AF Essentials Observation Rubric: 2012-2013 - TNTP

2. A Clear, High Standard for Student Achievement : Assessment of Aims1Value: 2 units5: Exemplary4: Strong3: Solid2: Emergent1: Ineffective2a: Checks for Understanding (CFUs) (1 unit): *Examples of Checks for Understanding: Mini white boards, asking clarifying questions, using turn and talks, circulating to review scholar work, having scholars vote on answerchoices, asking scholars to rephrase materials, signals like thumbs up/down, A,B,C,D cards, electronic clickers, conferencing with scholars during Writer’s Workshop * Examples of Ways to Adjust Instruction Based on Data: 1) Unscramblethe confusion in the moment (includes--teacher re-explains, teacher asks follow up questions to pinpoint misunderstanding, teacher enlists other scholars by asking for agreement with a student response, have another student re-explain,and then cycling back to first student, persevere and then return to see if other examples increase understanding) or 2) Do nothing (a. if students demonstrated understanding, then move on to the next part of the lesson or b. sometimesdata from a check for understanding may reveal a larger misunderstanding and addressing it in the moment will increase confusion; the teacher may acknowledge in their notes or verbally to the scholar). The teacher selects CFUs that provide reliable data to assess progress towards mastery of The teacher selects CFUs that provide reliable The teacher selects CFUs that provide Teacher does not use any CFUs during theQuality3the aim of all students in the class.data to assess progress towards mastery of thereliable data to assess progress ryoftheaimforlessthan70%ofthe m’slevels1and2)andhigherSelection2class.level ( Bloom’s levels 3-6). The CFUs include both lower and higher levelof CFUUse ofData Teacher gathers data at all key points using CFUs.checks, but the ratio of questions is not optimalin either direction. Teacher misses one of the key points to collectdata. This missing data point doesn’t create asignificant breakdown in student learning. The teacher only asks low level CFUs. Teacher uses CFUs to gather data fromscholars, but does not collect data at themost important points resulting in significantchallenges for scholars. When CFUs reveal scholarmisunderstandings, the teacher’sresponses are always appropriate,effective, and efficiently executed. When CFUs reveal scholarmisunderstandings, the teacher’sresponses are usually appropriate,effective, and efficiently executed withonly 1- 2 minor exceptions. When CFUs reveal scholar misunderstandings,the teacher’s responses are usually appropriate,effective, and efficiently executed; however, on3 occasions clarity and/or efficiency could beimproved. When CFUs reveal scholarmisunderstandings, the teacher’s responsesrarely unscramble confusion, are inefficient,and/or are not the appropriate response tothe misunderstanding. Teacher does not attempt to use the dataThe assessment: allows the teacher to determine whetherscholars mastered all elements of thedaily aim, reveals common misunderstandings,5 is differentiated (when appropriate) gives information about studentunderstanding of upcoming aims (whenappropriate).The assessment is aligned to the lesson aim anddifferentiated when appropriate for scholars, but may not be fully comprehensive in assessing theaim, or may only partially uncover misunderstandingsthus providing good but not great data.The assessment: is only partially aligned to the lesson aim, ormay be poorly written/confusing tocomplete, or may not assess the aim in arigorous way, (i.e. does not revealmisunderstandings), is not differentiated when it should havebeen. There is no systematic way to assess scholarmastery of the aim. The teacher asks onescholar to summarize the learning, uses amechanism (partner talk) that makes itimpossible to really know what each scholarknows, gives an assessment with cumulativereview questions only, or runs out of time togive the ET.from the CFUs.2b: Daily Assessment (1 unit)Ability toAssessMasteryThe assessment: Meets all indicators at level 4. There is a mechanism for students to selfassess as they complete their dailyndassessment. In lower grades (2 andbelow), students can explain how theyknow what they learned in the day’slesson, i.e. a quick interview with astudent.Notes:1)2)3)4)If the aim is poor, it will be difficult to have a great daily assessment because it may not be measurable or aligned to the standards. Additionally, fuzzy aims can also have an impact on the quality of CFUs.A teacher only checking for understanding about procedures and directions (and not doing CFUs about content) should not receive a high score on the CFU indicator. A teacher who does not use any CFUs scores a 1.Teacher can/should differentiate the CFU for a SMALL subset of scholars if the general class-wide CFU would not “provide reliable data to assess progress towards the mastery of the aim.”In some discussion based lessons, either teacher or student led, it can be difficult to assess whether or not the teacher has reliable data on a certain percentage of the class. In these lessons, the teacher is checking forunderstanding throughout the entire discussion and should have data based on a percentage of the class that could follow and participate effectively and actively. A lack of participation is useful data as it reveals a lack ofunderstanding that needs to be addressed in that lesson or future lessons.5) Ways of differentiating the daily assessment can include, but are not limited to, easier questions at the start of an ET, a lower level reading passage, sentence starters, or graphic organizers.4

