TWS SECTION ONE RUBRIC 12 pts
Use the descriptors below to rate TWS elements; half points may be given by marking two categories
Community/ School, Resources, and Student Contextual information
Level
Knowledge of Community/School
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1
Basic 2
Proficient 3









Level
Data primarily focuses on one area; data does not demonstrate careful research
Sources are not cited
Teacher candidate does not justify how selected factors affect his/her students' learning
Data includes both community and school info; data demonstrates some research
Sources may or may not be cited
Teacher candidate justifies how some selected factors affect his/ her students' learning
Community/school data is complete—evidence of website and other research is indicated
Sources are cited
Teacher candidate justifies how most selected factors affect his/her students' learning
Knowledge of Resources
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1


Basic 2


Proficient 3


Level
Resource data focuses on only one element
TC does not justify how selected resources benefit his/her students' learning and/or his/her
teaching
Resource data includes at least two elements
TC justifies how some selected resources benefit his/her students' learning and/or his/her
teaching
Resource data includes varied inventory of primary instructional resources
TC justifies how most selected factors affect his/her students' learning and/or his/her
teaching
Knowledge of Students: Table 1.1
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1
Basic 2
Proficient 3















Table is untitled
Student factors are subjective or personal
Student factors are not labeled descriptively.
Teacher candidate does not include data relevant to student learning from two of the five
options
Sources are not cited
Table may or may not be titled
Student factors are not clearly objective
Student factors may or may not be labeled descriptively.
Teacher candidate includes generally relevant student data from two of the five options
Sources may/ may not be cited
Table is clearly titled
Student factors are clearly objective
Student factors include a descriptive label that allows reader to understand the factor.
Teacher candidate includes data specifically relevant to student learning from two of the
five options
Sources are cited
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Level
Section One Conclusion
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1



Basic 2



Proficient 3


Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Narrative claims that community/school factor will shape TWS design with no supporting
evidence
Narrative claims that available resource will shape TWS design with no supporting evidence
Narrative does not address student factor relevant to learning—may switch to different
factor than the ones included in the chart
Narrative generalizes how TC will use community/school context to shape TWS design
(general statements with no specific examples)
Narrative generalizes how TC will use available resource to shape TWS design (general
statements with no specific examples)
Narrative generalizes how TC will use student factor to shape TWS design (no specific
examples)
Narrative provides specific evidence of how TC will use community/school context to shape
TWS design
Narrative provides specific evidence of how TC will use available resource to shape TWS
design
Narrative provides specific evidence of how TC will use student factor to shape TWS design
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Total
Out of
Section One Final Score
12
Feedback:
TWS SECTION TWO RUBRIC 9 pts
Use the descriptors below to rate TWS elements; half points may be given by marking two categories.
Planning
Unit Planning:
Standards and Assessment: Table 2.1
Level
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1







Basic 2






Proficient 3





Table includes more than two standards, not assessed by pre- and summative assessments
Content standard(s) is/are not numbered and written out and/or are inappropriate to
student developmental level or TWS instruction
Table does not include a Common Core Standard
Pre- and/or summative assessments are vague (discussions, KWL charts) and do not
provide usable knowledge/achievement data for all students
Pre- and summative assessments are not aligned for accurate comparison
Pre- and/or summative assessments do not include necessary rubrics/ assessment criteria,
and are not referenced and attached in Appendix A
Table includes more than two standards; these appear to be assessed by pre- and
summative assessments
Content standard(s) is/are numbered and written out but may not be appropriate to
student developmental level or TWS instruction
Table includes an inappropriate Common Core Standard
Pre- and summative assessments are designed to provide some student
knowledge/achievement data for all or most students
Pre and summative assessments are generally aligned for some comparison
Pre- and summative assessments do not include necessary rubrics/ assessment criteria, but
assessments are referenced and attached in Appendix A
Table includes no more than two standards carefully assessed by pre- and summative
assessments
Content Standard(s) is/are numbered and written out and appropriate to student
developmental level and TWS instruction
Table includes at least one appropriate Common Core Standard
Pre- and summative assessments are designed to provide precise student
knowledge/achievement data for all students
Pre- and summative assessments are carefully aligned for accurate comparison
Pre- and summative assessments include necessary rubrics/ assessment criteria, all of
which are referenced and attached in Appendix A
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Level
Lesson Planning Alignment: Table 2.2
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1




