INTRODUCTION TO PORTFOLIO
RUBRIC
Trait
Introduction to
Portfolio
1
Unacceptable
Does not define the
purpose of the
portfolio.
2
3
Beginning
Developing
Vaguely defines the Adequately
purpose of the
defines the
portfolio.
purpose of the
portfolio.
4
Capable
Clearly and
accurately
delineates the
purpose of the
portfolio.
5
Accomplished
Defines the purpose of
the TWS portfolio in a
professional and
articulate manner.
There is no
description (or a
very poor one) of
the learning
outcomes selected.
There is a brief
description of
outcomes, but the
number is less than
required.
There is an
acceptable
description of
learning
outcomes.
There is a specific There is an exemplary
description of the description of the
learning
outcomes.
outcomes.
There are no
connections made
between the TWS
elements, NASAD
teaching
competencies,
NAEA Standards,
and the COE
Outcomes.
The connections
made between the
elements of the
TWS, NASAD
teaching
competencies,
NAEA Standards,
and the COE
Outcomes are
minimal
The connections
made between
the elements of
the TWS,
NASAD
teaching
competencies,
NAEA
Standards, and
the COE
Outcomes are
satisfactory.
The connections
made between
the elements of
the TWS, NASAD
teaching
competencies,
NAEA Standards,
and the COE
Outcomes are
clear.
The connections made
between the elements
of the TWS, NASAD
teaching competencies,
NAEA Standards, and
the COE Outcomes are
clear and focused.
There is no
description of the
TWS portfolio
organization.
The description of
the organization of
the TWS portfolio is
vague and not
easily understood.
The description
of the TWS
portfolio
organization is
acceptable.
The description of
the TWS portfolio
organization is
logical and in an
easy to
understand
format.
The description of the
organization is
excellent, well thought
out, and logical.
PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT
RUBRIC
Trait
Philosophy
Statement
1
Unacceptable
Offers no evidence
that the candidate
has the K-12 art
student as the focus.
2
Beginning
Offers minimal
evidence that the
candidate has the K12 art student as the
focus.
3
Developing
Offers adequate
evidence that the
candidate has
the K-12 student
as the focus.
4
Capable
Offers significant
evidence that the
candidate has the K12 art student as the
focus.
5
Accomplished
Offers superior
evidence that the
candidate has the K-12
art student as the focus.
Offers no evidence
that NASAD teaching
competencies and
the SPECTRUM
model is the
framework
Offers minimal
evidence that
NASAD teaching
competencies and
the SPECTRUM
model is the
framework.
Offers adequate
evidence that
NASAD teaching
competencies
and the
SPECTRUM
model is the
framework.
Offers significant
evidence that
NASAD teaching
competencies and
the SPECTRUM
model is the
framework.
Offers superior
evidence that NASAD
teaching competencies
and the SPECTRUM
model is the framework.
Offers no evidence
that the candidate
understands theory
and research
relevant to art
education.
Offers minimal
evidence that the
candidate
understands theory
and research
relevant to art
education.
Offers adequate
evidence that the
candidate
understands
theory and
research
relevant to art
education.
Offers significant
evidence that the
candidate
understands theory
and research
relevant to art
education.
Offers superior
evidence that the
candidate understands
theory and research
relevant to art
education.
Offers no evidence
that the candidate
has gained insight
into teaching and
learning through field
experiences and
coursework.
Offers minimal
evidence that the
candidate has
gained insight into
teaching and
learning through
field experiences
and coursework.
Offers adequate
evidence that the
candidate has
gained insight
into teaching and
learning through
field experiences
and coursework.
Offers significant
evidence that the
candidate has
gained insight into
teaching and
learning through
field experiences
and coursework.
Offers superior
evidence that the
candidate has gained
insight into teaching
and learning through
field experiences and
coursework.
Writing Mechanics and Organization
Rubric
Standard: TWS Portfolio is organized clearly, grammatically correct and written in standard English.
Trait
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished
Writing Mechanics
The use of
standard written
English is
unsatisfactory at
this level. More
than 10 errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
subject-verb
agreement may
exist or excessive
fragments or runons may detract
from the overall
content of the
writing.
