3. Coaching Assessment Collaboration Workspace

Coaching Assessment Collaboration Workspace

The K-12 teacher and SAU faculty supervisor use this workspace to compare ratings on an observed lesson. This reliability measure is required by our accreditation body, CAEP. (A copy of the form will be sent to the email addresses entered on the form.) After completing the form independently, the K-12 teacher and the supervisor discuss their ratings and decide on a final Coaching score. The K-12 teacher then completes the official Coaching form.
Candidate Name*

First NameLast Name
SAU Faculty Supervisor Name*

First NameLast Name
SAU Faculty email*
example@example.com
CIM Name*

First NameLast Name
CIM email*
example@example.com
Today's Date*

MonthDayYear
Date
Directions: Use the following numbers to rate the individual on each performance indicator based on the following scale by selecting the corresponding number on each row. Feel free to add comments to support ratings as needed. A rating of "Met Expectations" is intended to reflect the performance of a competent beginning teacher.

0-Not Evidenced
1-Evidenced but Needs Improvement
2-Met Expectations
1. Introduces the lesson to establish motivation, connection, and engagement.*

0 Not Evidenced: Introduction to the lesson was ineffective.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate introduced the lesson and/or established connections to learners' previous knowledge.2 Met Expectations: Candidate strategically introduced the lesson to establish motivation, connection, and engagement.
1. Comments about lesson introduction:
2. Employs research-based instructional strategies, e.g. modeling, inquiry, guided practice.*

0 Not Evidenced: Research-based instructional strategies were not evident or were not effective.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate used research-based instructional strategies in communicating concepts.2 Met Expectations: Candidate accurately and effectively communicated concepts, processes and/or knowledge through the research-based instructional strategies.
2. Comments about research-based instructional strategies:
3. Explains content and directions clearly.*

0 Not Evidenced: Content and/or directions were not explained or lacked clarity.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate explained content and directions with sufficient clarity to effect conceptual understanding among some of the students.2 Met Expectations: The candidate made the lesson meaningful for learners, used appropriate academic language, recognized learners' misconceptions, and guided learners to accurate conceptual understanding.
3. Comments about explaining content and directions:
4. Demonstrates effective classroom management.*

0 Not Evidenced: Effective classroom management was not demonstrated.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Classroom management was evidenced but needed more effective implementation.2 Met Expectations: The candidate effectively maintained a productive learning environment throughout the lesson.
4. Comments about classroom management:
5. Demonstrates responsive teaching.*

0 Not Evidenced: Candidate failed to recognize student misconceptions or lack of engagement.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate recognized student misconceptions and attempted to adjust the lesson.2 Met Expectations: The candidate adjusted the lesson as appropriate, based on student misconceptions and the level of engagement.
5. Comments about responsive teaching:
6. Aligns instruction and assessment to standards and identifies clear learning target.*

0 Not Evidenced:Alignment to standards and clear learning targets was not evident.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate attempted to align lesson to standards and learning targets.2 Met Expectations: Clear evidence of alignment among standards, clear learning targets, instruction, and assessment.
6. Comments about alignment:
7. Utilizes literacy pedagogical strategies (appropriate to the discipline) effectively.*

0 Not Evidenced: Use of appropriate literacy strategies to support conceptual learning was not evident.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate utilized at least one appropriate literacy pedagogical strategy to support conceptual learning. Strategy did not lead to conceptual learning.2 Met Expectations: The candidate utilized appropriate and varied literacy pedagogical strategies of sufficient depth and breadth to support conceptual learning.
7. Comments about literacy pedagogical strategies:
8. Demonstrates adequate content knowledge.*

0 Not Evidenced: Content knowledge evidenced was insufficient to support student learning of this lesson.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: The candidate evidenced most of the content knowledge needed to support student learning of this lesson.2 Met Expectations: The candidate evidenced content knowledge of sufficient depth and breadth to support student learning of this lesson.
8. Comments about content knowledge:
9. Paces the lesson appropriately.*

0 Not Evidenced: Pacing of lesson was not effective.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Elements of pacing were present but pacing was not completely effective to support student learning.2 Met Expectations: Candidate started promptly, progressed through planned activities, and brought lesson to summary closure within the designated time.
9. Comments about lesson pacing:
10. Monitors student engagement and learning, providing meaningful and specific feedback.*

0 Not Evidenced: Student engagement in learning was not monitored; and/or feedback was not provided.1 Evidenced but Needs Improvement: Candidate did limited monitoring of engagement and learning; and/or feedback was general and nonspecific.2 Met Expectations: Candidate monitored student engagement and learning; provided meaningful and specific feedback.
10. Comments about monitoring student engagement and providing feedback:
Total Score (Out of 20 Points Possible):
Sufficiency Criteria: A minimum of 12/20 and no indicators at 0 .*

Criteria MetCriteria Not Met
General Comments
Should be Empty: