learning area.”
Differentiation of Instruction: “To respond to variance among learners” (e.g., learners with exceptional needs and second language learners) by modifying “content, and/or process, and/or products, and/or the learning environment” according to learners’ “readiness, interest, or learning profile.”
https://www.livetext.com/doc/11846176?print=1 1/9
6/11/24, 2:37 PM CPAST MID-TERM 11-22
Digital Tools: Technologies that enable learners to engage with the teacher and/or content on an individual level. Examples: SMART Boards, learner response systems (i.e., clickers), and computers, tablets, etc.
Evidence: Artifacts that document and demonstrate how [the student teacher] planned and implemented instruction
Feedback: “Information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning.”
Formative Assessment: “Assessment used continuously throughout learning and teaching, allowing teachers to adjust instruction to 1
improve learner achievement.”
Fosters: To promote the growth or development of, encourage.
Funds of Knowledge: “Historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being.”
Goals: See definition for “Measurable Goals.”
Learner: Any P12 student in the student teacher’s classroom.
Learning Environment: Any setting where learning occurs. The term may refer to the physical environment (e.g., the classroom), as well as the classroom management procedures and activities that enable teaching and learning to take place.
“Look Fors” Document: A document accompanying this form containing a non-exhaustive list to describe examples of the qualities and behaviors a student teacher is expected to demonstrate for a given level of performance.
Measurable Goals: “Provides information for describing, assessing, and evaluating student achievement.” Mentor Teachers: See definition for “Cooperating Teachers.”
Objectives/Targets: P12 student (learner) learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson or learning segment.
Problem Solving: A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.
Program Coordinator: Faculty or staff member from a college or university who coordinates/manages the administrative components of a teacher educator licensure program.
Research: "The use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge."
Student Teacher: (Also known as "intern" or "candidate") An individual participating in a full-time field experience in a P12 classroom in order to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Student Teaching: (Also known as "clinical practice") A full-time field experience in a P12 classroom that occurs in the final semester (culminating experience) of an educator preparation program and is required to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Summative Assessment: "Assessment activities used at the culmination of a given period of time to evaluate the extent to which instructional objectives have been met."
Targets: See definition for 'Objectives/Targets.'
Technologies: See definition for 'Digital Tools.'
University Supervisor (US): The university instructor assigned to the student teacher who regularly observes his/her performance to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The US coordinates the student teacher’s evaluation, and is responsible for recording the consensus scores using this form.
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
I. Professionalism
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4
CAEP Revised Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.c NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.2
|
The candidate demonstrates exemplary behavior; possesses patience, self-control, and flexibility when obstacles or difficult situations occur.
AND
The candidate effectively manages personal emotions and feelings and reacts reasonably to situations.
AND
The candidate acts confidently and maturely taking responsibility in leadership.
AND
The candidate maintains enthusiasm and passion for the teaching profession and views learning as a life-long activity.
|
The candidate demonstrates appropriate behavior; possesses patience, self-control, and flexibility when obstacles or difficult situations occur.
AND
The candidate manages personal emotions and feelings and reacts reasonably to situations.
AND
The candidate acts confidently and maturely.
|
The candidate is impatient or inflexible, lacks personal management skills and confidence.
|
Reviews & Evaluations: Jennifer Davis
Evaluations
|
Institution:
|
Liberty University
|
|
Student:
|
Jennifer Davis
|
|
Supervisor:
|
Bianca Stewart
|
|
Site:
|
Pinson Elementary School Jefferson County Board of Education
|
|
Date:
|
Fall 2025 - Term A (08/18/25 - 12/12/25)
|
|
Type:
|
EDST 560 (CT (Cooperating Teacher - Site Supervisor))
|
|
Final Completed:
|
10/14/25 11:39 PM
|
|
CPAST MID-TERM 11-22 - Mentor
|
|
General overview
Directions – The form will be used twice during the course of the term and will be provided by the Program Coordinator to the University Supervisor, Cooperating Teacher, and Student Teacher.
Each member of the team (Cooperating Teacher, University Supervisor, and Student Teacher)
1) Completes the evaluation in week 5 or 6 (Mid-term) of the student teaching experience AND in week 13 or 14 (Final) 2) Brings the completed form to the mid-term and final 3-way conference
At the Mid-term 3-way conference
1) Goals are set for the remainder of the student teaching experience
2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 7 At the Final 3-way conference
1) Suggestions and comments are made to assist in the transition to teaching role
2) The University Supervisor records the consensus ratings and enters into the University data system by the end of week 14
Additional information about and support for using the form can be found in the VARI-EPP Student Teaching Form Training Modules, the “Glossary” and the “Look Fors” document.
How to apply scoring
Advocacy: Any action within professional boundaries that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or defends, or pleads on behalf of others. This may be to advocate for the profession, an individual student, or other ideas.
Analysis: Careful and critical examination of data and/or processes to identify key components and potential outcomes.
Assessment: “Process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on, and adjusting teaching and relearning to ensure that learners reach high levels of Achievement
Contemporary Tools: Electronic/digital record-keeping tools such as an online gradebook and progress monitoring systems, spreadsheet software, etc.
Cooperating Teachers: (Also known as “mentor teachers”) Teachers in schools who mentor and supervise student teachers in their classrooms for the duration of a student teaching and/or field experience.
Critical Thinking: Refers to the “kind of thinking involved in problem solving” and includes an ability to “examine assumptions, discern hidden values, evaluate evidence, and assesses conclusions.”
Culturally Relevant: Incorporating the tenets of culturally relevant/responsive teaching (i.e., “teachers create a bridge between students’ home and school lives, while still meeting the expectations of the district and state curricular requirements. Culturally relevant teaching utilizes the backgrounds, knowledge, and experiences of the students to inform the teacher’s lessons and methodology.”).
Data-informed decisions: “Focuses on using student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.”
Developmental Theory (General): Theories that describe the stages of development of children/adolescents (e.g., Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, Behavioral Theories, and Sociocultural Theories).
Developmental Theory (Content-Specific): Content-specific teaching that organizes activities and learning tasks to help learners move from one level to the next.
Diagnostic Assessment: (Also known as “pre-assessment”) “Involves the gathering and careful evaluation of detailed data using students’ knowledge and skills in a given learning area.”
