Information Brief on DRSTOS-R
Administration and Performance for
Science Education
Fall 2011 – Summer 2013
CRHEO DRSTOS-R Program Summary
IB-1113-08
Prepared by:
Kimberly Woo
Gregory Wolniak
January 2014
Center for Research on Higher Education Outcomes
nd
239 Greene Street, 2 Floor
New York, NY 10003 | 212 998 5067 | 212 998 5526
steinhardt.nyu.edu/crheo/
Information Brief on DRSTOS-R Administration and
Performance for Science Education
(Fall 2011 – Summer 2013)
Prepared by:
Kimberly Woo
Gregory Wolniak
Center for Research on Higher Education Outcomes
The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development
New York University
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary
IB-1113-08
January 2014
© Copyright 2014 by the Center for Research on Higher Education Outcomes
Introduction
This report presents administrative and performance data on the Domain Referenced
Student Teacher Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R) for student teachers in NYUSteinhardt’s Science Education programs. The purpose of this report is to inform program
directors and faculty of (1) the extent to which student teachers and field supervisors in their
program participate in DRSTOS-R assessment and (2) the overall performance of program
students, including their patterns of strength and weaknesses on the 23 essential skills of
effective teaching measured by the scale.
It is important to remember that the skills included on the DRSTOS-R are not intended to
represent a comprehensive list of abilities required for good teaching nor are they intended to
reflect the specific instructional needs of any one content area. Based on Charlotte Danielson’s
Framework for Teaching (1996, 2007), the DRSTOS-R was designed with the philosophy that
there are certain necessary core pedagogical abilities common to all grade levels and subject
areas. It is acknowledged, however, that these pedagogical abilities may look different across
grade levels or subject areas. A degree of expertise and interpretation is assumed on the part of
trained subject-area supervisors in using the generic scale to evaluate teaching in their respective
settings.
Items on the DRSTOS-R also correspond with items on other measures of pedagogical
ability including the edTPA certification rubrics and the Danielson rubric used by the New York
City Department of Education to evaluate teacher quality. DRSTOS-R data are collected for
multiple purposes and aim to facilitate discussion and comparison between programs.
The data in this report are intended to provide feedback that can be used to support
programmatic planning in several ways. Administrative data identifying field supervisors who
have submitted protocols provides accountability and speaks to internal consistency of program
field supervision. In addition, this information provides a context for understanding student
performance data and the extent to which the results may be generalized to the full population of
students in the program. DRSTOS-R data on student performance, in conjunction with
information from other sources, may be used to identify skills in need of additional programCRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
wide attention and facilitate discussions concerning program improvement (e.g. increased
emphasis in course curricula and field mentorship, etc.).
The Center for Research on Higher Education Outcomes’ DRSTOS-R database contains
over 3,500 sets of ratings for student teachers in the semesters between fall 2004 and summer
2013. The information and analyses contained in this report focus on a subset of data collected
since fall 2007, with particular emphasis on the last two academic years (2011-2012 and 20122013). The ratings contained in the data are summative in that field supervisors complete them
at the end of each student-teaching placement using the full range of information from their
experiences with each student teacher. These include formal and informal observations,
conferences with the students and their cooperating teachers, journals, portfolios, formal
assignments, and any other relevant, observable evidence. The Center developed the DRSTOSR in the 2003-2004 academic year, in collaboration with NYU Teaching and Learning faculty
and field supervisors. The first official administration occurred in fall 2004.
The DRSTOS-R is a process and protocol for assessing the developing pedagogical
proficiency of student teachers across four domains: Planning and Preparation, Classroom
Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. Supervisors rate students on each of
the essential skills using a four-point scale as follows: (1) Not Yet Proficient, (2) Partially
Proficient, (3) Entry Level Proficient, and (4) Proficient. The original form of the DRSTOS-R
contained 20 items. However, additional items have been added in response to the needs and
interests expressed by Teaching and Learning supervisors and faculty. The DRSTOS-R protocol
was expanded in 2009 and again in 2012 to include 21 and 23 items, respectively. The data
included in this report reflect the 23-item protocol included in the Appendix.
