TWS

=Teacher Work Sample Rubric=


 * ||  || 2 || 1 || 0 ||
 * Contextual Factors || 1 || Basic demographics and other background knowledge of community, school and classroom are clearly and meaningfully outlined. || Basic demographics and other background knowledge of community, school and classroom are noted but little detail is provided . || Basic demographics and other background knowledge of community, school and classroom are only vaguely referenced. ||
 * || 2 || Characteristics of students which may impact their learning of mathematics are appropriately explored. Implications for instructional planning and assessment are thoroughly discussed. || Characteristics of students which may impact their learning of mathematics are identified but not explored in any depth. Implications for instructional planning and assessment are discussed. || Characteristics of students which may impact their learning of mathematics are only superficially noted. Implications for instructional planning and assessment are minimally discussed. ||
 * || 3 || Strategies for creating a safe and engaging classroom environment that encourages student responsibility and participation are thoroughly discussed. || Strategies for creating a safe and engaging classroom environment that encourages student responsibility and participation are discussed. || Strategies for creating a safe and engaging classroom environment that encourages student responsibility and participation are not clearly noted. ||
 * Learning Goals || 1 || Fundamental mathematical background knowledge and understanding are well articulated. || Fundamental mathematical understandings and relationships between core mathematical concepts are noted. || Fundamental mathematical understandings and relationships between core mathematical concepts are only vaguely referenced. ||
 * || 2 || Mathematical solutions, arguments, formal proofs, and informal justifications are elegantly presented with the contexts, interconnections, representations and images that make the mathematics meaningful. || Mathematical solutions, arguments, formal proofs, and informal justifications are presented with the contexts, interconnections, representations and images that make the mathematics meaningful. || Mathematical solutions, arguments, formal proofs, and informal justifications are minimally presented with the contexts, interconnections, representations and images that make the mathematics meaningful. ||
 * || 3 || Requisite mathematical understandings and relationships between core mathematical concepts are clearly articulated. || Requisite mathematical background knowledge and understanding are mentioned but not well articulated. || There are only brief or no references to the mathematical background knowledge and understanding required for the unit. ||
 * || 4 || Instructional tools, which are usefully inventive, accessible to students, and necessary, and preferable to possible alternatives, are described and justified. || Instructional tools are described but their use is not planned in a way that will significantly enhance instruction. || The use of Instruction tools is planned in a way that will have little if any impact upon the effectiveness of the instruction. ||
 * || 5 || The outline of the Unit Plan Sequence is well thought out, progresses developmentally and logically and is appropriately detailed. || The outline of the Unit Plan Sequence appears to have been thought out, progresses somewhat developmentally and logically and includes some detail. || The outline of the Unit Plan Sequence appears does not progress developmentally and logically or does not include sufficient detail. ||
 * Assessment Plan || 1 || There is good alignment of assessment with instructional tasks and activities. Planned summative assessment is consistent with anticipated student learning experiences and is mathematically significant. || There is good alignment of assessment with instructional tasks and activities. Planned summative assessment is only somewhat consistent with anticipated student learning experiences or is lacking in mathematical significance. || There is poor or inconsistent alignment of assessment with instructional tasks and activities. ||
 * || 2 || Modes of mathematics assessment are appropriate and varied and include problem-solving contexts and opportunities for student self-assessment. || Modes of mathematics assessment are somewhat appropriate and varied and include limited problem-solving contexts and opportunities for student self-assessment. || Modes of mathematics assessment are not appropriate or varied and do not include problem-solving contexts and opportunities for student self-assessment. ||
 * || 3 || Student expectations extend beyond memorized procedures and are clearly explained in a detailed rubric with indicators for each scoring level. || Student expectations extend beyond memorized procedures but are not clearly explained in a detailed rubric with indicators for each scoring level. || Student expectations do not extend beyond memorized procedures and/or are not clearly explained in a detailed rubric with indicators for each scoring level. ||
 * || 4 || Formative assessments provide indicators for evaluation of students' mathematical argumentations, representations, ideas, or misconceptions and are sufficient to guide instruction and make appropriate modifications. || Formative assessments are mathematically sound but are not sufficient to guide instruction. || Formative assessments are not mathematically sound or they provide little guidance for instruction. ||