Differentiation of Instruction: “To respond to variance among learners” (e.g., learners with exceptional needs and second language learners) by modifying “content, and/or process, and/or products, and/or the learning environment” according to learners’ “readiness, interest, or learning profile.”
https://www.livetext.com/doc/11846176?print=1 1/9
6/11/24, 2:37 PM CPAST MID-TERM 11-22
Digital Tools: Technologies that enable learners to engage with the teacher and/or content on an individual level. Examples: SMART Boards, learner response systems (i.e., clickers), and computers, tablets, etc.
Evidence: Artifacts that document and demonstrate how [the student teacher] planned and implemented instruction
Feedback: “Information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning.”
Formative Assessment: “Assessment used continuously throughout learning and teaching, allowing teachers to adjust instruction to 1
improve learner achievement.”
Fosters: To promote the growth or development of, encourage.
Funds of Knowledge: “Historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being.”
Goals: See definition for “Measurable Goals.”
Learner: Any P12 student in the student teacher’s classroom.
Learning Environment: Any setting where learning occurs. The term may refer to the physical environment (e.g., the classroom), as well as the classroom management procedures and activities that enable teaching and learning to take place.
“Look Fors” Document: A document accompanying this form containing a non-exhaustive list to describe examples of the qualities and behaviors a student teacher is expected to demonstrate for a given level of performance.
Measurable Goals: “Provides information for describing, assessing, and evaluating student achievement.” Mentor Teachers: See definition for “Cooperating Teachers.”
Objectives/Targets: P12 student (learner) learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson or learning segment.
Problem Solving: A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.
Program Coordinator: Faculty or staff member from a college or university who coordinates/manages the administrative components of a teacher educator licensure program.
Research: "The use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge."
Student Teacher: (Also known as "intern" or "candidate") An individual participating in a full-time field experience in a P12 classroom in order to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Student Teaching: (Also known as "clinical practice") A full-time field experience in a P12 classroom that occurs in the final semester (culminating experience) of an educator preparation program and is required to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Summative Assessment: "Assessment activities used at the culmination of a given period of time to evaluate the extent to which instructional objectives have been met."
Targets: See definition for 'Objectives/Targets.'
Technologies: See definition for 'Digital Tools.'
University Supervisor (US): The university instructor assigned to the student teacher who regularly observes his/her performance to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The US coordinates the student teacher’s evaluation, and is responsible for recording the consensus scores using this form.
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
A. Focus for Learning:
Standards and Objectives /Targets
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.7.a
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state learning standards
AND
Goals are measurable
AND
Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other
AND
Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners and attend to appropriate developmental progressions relative to age and content-area
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state learning standards
AND
Goals are measurable
AND
Standards, objectives/ targets, and learning tasks are consistently aligned with each other
AND
Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners
|
Plans align to appropriate P 12 state learning standards
AND/OR
Some goals are measurable
AND/OR
Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks, are loosely or are not consistently aligned with each other
AND/OR
Articulates some objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners
|
Plans do not align to the appropriate P-12 state learning standards
AND/OR
Goals are absent or not measurable
AND/OR
Standards, objectives/targets, and learning tasks are not aligned with each other
AND/OR
Does not articulate objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
B. Materials and Resources
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial2022.R1.3 InTASC2017.7.b
|
Uses a variety of materials and resources that
1. Align with all objectives/targets
2. Make content relevant to learners
3. Encourage individualization of learning
|
Uses a variety of materials and resources that
1. Align with all objectives/targets
2. Make content relevant to learners
|
Uses materials and resources that align with some of the objectives/targets
|
Materials and resources do not align with objectives/targets
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
C. Assessment of P-12 Learning
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial 2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.6.b
|
Plans a variety of assessments that
1. Provide opportunities for learners of varying abilities to illustrate competence (whole class)
2. Align with the appropriate P-12 state learning standards
3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge
4. Promote learner growth
|
Plans a variety of assessments that
1. Provide opportunities for learners to illustrate competence (whole class)
2. Align with the appropriate P 12 state learning standards
3. Are culturally relevant and draw from learners’ funds of knowledge
|
Planned assessments
1. Provide opportunities for some learners to illustrate competence (whole class)
2. Align with the appropriate P-12 state learning standards
|
Planned assessments
1. Are not included
OR
2. Do not align with the appropriate P-12 state learning standards
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
D. Differentiated Methods
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial2022.R1.1 InTASC2017.2.c
|
Lessons make meaningful and culturally relevant connections to
1.Learners’ prior knowledge
2. Previous lessons
3. Future learning
4. Other disciplines and real-world experiences
AND
Differentiation of instruction supports learner development
AND
Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible, relevant, and challenging for learners
|
Lessons make clear and coherent connections to
1. Learners’ prior knowledge
2. Previous lessons
3. Future learning
AND
Differentiation of instruction supports learner
development
AND
Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible and relevant for learners
|
Lessons make an attempt to build on, but are not completely successful at connecting to
1. Learners’ prior knowledge,
2. Previous lessons,
OR
future learning
AND
Differentiation of instruction is minimal
AND
Organizes instruction to ensure content is comprehensible for learners
|
Lessons do not build on or connect to learners’ prior knowledge
AND/OR
Explanations given are illogical or inaccurate as to how the content connects to previous and future
learning
AND/OR
Differentiation of instruction is absent
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
E. Learning Target and Directions
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial 2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.7.c
|
Articulates accurate and coherent learning targets
AND
Articulates accurate directions/explanations throughout the lesson
AND
Sequences learning experiences appropriately
|
Articulates an accurate learning target
AND
Articulates accurate directions/ explanations
AND
Sequences learning experiences appropriately
|
Articulates an inaccurate learning target
AND/OR
Articulates inaccurate directions/explanations
|
Does not articulate the learning target
OR
Does not articulate directions/ explanations
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
F. Critical Thinking
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial 2022.R1.2 InTASC 2017.5.d
|
Engages learners in critical thinking in local and/or global contexts that
1. Fosters problem solving
2. Encourages conceptual connections
3. Challenges assumptions
|
Engages learners in critical thinking that
1. Fosters problem solving
2. Encourages conceptual connections
|
Introduces AND/OR models critical thinking that
1. Fosters problem solving
2. Encourages conceptual connections
|
Does not introduce AND/OR model critical thinking that
1. Fosters problem solving
2. Encourages conceptual connections
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
G. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting Instruction through Formative Assessment
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.8.b
|
Checks for understanding (whole class/group AND individual learners) during lessons using formative assessment
AND
Differentiates through planned and responsive adjustments (whole class/group and individual learners)
|
Checks for understanding (whole class/group) during lessons using formative assessment
AND
Differentiates through adjustments to Instruction (whole class/group)
|
Inconsistently checks for understanding during lessons using formative assessment
AND
Adjusts instruction accordingly, but adjustments may cause additional confusion
|
Does not check for understanding during lessons using formative assessment
OR
Does not make any adjustments based on learners’ responses
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
H. Digital Tools and Resources