The following report consists of four sections: (1) Submission History & Supervisor
Information, (2) Student Teacher Performance, (3) Item-Level Performance by Placement, and
(4) Historical Performance. Each section should be interpreted with the knowledge that some
means and comparisons may reflect only a small number of students (N<5). The tables and
charts presented are based on ratings provided by DRSTOS-R-trained supervisors. Only a few
ratings may be available for certain academic years and/or student degree or placement groups
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
due to low program enrollment or term-to-term variation in the number of trained supervisors in
the field and the student teachers to whom they were assigned.
Section 1: Submission History & Supervisor Information
Section 1 provides a historical overview of the program’s participation in using the
DRSTOS-R since fall 2007. This section opens with an accounting of the number of forms
relating to Science Education students contained in the DRSTOS-R database, as determined by
the identified program codes. Students for whom program codes could not be determined were
not included in this count.
Two tables summarize the submission history for the program. Exhibit 1 presents the
total number of forms collected from Science Education for each term of data collection, as well
as a breakdown by degree level of the student teacher. Exhibit 2 presents a list of DRSTOS-R
trained supervisors who have submitted forms for Science Education student teachers and each
supervisor’s history of returning completed forms.
Supervisors must complete a full-day training to qualify as a DRSTOS-R administrator,
after which they are expected to submit forms for each data collection cycle onwards, beginning
with that semester. The submission histories include a date of training and the number of forms
the supervisor has submitted each term since. Blank cells indicate data collection cycles in which
the supervisor had not yet been trained. Cells marked ‘0’ indicate data collection cycles in which
a trained supervisor did not return forms; these may include terms in which supervisors did not
mentor student teachers.
Section 2: Student Teacher Performance
This section provides a summary of the student teachers’ performance, presented in
Exhibit 3 and organized by degree and academic year (fall and spring, with summer data
included when available). Student teachers’ performance is determined by calculating the mean
ratings received on items within each of the four domains, as well as across the full DRSTOS-R
instrument. Students for whom degree information was missing were not included in the
calculation.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
In addition to the mean scores, the exhibit includes the percent and frequency of student
teachers whose domain or total mean scores have been determined as ‘meeting standards’. In
order to meet or exceed standards, a student teacher must receive a mean score of 3.0 (‘EntryLevel Proficient’) or higher. ‘Entry Level Proficient’ is the rating level used to describe
behaviors that are expected of a recent graduate of a teacher education program, demonstrating
emerging professional skill but not yet at the level of an experienced teacher. The frequencies
and percents of student teachers ‘meeting standards’ are also organized by degree and academic
year. The percent ‘meeting standards’ data are used in reports to our accreditation agency, the
Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). The program standard for TEAC reporting is
that 80% of student teachers in their final placements should achieve mean scores of at least 3.0
in each domain score and the total score.
Section 3: Item-Level Performance by Placement
Expanding upon the student teacher performance data in Section 2, the information
presented in Exhibits 4 and 5 compare mean scores on each DRSTOS-R item for student
teachers who were in their first placement against those in more advanced or final placements.
Students whose first placement was their only placement were counted as part of the
“late/advanced” category, and only those students for whom placement information was
available were included in these comparisons. Descriptors for the 23 items can be found on the
full DRSTOS-R protocol in the appendix, in reverse-order to their presentation on the
comparative graph. This section focuses on data collected over the last two academic years:
2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
As a summative tool, the DRSTOS-R provides a snapshot of student teachers’
professional practice at the end of each semester of student teaching. As student teachers
progress from earlier to later placements, it is expected that there should be observable changes
in their classroom performance. Generally speaking, by group, students in late/advanced
placements should have higher ratings than students in their first placement, especially in relation
to the benchmark of 3.0 (‘Entry Level Proficient’). The exhibits allow it to be seen the extent to
which this pattern could be observed for the Science Education programs. It should be noted,
however, that these comparisons are cross-sectional in nature, not longitudinal, and students in
the “first” and “late” categories are not necessarily the same students.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Section 4: Historical Performance
Expanding on the previous section, this section provides a historical perspective
comparing the performance of student teachers in their first and later placements. Included in this
section is a series of exhibits contrasting the average scores for students in their first placement
against those in later placements, organized by domain and academic year. As in the previous
section, the data included in these charts are cross-sectional in nature.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Part I: Submission Overview & Supervisor Information
Exhibit 1
Total Forms
Submitted
Number of DRSTOS-R Forms Submitted By Degree and Semester
Fall 2011 - Summer 2013
63
(F11-Sum13)
CRSP
SBIO
SBLY
SCHY
SPHY
Program
Codes
Degree
BS
MA
TOTAL
Fall 11
1
7
8
Spring 12
1
1
2
Summer
12
-------
Fall 12
2
25
27
Spring 13
2
24
26
Summer
13
-------
TOTAL
6
57
63
Exhibit 2
Number of DRSTOS-R Forms Submitted By Supervisor and Semester
Fall 2011 - Summer 2013
Supervisor
Blonstein, J.
