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 in which the candidate engaged in the activity.  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.  Future teachers begin with application and exit the TEP demonstrating application.

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.  At the 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.  During student teaching (advanced portfolio) candidates are demonstrating their ability to apply the learning.  Rationale statements are part of the evidence submission because these statements are ways candidates explain why the evidence they are presenting demonstrates the learning described by the competencies.

Rating Scale: Ordinal Introductory Developing Advanced
1: Rationale statement does not relate competency & artifact Hopefully NOT Hopefully NOT Hopefully NOT
2: Rationale connects competency & artifact as a demonstration of basic knowledge of competency
                  X

X

To a minimum

Hopefully NOT
3: Rationale connects competency & artifact as example for application of competency

X

Possibly

            
                    X

X

Possibly one or two

4: Rationale connects competency & artifact; artifact was used in appropriate context Not likely

X

 

X

 

5: Rationale connects competency & artifact; artifact was used in appropriate context AND the rational + the use of artifact exceeds expectations for pre-service teacher Rarely, if ever

X

Possibly

X

Possibly

5/12

1—The “1” indicates the candidate’s rationale statement and/or artifact do not accomplish the expectation: there is no rationale statement; and/or the rationale statement is difficult to follow (the “name” of the artifact needs to be clear); and/or the rationale statement does not include a clear description of the competency and/or its importance; and/or is not a clear statement or explanation of why/how the artifact demonstrates the learning described by the competency; and/or the artifact does not demonstrate the level of learning described in the rationale statement.

2—The “2” reflects “understanding” of the competency, not application.  “Understanding” is the level of learning, relative to the competencies, expected in 200-level classes.  In 300-level classes application level learning is the expectation and the norm.  [Note: a student may have earned an “A” in class but the competency submission is likely to be a “2” when the activity was not true application of the learning described by the competency.]

3—The “3” reflects learning that could be used in its intended or simulated context but, in actuality, application did not happen.  [The inclusion of some sort of “reflection” following the actual application provides evidence that helps to distinguish a “3” from a “4.”]

4—The “4” reflects actual application: the activity represented by the artifact was carried out in its real life context.  [The inclusion of some sort of “reflection” following the actual application provides evidence that helps to distinguish a “3” from a “4.”]  Evidence of application includes a reflection on the application.  Demonstration of learning as a result of the application is part of what application and continued growth are all about in teaching.

5—The “5” is a statement that the candidate’s application of the competency exceeds what one would expect from a pre-service teacher.  It is application at the level one expects from someone who has taught at least a year.  The candidate’s reflection and self-evaluation relative to the application is important evidence of demonstration above the expected level for a “soon to be” teacher.  Consideration of ways for continued growth is key to demonstration of learning that exceeds the expectation.

  • Feedback for the assignment of a “5” is required.  To assign a “5” requires the evaluator to identify what made the candidate’s demonstration be equal to or to exceed the behavior expected of a teacher with at least one year of experience.

2/5/14