 * || 5 || Summative assessments (a) are aligned with unit objectives and student learning experiences; (b) accommodate the needs of all students; (c) offer students an opportunity to demonstrate conceptual understanding and procedural competency; (d) clearly articulate expectations for students; (e) employ detailed rubrics; and (f) provide appropriate feedback and opportunities for student self-assessment. || Summative assessments provide opportunities for most students, with appropriate adaptations, to demonstrate some understanding of the fundamental mathematics identified in the unit and offer some learning opportunities for students to synthesize mathematical ideas. || Summative assessments provide little or no opportunity for students, to demonstrate minimal understanding of the fundamental mathematics identified in the unit and offer minimal learning opportunities for students to synthesize mathematical ideas. ||
 * Design for Instruction || 1 || The mathematics of the unit is important and substantive allowing mathematical ideas to be communicated effectively with a variety of representations, reasoning, argumentations, and justifications. Learning opportunities are provided that promote critical thinking, problem solving, conceptual understanding and procedural competency. || The mathematics of the unit is important and substantive allowing mathematical ideas to be communicated effectively with some representations, reasoning, argumentations, and justifications. Some learning opportunities are provided that promote critical thinking, problem solving, conceptual understanding and procedural competency. || Few learning opportunities are provided that promote critical thinking, problem solving, conceptual understanding and procedural competency. ||
 * || 2 || Launching of tasks for student inquiry is well conceived. Conceptually and appropriately challenging tasks are open-ended and motivate the need for fundamental mathematics. Activities are designed to facilitate mathematics discourse, student-directed inquiry, and student involvement. Appropriate tools are made available to support productive student exploration of the mathematics elicited by the task. || Launching of tasks for student inquiry is somewhat well planned but the tasks, themselves, are not conceptually and approriately challenging, are not open-ended or do not motivate the need for fundamental mathematics. || Launching of tasks for student inquiry is not well planned but the tasks. The tasks are not conceptually and approriately challenging, are not open-ended and do not motivate the need for fundamental mathematics. ||
 * || 3 || The unit is planned in a way that will anticipate and build on students' ideas in ways that support their personal understandings and allow appropriate unpacking and analyzing of students' mathematics, including 1) common ways that students think about and do mathematics; 2) common misconceptions and factors that impede mathematical understanding; and 3) differences in student approaches to learning and solution processes. || The unit is planned in a way that will allow some unpacking and analyzing of students' mathematics. || The unit is planned in a way that allows only a limited amount of unpacking and analyzing of students' mathematics. ||
 * || 4 || Pedagogically useful descriptions of how state core curriculum and NCTM standards apply to this unit are clearly presented. || Pedagogically useful descriptions of how state core curriculum and NCTM standards apply to this unit are minimally presented. || Descriptions of how state core curriculum and NCTM standards apply to this unit are only minimally presented. ||
 * || 5 || Instructional design provides strong evidence, with a variety of representations, of the preservice teacher's understandings of and ability to communicate the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline of mathematics, and how mathematical ideas in the unit are connected and embedded within that structure. || Instructional design provides some evidence, with a variety of representations, of the preservice teacher's understandings of and ability to communicate the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline of mathematics, and how mathematical ideas in the unit are connected and embedded within that structure. || Instructional design provides little evidence of the preservice teacher's understandings of and ability to communicate the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline of mathematics, and how mathematical ideas in the unit are connected and embedded within that structure. ||
 * Instructional Decision Making || 1 || Modifications were based on evidence provided by formative assessment and analysis of student learning. || Some modifications were based on evidence provided by formative assessment and analysis of student learning. || Modifications were not based on evidence provided by formative assessment and analysis of student learning. ||
 * || 2 || Modifications followed sound professional practice. || Some modifications followed sound professional practice. || Modifications followed questionable professional practice. ||
 * || 3 || Modifications supported achievement of the learning goals. || Modifications supported achievement of some of the learning goals. || Modifications did not support achievement of the learning goals. ||
 * Analysis of Student Learning || 1 || Evidence of student learning is presented and analyzed in relationship to the fundamental mathematical concepts which were taught. || Evidence of student learning is presented and analyzed, but not in relationship to the fundamental mathematical concepts which were taught. || Evidence of student learning is not analyzed. ||
 * || 2 || A detailed scoring rubric is provided including analyses of student work samples for each level in the rubric. || A scoring rubric is provided but lacks detail or analyses of student work samples are limited. || There is no scoring rubric to provide for analysis of student work. ||
 * || 3 || Detailed analysis of student learning indicates students' abilities to communicate mathematical ideas effectively using a variety of appropriate representations. || Some analysis of student learning indicates students' abilities to communicate mathematical ideas effectively using a variety of appropriate representations. || There is minimal or no analysis of student learning. ||