Hamburg, M.
Silvera-Hargrove, L.
Trained
Prior to Fall 06
(retrained Feb 07)
Fall 07
Fall 11
TOTAL
Fall 11
Spring 12
Summer
12
Fall 12
Spring 13
Summer
13
---
TOTAL
1
2
---
22
25
4
3
0
0
-----
2
3
1
0
-----
7
6
8
2
---
27
26
---
63
50
NOTE: This list does not include untrained supervisors in the field during this period or trained supervisors who did not
submit forms.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Part II: Student Teacher Performance
Exhibit 3
Mean Scores and Percent Meeting Standards By Degree
Fall 2011 – Summer 2013
Semester
Scale
Domain
Number
of
Students*
Mean
Score
(1-4)
D1
D2
D3
D4
Total
D1
D2
D3
D4
Total
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
3.50
3.36
3.50
3.50
3.45
3.00
3.07
2.89
2.75
2.96
Standard
Deviation
%Meeting
Standard
(>=3)
Number
of
Students
Mean
Score
(1-4)
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
75.0%
75.0%
50.0%
50.0%
25.0%
8
8
8
8
8
49
49
49
49
49
3.27
3.23
3.17
3.42
3.25
3.38
3.36
3.35
3.35
3.36
BS
Fall 2011Summer
2012
Fall 2012Summer
2013
Standard
Deviation
%Meeting
Standard
(>=3)
MA
0.71
0.91
0.71
0.71
0.77
0.14
0.25
0.24
0.57
0.22
0.45
0.59
0.43
0.53
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.49
0.44
Note: D1 = Planning & Prep; D2 = Classroom Environment; D3 = Instruction; D4 = Prof. Responsibilities.
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
75.0%
62.5%
75.0%
87.5%
62.5%
98.0%
95.9%
98.0%
98.0%
91.8%
Part III: Item-Level Performance by Placement
Exhibit 4
Mean DRSTOS-R Item Scores for BS Students in
First and Advanced Field Placements
Fall 2011 - Summer 2013
Science BS Program
(First Placement N = 3; Advanced Placement N = 3)
Ability to Reflect/Use in Future Teaching
Cultural Context of School and Community
Relationship w/ Adults
Flexibility & Responsiveness**
Content Instruction**
Discussion Style
Teacher/Pupil Communications
Knowledge of Students
Clarity of Goals
Lesson Structure and Time Management*
Awareness of Pupil Behavior
Mutual Expectations
Materials and Supplies
Transitions
Functioning of Learning Groups
Classroom Interaction
Student Teacher Interaction with Pupils
Use of Assessments, Feedback, and…
Assessment Criteria and Standards
Constraints on Teaching & Learning
Long/Short Term Planning
Knowledge of (Common Core Content)…
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Advanced Placement
Note.
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
First Placement
Each item rated by field supervisors on a scale of 1-4 with 3 = Entry-Level Proficiency.
Some means and comparisons may reflect only a small number of students (N<5).