The use of
standard written
English needs
attention. More
than 9 errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
subject-verb
agreement may
exist or 2 or more
fragments or runons may exist.
The use of
standard written
English is
adequate with no
more than 8 errors
in punctuation,
capitalization,
subject-verb
agreement may
exist or 1 or more
fragments or runons may exist.
The use of
standard written
English is good
with no more
than 5 errors.
The use of standard
written English is
outstanding with no
more than 2 errors
in punctuation,
capitalization,
subject-verb
agreement may
exist. No fragments
or run-ons may exist
Syntax
Syntax and word
choice may be
unsatisfactory, or
the writing may lack
cohesion.
Syntax and word
choice may need
attention, or the
writing may lack
cohesion.
Syntax and word
choice are
satisfactory, and
the writing is
cohesive.
Syntax and word
choice are
appropriate, and
the writing is
cohesive.
Syntax and word
choice are clearly
superior, and the
writing is very
cohesive.
Contextual Factors Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set
learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.
Rating →
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Indicator ↓
Unacceptable
Beginning
Developing
Capable
Accomplished
Displays no
Displays minimal,
Displays some
Displays a
Displays and
knowledge of the
irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the
comprehensive
explains an incharacteristics of
knowledge of the
characteristics of
understanding of
depth
the community,
characteristics of
the community,
the characteristics
understanding of
Knowledge of
school, and
the community,
school, and
of the community,
the characteristics
Community,
classroom.
school, and
classroom that may school, and
of the community,
School and
classroom.
affect learning.
classroom that may school, and
Classroom
affect learning.
classroom that may
Factors
affect learning with
specific data, cited
sources, and/or
statistics.
Displays no
Displays minimal,
Displays general
Displays general
Displays and
knowledge of
stereotypical, or
knowledge of
and specific
explains in-depth
student differences irrelevant
student differences knowledge of
knowledge of
Knowledge of
(e.g., development, knowledge of
(e.g., development, student differences student differences
Characteristics
interests, culture,
student differences interests, culture,
(e.g., development, (e.g., development,
of Students
abilities/disabilities). (e.g., development, abilities/disabilities). interests, culture,
interests, culture,
interests, culture,
abilities/disabilities). abilities/disabilities).
abilities/disabilities).
Fails to
Demonstrates
Demonstrates
Articulates an
Articulates general
demonstrate
general
general
understanding of
and specific
understanding of a understanding of a understanding of a varied learning
understanding of
Knowledge of
variety of
variety of
variety of
modalities and
varied learning
Students’
approaches to
approaches to
approaches to
multiple
modalities and
Varied
learning among
learning among
learning among
intelligences.
multiple
Approaches to
students, e.g.,
students and may
students and can
intelligences.
Learning
multiple
know one or two
distinguish between
intelligences and/or learning modalities multiple modalities.
learning modalities. but not a variety.
Knowledge of
Students’
Skills and
Prior Learning
Implications
for
Instructional
Planning and
Assessment
Displays no
knowledge of
students’ skills and
previous learning
and does not
indicate either is
important.
Identifies the value
of understanding
students’ skills and
previous learning
but demonstrates
its importance for
the whole class
only.
Identifies the value
of understanding
students’ skills and
previous learning
for the group and
individuals.
Displays
knowledge of
understanding
students’ skills and
previous learning,
including special
needs students.
Does not provide
implications for
instruction and
assessment based
on student
individual
differences and
community, school,
and classroom
characteristics or
provides
inappropriate
implications.
Provides minimal
implications for
instruction and
assessment based
on student
individual
differences and
community, school,
and classroom
characteristics or
provides
inappropriate
implications.
Provides general
implications for
instruction and
assessment based
on student
individual
differences and
community, school,
or classroom
characteristics.
Provides specific
implications for
instruction and
assessment based
on student
individual
differences and
community, school,
and classroom
characteristics.
Articulates an indepth
understanding of
students’ skills and
previous learning
for the group and
individuals
including special
needs students.