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial2022.R1.3 InTASC2017.5.l
|
Discusses AND uses a variety of developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that
1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson
2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills
3. Extend learners’ understanding of concepts
|
Discusses AND uses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) that
1. Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson
2. Engage learners in the demonstration of knowledge or skills
|
Discusses developmentally appropriate technologies (digital tools and resources) relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson
AND
Technology is not available
|
One of the following:
A. Does not use technologies (digital tools and resources) to engage learners AND Technology is available in the setting
OR
B. Use of technologies is not relevant to the learning objectives/ targets of the lesson
OR
C. Does not discuss technologies AND Technology is not available in the setting
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
I. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.1 InTASC 2017.3.d
|
Actively involves learners to create and manage a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions
AND
Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners
AND
Uses research-based strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)
|
Manages a safe and respectful learning environment through the use of routines and transitions
AND
Establishes and promotes constructive relationships to equitably engage learners
AND
Uses research-based strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)
|
Attempts to manage a safe learning environment through the use of routines and transitions
AND/OR
Attempts to establish constructive relationships to engage learners
AND/OR
Attempts to use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)
|
Does not manage a safe learning environment
OR
Does not establish constructive relationships to engage learners
OR
Does not use constructive strategies to maintain learners’ attention (individual and whole group)
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
J. Data- Guided Instruction
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.6.l
|
Uses data-informed decisions (trends and patterns) to set short and long term goals for future instruction and assessment
AND
Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping and analysis
|
Uses data-informed decisions to design instruction and assessment
AND
Uses contemporary tools for learner data record-keeping
|
Uses minimal data to design instruction and assessment
|
Does not use data to design instruction and assessment
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
K. Feedback to Learners
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.6.d
|
Provides feedback that
1. Enables learners to recognize strengths AND areas for improvement
2. Is comprehensible
3. Is descriptive
4. Is individualized AND Provides timely feedback, guiding learners on how to use feedback to monitor their own progress
|
Provides feedback that
1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
2. Is comprehensible
3. Is descriptive AND Provides timely feedback
|
Provides minimal feedback that
1. Enables learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
OR
Feedback is provided in a somewhat timely fashion
|
Does not provide feedback
OR
Feedback does not enable learners to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
OR
Feedback is not provided in a timely fashion
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
L. Assessment Techniques
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.3 InTASC 2017.7.d
|
Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are
1. Developmentally appropriate
2. Formative AND summative
3. Diagnostic
4. Varied
|
Evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques that are
1. Developmentally appropriate
2. Formative AND summative
|
Assessment techniques are
1. Developmentally appropriate
2. Formative OR summative
|
Assessment techniques are
1. Developmentally inappropriate
OR
Not used
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
M. Connections to Research and Theory
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.9.c
|
Discusses, provides evidence of, and justifies connections to educational research and/or theory
AND
Uses research and/or theory to explain their P-12 learners’ progress
|
Discusses and provides evidence of connections to educational research and/or theory
|
Mentions connections to educational research and/or theory
|
No connections OR inaccurate connections to educational research and/or theory
|
|
|
Meets (2.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
N. Participates in Professional Development (PD)
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.9.b
|
Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshops, seminars, attending a professional conference, joining a professional organization)
AND
Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD
AND
Reflects on own professional practice with evidence of application of the knowledge acquired from PD during student teaching
|
Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)
AND
Provides evidence of an increased understanding of the teaching profession as a result of the PD
|
Participates in at least one professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)
|
Does not participate in any professional development opportunity (e.g. workshop, seminar, attending a professional conference)
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
O. Demonstrates Effective Communication with Parents or Legal Guardians
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.10.d
|
Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent teacher conferences, communication via email or online)
AND
Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress
AND
Interacts with parents or legal guardians in ways that improve understanding and encourage progress (e.g. exchange of email, face-to-face discussion, etc.)
|
Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent teacher conferences, communication via email or online)
AND
Provides information about P-12 learning to parents or legal guardians to promote understanding and academic progress
|
Provides evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians in accordance with district policies (e.g., letter of introduction, attends parent teacher conferences, communication via email or online)
|
Does not provide evidence of communication with parents or legal guardians
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
P. Demonstrates Punctuality
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.9.o
|
Reports on time or early for daily student teaching
AND
Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)
|
Reports on time for daily student teaching
AND
Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)
|
Inconsistently reports on time for daily student teaching
AND/OR
Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)
|
Does not report on time for student teaching
AND/OR
Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher committees)
|
|
|
Emergent Growth (1.000 pt)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
Q. Meets Deadlines and Obligations
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.9.o
|
Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor
AND
Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence
AND
Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes/cooperating teacher without reminders
|
Meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor
AND
Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence
AND
Provides clear and complete directions and lessons for substitutes/cooperating teacher
|
Most of the time meets deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor
AND
Informs some stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence
AND
Provides incomplete directions and lessons for substitutes/ cooperating teacher
|
Frequently misses deadlines or obligations established by the cooperating teacher and/or supervisor
AND/OR
Does not inform stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor, and/or faculty members) of absences prior to the absence
AND/OR
Does not provide directions and lessons for substitutes/cooperating teacher
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
R. Preparation
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.3.d
|
Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.)
AND
Materials are easily accessible AND organized
AND
Prepared for the unexpected and flexible
|
Prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.)
AND
Materials are easily accessible AND organized
|
Not consistently prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.)
AND/OR
Materials are easily accessible OR organized
|
Not prepared to teach on a daily basis with all materials (lesson plans, manipulatives, handouts, resources, etc.)
AND/OR
Materials are not organized NOR easily accessible
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
S. Collaboration
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.10.b
|
Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)
AND
Works with and learns from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction to meet diverse needs of learners
|
Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)
AND
Attempts to work with and learn from colleagues in planning and implementing instruction
|
Demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)
|
Does not demonstrate collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the school community (other teachers, school personnel, administrators, etc.)
