Ordinal Rating Scale Rubric

The rubric, an ordinal rating scale, is designed to note the development of a student as he or she progresses through the Teacher Education Program (TEP).  The rubric is not a “grading” system like the As, Bs, Cs…we use in our classes; the evaluation symbols for the portfolio are not relative to the particular assignment and the level of expectation for learning in the course.  The portfolio system symbols (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are relative to the standard, that is, the level of learning demonstrated by the student relative to the standard. 

Evaluation of each competency is based on the quality of both the artifact as a reflector of the competency and the rationale statement as a link of the artifact and competency.  In our 200-level students, we expect our students to gain understanding of the behavior demonstrated in the competency.  Generally, these students are not given true application level learning opportunities related to these competencies; students in 200-level Education courses usually are not ready for true application level and we provide no clinical experience in which they might apply this learning.

1—This is a statement that the student’s rationale statement and/or artifact do not accomplish the expectation—the rationale statement links the competency and the artifact; the link between the competency and the level of learning intended with the artifact must be explicit to warrant above a “1.”  The artifact must demonstrate the level of learning relative to the competency described in the rationale statement to warrant above a “1.” 

2—The “2” reflects “understanding” of the competency, not application. 

Ex. In ED 221, the students have a conversation with a parent of a child who has or had an IEP.  This conversation (and their subsequent follow-up sharing with other students) provides them an opportunity to understand the importance of developing relationships with parents (Competency 9).  A student could earn an “A” in class, but for the portfolio, the demonstration of learning is a “2” because there is no “application” of this learning: the ED 221 student has no responsibility for the child with the IEP or to the parents, that is, the ED 221 student is not engaged in this relationship to strengthen his or her support of the child.

Ex. Also, in ED 221, the students, in a group, outline a unit that reflects differentiated learning.  In class the students describe the needs of students in a fictitious class and present a unit outline in which they identify where differentiation is needed.  The goal is to demonstrate understanding of differentiated instruction.  Because ED 221 is not a pedagogy class, minimal attempt is made to teach the students about unit planning.  The unit outline is not one that is developed well enough to be used for actual teaching; that learning and demonstration of learning will come in methods classes.  A successful project with a satisfactory rationale statement (see below) most likely warrants a “2”; realizing the presence of diverse learners and understanding the need for responding to the diversity, not demonstration of “what works” for differentiation, is the goal.

Ex. In ED 220, the students read a scholarly article that addresses an assessment topic within the realm of their potential teaching field. They write a review of it and discuss the article with others in class. The acts of reading, critiquing, writing, and discussing provide them an opportunity to understand formal and informal assessment tools and strategies (Competency 7).  However, the ED 220 students at this point are not using those assessment tools and strategies to actually assess student achievement.

3—The “3” reflects learning that could be used in its intended or simulated context but, in actuality, application did not happen.

Ex. a lesson plan that was developed by the student and the plan is ready for fairly successful use (actually used to guide teaching)—and yet the student never taught with the plan.  [In a methods class, a student might write a lesson plan that is strong enough for successful use, but the plan might never be executed.]

4—The “4” reflects actual application: the activity represented by the artifact was carried out in its real life context. 

• It is good to include with this artifact some sort of reflection from the student to documents his or her use of the plan and the learning from this application, as in a post-teaching reflection.

5—The “5” is a statement that the candidate’s application of the competency exceeds what one would expect from a pre-service teacher.

• Feedback for the assignment of a “5” is required.  To assign a “5” requires the evaluator to be articulate of what is satisfactory application of a “pre-service teacher,” including the student teacher, in order to articulate what the candidate has demonstrated with the rationale statement and artifact to reflect “exceeds what one would expect from a pre-service teacher.”

One way a candidate’s growth over time is documented by the initial demonstration of understanding of each competency, to beginning application of the behavior described in the competency, and eventually to application of the competency in the real world with limited guidance