Provides specific
implications and
analyzes decisions
for instruction and
assessment based
on student
individual
differences (ELL
and inclusion
students) and
community, school,
and classroom
characteristics.
Learning Goals
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
Goals are not in
evidence.
2
Beginning
Goals reflect only
one type or level of
learning
3
Developing
Goals reflect
several types or
levels of learning
but lack
significance or
challenge
4
Capable
Goals reflect
several types or
levels of learning
and are significant
and challenging.
Goals are vague
or not in evidence.
Goals are not stated
clearly and are
activities rather than
learning outcomes.
Goals are not
developmentally
appropriate; nor
address prerequisite
knowledge, skills,
experiences, or
other student
needs.
Some of the goals
are clearly stated
as learning
outcomes.
Some goals are
developmentally
appropriate and
address some prerequisite
knowledge, skills,
experiences, and
other student
needs.
Goals are not
aligned with NAEA,
state or COE
standards.
Some goals are
aligned with
NAEA, state or
COE standards.
Most of the goals
are clearly stated
as learning
outcomes
Most goals are
developmentally
appropriate;
addresses prerequisite
knowledge, skills,
experiences and
other student
needs are
considered.
Most of the goals
are explicitly
aligned with
NAEA, state and
COE standards.
Significance,
Challenge and
Variety
Clarity
Appropriatenes
s for Students
Alignment with
National, State
or Local
Standards
Goals presented
are inappropriate
for the class or set
unrealistic
expectations for
students.
Fails to develop
goals aligned with
NAEA, state and
COE standards
5
Accomplished
Goals are significant
and challenge
thought and
expectations
including three or
more levels and
types.
Goals are clearly
stated in behavioral
terms.
Goals demonstrate
realistic
expectations for all
students in addition
to providing for
students’ critical
thinking and
reflection.
Goals are aligned
with NAEA, state,
COE standards and
are articulated
through the lesson
presentations.
Alignments are
explained.
Sco
re
Assessment Plan
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
Minimal plans
for pre and post
assessments
Alignment
are provided;
with Learning
assessments do
Goals and
not measure
Instruction
learning goals.
2
Beginning
Content and
methods of
assessment lack
congruence with
learning goals or
lack cognitive
complexity.
The
assessments
contain no
Clarity of
criteria for
Criteria and
measuring
Standards for
student
Performance
performance
relative to the
learning goals.
The assessment
plan fails to
demonstrate
evidence of
student
Multiple
assessment
Modes and
other than after
Approaches instructions.
Limited
knowledge of
formal/informal
assessments
Assessments
contain poorly
stated criteria for
measuring student
performance
leading to student
confusion.
The assessment
plan includes only
one assessment
mode and does not
assess students
before, during, and
after instruction.
3
Developing
Some of the learning
goals are assess
through the
assessment plan, but
many are not
congruent with
learning goals in
content and cognitive
complexity.
Assessment criteria
have been developed,
but they are not clear
or are not explicitly
linked to the learning
goals.
4
Capable
Each of the learning
goals is assessed
through the assessment
plan; assessments are
congruent with the
learning goals in content
and cognitive
complexity.
5
Accomplished
All learning goals
are assessed by
the assessment
plan, and provide
students with
constructive
feedback on their
learning.
Assessment criteria are
clear and are explicitly
linked to the learning
goals.
Assessment
criteria are linked
to learning goals;
accurately
documenting
student learning.
The assessment plan
includes multiple
modes but all are
product based (studio)
or pencil/paper based
(i.e., they are not
performance
assessments) and/or
do not require the
integration of
knowledge, skills and
critical thinking.
The assessment plan
includes multiple
assessment modes
(including studio
performance, artistic
process, written reports,
research projects,
discussion skills,
finalized studio work,
etc.) and assesses
student performance
throughout the
instructional sequence.
The assessment
plan uses
formal/informal
assessments and
student’s selfassessments to
assess student
performance and
effectiveness of
the instructional
sequence.