Value: 4 units3. A Clear, High Standard for Student Achievement : Academic Rigor5: Exemplary4: Strong3: Solid2: Emergent1: Ineffective3a: Rigorous Questioning (2 units)*Questioning Techniques Include: Stretch It, Break it Down, Wait Time, questions that prompt connections to prior learning, questions that activate higher levels of thinking by using words such as “analyze,” “classify,” “compare,”“decide,” “evaluate,” “explain,” or “represent.”Clarity andAlignment All key questions are clear andpurposefully drive towardsmastery of the aim.1 Thesequestions include writtenquestions in the classroommaterials. Nearly all key questions are clear and drivetowards mastery of the aim. 1-2 times aquestion is too vague or leading. Most questions are clear and drivetowards mastery of the aim, butthere are 3-4 times when aquestion is too vague or tooleading. Questions lack clarity andpurpose and do not drivetowards the aim of thelesson. Questions lead totangential, non-aim relateddiscussion. Teacher incorporates both lowerlevel (remembering andunderstanding) and higher-level(applying, analyzing, evaluating,and creating) but the sequence isonly sometimes effective. Questions are aligned to the aim, butthey are too leading such thatscholars do not have to do the heavylifting or they are vague so thatscholars waste time trying to figureout what the teacher is drivingtowards. Teacher incorporates both lowerlevel (remembering andunderstanding) and higher-level(applying, analyzing, evaluating, andcreating) but the sequence is rarelyeffective.Rigor Teacher incorporates both lowerlevel (remembering andunderstanding) and higher-level(applying, analyzing, evaluating,and creating) questions in a wellscaffolded, highly effectivesequence. Scholars ask higher level follow-upquestions of the teacher and/ortheir peers that further developthe discussion. Teacher incorporates both lower-level(remembering and understanding) andhigher-level (applying, analyzing, evaluating,and creating) questions in a well-scaffolded,usually effective sequence.Stretch It2 Teacher regularly stretches student thinking with questions. Teacher sometimes stretchesstudent thinking with questions. Teacher rarely stretches studentthinking with questions. Teacher does not stretchstudent thinking withquestions Questions fall almostexclusively on the lowerlevels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.Notes:1) In a reading class a teacher may ask questions that are not specifically aligned towards mastery of the aim, but that aid in comprehending the text as a whole. These questions ultimately support mastery of the aim even ifthey are not pushing specifically on the aim.2) Questions to stretch student thinking include, but are not limited to: Why?, What does that relate to?, How do you know?, What is your evidence for that?, or How would you apply this?”5

Value: 4 units3. A Clear, High Standard for Student Achievement : Academic Rigor5: Exemplary4: Strong3: Solid2: Emergent1: Ineffective Teacher sets expectations for written work.However, the standard of excellence has oneof the following areas of growth a) it is notdisplayed for students to reference duringindependent work, b) the annotations do notfully reflect the criteria for success, or c) itcould be improved in a minor way to increaseclarity. Scholars sometimes provide high quality andaccurate responses to questions The teacher sometimes applies Right is Rightwhen appropriate. There is a sample of scholar work, but itdoes not represent a standard ofexcellence or the annotations arerandom and do not reflect excellence orthe criteria for success. There are no examples ofexcellent written work1posted. Students rarely provide high-quality oraccurate oral responses. Teacher only rarely applies Right is Right. The lack of Right is Right emphasissignificantly impedes the depth ofscholar understanding. Scholars do not provide highquality or accurate oralresponses. All answers are accepted bythe teacher. Scholars sometimes answer questions usingevidence to support their answer. Teacher sometimes prompts scholars to Most scholars answer questions withoutusing evidence to support their answer. Teacher rarely prompts scholars tosupply evidence if not included. Scholar responses are oneword and do not provideevidence. Teacher does not promptscholars to supply evidence ifnot included. Scholars answer inincomplete sentences, useslang, or incorrect grammar,and this is never addressedby the teacher. Scholars are allowed to optout. There is no promptingnor consequences for optingout.3b: Standards for Top-Quality Responses (Oral & Written) (2 units)VisualAnchor:Standard ofExcellence1 Teacher sets clear expectations for top-quality written work. As an example of topquality work, it is neat, clear, and easy to read so that scholars can reference itduring IP. As