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
T. Advocacy to Meet the Needs of Learners or for the Teaching Profession
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.10.j
|
Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the
1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities)
OR
2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research based practices) AND Takes action(s) based upon identified needs, while following district protocols
|
Recognizes and articulates specific areas in need of advocacy, including the
1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities)
OR
2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research based practices)
|
Recognizes areas in need of advocacy, but cannot articulate the
1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities)
OR
2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research based practices)
|
Does not recognize areas in need of advocacy, including the
1. Needs of learners (e.g. academic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural needs; OR adequate resources, equitable opportunities)
OR
2. Needs of the teaching profession (e.g. technology integration, research-based practices)
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
|
|
Exceeds Expectations (3.000 pts)
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
U. Responds Positively to Feedback and Constructive Criticism
(1.000, 4.8%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 InTASC 2017.9.n
|
Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally
AND
Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice
AND
Proactively seeks opportunities for feedback from other professionals
|
Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, supervision, and responds professionally
AND
Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice
|
Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision
AND/OR
Incorporates feedback inconsistently
|
Is not receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and supervision
AND/OR
Does not incorporate feedback
|
|
|
Exceeds (3.000 pts)
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
PART A: SCHOOL SETTING RUBRIC (Used for University purposes, not an official element of CPAST Form)
|
|
|
|
|
|
City (3.000 pts)
|
Suburban (2.000 pts)
|
Town (1.000 pt)
|
Rural (0.000 pt)
|
|
School Setting (1.000, 100.0%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suburban
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
PART B: METHOD OF DELIVERY RUBRIC (Used for University purposes, not an official element of CPAST Form)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtual Only (3.000 pts)
|
Hybrid (2.000 pts)
|
In Person Only (1.000 pt)
|
|
Method of Instructional Delivery (This section's scoring will not affect the student's overall score. The point values are for reporting purposes only.) (1.000, 100.0%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Person Only
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
SCRIP Dispositions Assessment Rubric (Used for University purposes, not an official element of CPAST Form)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
A. Social Responsibility
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 CAEP Revised
Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.m NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.3
|
The candidate demonstrates a sense of fairness, justice, and equity for all students
AND
demonstrates empathy and sensitivity to human needs.
|
The candidate demonstrates a sense of fairness, justice, and equity for all students.
|
The candidate states that all students can learn BUT the candidate’s actions do not confirm the belief.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
B. Social Responsibility
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 CAEP Revised
Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.c NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.3
|
The candidate interacts effectively with students and/or teachers to provide a positive, structured, safe learning environment and creates a learning environment where student access, success, and achievement are priority.
|
The candidate interacts effectively with students and/or teachers to provide a positive, structured, safe learning environment.
|
The classroom environment is lacking in positive affirmation, structure, OR safety.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
C. Commitment
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 CAEP Revised
Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.p NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.1
|
The candidate follows through on commitments and takes responsibilities seriously while meeting deadlines.
AND
The candidate demonstrates a persevering commitment to the mission and vision of the school and each student’s learning success.
|
The candidate follows through on commitments and takes responsibilities seriously while meeting deadlines.
|
The candidate makes commitments that he/she is unable to keep.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
D. Commitment
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 CAEP
Revised Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.k NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.1
|
The candidate shows the extraordinary self- discipline and work ethic essential to be planned, prepared and organized for successful instruction and learning/ or leadership and supervision to occur.
AND
The candidate consistently completes assigned tasks ahead of time.
|
The candidate shows the self discipline and work ethic essential to be planned, prepared and organized for successful instruction and learning/ or leadership and supervision to occur.
AND
The candidate completes assigned tasks on time.
|
The candidate’s lack of planning, preparation, or organization hinders successful instruction or leadership.
OR
The candidate completes assigned tasks after the deadline.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
E. Reflective Practice
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial2022.R1.4 CAEPRevisedAdvanced2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.h
NASDTEC-MCEE2015.2
|
The candidate thoughtfully considers educational matters, the practice of teaching, and utilizes data to make informed decisions regarding educational matters and the practice of teaching to implement change.
|
The candidate thoughtfully considers educational matters and the practice of teaching to make informed decisions.
|
The candidate spends little time reflecting on the practice of teaching to make informed decisions.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Proficient
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
F. Reflective Practice
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4 CAEP Revised
Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.c NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.2
|
The candidate makes choices after pondering ideas, experiences, research, and engages in collaboration with colleagues when appropriate.
|
The candidate makes choices after pondering ideas and experiences.
|
The candidate acts quickly before thinking about the results.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
G. Integrity
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4
CAEP Revised Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.o NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.2
|
The candidate models exemplary citizenship and displays moral leadership.
AND
The candidate values honesty inside and outside of the classroom.
AND
The candidate abides by a professional code of ethics and standards of practice.
|
The candidate models good citizenship and acts in an ethical and moral manner.
AND
The candidate values honesty inside and outside of the classroom.
|
The candidate does not follow the rules or the law.
OR
The candidate acts in a way which causes others to question his/her ethics or morals.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
H. Integrity
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4
CAEP Revised Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
ISTE.2.3
ISTE.LDR.3
InTASC-2017.10.g NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.5
|
The candidate demonstrates exemplary commitment to consuming, creating, distributing, and communicating information through all technologies to build local and global learning communities, both personally and professionally.
|
The candidate demonstrates a positive commitment to consuming, creating, distributing, and communicating information through all technologies.
|
The candidate lacks professional discretion when consuming, creating, distributing, and/or communicating through the use of all technologies.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Advanced
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Met-Advanced (3.000 pts)
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
I. Professionalism
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial
2022.R1.4
CAEP Revised Advanced
2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.c NASDTEC-MCEE 2015.2
|
The candidate demonstrates exemplary behavior; possesses patience, self-control, and flexibility when obstacles or difficult situations occur.
AND
The candidate effectively manages personal emotions and feelings and reacts reasonably to situations.
AND
The candidate acts confidently and maturely taking responsibility in leadership.
AND
The candidate maintains enthusiasm and passion for the teaching profession and views learning as a life-long activity.
|
The candidate demonstrates appropriate behavior; possesses patience, self-control, and flexibility when obstacles or difficult situations occur.
AND
The candidate manages personal emotions and feelings and reacts reasonably to situations.