Score
Technical
Soundness
Adaptations
Based on the
Individual
Needs of
Students
Assessments
are not
designed to
measure
lessons goals
and objectives;
scoring
procedures are
inaccurate.
Assessments are
not valid; scoring
procedures are
inaccurate; items or
prompts are poorly
written; directions
and procedures are
confusing to
students.
Teacher does
not address or
link
assessments to
identified
contextual
factors.
Teacher does not
adapt assessments
to meet the
individual needs of
students or these
assessments are
inappropriate.
Assessments appear
to have some validity.
Some scoring
procedures are
explained; some items
or prompts are clearly
written; some
directions and
procedures are clear
to students
Teacher makes
adaptations to
assessments that are
appropriate to meet
the individual needs of
some students.
Assessments appear to
be valid; scoring
procedures are
explained; most items or
prompts are clearly
written; directions,
demonstrations, and
studio procedures are
clear to students.
Assessments
appear to be valid
and clearly written.
Assessments data
used to document
students’ strengths
as well as
opportunities for
learning.
Teacher makes
adaptations to
assessments that are
appropriate to meet the
individual needs of most
students.
Teacher’s
adaptations of
assessments for
all students needs
to be met.
Adaptations are
creative and show
evidence of
outstanding
problem-solving
skills by teacher
candidate.
Design for Instruction
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning
contexts.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
Alignment with
Learning Goals
Accurate
Representation
of Content
Lesson and Unit
Structure
1
Unacceptable
No lesson is linked
to learning goal.
No learning
activities are
aligned to learning
goals.
Teacher does not
demonstrate
purpose and
relevancy of
content.
The lessons within
the unit do not
demonstrate
knowledge of how
content is created
and developed.
2
Beginning
Few lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals. Few
learning activities,
assignments and
resources are aligned
with learning goals.
Not all learning goals
are covered in the
design.
Teacher’s use of
content appears to
contain numerous
inaccuracies.
Content seems to be
viewed more as
isolated skills and
facts rather than as
part of a larger
conceptual structure.
The lessons within
the unit are not
logically organized
(e.g., sequenced).
3
Developing
Most lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals. Most
learning activities,
assignments and
resources are aligned
with learning goals.
Most learning goals are
covered in the design.
Teacher’s use of
content appears to be
mostly accurate.
Shows some
awareness of the big
ideas or structure of
the discipline.
The lessons within the
unit have some logical
organization and
appear to be somewhat
useful in moving
students toward
achieving the learning
goals.
4
Capable
All lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals. All
learning activities,
assignments and
resources are aligned
with learning goals.
All learning goals are
covered in the
design.
Teacher’s use of
content appears to
be accurate. Focus
of the content is
congruent with the
big ideas or structure
of the discipline.
5
Accomplished
All lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals,
demonstrating
critical thinking and
reflection in
activities and
assignments.
Most lessons within
the unit are logically
organized and
appear to be useful in
moving students
toward achieving the
learning goals.
All lessons within
the unit demonstrate
how knowledge of
content is created
and organized and
integrates
knowledge from
other fields of
content.
Teacher provides
cross-content
approach to student
learning, stressing
depth and breadth
of content.
Score
Use of a Variety
of Instruction,
Activities,
Assignments
and Resources
Use of
Contextual
Information and
Data to Select
Appropriate and
Relevant
Activities,
Assignments
and Resources
A single,
instructional
modality is used
with textbook as
only reference.
Little variety of
instruction, activities,
assignments, and
resources. Heavy
reliance on textbook
or single resource
(e.g., work sheets).
Some variety in
instruction, activities,
assignments, or
resources but with
limited contribution to
learning.
Instruction has not
been based upon
knowledge of
subject matter,
students or preassessment data.
Instruction has been
designed with very
limited reference to
contextual factors
and pre-assessment
data. Activities and
assignments do not
appear productive
and appropriate for
each student.
Technology is
inappropriately used
and inappropriate
rationale is provided.
Some instruction has
been designed with
reference to contextual
factors and preassessment data.
Some activities and
assignments appear
productive and
appropriate for each
student.