appropriate, annotations represent a standard of excellence forscholar work and reflect the criteria for success.Right isRight2 Almost all scholars provide highquality and accurate responses toquestions. Scholars mostly provide high quality andaccurate responses to questions. Teacher consistently reinforces thatRight is Right and refuses to accept lowquality or partially accurate scholar oralresponses.Evidence2 Teacher always prompts scholars tosupply evidence if not included. Nearly all scholars answer questionsusing evidence appropriate to supporttheir answer. Teacher usually prompts scholars tosupply evidence if not included.Academic2LanguageAccountability (Oral3Responses) Nearly all scholar responses are top Most scholars ( 80%) use standardquality, including the use of standardgrammar and complete sentences whengrammar and complete sentences,responding to teacher questions; butwith little to no prompting from thewhen they do not, the teacherteacher.efficiently corrects. Teacher uses No Opt Out efficiently and cycles back to scholars who didn’t answera question correctly the first timesupply evidence if not included. The majority of scholars ( 50%) use standardgrammar and complete sentences whenresponding to teacher questions; teacherreinforcement is inconsistent. Less than half of scholars use standardgrammar and complete sentences whenspeaking; teacher reinforcement is rare. Teacher uses No Opt Out to cycle back toscholars, but misses 1-2 moments. Teacher uses No Opt Out to cycle back toscholars, but misses more than 2moments.Notes:1) There are some lessons when it is not necessary to display a standard of excellence. If a visual anchor was not necessary, do not score this particular rubric row.2) In order to achieve a high score on Right is Right, Evidence, and Academic Language, scholars must have ample opportunity to articulate their thinking. If sufficient opportunity is not provided, then the scoring of thesecategories cannot go above a 2.3) The accountability for oral responses is focused on the practice of cycling back not in how effective the teacher cycles back. Efficacy can be measured through the use of data section from CFU.6

4. Design and Delivery of an Effective Lesson: Core Instruction of the Aim5: Exemplary4a: Evidence of Planning (3 units)Accuracy14: Strong All information is factually accurate. Definitions are clear and precise.Misunder2standings Teacher has anticipated all key scholarmisunderstandings, and hasproactively planned for many of them. Teacher has anticipated and proactivelyaddressed most scholar misunderstandings.She/he has applied the “if the students don’tget x, they won’t get y” thinking. Teacher effectively makes abstract conceptsconcrete through the explanation or lessonactivities selected. The link between theconcrete and the abstract idea/concept is soclear that scholars can state the link betweenthe concrete and abstract in their own words. Teacher effectively differentiates the processfor scholars and it has a significant positiveimpact on student learning.Concrete to2Abstract Lesson activities and/or explanationsare the most effective at making anabstract concept concrete.Differentiation2, 3of Process The methods of differentiation arematched perfectly for the needs of thescholar and seamlessly integrated intothe lesson.Visual Anchor:Reference When appropriate, the lesson refers to a visual anchor that effectively captures key ideasand concepts. Whether the visual anchor is prepared before the lesson or developed with scholars, it isevident that the teacher has a clear vision for the visual anchor and the purpose it willserve.Value: 5 units3: Solid2: Emergent1: Ineffective All information is factually accurate;however, some information and/ordefinitions are not precise. Teacher has anticipated andproactively addressed some of the keymisunderstandings in the lesson. Some information is inaccurate. Information is factually inaccurateand could lead to significantscholar misunderstanding. Teacher has not anticipatedscholar misunderstandings. Teacher makes abstract conceptsconcrete through explanation or lessonactivities selected, although the linkbetween the concrete and the abstractidea/concept could be clearer. Teacher attempts to make abstractconcepts concrete through theexplanation or activities selected, butthe link between the concrete and theabstract idea/concept is unclear andcauses scholar confusion. Teacher attempts to differentiate theprocess for scholars, but thedifferentiation methods do notimprove learning outcomes forscholars. Teacher does not attempt tomake abstract concepts concretefor scholars. The lesson refers to a visual anchor butit is not effective in capturing the keyideas and concepts of the lesson (e.g. Itmay be disorganized, represented in aconfusing way, have errors, or havelimited purpose). There is no visual anchor when itis needed. Teacher differentiates the process forscholars. The implementation causessome minor scholar confusion becausea method may not be the mosteffective or a method may be appliedat the wrong point in the lesson. Teacher has thought through the visualanchor in advance, but it could bemore effective at capturing a key ideaor concept by making a minor change. Teacher