* Item added in Fall 2008
** Item added in Spring 2012
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Exhibit 5
Mean DRSTOS-R Item Scores for MA Students
in First and Advanced Field Placements
Fall 2011 - Summer 2013
Science MA Program
(First Placement N = 29; Advanced Placement N = 28)
Ability to Reflect/Use in Future Teaching
Cultural Context of School and Community
Relationship w/ Adults
Flexibility & Responsiveness**
Content Instruction**
Discussion Style
Teacher/Pupil Communications
Knowledge of Students
Clarity of Goals
Lesson Structure and Time Management*
Awareness of Pupil Behavior
Mutual Expectations
Materials and Supplies
Transitions
Functioning of Learning Groups
Classroom Interaction
Student Teacher Interaction with Pupils
Use of Assessments, Feedback, and…
Assessment Criteria and Standards
Constraints on Teaching & Learning
Long/Short Term Planning
Knowledge of (Common Core Content)…
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Advanced Placement
Note.
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
First Placement
Each item rated by field supervisors on a scale of 1-4 with 3 = Entry-Level Proficiency.
Some means and comparisons may reflect only a small number of students (N<5).
* Item added in Fall 2008
** Item added in Spring 2012
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Part IV: Historical Performance
Exhibit 6
Historical Domain Performance By Degree and Placement
Fall 2007 – Summer 2013
Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
D1
D2
D3
D4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D1
D2
D3
D4
Domain
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
Planning & Prep
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Prof. Responsibilities
Total
N
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Undergraduate
Early
Late
Mean
N
Mean
1
4.00
1
4.00
1
4.00
1
4.00
1
4.00
3.20
2
3.67
3.03
2
3.50
3.52
2
3.80
3.40
2
4.00
3.25
2
3.69
3.00
1
2.83
3.00
1
2.57
2.60
1
2.80
2.00
1
2.67
2.76
1
2.71
3.06
2
4.00
3.05
2
4.00
3.00
2
4.00
3.00
2
3.83
3.03
2
3.98
3.00
1
4.00
2.71
1
4.00
3.00
1
4.00
3.00
1
4.00
2.90
1
4.00
3.08
2
2.92
3.14
2
3.00
3.07
2
2.71
3.17
2
2.33
3.11
2
2.80
N
14
14
14
14
14
17
17
17
17
17
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
3
3
3
3
3
26
26
26
26
26
Note: Some means and comparisons may reflect only a small number of students (N<5)
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
Graduate
Early
Late
Mean
N
Mean
3.58
9
3.70
3.61
9
3.68
3.50
9
3.81
3.76
9
4.00
3.60
9
3.76
3.42
17
3.68
3.27
17
3.55
3.36
17
3.54
3.53
17
3.65
3.37
17
3.60
3.32
15
3.59
3.21
15
3.45
3.28
15
3.52
3.56
15
3.80
3.31
15
3.56
3.12
9
3.83
3.22
9
3.73
3.18
9
3.75
3.49
9
3.74
3.22
9
3.77
3.44
5
3.17
3.43
5
3.11
3.18
5
3.16
3.44
5
3.40
3.37
5
3.18
3.10
23
3.71
3.14
23
3.60
3.07
23
3.67
3.06
23
3.68
3.10
23
3.66
Exhibit 7
Historical Domain-Level Performance by Placement
Fall 2007 – Summer 2013
Undergraduate
Graduate
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
Early
1.5
Late
1
0.5
2
Early
1.5
Late
1
0.5
0
0
2007-08
N=0 (E);
N=1 (L)
2008-09
N=5 (E);
N=2 (L)
2009-10
N=1 (E);
N=1 (L)
2010-11
N=3 (E);
N=2 (L)
2011-12
N=1 (E);
N=1 (L)
2012-13
N=2 (E);
N=2 (L)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
N=14 (E); N=17 (E); N=12 (E); N=13 (E);
N=9 (L) N=17 (L) N=15 (L) N=9 (L)
2011-12
N=3 (E);
N=5 (L)
2012-13
N=26 (E);
N=23 (L)
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
Early
1.5
Late
1
0.5
2
Early
1.5
Late
1
0.5
0
0
2007-08
N=0 (E);
N=1 (L)
2008-09
N=5 (E);
N=2 (L)
2009-10
N=1 (E);
N=1 (L)
2010-11
N=3 (E);
N=2 (L)
2011-12
N=1 (E);
N=1 (L)
2012-13
N=2 (E);
N=2 (L)
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=14 (E); N=17 (E); N=12 (E); N=13 (E); N=3 (E); N=26 (E);
N=9 (L) N=17 (L) N=15 (L) N=9 (L)
N=5 (L) N=23 (L)
Undergraduate
Graduate
Domain 3: Instruction
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Early
Late
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Early
Late
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=14 (E); N=17 (E); N=12 (E); N=13 (E); N=3 (E); N=26 (E);
N=9 (L) N=17 (L) N=15 (L) N=9 (L) N=5 (L) N=23 (L)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=0 (E); N=5 (E); N=1 (E); N=3 (E); N=1 (E); N=2 (E);