Basic 2









Proficient 3








Lesson titles and/or standard(s) number are not present
Instructional outcomes do not represent significant learning in the discipline and do not
support the standard(s)
Instructional outcomes are not varied according to cognitive levels (See Bloom’s or Webb’s)
Instructional outcomes are confused with activities that support learning (watching a
movie or reading a text)
Activities do not support instructional outcomes
Vague assessment descriptions do not align with instructional outcomes and standard(s)
Lesson assessments are not referenced and/or not attached in Appendix A
Lesson titles and/or standard(s) numbers may not be present
Instructional outcomes relate to the discipline but do not target significant learning goals
and do not accurately support the standard(s)
Instructional outcomes represent more than one cognitive level (See Bloom’s or Webb’s)
Some instructional outcomes describe what students learn; some describe activities that
promote learning
Activities generally support instructional outcomes
Assessments are clearly described but do not align with instructional outcomes and
standard(s)
Assessments are referenced and attached in Appendix A
Lesson titles and standard(s) number present
Instructional outcomes target significant learning in the discipline, and accurately
support the standard(s)
Instructional outcomes are varied from simpler to higher level (See Bloom’s or Webb’s)
Instructional outcomes describe what students learn rather than activities that promote
learning
Activities specifically support instructional outcomes
Clear, complete assessment descriptions support instructional outcomes and standard(s)
Lesson assessments are referenced by page number and attached in Appendix A
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Level
Section
Two Conclusion
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1






Basic 2






Proficient 3





Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Narrative claims that selected standard(s) is/are valuable for students studying the
discipline—with no supporting evidence
Narrative claims that pre- and summative assessments align with each other and that they
align with the standard(s)—with no supporting evidence
Narrative claims that instructional outcomes support selected standard(s) with no
supporting evidence.
Narrative claims that instructional outcomes, activities, and lesson assessments align with
and support each other—with no supporting evidence.
Narrative describes sequence of lessons with no evidence that this sequence advances
student learning
Narrative claims that outcomes, activities, and assessments are appropriate for diverse
students—with no supporting evidence
Narrative generally describes how standard(s) is/are valuable for students studying the
discipline
Narrative generally describes how pre- and summative assessments align with each other
and with the standard(s)
Narrative generally describes how instructional outcomes support selected standard(s)
Narrative generally describes how instructional outcomes, activities, and lesson
assessments align with and support each other
Narrative generally describes how sequence of lessons advances student learning
Narrative generally describes how outcomes, activities, and assessments are appropriate
for diverse students
Narrative provides specific evidence that standard(s) is/are valuable for students studying
the discipline
Narrative provides specific evidence that pre-and summative assessments align with each
other and with the standard(s)
Narrative provides specific evidence that instructional outcomes support standard(s)
Narrative provides specific evidence that instructional outcomes, activities, and lesson
assessments align with and support each other
Narrative provides specific evidence that sequence of lessons advances student learning
Narrative provides specific evidence that outcomes, activities, and assessments are
appropriate for diverse students
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Total
Out of
Section Two Final Score
9
Feedback:
TWS SECTION THREE RUBRIC 6 pts
Use the descriptors below to rate TWS elements; half points may be given by marking two categories.
Content and Instruction Assessment: (completed by cooperating teacher at midterm conference)
Level
Content Structure and Pedagogy
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1


Basic 2


Proficient 3

Level
Lesson plans feature instructional procedures and materials that do not relate to
standard(s) or instructional outcomes
Lesson plans incorporate ineffective pedagogies for the content, or pedagogy cannot be
determined
Lesson plans feature instructional procedures and materials that partially align with the
standard(s) and instructional outcomes
Lesson plans incorporate somewhat repetitive yet effective pedagogies for the content
Lesson plans feature instructional procedures and materials that align with standard(s) and
instructional outcomes
Lesson plans incorporate up-to-date, effective, and varied content-related pedagogies
Instructional Adaptation for Diverse Learners
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1




Basic 2

Proficient 3



Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Lesson plans ignore needed student prior knowledge
Lesson plans do not clearly document materials, procedures, and resources nor their
differentiation for multiple types of learners
Lesson plans do not adjust according to student need (reflections and revisions red/green
annotations)
Lesson plans take into account needed student prior knowledge; some of this prior
knowledge may be inaccurate
Lesson plans document instructional procedures, materials, and resources without
differentiation for multiple types of learners
Lesson plans include general adjustments for whole-class needs (reflections and revisions
red/green annotations)
Lesson plans assess and review key elements of needed student prior knowledge
Lesson plans document instructional procedures, materials, and resources appropriate for
multiple types of learners
Lesson plans include adjustments for multiple types of learners (reflections and revisions
red/green annotations)
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Total
Out of
Section Three Final Score
6
Feedback:
TWS SECTION FOUR RUBRIC 9 pts
Use the descriptors below to rate TWS elements; half points may be given by marking two categories.
Assessment Analysis
Level
Formative Assessment Analysis
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1


Formative assessments and results vaguely analyzed with no specific supporting evidence
Narrative does not relate annotated lesson changes to formative assessment evidence