Teacher uses
technology but it does
not make a significant
contribution to teaching
and learning or teacher
provides limited
rationale for not using
technology.
Teacher does not
use technology
during instruction.
Use of
Technology
Significant variety
across instruction,
activities,
assignments, and/or
resources. This
variety makes a clear
contribution to
learning.
Most instruction has
been designed with
reference to
contextual factors
and pre-assessment
data. Most activities
and assignments
appear productive
and appropriate for
each student.
Teacher integrates
appropriate
technology that
makes a significant
contribution to
teaching and learning
or provides a strong
rationale for not using
technology.
Instructional
strategic
assignments are
varied to
accommodate
individual learners
and to achieve
lesson goals.
All instruction
addresses the
diverse needs of
individual students
and contextual
factors of
community, school
and class.
Teacher integrates
a variety of media
and technology into
instruction and
relates both directly
to lesson goals.
Instructional Decision-Making
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher uses on-going analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
Sound
Professional
Practice
Modifications
Based on
Analysis of
Student
Learning
Congruence
Between
Modifications
and Learning
Goals
1
Unacceptable
Instructional
decisions are
inappropriate
for age of
student,
content, and
community.
2
Beginning
Many instructional
decisions are
inappropriate and not
pedagogically sound.
3
Developing
Instructional decisions
are mostly
appropriate, but some
decisions are not
pedagogically sound.
4
Capable
Most instructional
decisions are
pedagogically sound
(i.e., they are likely to
lead to student
learning).
Teacher treats
class as “one
plan fits all”
with no
modifications.
Fails to
demonstrate
evidence of
instructional
modifications.
Limited modifications
of the instructional plan
have been made, to
accommodate
individual learners.
Some modifications of
the instructional plan
are made to address
individual student
needs, but these are
not based on the
analysis of student
learning, best
practice, or contextual
factors.
Inappropriate
modification in
instruction.
Modifications in
instruction lack
congruence with
learning goals.
Modifications in
instruction are
somewhat congruent
with learning goals.
Appropriate
modifications of the
instructional plan are
made to address
individual student
needs. These
modifications are
informed by the
analysis of student
learning/performance,
best practice, or
contextual factors.
Modifications in
instruction are
congruent with
learning goals.
5
Accomplished
Most
instructional
decisions are
pedagogically
sound and
build on
concepts and
skills previously
learned.
Appropriate
modifications of
the plan are
made to
individualize
instruction.
Rational to
improve
student
progress is
provided.
Modifications in
instruction are
congruent with
learning goals
and cites
current
research as the
rationale for the
modifications.
Score
Analysis of Student Learning
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student
progress and achievement.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
Presentation does
not include data.
2
Beginning
Presentation is not
clear and accurate;
it does not
accurately reflect
the data.
3
Developing
Presentation is
understandable
and contains few
errors.
4
Capable
Presentation is
easy to understand
and contains no
errors of
presentation.
Neither analysis of
student learning nor
visual representation
is aligned with
learning goals.
Analysis of student
learning is aligned
with learning goals.
Visual
representations do
not include whole
class, sub-groups
or individual
students.
Analysis is fully
aligned with
learning goals and
provides a
comprehensive
profile of student
learning for the
whole class,
subgroups, and two
individuals.
Interpretation is
unsupported by data
Interpretation is
inaccurate, and
conclusions are
missing.
Analysis of student
learning is general
with learning goals
and/or fails to
provide a
comprehensive
profile of student
learning relative to
the goals for the
whole class,
subgroups, and two
individuals.
Interpretation is
technically
accurate, but
conclusions are
missing or not fully
supported by data.
Clarity and
accuracy of
Presentation
Alignment
with
Learning
Goals
Interpretation
of Data
Interpretation is
meaningful, and
appropriate
conclusions are
drawn from the
data.
5
Accomplished
Contains no errors
of presentation.
Presentation is
communicated with
the use of
technology and
media.
Analysis is thorough
and complete,
recognizing student
progress in
developing content
proficiency. Visual
and narrative
summaries
demonstrate the
extent of student
progress.