has anticipated and proactivelyaddressed few (1-2) scholarmisunderstandings. Teacher does not attempt todifferentiate the process forscholars and it has a significantnegative impact on their learning.Notes:1) The most important indicator in this Sub-Essential is accuracy. If a lesson scores a 2 on accuracy, the score for the entire Sub-Essential cannot exceed a 2.2) Misunderstandings, concrete to abstract, and differentiation of process should be weighted equally when evaluating this section of the rubric. They are presented in this order as this is the order in which a teacher wouldplan a lesson.3) There are multiple methods for differentiating the process for scholars, including those which a) change the volume of work, b) present ideas and concepts using multiple modalities to make learning concrete and sticky,and, when appropriate, consider the auditory and visual processing needs of ALL scholars. c) change the rate of work, d) provide increased accountability, and e) provide increased scaffolding (e.g. graphic organizers,extra prompts in questions) beyond what was provided for the whole class.7

4. Design and Delivery of an Effective Lesson: Core Instruction of the Aim5: Exemplary4: Strong4b: Effective and Efficient Delivery (2 units)MostEffectiveStrategyExplanationof MaterialHeavyLiftingLanguage3: Solid2: Emergent1: Ineffective Teacher uses agreed upon (by school) bestpractices for teaching the content matteralthough there may be minor problems withimplementation. Teacher explanations of new content andconcepts are generally clear, but might be notbe as effective or efficient as possible, thuscreating a minor point of confusion or causingthe pace of scholar learning to slowunnecessarily. Teacher attempts to use the agreed upon bestpractice strategy, but there are problems withimplementation that have significant impact on thelesson. Teacher explanations are not effective or efficient.They either lead to moderate scholar confusion orsignificantly slow the pace of scholar learning. Teacher does not use anagreed upon best practice toteach the content. Scholars are required to take onthe “heavy lifting” at just the rightpoints during the lesson. Scholars do some of the necessary “heavylifting,” but the teacher misses 1-2 key points. Scholars do very little of the “heavy lifting.” Teachertalk dominates the lesson or scholars are only askedprocedural questions. Scholars do not have to doany heavy lifting. Scholars and teacher appropriatelyuse academic language andcontent specific vocabulary duringthe lesson. Teacher uses language andexplanations that hit the rightbalance of challenging and kidfriendly. Teacher appropriately uses academic languageand content-specific vocabulary during thelesson. Scholars attempt to use academic language andcontent-specific vocabulary, but the teacherdoes not consistently reinforce the use. Teacher uses language and explanations that hitthe right balance of challenging and kid friendly. Some language or explanations may not be right forthe grade level of the scholars—either toochallenging, too easy, or not kid-friendly. Teacher only introduces vocabulary, but does notuse it through the lesson Scholars do not attempt to use academic languageand content specific vocabulary. Most language orexplanations are not right forthe grade level of thescholars—either toochallenging, too easy, or notkid-friendly. Vocabulary is not taught orreinforced. The lesson includes a “think aloud”, modeling, orother explicit instruction, but lacks clarity and focus,for example, the example chosen might be a specialcase or inappropriate for the skill. Step-by-step process explanations miss more thanone step or overly complicate the process. Teacher provides the same level of scaffoldingthroughout the entire lesson or the level ofscaffolding is random and does not gradually releasescholars to independence or the “I-We” is muddled,setting up “instructional whack-a-mole.” The lesson does not include a“think aloud”, modeling, orother explicit instruction. Step-by-step processexplanations are absentwhen needed. There is no evidence ofdeclining scaffolding. Teacher effectively uses agreed upon (by school) best practices forteaching the content matter (e.g. Guided Reading, F&P Continuum, IQWST,Marilyn Burns, network History lesson, enVisions, physics lab etc). Teacher clearly explains newcontent and concepts,demonstrating strong knowledge ofthe relevant standards/concepts.Teacher allocates time inexplanation to the most importantcontent in a way that leads tosignificant student understanding. Scholars enthusiastically do the“heavy lifting” without constantprodding from the teacher;scholars push other students to domore lifting. Scholars can clearly explain thekey content and concepts they arelearning in their own words.Value: 5 units Teacher clearly explains newcont

2 Scoring the Essentials Each of the Essentials and Sub-Essentials is given one rating based on the five point scale below. Level 5 Exemplary: Consistently best practice instruction that gives a high degree of confidence in breakthrough achievement gains Level 4 Strong: Instruction aligned to best practices that gives strong confidence of achievement gains to consistently meet ambitious AF targets