N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L)
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Early
Late
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=0 (E); N=5 (E); N=1 (E); N=3 (E); N=1 (E); N=2 (E);
N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L)
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Early
Late
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=14 (E); N=17 (E); N=12 (E); N=13 (E); N=3 (E); N=26 (E);
N=9 (L) N=17 (L) N=15 (L) N=9 (L) N=5 (L) N=23 (L)
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total Mean
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Early
1.5
Late
1
0.5
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=0 (E); N=5 (E); N=1 (E); N=3 (E); N=1 (E); N=2 (E);
N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L) N=1 (L) N=2 (L)
CRTL DRSTOS-R Program Summary, IB-1113-08
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Early
Late
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
N=14
N=17
N=12
N=13 N=3 (E); N=26
(E); N=9 (E);
(E); (E); N=9 N=5 (L)
(E);
(L)
N=17 (L) N=15 (L)
(L)
N=23 (L)
Student teacher Name:
Semester:
Supervised by:
Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale - Revised
(DRSTOS-R)
Student Teacher & Placement Information
Please check one:
Fast Track
Junior
Senior
Undergraduate
Regular Track
Graduate
Major/Program(s):
Certification track?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Native English Speaker?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Placement
(check one)
Placement
Information
Please describe the
class(es) the student
teacher is
responsible for
teaching
1 out of 4
1 out of 2
2 out of 4
2 out of 2
* Early Childhood Majors Only
1 out of 3
3 out of 4
2 out of 3
4 out of 4
3 out of 3
General Education
0 - 25% English Language
Learners
Self-Contained Special
Education
26 - 50% English Language
Learners
CTT
51%+ English Language
Learners
School Name/PS #
Cooperating Teacher(s) (CT)
Was a 3-way conference conducted?
Yes
No
Are ratings informed by discussions
with or evidence from the CT?
Yes
No
Grade(s):
Content/Specialty Area (if applicable)
Additional Notes on Placement
(ex: push-in, pull-out, SETTS/Resource
Room, extenuating circumstances)
Are ratings informed by evidence from
seminars?
Yes
No
1/23/2015
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _______________________
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
ELEMENT
NOT YET PROFICIENT
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
ENTRY LEVEL PROFICIENT
PROFICIENT
Student teacher displays
inadequate knowledge or
understanding of
pedagogical strategies and
issues involved in pupil
learning. Planned learning
activities are not suitable to
students or are not designed
to engage students in active
intellectual activity
Student teacher displays a
beginning understanding of
pedagogical issues involved
in pupil learning. Planned
learning activities employ a
few strategies that address
students’ thinking,
knowledge, and skills but are
only partially appropriate to
the students’ age, interests
and needs.
Student teacher displays a basic
understanding of pedagogical
issues involved in pupil learning.
Planned learning activities
employ several strategies that
support students’ thinking,
knowledge, and skills that are
mostly appropriate to the
students’ age, interests and
needs.
1
Student teacher displays
inadequate evidence of
familiarity with state/city
content standards.
2
Student teacher displays
basic knowledge of state/city
content standards, without
evidence of connecting to
standards beyond the
current lesson.
3
Student teacher displays a
sufficient understanding of the
city/state content standards and
makes connections to other
standards within and/or beyond
content area.
Student teacher displays
extensive knowledge of
current best pedagogical
practices and understanding
of issues involved in student
learning. Planned learning
activities employ a wide
variety of strategies that
support students’ thinking,
knowledge, and skills,
anticipate potential pupil
misconceptions, and are
appropriate to students’ age,
interests, and needs.