AND
The candidate acts confidently and maturely.
|
Reviews & Evaluations: Jennifer Davis
Evaluations
|
Institution:
|
Liberty University
|
|
Student:
|
Jennifer Davis
|
|
Supervisor:
|
Regina Baker
|
|
Site:
|
J.Alex Child Development Center
|
|
Date:
|
Spring 2025 - Term A (01/13/25 - 05/09/25)
|
|
Type:
|
EDSP 688 (CT (Cooperating Teacher - Site Supervisor))
|
|
Final Completed:
|
04/20/25 09:40 PM
|
|
Pre-CPAST Assignment 11-22 - Mentor
|
|
General overview
Assessment
Pre-CPAST Directions
Directions – The form will be used once during the course of the term and will be provided by the Program Coordinator to the University Supervisor, Host Teacher, and Candidate.
Additional information about and support for using the form can be found in the “Glossary” and “Look Fors” for select rows (indicated by an *) at the end of this document. Click here for a video overview of the Pre-CPAST/CPAST Assessment.
Comments are not required for indicators that meet the standard. However, please leave a comment on any standard indicator that your candidate scored "emerging" or "does not meet expectations" to help him/her grow in their practice.
Glossary of Terms
Analysis: Careful and critical examination of data and/or processes to identify key components and potential outcomes.
Assessment: “Process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on, and adjusting teaching and relearning to ensure that learners reach high levels of Achievement
Candidate: (Also known as "intern") An individual participating in a full-time field experience in a P12 classroom in order to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Cooperating Teachers: (Also known as “mentor teachers”) Teachers in schools who mentor and supervise student teachers in their classrooms for the duration of a student teaching and/or field experience.
Data-informed decisions: “Focuses on using student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.”
Developmental Theory (General): Theories that describe the stages of development of children/adolescents (e.g., Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, Behavioral Theories, and Sociocultural Theories).
Developmental Theory (Content-Specific): Content-specific teaching that organizes activities and learning tasks to help learners move from one level to the next.
Evidence: Artifacts that document and demonstrate how [the student teacher] planned and implemented instruction
Feedback: “Information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning.”
Formative Assessment: “Assessment used continuously throughout learning and teaching, allowing teachers to adjust instruction to improve learner achievement.”
Goals: See definition for “Measurable Goals.”
Learner: Any P12 student in the student teacher’s classroom.
Learning Environment: Any setting where learning occurs. The term may refer to the physical environment (e.g., the classroom), as well as the classroom management procedures and activities that enable teaching and learning to take place.
Measurable Goals: “Provides information for describing, assessing, and evaluating student achievement.”
Mentor Teachers: See definition for “Cooperating Teachers.”
Objectives/Targets: P12 student (learner) learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson or learning segment.
Problem Solving: A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.
Program Coordinator: Faculty or staff member from a college or university who coordinates/manages the administrative components of a teacher educator licensure program.
Research: "The use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge."
Targets: See definition for 'Objectives/Targets.'
University Supervisor (US): The university instructor assigned to the student teacher who regularly observes his/her performance to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The US coordinates the student teacher’s evaluation, and is responsible for recording the consensus scores using this form.
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
Suggested Letter Grade Rubric
Please provide a suggested letter grade to signify the candidate's overall performance and effort in the placement.
|
| |
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
F
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide a suggested letter grade to signify the candidate's overall performance and effort during the practicum. (1.000, 100.0%)
|
Final
Required
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
A. Focus for Learning:
Standards and Objectives/Target
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.7.a
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state Learning
Standards AND Goals are measurable AND
Standards, objectives/ targets, and learning tasks
are consistently aligned with each other AND
Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate
for learners
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state Learning
Standards AND/OR Some goals are measurable
AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and
learning tasks, are loosely or are not consistently
aligned with each other AND/OR Articulates some
objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners
|
Plans do not align to the appropriate P-12 state
Learning Standards AND/OR Goals are absent or
not measurable AND/OR Standards,
objectives/targets, and learning tasks are not
aligned with each other AND/OR Does not
articulate objectives/targets that are appropriate for
learners
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
There is strong coherence between the standards, learning objectives, and instructional tasks, which supports focused and effective learning experiences. Additionally, the objectives and targets are thoughtfully articulated and developmentally appropriate, reflecting an understanding of learners' needs and promoting meaningful engagement.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
B. Assessment of P-12 Learning
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.b
|
Planned assessments 1. Provide opportunities for
learners to illustrate competence 2. Align with the
P-12 state Learning Standards
|
Planned assessments 1. Provide opportunities for
some learners to illustrate competence OR 2. Align
with the P-12 state Learning Standards
|
Planned assessments 1. Are not included OR 2. Do
not align with the P-12 state Learning Standards
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student did well with all planned assessments
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
C. Learning Target and Directions
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.7.c
|
Articulates an accurate and clear learning target
AND
Articulates accurate directions/explanations
AND
Sequences learning experiences appropriately
|
Articulates an inaccurate or unclear learning target
AND/OR
Articulates inaccurate directions/explanations
|
Does not articulate the learning target
OR
Does not articulate directions/explanations
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Articulates an accurate and clear learning Target
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
D. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting
Instruction through Formative Assessment
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.8.b
|
Checks for understanding (whole class/group)
during lessons using formative assessment AND
Differentiates through adjustments to instruction
(whole class/group)
|
Inconsistently checks for understanding during
lessons using formative assessment AND Adjusts
instruction accordingly, but adjustments may cause
additional confusion
|
Does not check for understanding during lessons
using formative assessment OR Does not make
any adjustments based on learners’ responses
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Differentiates through adjustments to instruction
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
E. Digital Tools and Resources
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.2 InTASC-2017.5.l InTASC-2017.6.i
|
Discusses AND uses developmentally appropriate
technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1.
Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the
lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of
knowledge or skills
|
Discusses developmentally appropriate
technologies (digital tools and resources) relevant
to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson AND
Technology is not available
|
One of the following: A. Does not use technologies
(digital tools and resources) to engage learners
AND Technology is available in the setting OR B.
