Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Planning prior to
implementation
Curriculum
planning
On-going planning
Knowledge of
content for
planning
Beginning
Planning and Preparation
Emerging
Compromising
Team has not discussed
or agreed upon any
issues before beginning;
team was scheduled to
begin before discussions
could occur
Team has not met to
plan curriculum (units,
lessons, scope/sequence,
frameworks); no/little
evidence of long-range
planning
Team does not meet for
on-going planning; no
evidence of on-going
planning
One partner exhibits
knowledge about the
curriculum (standards,
frameworks, objectives,
sequence) but the other
partner is not familiar
with the curriculum
Team has discussed a
few of the issues but has
reached agreement on
few items
Team has discussed and
agreed on the majority
of issues, including:
philosophy, procedures,
methods, curriculum,
roles/responsibilities, etc
Team has met to discuss Team has met to discuss Team has met to outline
curriculum but has
long-range planning for long-range plan, has
minimal long-range
curriculum and has
negotiated content and
plans; has not negotiated negotiated content, but
scope and sequence, and
content or planned units has not planned units or has planned units and
or lessons
lessons in advance
lessons in advance
Team meets sporadically Team meets consistently Team meets weekly to
for on-going planning
face-to-face to plan and
plan, co-creates lesson
(and sometimes plans by plans consistently by
plans, and discusses
phone, email, etc); little phone, email, etc.; some adjustments to plans;
evidence of on-going
evidence of on-going
clear evidence of onplanning
planning
going planning
One partner is more
One partner is more
Both partners possess a
knowledgeable about the knowledgeable about the general knowledge of
entire curriculum but the entire curriculum but the the curriculum and one
other partner displays
other partner displays
partner exhibits more insome knowledge of the
sufficient knowledge of depth knowledge
content
the content
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct. 2007
Team has discussed all
of the considerations and
has reached agreement
on most issues; team is
still negotiating some
Collaborating
Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Willingness to
collaborate
Parity
Communication
Shared expertise
and definition of
roles
Characteristics of Collaboration/Collaborators
Beginning
Emerging
Compromising
One or both do not
exhibit desire to work
together (team members
were assigned to work
together)
Team members do not
have equal role/status in
classroom; one person is
functioning as assistant
or responsibilities are
not shared
Willingness to co-teach
is minimal or emerging
Team members exhibit
enthusiasm for coteaching
Partners volunteered to
work together
Team members are
Team members have
Team members have
working to establish
equal status and roles are equal, active roles in
equal role/status but one nearly equal; team is still classroom, display equal
person is more dominant working to establish
status, evenly divide
or exhibits higher status equal responsibilities
responsibilities, and
value the contribution of
each member
Team engages in
Team sometimes
Team consistently
Team members openly,
minimal communication communicates outside of communicates outside of honestly communicate;
outside of class; does not class; communication
class, uses effective
use active listening
discuss (or rarely
often deals with surface communication skills
skills; and manage
discusses) concerns,
issues; conflicts are not
generally; some issues
conflict with effective
issues or feelings
discussed or resolved
are difficult to discuss
negotiation skills
Expected roles are not
Expected roles have
Expected roles are
Expected roles have
defined and team has not been defined but one or
defined and both
been defined and both
determined how to use
both partners are not
partners are generally
partners are clear;
their individual expertise clear or disagree; one
satisfied; team is still
partners are flexible
partner is dissatisfied
working to determine
about changing roles;
with role or opportunity how to use the expertise both partners contribute
to share expertise
of both partners
their expertise
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct, 2007
Team members exhibit
some willingness to
work together
Collaborating
Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Co-teaching
arrangements
Differentiation
Teaching methods
Learning strategies
Components and Instructional Strategies
Beginning
Emerging
Compromising
Team has not discussed
various co-teaching
arrangements; one
person usually takes the
lead and the other
shadows (monitors,
helps students, etc)
Team is not applying
differentiation process or
strategies; generally all
students are involved in
whole group instruction
with little differentiation
Team primarily uses one
teaching method (e.g.
