Trait
Introduction to Portfolio
1
Unacceptable
Does not define the purpose of the portfolio.
2
Beginning
Vaguely defines the purpose of the portfolio.
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.
3
Developing
Adequately defines the 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 an acceptable description of learning outcomes.
There is a specific description of the learning outcomes.
There is an exemplary description of the outcomes.
There are no connections made between the TWS elements and the
College of Education
Outcomes.
There is no description of the TWS portfolio organization.
The connections made between the elements of the TWS and the
COE Outcomes are minimal
The connections made between the elements of the
TWS and the COE
Outcomes are satisfactory.
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 connections made between the elements of the
TWS and the
College of
Education
Outcomes are clear.
The description of the TWS portfolio organization is logical and in an easy to understand format.
The connections made between the elements of the
TWS and the COE
Outcomes are clear and focused.
The description of the organization is excellent, well thought out, and logical.
35

Trait
Philosophy Statement
1
Unacceptable
Offers no evidence that the candidate has the P-12 student as the focus.
2
Beginning
Offers minimal evidence that the candidate has the P-12 student as the focus.
3
Developing
Offers adequate evidence that the candidate has the P-
12 student as the focus.
4
Capable
Offers significant evidence that the candidate has the P-
12 student as the focus.
5
Accomplished
Offers superior evidence that the candidate has the P-12 student as the focus.
Offers no evidence that the SPECTRUM model is the framework
Offers minimal evidence that the
SPECTRUM model is the framework.
Offers adequate evidence that the
SPECTRUM model is the framework.
Offers significant evidence that the
SPECTRUM model is the framework.
Offers superior evidence that the SPECTRUM model is the framework.
Offers no evidence that the candidate understands theory and research.
Offers minimal evidence that the candidate understands theory and research.
Offers adequate evidence that the candidate understands theory and research.
Offers significant evidence that the candidate understands theory and research.
Offers superior evidence that the candidate understands theory and research.
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.
36

Writing Mechanics
Syntax
Trait
.
1
Unacceptable
The use of standard written English is unsatisfactory at this level. More than 10 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subjectverb agreement may exist or excessive fragments or run-ons may detract from the overall content of the writing.
Syntax and word choice may be unsatisfactory, or the writing may lack cohesion.
2
Beginning
The use of standard written English needs attention. More than 9 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subjectverb agreement may exist or 2 or more fragments or run-ons may exist.
Syntax and word choice may need attention, or the writing may lack cohesion.
3
Developing
The use of standard written English is adequate with no more than 8 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subjectverb agreement may exist or 1 or more fragments or run-ons may exist.
Syntax and word choice are satisfactory, and the writing is cohesive.
4
Capable
The use of standard written English is good with no more than 5 errors.
Syntax and word choice are appropriate, and the writing is cohesive.
5
Accomplished
The use of standard written English is outstanding with no more than 2 errors in punctuation, capitalization, subjectverb agreement may exist. No fragments or run-ons may exist
Syntax and word choice are clearly superior, and the writing is very cohesive.
37

Trait
Organization of TWS
Portfolio
1
Unacceptable
Poorly organized with no section dividers.
No table of contents.
Not placed in a binder, no cover page.
2
Beginning
Subsection not well defined and papers poorly placed in sections.
Table of contents is brief and vague.
Binder or notebook is in poor condition with a poorly worded, difficult to read cover page.
3
Developing
4
Capable
Subsections are labeled and papers placed in appropriate sections.
Table of contents is well organized.
Binder or notebook is organized with an appropriate cover page.
Subsections are labeled and stand out from folder and papers are placed in appropriate sections.
Table of contents is clear and reader can locate information with ease.
Binder is appropriate and the cover page is professionally done.
5
Accomplished
Subsections are labeled and tabs stand out from the contents of the portfolio with thoughtful placement of contents in appropriate places.
Table of contents is clear and alerts reader to contents of portfolio; reader can locate material easily.
Binder is attractive and cover page is professional, eyecatching and appropriate.
38

Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
Displays no knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom.
Knowledge of
Community,
School and
Classroom
Factors
Displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom.
Knowledge of
Characteristics of Students
Knowledge of
Students’
Varied
Approaches to
Learning
Knowledge of
Students’
Skills and
Prior Learning
Displays no knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Fails to demonstrate understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students, e.g., multiple intelligences and/or learning modalities.
Displays no knowledge of students’ skills and previous learning and does not indicate either is important.
Displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Demonstrates general understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students and may know one or two learning modalities but not a variety.
Identifies the value of understanding students’ skills and previous learning but demonstrates its importance for the whole class only.
3
Developing
Displays some knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.
Displays general knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Demonstrates general understanding of a variety of approaches to learning among students and can distinguish between multiple modalities.
Identifies the value of understanding students’ skills and previous learning for the group and individuals.
4
Capable
Displays a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.
Displays general and specific knowledge of student differences
(e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Articulates an understanding of varied learning modalities and multiple intelligences.
Displays knowledge of understanding students’ skills and previous learning, including special needs students.
5
Accomplished
Displays and explains an in-depth understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning with specific data, cited sources, and/or statistics.
Displays and explains in-depth knowledge of student differences
(e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).
Articulates general and specific understanding of varied learning modalities and multiple intelligences.
Articulates an in-depth understanding of students’ skills and previous learning for the group and individuals including special needs students.
Score
39

Implications for
Instructional
Planning and
Assessment
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.
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.
40