Use of technologies is not relevant to the learning
objectives/ targets of the lesson OR C. Does not
discuss technologies AND Technology is not
available in the setting
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student discusses and uses developmentally appropriate technologies
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
F. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.1 InTASC-2017.3.d
|
Manages a safe and respectful learning
environment through the use of routines and
transitions (i.e., classroom management) AND
Establishes and promotes constructive
relationships to equitably engage learners
|
Attempts to manage a safe learning environment
through the use of routines and transitions (i.e.,
classroom management) AND/OR Attempts to
establish constructive relationships to engage
learners
|
Does not manage a safe learning environment (i.e.,
insufficient classroom management) OR Does not
establish constructive relationships to engage
learners
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student maintained a safe and respectful learning environment.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
G. Data- Guided Instruction
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.l
|
Uses data-informed decisions to design instruction
and assessment
|
Uses minimal data to design instruction and
assessment
|
Does not use data to design instruction and
assessment
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student used data-informed decisions to design instruction and assessment
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
H. Feedback to Learners
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.d
|
Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to
recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
AND Provides timely feedback
|
Provides minimal feedback that 1. Enables learners
to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
OR Feedback is provided in a somewhat timely
fashion
|
Does not provide feedback OR Feedback does not
enable learners to recognize strengths OR areas
for improvement OR Feedback is not provided in a
timely fashion
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student enabled learners to recognized strengths
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
I. Assessment Techniques
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.7.d
|
Evaluates and supports learning through
assessment techniques that are 1. Developmentally
appropriate 2. Formative
|
Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally
appropriate 2. Formative
|
Assessment techniques are 1. Developmentally
inappropriate OR Not used
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student evaluates and supports learning through assessment techniques.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
J. Connections to Research and Theory
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.1
|
Discusses and provides evidence of connections to
educational research and/or theory
|
Mentions connections to educational research
and/or theory
|
No connections OR inaccurate connections to
educational research and/or theory
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Discusses and provides evidence of connection to educational research.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
K. Demonstrates Punctuality
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 InTASC-2017.9.o
|
Reports on time for experience AND Additional
teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs, teacher
committees)
|
Inconsistently reports on time for experience
AND/OR Additional teacher engagements (e.g.,
IEPs, teacher committees)
|
Does not report on time for experience AND/OR
Additional teacher engagements (e.g., IEPs,
teacher committees)
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student reports on time for experiences
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
L. Meets Deadlines and Obligations
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 InTASC-2017.9.o
|
Meets deadlines and obligations established by the
cooperating teacher, instructor, and/or supervisor
AND Informs all stakeholders (cooperating teacher,
supervisor, instructor, and/or faculty members) of
absences prior to the absence
|
Most of the time meets deadlines and obligations
established by the cooperating teacher, instructor,
and/or supervisor AND Informs some stakeholders
(cooperating teacher, supervisor, instructor, and/or
faculty members) of absences prior to the absence
|
Frequently misses deadlines or obligations
established by the cooperating teacher, instructor,
and/or supervisor AND/OR Does not inform
stakeholders (cooperating teacher, supervisor,
instructor, and/or faculty members) of absences
prior to the absence
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student met all by deadlines and obligations established by the cooperating teacher
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
M. Collaboration
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 InTASC-2017.10.b
|
Demonstrates collaborative relationships with
cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the
school community (other teachers, school
personnel, administrators, etc.) AND Attempts to
work with and learn from colleagues in planning
and implementing instruction
|
Demonstrates collaborative relationships with
cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the
school community (other teachers, school
personnel, administrators, etc.)
|
Does not demonstrate collaborative relationships
with cooperating teacher AND/OR members of the
school community (other teachers, school
personnel, administrators, etc.)
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student demonstrates collaborative relationships with cooperating teacher
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
N. Responds Positively to Feedback and Constructive Criticism
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 InTASC-2017.9.n
|
Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism,
supervision, and responds professionally AND
Incorporates feedback (e.g., from cooperating
teacher, university supervisor) to improve practice
|
Is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism, and
supervision AND/OR Incorporates feedback
inconsistently
|
Is not receptive to feedback, constructive criticism,
and supervision AND/OR Does not incorporate
feedback
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student is receptive to feedback, constructive criticism,
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
School Setting: Part A
|
|
|
|
School Setting (This section's scoring will not affect the student's overall score. The point values are for reporting purposes only.) (1.000, 100.0%)
|
|
City
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
| |
|
|
|
Element 1Method of Instructional Delivery (This section's scoring will not affect the student's overall score. The point values are for reporting purposes only.) (1.000, 100.0%)
|
|
In Person Only
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
Pre-SCRIP Dispositions Assessment Rubric
Dear Host Teacher, Cooperating Teacher, or On-site Mentor,
Before completing the SCRIP/Pre-SCRIP assessment, please review the SCRIP/Pre-SCRIP Scorer Training video. This video will explain the importance of this assessment and will provide direction on how to accurately score the candidate using the instrument. The video is less than 15 minutes in length. Here is the link: https://watch.liberty.edu/media/t/1_103thmlr
Comments are not required for indicators that meet the standard. However, please leave a comment on any standard indicator that your candidate scored "does not meet - developing" or "no evidence" to help him/her grow in their practice.
Also attached is a copy of the PowerPoint used in the video in case you would like to refer back to the slides after watching the training. Thank you so much for investing in the training and preparation of future educators!
Attachments: SCRIP__Pre_SCRIP_Scorer_Training_200602.pptx
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
A. Social Responsibility
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-
Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.m NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.3
|
The candidate demonstrates a sense of fairness,
justice, and equity for all students
|
The candidate states that all students can learn
BUT the candidate’s actions do not confirm the
belief.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
B. Social Responsibility
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-
Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.c NASDTEC-MCEE-
2015.3
|
The candidate interacts effectively with students
and/or teachers to provide a positive, structured,
safe learning environment.
|
The classroom environment is lacking in positive
affirmation, structure, OR safety.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
C. Commitment
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-
Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.p NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.1
|
The candidate follows through on commitments and
takes responsibilities seriously while meeting
deadlines
|
The candidate makes commitments that he/she is
unable to keep.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
D. Commitment
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-
Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.k NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.1
|
The candidate shows the self-discipline and work
ethic essential to be planned, prepared and
organized for successful instruction and learning/ or
leadership and supervision to occur.
AND
The candidate completes assigned tasks on time.
|
The candidate’s lack of planning, preparation, or
organization hinders successful instruction or
leadership. OR
The candidate completes assigned tasks after the
deadline.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student was very committed to getting the job done.
|
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
E. Reflective Practice
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-
Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.c NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.2
|
The candidate thoughtfully considers educational matters and the practice of teaching to make
informed decisions
|
The candidate spends little time reflecting on the
practice of teaching to make informed decisions.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
F. Reflective Practice
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.c NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.2
|
The candidate makes choices after pondering ideas
and experiences.
|
The candidate acts quickly before thinking about
the results.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
G. Integrity
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.o NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.2
|
The candidate models good citizenship
and acts in an ethical and moral manner.
AND
The candidate values honesty inside and outside of
the classroom and school.
|
The candidate does not follow the rules or the law. OR
The candidate acts in a way which causes others to
question his/her ethics or morals.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student did very well at completing task that were assigned
|
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
H. Integrity
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
ISTE.2.3 ISTE.LDR.3 InTASC-2017.10.g
NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.5
|
The candidate demonstrates a positive commitment
to consuming, creating, distributing, and
communicating information through all
technologies.
|
The candidate lacks professional discretion when
consuming, creating, distributing, and/or
communicating through the use of all technologies.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Students has very high integrity.
|
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
I. Professionalism
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.10.c NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.2
|
The candidate demonstrates appropriate behavior;
possesses patience, self-control, and flexibility
when obstacles or difficult situations occur.
AND
The candidate manages personal emotions and
feelings and reacts reasonably to situations.
AND
The candidate acts confidently and maturely.
|
The candidate is impatient or inflexible, lacks
personal management skills and confidence.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
| |
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Met-Proficient (2.000 pts)
|
Level 1: Not Met-Developing (1.000 pt)
|
Level 0: No Evidence (0.000 pt)
|
|
J. Professionalism
(1.000, 10.0%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.4 CAEP-Revised-Advanced-2022.RA1.1f
InTASC-2017.9.c NASDTEC-MCEE-2015.2
|
The candidate effectively uses the English
language in speech and writing.
|
The candidate has many errors in written
communication.
|
No evidence provided.
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student remained professional at all times.
|
|
Level 2: Met - Proficient
|
|
|
Pre-SCRIP Dispositions Assessment Rubric Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Student was exceptional with students.
|
|
|
Overall Evaluation Comments
|
|
Comments: *Required
|
|
Student was very washer to learn. Very hands on. Met expectations.
|
|
|
Evaluation Score Summary
|
|
Title:
|
Score
|
Weight
|
Adj. Score
|
|
|
Primary Evaluation </>
|
0.00
|
100.00%
|
0.00
|
Finalized
|
| |
| |
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
Institution:
|
Liberty University
|
|
Student:
|
Jennifer Davis
|
|
Supervisor:
|
Pamela Vaughn
|
|
Site:
|
J.Alex Child Development Center
|
|
Date:
|
Spring 2025 - Term A (01/13/25 - 05/09/25)
|
|
Type:
|
EDSP 588 (CT (Cooperating Teacher - Site Supervisor))
|
|
Final Completed:
|
04/08/25 03:01 PM
|
|
Pre-CPAST Assignment 11-22 - Mentor
|
|
General overview
Assessment
Pre-CPAST Directions
Directions – The form will be used once during the course of the term and will be provided by the Program Coordinator to the University Supervisor, Host Teacher, and Candidate.
Additional information about and support for using the form can be found in the “Glossary” and “Look Fors” for select rows (indicated by an *) at the end of this document. Click here for a video overview of the Pre-CPAST/CPAST Assessment.
Comments are not required for indicators that meet the standard. However, please leave a comment on any standard indicator that your candidate scored "emerging" or "does not meet expectations" to help him/her grow in their practice.
Glossary of Terms
Analysis: Careful and critical examination of data and/or processes to identify key components and potential outcomes.
Assessment: “Process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on, and adjusting teaching and relearning to ensure that learners reach high levels of Achievement
Candidate: (Also known as "intern") An individual participating in a full-time field experience in a P12 classroom in order to obtain professional education licensure/certification.
Cooperating Teachers: (Also known as “mentor teachers”) Teachers in schools who mentor and supervise student teachers in their classrooms for the duration of a student teaching and/or field experience.
Data-informed decisions: “Focuses on using student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.”
Developmental Theory (General): Theories that describe the stages of development of children/adolescents (e.g., Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, Behavioral Theories, and Sociocultural Theories).
Developmental Theory (Content-Specific): Content-specific teaching that organizes activities and learning tasks to help learners move from one level to the next.
Evidence: Artifacts that document and demonstrate how [the student teacher] planned and implemented instruction
Feedback: “Information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning.”
Formative Assessment: “Assessment used continuously throughout learning and teaching, allowing teachers to adjust instruction to improve learner achievement.”
Goals: See definition for “Measurable Goals.”
Learner: Any P12 student in the student teacher’s classroom.
Learning Environment: Any setting where learning occurs. The term may refer to the physical environment (e.g., the classroom), as well as the classroom management procedures and activities that enable teaching and learning to take place.
Measurable Goals: “Provides information for describing, assessing, and evaluating student achievement.”
Mentor Teachers: See definition for “Cooperating Teachers.”
Objectives/Targets: P12 student (learner) learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson or learning segment.
Problem Solving: A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.
Program Coordinator: Faculty or staff member from a college or university who coordinates/manages the administrative components of a teacher educator licensure program.
Research: "The use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge."
Targets: See definition for 'Objectives/Targets.'
University Supervisor (US): The university instructor assigned to the student teacher who regularly observes his/her performance to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses. The US coordinates the student teacher’s evaluation, and is responsible for recording the consensus scores using this form.
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
|
Suggested Letter Grade Rubric
Please provide a suggested letter grade to signify the candidate's overall performance and effort in the placement.
