Observation form 2016 Score/Level 1.00 value: 2.00 3.00 value: 4.00 PLANNING-1 No lesson plan Lesson (Met Level 2 AND) (Met Level 3 AND) ● ● How well did the was evident, did not plan, with candidate prepare for follow the lesson handouts, Lesson was related to Lesson was tiered for ● ● the lesson? plan. submitted 24 what came before and various student needs. hours in after or fit into the unit Candidate was advance. plan. level” ● ● “Higher not prepared for the questions were written lesson. Technology Candidate was able to out ahead of time. ● ● was working alter course if lesson not Could not (had been going as planned. (Had a Candidate ● ● continue the lesson tested before B”) collaborated with “Plan due to technology the lesson). Lesson was connected to school or other preparation prior learning or personal resources/people to issues. Activities, /community/cultural plan lessons to support ● reading, assets. learners with special and/or needs. projects had Lesson plan had ● been teaching completed by steps/questions/examples the candidate clearly written out (Could before the you teach this lesson lesson to from this plan?). ensure they would work. Materials ● were out and ready to use. Standards USA- InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (2015) Standard: Standard #7: Planning for Instruction The teacher instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context.
Observation form 2016 1.00 value: 2.00 3.00 value: 4.00 Score/Level PLANNING-1 How well did the candidate prepare for the lesson? ● No lesson plan was evident, did not follow the lesson plan. ● Candidate was not prepared for the lesson. ● Could not continue the lesson due to technology or other preparation issues. ● Lesson plan, with handouts, submitted 24 hours in advance. ● Technology was working (had been tested before the lesson). ● Activities, reading, and/or projects had been completed by the candidate before the lesson to ensure they would work. ● Materials were out and ready to use. (Met Level 2 AND) ● Lesson was related to what came before and after or fit into the unit plan. ● Candidate was able to alter course if lesson not going as planned. (Had a “Plan B”) Lesson was connected to prior learning or personal /community/cultural assets. ● Lesson plan had teaching steps/questions/examples clearly written out (Could you teach this lesson from this plan?). (Met Level 3 AND) ● Lesson was tiered for various student needs. ● “Higher level” questions were written out ahead of time. ● Candidate collaborated with school resources/people to plan lessons to support learners with special needs. Standards USA- InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (2015) Standard: Standard #7: Planning for Instruction The teacher instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context.