Formative assessments and results generally analyzed with weak/general supporting
evidence
Narrative generally relates annotated lesson changes to formative assessment
evidence
Formative assessments and results accurately analyzed using specific supporting evidence
Narrative uses annotated lesson changes as specific evidence of adjusting instruction
based on formative assessment results
Basic 2

Proficient 3


Level
Graphical Presentation of Data, Table 4.1 and 4.2
Not Observed 0
Unsatisfactory 1





Basic 2



Proficient 3




Tables and figures are not clearly titled/labeled
Whole-group/two-student analyses (Tables 4.1, 4.2) provide vague, unaligned pre- and
summative achievement information for some/all students; pre-assessment data may be
missing
Proficiency is not established for all students in both tables
Selected student factors (4.2) are missing, irrelevant to student learning, and/or do not
match those in Table 1.1
Tables and figures are labeled and titled but not according to TWS (APA) guidelines
(Descriptive table title above—figure below)
Whole-group/two-student analyses (Tables 4.1, 4.2) provide generally aligned pre- and
summative achievement information for all/most students
Proficiency is established for all students in both tables
Selected student factors (4.2) may be relevant to student learning but may not match those
in Table 1.1
Tables and figures are descriptively titled and labeled according to APA guidelines
Whole-group/two-student analyses (Tables 4.1, 4.2) provide carefully aligned pre- AND
summative achievement information for all/most students
Proficiency is established for all students in both tables
Selected student factors (4.2) from Table 1.1 provide evidence relevant to student learning
that can be compared with student achievement data
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Level
Section
Four Conclusion
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1 

Basic 2






Proficient 3



Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Student achievement data is vaguely described with no analysis
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #1 are not supported by student
achievement and contextual evidence
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #2 are not supported by student
achievement and contextual evidence
TC tends to focus on student deficiencies
Student strengths, differences, and/or areas of difficulty are generally described
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #1 are generally supported by student
achievement and contextual evidence
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #2 are generally supported by student
achievement and contextual evidence
TC focuses on his/her own effectiveness but includes student deficiencies as a rationale for
student difficulty
Student achievement data is specifically described presenting evidence of student
strengths, differences, and areas of difficulty
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #1 are supported by specific student
achievement and contextual evidence
Differentiated instructional strategies for student #2 are supported by specific student
achievement and contextual evidence
TC focuses exclusively on his/her own effectiveness rather than on student deficiencies
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Total
Out of
Section Four Final Score
9
Feedback:
TWS SECTION FIVE RUBRIC 6 pts
Use the descriptors below to rate TWS elements; half points may be given by marking two categories.
Classroom and Professional Goals
Level
Classroom Goal #1
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1
Basic 2






Proficient 3


Level
Goal is arbitrary—not tied to the Danielson Framework domains, components, and
elements
Action plan does not include a timeline; progress is unmeasurable
Action plan does not reference specific resources that will support progress toward goal
Goal is general—tied to a component from Danielson’s Domains 2-3
Action plan includes a general timeline; progress will be subjectively determined
Action plan references non-specific resources (“attend a conference”) to support general
progress toward goal
Goal is specific—targets one element of a Danielson Framework component from Domains
2-3
Action plan includes a specific timeline; progress will be measured objectively
Action plan references specific resources, gained from collaborating with experts,
supporting measurable progress toward goal
Professional Goal #1
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1
Basic 2
Proficient 3








Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Goal is arbitrary—not tied to the Danielson Framework domains, components, and
elements
Action plan does not include a timeline; progress is unmeasurable
Action plan does not reference specific resources that will support progress toward goal
Goal is general—tied to a component from Danielson’s Domain 4
Action plan includes a general timeline; progress will be subjectively determined
Action plan references non-specific resources (“attend a conference”) to support general
progress toward goal
Goal is specific—targets one element of a Danielson Framework component from Domain 4
Action plan includes a specific timeline; progress will be measured objectively
Action plan references specific resources, gained from collaborating with experts,
supporting measurable progress toward goal
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Total
Out of
Section Five Final Score
6
Feedback:
Level
Professional TWS Writing Score
Score
(mark one)
☐ 0
Not Observed 0

Unsatisfactory 1


Basic 2


Proficient 3

Writing is disorganized and hard to understand with several significant errors in grammar
and spelling
Claims are not supported by evidence
☐ 1
Writing is understandable and organized with some significant errors in grammar and
spelling
Some claims are supported by evidence.
☐ 2
Writing is professional and easy to understand with no more than two significant errors in
grammar and spelling
Most or all claims are supported by evidence
Total
☐ 3
Out of
Professional Writing Final Score
3
Feedback:
Total TWS Score
Total
Out of
Score from Section One
12
Score from Section Two
9
Score from Section Three
6
Score from Section Four
9
Score from Section Five
6
Total TWS Score
Professional Writing Score
Graded TWS Score
42
3
45