|
| |
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
F
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide a suggested letter grade to signify the candidate's overall performance and effort during the practicum. (1.000, 100.0%)
|
Final
Required
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
Great work!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section Weight: 0%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
A. Focus for Learning:
Standards and Objectives/Target
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.7.a
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state Learning
Standards AND Goals are measurable AND
Standards, objectives/ targets, and learning tasks
are consistently aligned with each other AND
Articulates objectives/targets that are appropriate
for learners
|
Plans align to appropriate P-12 state Learning
Standards AND/OR Some goals are measurable
AND/OR Standards, objectives/targets, and
learning tasks, are loosely or are not consistently
aligned with each other AND/OR Articulates some
objectives/targets that are appropriate for learners
|
Plans do not align to the appropriate P-12 state
Learning Standards AND/OR Goals are absent or
not measurable AND/OR Standards,
objectives/targets, and learning tasks are not
aligned with each other AND/OR Does not
articulate objectives/targets that are appropriate for
learners
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Great work.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
B. Assessment of P-12 Learning
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.b
|
Planned assessments 1. Provide opportunities for
learners to illustrate competence 2. Align with the
P-12 state Learning Standards
|
Planned assessments 1. Provide opportunities for
some learners to illustrate competence OR 2. Align
with the P-12 state Learning Standards
|
Planned assessments 1. Are not included OR 2. Do
not align with the P-12 state Learning Standards
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Meet all expected requirments.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
C. Learning Target and Directions
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.7.c
|
Articulates an accurate and clear learning target
AND
Articulates accurate directions/explanations
AND
Sequences learning experiences appropriately
|
Articulates an inaccurate or unclear learning target
AND/OR
Articulates inaccurate directions/explanations
|
Does not articulate the learning target
OR
Does not articulate directions/explanations
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Meet all expected requirements.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
D. Checking for Understanding and Adjusting
Instruction through Formative Assessment
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.8.b
|
Checks for understanding (whole class/group)
during lessons using formative assessment AND
Differentiates through adjustments to instruction
(whole class/group)
|
Inconsistently checks for understanding during
lessons using formative assessment AND Adjusts
instruction accordingly, but adjustments may cause
additional confusion
|
Does not check for understanding during lessons
using formative assessment OR Does not make
any adjustments based on learners’ responses
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Meet all expected requirements.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
E. Digital Tools and Resources
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.2 InTASC-2017.5.l InTASC-2017.6.i
|
Discusses AND uses developmentally appropriate
technologies (digital tools and resources) that 1.
Are relevant to learning objectives/ targets of the
lesson 2. Engage learners in the demonstration of
knowledge or skills
|
Discusses developmentally appropriate
technologies (digital tools and resources) relevant
to learning objectives/ targets of the lesson AND
Technology is not available
|
One of the following: A. Does not use technologies
(digital tools and resources) to engage learners
AND Technology is available in the setting OR B.
Use of technologies is not relevant to the learning
objectives/ targets of the lesson OR C. Does not
discuss technologies AND Technology is not
available in the setting
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Used all resources available to meet requirements,
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
F. Safe and Respectful Learning Environment
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.1 InTASC-2017.3.d
|
Manages a safe and respectful learning
environment through the use of routines and
transitions (i.e., classroom management) AND
Establishes and promotes constructive
relationships to equitably engage learners
|
Attempts to manage a safe learning environment
through the use of routines and transitions (i.e.,
classroom management) AND/OR Attempts to
establish constructive relationships to engage
learners
|
Does not manage a safe learning environment (i.e.,
insufficient classroom management) OR Does not
establish constructive relationships to engage
learners
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Safe Learning environment was shown throughout the routines.
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
G. Data- Guided Instruction
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.l
|
Uses data-informed decisions to design instruction
and assessment
|
Uses minimal data to design instruction and
assessment
|
Does not use data to design instruction and
assessment
|
|
|
Question Comments : *Comment Required
|
|
Great work!
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
|
|
|
Meets Expectations (2.000 pts)
|
Emerging (1.000 pt)
|
Does Not Meet Expectations (0.000 pt)
|
|
H. Feedback to Learners
(1.000, 7.1%)
CAEP-Initial-2022.R1.3 InTASC-2017.6.d
|
Provides feedback that 1. Enables learners to
recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
AND Provides timely feedback
|
Provides minimal feedback that 1. Enables learners
to recognize strengths OR areas for improvement
OR Feedback is provided in a somewhat timely
AssignmentsUpdated: 11-24-25
Assignments: Jennifer Davis
Association & Society MembershipUpdated: 11-24-25
Association & Society Membership: Jennifer Davis
Professional Associations.
Christian Educators
Women's Foundation of Alabama
NAECY
These are professional associations memberships. These memberships do not provide certificates.
InternshipsUpdated: 12-02-25
Internships: Jennifer Davis
Cumulative Log.
| Start Date |
End Date |
Please submit hours for Initial Licensure: B.Ed., B.M., and M.A.T. Degree Programs here. |
Direct |
Indirect |
Hours Submitted (hh:mm) |
Hours Submitted (decimal) |
Time IN |
| 11/13/2025 |
11/13/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 11/10/2025 |
11/10/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 11/7/2025 |
11/7/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 11/6/2025 |
11/6/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 11/3/2025 |
11/3/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/30/2025 |
10/30/2025 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 10/29/2025 |
10/29/2025 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 10/28/2025 |
10/28/2025 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 10/22/2025 |
10/22/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/21/2025 |
10/21/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/20/2025 |
10/20/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/17/2025 |
10/17/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/16/2025 |
10/16/2025 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 10/15/2025 |
10/15/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/14/2025 |
10/14/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/13/2025 |
10/13/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/10/2025 |
10/10/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/9/2025 |
10/9/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 10/7/2025 |
10/7/2025 |
12 |
5 |
7 |
12:00 |
12 |
|
| 10/6/2025 |
10/6/2025 |
6.3 |
0 |
6.3 |
6:18 |
6.3 |
|
| 10/2/2025 |
10/2/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/19/2025 |
9/19/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/18/2025 |
9/18/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/17/2025 |
9/17/2025 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 9/16/2025 |
9/16/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/15/2025 |
9/15/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/12/2025 |
9/12/2025 |
7.3 |
5 |
2.3 |
7:18 |
7.3 |
|
| 9/11/2025 |
9/11/2025 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
6:00 |
6 |
|
| 9/10/2025 |
9/10/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/9/2025 |
9/9/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/8/2025 |
9/8/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 9/3/2025 |
9/3/2025 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 9/2/2025 |
9/2/2025 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
7:00 |
7 |
|
| 8/29/2025 |
8/29/2025 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 8/28/2025 |
8/28/2025 |
8 |
1 |
7 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 8/27/2025 |
8/27/2025 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 8/26/2025 |
8/26/2025 |
8 |
1 |
7 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 8/25/2025 |
8/25/2025 |
8 |
1 |
7 |
8:00 |
8 |
|
| 8/22/2025 |
8/22/2025 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
5:00 |
5 |
|
| 8/21/2025 |
8/21/2025 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
6:00 |
6 |
|
| 8/20/2025 |
8/20/2025 |
9 |
4 |
5 |
9:00 |
9 |
|
| 8/19/2025 |
8/19/2025 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
5:00c |
5 |
|
| 8/18/2025 |
8/18/2025 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
5:00 |
5 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Log for cumulative hours for August - November 2025 totaling 159 direct hours and 151 indirect hours.
 251124120737_CUMULATIVE_LOG.pdf (.pdf) 0.89mb
| | | | | | | |
SHARE