lecture and discussion);
team has not discussed a
variety of methods to
meet students’ needs
Learning strategies are
not taught and students
are not cued to use
strategies to learn or
perform
Team knows about
various co-teaching
arrangements but one
person is still mostly
responsible for teaching;
other arrangements are
not in evidence
One partner is aware of
process and strategies
for differentiation; but
use of differentiation is
limited to adaptations
for individual students
Team is aware of many
teaching methods but
primarily uses only a
few methods; few/some
students are actively
engaged
A few learning strategies
have been taught but
students do not use
strategies; strategies are
not research-based
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct, 2007
Collaborating
Team members mainly
use one co-teaching
arrangement and share
roles; team is discussing
how to use other
arrangements
Team members flexibly
use a variety of coteaching arrangements:
team teaching,
complementary and
supplemental
Team knows process
and strategies for
differentiation; uses
some strategies
Team has implemented
plan for differentiation;
demonstrates use of
differentiation in units
and lessons consistently
Team is experimenting
with a variety of
teaching methods but
still searching for ways
to engage students and
increase achievement
Some research-based
learning strategies have
been taught and students
are beginning to use and
apply strategies; use is
cued by both partners
Team is comfortable
using a variety of
teaching methods for
active engagement, and
increasing achievement
A variety of researchbased learning strategies
have been taught and
students demonstrate
knowledge/application
of strategies
Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Classroom
management
Classroom Organization and Integration
Beginning
Emerging
Compromising
Team has not discussed
or agreed on rules and
routines before
beginning; team was
scheduled to begin
before discussions could
occur
Tasks have not been
divided; one partner
does all of the routine
tasks
Team has discussed
rules and routines and
has reached agreement
on some; but one person
enforces rules or defers
to the other for final
authority
Team has discussed
tasks; one partner does
most of the routine tasks
Student perception
of collaboration
Students perceive one
teacher as “the teacher”
and the other teacher as
“the assistant” or the
“other teacher”
Integration of
students in the
classroom
Little to no planning for
integration; students are
minimally integrated;
team views students as
“mine” and “yours”
Students perceive that
one teacher has more
authority or status most
of the time while the
other teacher has a
limited role or status
Some initial planning
the placement of
students; students are
becoming integrated;
teachers sometimes
work with all students
Routine classroom
tasks
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct, 2007
Collaborating
Team has reached
agreement on rules and
routines; team is
beginning to share
responsibility for
monitoring and
intervening
Team has divided tasks
equally; partners are
beginning to feel
comfortable with
different tasks
Students perceive each
teacher as having more
authority or status at
designated times
Team has reached
agreement on rules and
routines and both
partners share the
responsibility for
monitoring and
intervening
Team has divided tasks
and is flexible about
trading tasks
Placement of students
was well-planned but
scheduling problems
interfered; students are
more integrated;
teachers work with all
Placement of students
was carefully planned;
students and teachers are
fully integrated as a
learning community
Heterogeneous mix
Student perceive both
teachers as having equal
authority and status
Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Evaluation of
student outcomes
Evaluation of Program and Outcomes
Beginning
Emerging
Compromising
Collaborating
Student achievement
data are not used to
make decisions; data are
not reviewed
Student achievement
data are reviewed by one
or both partners but are
not used to evaluate or
change instruction
Student achievement
data are reviewed at
intervals (e.g. quarterly)
to make decisions about
instruction; a few
sources of data are used
Evaluation of coteaching program
Team does not evaluate
the program and there
no other evaluation of
the success of their
efforts
Team self-evaluates
using more data sources
and is becoming more
objective in evaluation
Evaluation of
individual students
Special educator is
solely responsible for
monitoring progress of
students with disabilities
Each teacher evaluates
program individually;
evaluation is based
solely on subjective
data, e.g. their feelings
about their success
Special educator is
sharing information
about progress of
students with disabilities
but mostly responsible
Student achievement
data are used to make
decisions about
instruction on an ongoing basis; a variety of
data are used (test
scores, products,
curriculum-based
assessment, etc)
Team self-evaluates
using a variety of data
and is willing to reflect
and make changes
Team is beginning to
monitor progress of all
students together and
sharing responsibility for
students with special
needs
Partners share equal
responsibility for
monitoring each student
and tracking group
progress toward
curriculum benchmarks
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct., 2007
Collaborative Teaching: Team Reflection Rubric
Component
Administrative
support
Administrative and Contextual Supports
Beginning
Emerging
Compromising
Administrators are
aware that staff members
are co-teaching, but have
not participated in any
staff development and
are not supportive
Administrators have
some basic knowledge
about co-teaching but do
not fully understand
what is necessary to
support the model
Administrators have
participated in staff
development and
verbally support the coteaching model
Staff development
Neither partner has
Only one partner has
participated in any staff
participated in staff
development activities to development
learn about how to teach
in a cooperative class
Team has attended an
overview of co-teaching
but has not participated
in any other staff
development activities
Classroom
composition
Placement of students in
the class was haphazard;
class is not balanced; has
too many students with
different types of special
needs for success
Classroom composition
was planned; the mix of
students is close to a
heterogeneous mix
Classroom composition
was considered; some
attempt to limit the
number of students with
special needs but the
mix of students creates
some difficulties in the
classroom
Draft: Created by: Bev Colombo, February, 2003; revised March, 2004
Adapted by River Region Cooperative, Oct., 2007
Collaborating
Administrators have
participated in staff
development and
provide verbal support
as well as hands-on
support with scheduling
and other issues
Team has attended staff
development sessions
(or participated in other
staff development
activities, e.g. study
group) to learn about coteaching, instructional
strategies, etc.
Classroom composition
was planned and is a
heterogeneous mix of
students with a natural
proportion of students
with special needs (or
alternative credit course
designed for at-risk
students)