Interpretation is
comprehensive.
Appropriate
conclusions are
drawn from the data.
Candidate has
detailed the
assessment and
evaluation of student
gains.
Score
Analysis is weak and
fails to provide
subgroup
achievement
Evidence of
Impact on
Student
Learning
Analysis of student
learning fails to
include evidence of
impact on student
learning in terms of
numbers of
students who
achieved and made
progress toward
learning goals. No
remediation is
provided.
Analysis of student
learning includes
incomplete
evidence of the
impact on student
learning in terms of
numbers of
students who
achieved and made
progress toward
learning goals.
Limited remediation
is provided.
Analysis of student
learning includes
evidence of the
impact on student
learning in terms of
number of students
who achieved and
made progress
toward each
learning goal.
Remediation is
specific.
A thorough analysis
of the learning gains
of all students and
subgroups is
presented.
Remediation is
specific.
Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve
teaching practice.
Rating →
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Indicator ↓
Unacceptable
Beginning
Developing
Capable
Accomplished
No evidence or
Provides one
Provides evidence
Uses evidence to
Uses evidence to
reasons provided possible reason as but simplistic,
support conclusions support more than
to support
evidence to support superficial reasons
drawn in “Analysis
four conclusions
conclusions
conclusions drawn
are given or
of Student
drawn in “Analysis of
Interpretation drawn in
in Analysis of
hypotheses to
Learning” section.
Student Learning”
of Student
“Analysis of
Student Learning.
support conclusions
section. Explores
Learning
Student Learning”
drawn in “Analysis of
multiple hypotheses
section.
Student Learning”
for why some
section.
students did and
others did not meet
learning goals.
Provides no
Rationale for
Identifies successful
Identifies
Reflects on own
rationale for why
activities or
and unsuccessful
successful and
performance as a
some activities or assessments
activities or
unsuccessful
teacher focusing on
Insights on assessments
presented in
assessments and
activities and
the impact of the
Effective
were more
confusing manner;
superficially explores assessments and
experience on
Instruction
successful than
insights limited to
reasons for their
provides plausible
student learning.
and
others.
knowledge-based
success or lack
reasons (based on Current research
Assessment
instruction and use thereof (no use of
theory or research) findings are
of formal
theory or research).
for their success or incorporated as
assessments.
lack thereof.
supportive
documentation.
Alignment
Among
Goals,
Instruction
and
Assessment
Implications
for Future
Teaching
Does not connect
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment
results in the
discussion of
student learning
and effective
instruction and/or
the connections
are irrelevant or
inaccurate.
Connections
among learning
goals, instructions
and assessments
are irrelevant or
inaccurate.
Connects learning
goals, instructions,
and assessment
results in the
discussion of student
learning and effective
instruction, but
misunderstandings or
conceptual gaps are
present.
Logically connects
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment results
in the discussion of
student learning
and effective
instruction.
Connects learning
goals, instruction
and assessment
results in the
discussion of
student learning and
effective instruction.
Current research
findings are
incorporated as
supportive
documentation.
Provides no ideas
or inappropriate
ideas for
redesigning
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment.
Provides limited
ideas for
redesigning
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment.
Rationale is
inadequate; or
absent.
Provides goals that
are not related to
the insights and
experiences
described in this
section.
Provides ideas for
redesigning learning
goals, instruction,
and assessment but
offers no rationale for
why these changes
would improve
student learning.
Provides ideas for
redesigning
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment and
explains why these
modifications would
improve student
learning.
Presents
professional
learning goals that
emerge from the
insights and
experiences
descried in this
section.
Provides a repertoire
of strategies,
offering specific
alternative actions
complete with
probable successes
for student learning.
Provides no
professional
learning goals.
Implications
for
Professional
Development
Presents
professional learning
goals that are not
strongly related to
the insights and
experiences
described in this
section and/or
provides a vague
plan for meeting the
goals.
Presents four or
more professional
learning goals that
clearly emerge from
the insights and
experiences
described in this
section. Describes
at least two specific
steps to meet these
goals