Rating →
Indicator ↓
Significance,
Challenge and
Variety
Clarity
Appropriateness for Students
1
Unacceptable
Goals are not in evidence.
Goals are vague or not in evidence.
Goals presented are inappropriate for the class or set unrealistic expectations for students.
2
Beginning
Goals reflect only one type or level of learning
Goals are not stated clearly and are activities rather than learning outcomes.
Goals are not developmentally appropriate; nor address pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences, or other student needs.
3
Developing
Goals reflect several types or levels of learning but lack significance or challenge
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.
4
Capable
Goals reflect several types or levels of learning and are significant and challenging.
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.
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 demonstrates realistic expectations for all students in addition to providing for students’ critical thinking and reflection.
Score
41

Rating →
Indicator ↓
Alignment with
Learning Goals and Instruction
Clarity of
Criteria and
Standards for
Performance
Multiple Modes and
Approaches
Technical
Soundness
1
Unacceptable
Minimal plans for pre and post assessments are provided; assessments do not measure learning goals.
The assessments contain no criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals.
The assessment plan fails to demonstrate evidence of student assessment other than after instructions. Limited knowledge of formal/informal assessments
Assessments are not designed to measure lessons goals and objectives; scoring procedures are inaccurate.
2
Beginning
Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack cognitive complexity.
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.
Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students.
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.
The assessment plan includes multiple modes but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e., they are not performance assessments) and/or do not require the integration of knowledge, skills and critical thinking.
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
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.
Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning goals.
The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes
(including performance assessments, lab reports, research projects, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional sequence.
Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students.
5
Accomplished
All learning goals are assessed by the assessment plan, and provide students with constructive feedback on their learning.
Assessment criteria are linked to learning goals; accurately documenting student learning.
The assessment plan uses formal/informal assessments and student’s selfassessments to assess student performance and effectiveness of the instructional sequence.
Assessments appear to be valid and clearly written.
Assessments data used to document students’ strengths as well as opportunities for learning.
Score
42

Adaptations
Based on the
Individual
Needs of
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.
Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of some students.
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.
43

Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished
Score
Alignment with
Learning Goals
Accurate
Representation of Content
Lesson and Unit
Structure
Use of a Variety of Instruction,
Activities,
Assignments and Resources
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.
A single, instructional modality is used with textbook as only reference.
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).
Little variety of instruction, activities, assignments, and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook or single resource (e.g., work sheets).
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.
Some variety in instruction, activities, assignments, or resources but with limited contribution to learning.
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.
Most lessons within the unit are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals.
Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to learning.
All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals, demonstrating critical thinking and reflection in activities and assignments.
Teacher provides cross-content approach to student learning, stressing depth and breadth of content.
All lessons within the unit demonstrate how knowledge of content is created and organized and integrates knowledge from other fields of content.
Instructional strategic assignments are varied to accommodate individual learners and to achieve lesson goals.
44

Use of
Contextual
Information and
Data to Select
Appropriate and
Relevant
Activities,
Assignments and Resources
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 preassessment data.
Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student.
Use of
Technology
Teacher does not use technology during instruction.
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.
Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and preassessment 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.
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.
45

Rating →
Indicator ↓
Sound
Professional
Practice
Modifications
Based on
Analysis of
Student Learning
1
Unacceptable
Instructional decisions are inappropriate for age of student, content, and community.
Teacher treats class as “one plan fits all” with no modifications.
Fails to demonstrate evidence of instructional modifications.
Inappropriate modification in instruction.
2
Beginning
Many instructional decisions are inappropriate and not pedagogically sound.
Limited modifications of the instructional plan have been made, to accommodate individual learners.
Modifications in instruction lack congruence with learning goals.
3
Developing
Instructional decisions are mostly appropriate, but some decisions are not pedagogically sound.
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.
Modifications in instruction are somewhat congruent with learning goals.
4
Capable
Most instructional decisions are pedagogically sound (i.e., they are likely to lead to student learning).
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.
Congruence
Between
Modifications and Learning
Goals
Modifications in instruction are congruent with learning goals and cites current research as the rationale for the modifications.
Score
46

Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished
Score
Clarity and accuracy of
Presentation
Alignment with
Learning
Goals
Interpretation of Data
Presentation does not include data.
Neither analysis of student learning nor visual representation is aligned with learning goals.
Interpretation is unsupported by data
Presentation is not clear and accurate; it does not accurately reflect the data.
Analysis of student learning is aligned with learning goals.
Visual representations do not include whole class, sub-groups or individual students.
Interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing.
Presentation is understandable and contains few errors.
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.
Presentation is easy to understand and contains no errors of presentation.
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 meaningful, and appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.
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.
47

Evidence of
Impact on
Student
Learning
Analysis is weak and fails to provide subgroup achievement
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.
48

Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished
Sco re
Interpretation of Student
Learning
Insights on
Effective
Instruction and
Assessment
Alignment
Among Goals,
Instruction and
Assessment
Implications for
Future
Teaching
No evidence or reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of
Student Learning” section.
Provides no rationale for why some activities or assessments were more successful than others.
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.
Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.
Provides one possible reason as evidence to support conclusions drawn in
Analysis of Student
Learning.
Rationale for activities or assessments presented in confusing manner; insights limited to knowledge-based instruction and use of formal assessments.
Connections among learning goals, instructions and assessments are irrelevant or inaccurate.
Provides limited ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.
Rationale is inadequate; or absent.
Provides evidence but simplistic, superficial reasons are given or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof
(no use of theory or research).
Connects learning goals, instructions, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction, but misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.
Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.
Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.
Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction.
Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.
Uses evidence to support more than four conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did and others did not meet learning goals.
Reflects on own performance as a teacher focusing on the impact of the experience on student learning. Current research findings are incorporated as supportive documentation.
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 a repertoire of strategies, offering specific alternative actions complete with probable successes for student learning.
49

Implications for
Professional
Development
Provides no professional learning goals.
Provides goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section.
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 professional learning goals that emerge from the insights and experiences descried in this section.
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.
50