 * || 4 || Through appropriate unpacking and building on student ideas, all students demonstrated growth in mathematical thinking (problem solving; reasoning, justification and proof; clarity in communication and argumentation; connections between strategies and multiple representations). || Through limited unpacking, some of the students demonstrated growth in mathematical thinking. || Through insufficient unpacking, only a few of the students demonstrated growth in mathematical thinking. ||
 * || 5 || Examples are presented of specific students' mathematics observed during formative assessment in relationship to corresponding state core objectives and NCTM Principles and Standards. || Examples are presented of general students' mathematics observed during formative assessment but are not related to corresponding state core objectives and NCTM Principles and Standards. || Vague references are presented of general students' mathematics observed during formative assessment but are not related to corresponding state core objectives and NCTM Principles and Standards. ||
 * || 6 || Based on student performance, the summative assessment was consistent with student learning experiences and was mathematically significant. || Based on student performance, the summative assessment was not completely consistent with student learning experiences and/or was not mathematically significant. || Based on student performance, the summative assessment was inconsistent with student learning experiences and/or was not mathematically significant. ||
 * Reflection and Self-evaluation || 1 || Detailed and meaningful reflection on whether the mathematics tasks were conceptually and appropriately challenging, open-ended and motivated the need for making sense of fundamental mathematics. || Reflection on whether the mathematics tasks were conceptually and appropriately challenging, open-ended and motivated the need for making sense of fundamental mathematics. || Superficial or no reflection on whether the mathematics tasks were conceptually and appropriately challenging, open-ended and motivated the need for making sense of fundamental mathematics. ||
 * || 2 || Detailed and meaningful reflection on whether the unit supported productive student exploration of the mathematics elicited by the tasks, facilitated meaningful mathematics discourse, student-directed inquiry, and student involvement. Detailed discussion of student willingness to engage and sense of accountability for their own learning is included. || Reflection on whether the unit supported productive student exploration of the mathematics elicited by the tasks, facilitated meaningful mathematics discourse, student-directed inquiry, and student involvement. Discussion of student willingness to engage and sense of accountability for their own learning is included. || Superficial or no reflection on whether the unit supported productive student exploration of the mathematics elicited by the tasks, facilitated meaningful mathematics discourse, student-directed inquiry, and student involvement. Discussion of student willingness to engage and sense of accountability for their own learning is limited. ||
 * || 3 || Examples are included which illustrate expected and unexpected student mathematics. The examples are discussed from pedagogical and mathematical perspectives, reflecting your synthesis of readings and literature in the field of mathematics education. || Examples are included which illustrate expected and unexpected student mathematics. The examples are discussed from pedagogical and mathematical perspectives. || Examples are not included which illustrate expected and unexpected student mathematics. ||
 * || 4 || Insights on effective instruction and assessment are presented in pedagogically useful ways. Perspectives and new insights on learning and teaching, with implications for future teaching, are explored in depth. Discussion of constraints and affordances for using teaching methods that may not be standard practice in your field experience classroom is included. || Insights on effective instruction and assessment are presented. Perspectives and new insights on learning and teaching, with implications for future teaching, are explored. Discussion of constraints and affordances for using teaching methods that may not be standard practice in your field experience classroom is included. || Few insights on effective instruction and assessment are presented. Perspectives and new insights on learning and teaching, with implications for future teaching, are superficially explored. ||
 * Overall Quality || 1 || Accurate mechanics of writing are utilized. || A few mechanics of writing problems are observed in the document. || Numerous mechanics of writing problems are observed in the document. ||
 * || 2 || Narratives are logical and well written. || Narratives include a few problems of logic or structure. || Narratives contain numerous problems of logic or structure. ||
 * || 3 || Presentation and analysis of student work is of high quality and contributes meaningfully to the narrative. || Presentation and analysis of student work is of medium quality and contributes somewhat to the narrative. || Presentation and analysis of student work is of poor quality and contributes little to the narrative. ||
 * || 4 || The TWS is concise, avoids unnecessary repetition, and communicates effectively to the intended audience. || The TWS is unnecessarily repetitive or incomplete or does not effectively communicate to the intended audience. || The TWS is poorly constructed and minimally communicates to the intended audience. ||
 * || 4 || The TWS is concise, avoids unnecessary repetition, and communicates effectively to the intended audience. || The TWS is unnecessarily repetitive or incomplete or does not effectively communicate to the intended audience. || The TWS is poorly constructed and minimally communicates to the intended audience. ||