4
Student teacher displays a
strong understanding of the
city/state content standards
and makes connections to
other standards within and/or
beyond content area.
1
Planning for instruction is not
connected to longer-term
goals or to the pedagogical
content knowledge of the
subject, the pupils, or the
standards, and are unclear
to most pupils in the class.
2
Planning for instruction is
partially connected to longerterm goals and there is
limited use of pedagogical
content knowledge of the
subject, the pupils, or the
standards.
3
Planning for instruction connects
to longer-term goals and
sufficiently uses pedagogical
content knowledge of the
subject, the pupils, or the
standards.
4
Planning for instruction
connects to longer-term goals
and effectively uses
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject, the
pupils, or the standards.
1
2
3
4
EVIDENCE
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
1. KNOWLEDGE OF
PEDAGOGY
2. KNOWLEDGE OF
COMMON CORE
CONTENT STANDARDS
3. LONG/SHORT TERM
PLANNING
1/23/2015
16
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
4. CONSTRAINTS ON
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
5. ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
6. USE OF ASSESSMENTS,
FEEDBACK, AND
REFLECTION IN
PLANNING
Semester: _______________________
Student teacher plans and
teaches without regard to
the particular possibilities
and limits of his/her
classroom context.
Student teacher understands
some of the curricular and
resource possibilities and
constraints of the context but
does not effectively use
them in planning or teaching.
Student teacher sufficiently
understands the curricular and
resource possibilities and
constraints of the context and
begins to use them in planning
or teaching.
Student teacher thoroughly
understands the curricular
and resource possibilities and
constraints of the context and
uses them effectively in
planning or teaching.
1
The proposed approach
contains no clear criteria or
standards for students.
2
Assessment criteria and
standards for students are
unclear.
3
Assessment criteria and
standards for students are
generally appropriate and
sufficiently clear.
4
Assessment criteria and
standards for students are
well developed and explicit.
1
Information from
assessments (formal and
informal, formative and
summative, including tests,
observations, conferences,
etc.) affects planning for
these pupils only minimally.
2
Student teacher uses
assessment results to plan
for the class as a whole.
3
Student teacher uses
assessment results to plan for
individuals and groups of pupils
as well as the class as a whole.
4
Student teacher uses
assessment results to plan for
individuals and groups of
pupils as well as the class as
a whole and uses pupil input
in assessment planning.
1
2
3
4
Student teacher’s voice
controls the classroom
environment. Students’
thoughts need to be nurtured
and validated. Student
teacher’s questions are of
low quality, have single
correct answers, or are
asked in rapid succession
without time to respond.
Student teacher is beginning
to elicit students’ thoughts in
the classroom environment.
Student teacher’s questions
and comments are a
combination of high and low
quality and the adequacy of
time given for pupil response
is inconsistent.
Student teacher regularly
provides students with a venue
to share their thoughts and
ideas. Student teacher’s
questions and comments are
mostly of high quality, inviting
thoughtful responses, and
adequate time is given for pupil
response.
1
2
3
The classroom environment
reflects a balance of student
teacher’s and students’
thoughts. Students’ thoughts
are nurtured and encouraged.
Student teacher’s questions
and comments are
consistently high quality with
adequate time for pupil
response. Pupils also
formulate and pose questions.
4
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
7. STUDENT TEACHER
INTERACTION WITH
PUPILS
1/23/2015
17
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _______________________
8. CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
Classroom interactions are
frequently characterized by
conflict, sarcasm, or putdowns.
Classroom interactions are
occasionally characterized
by conflict, sarcasm, or putdowns.
Classroom interactions are
generally polite and mutually
respectful.
Classroom functions as a
genuinely polite, caring and
mutually respectful
community.
9. FUNCTIONING OF
LEARNING GROUPS
1
Pupils not working with the
student teacher are not
productively engaged in the
task(s). Students in groups
are off-task or are working
independently.
2
Tasks for group work are
partially organized, resulting
in some off-task behavior
when student teacher is
involved with one group.
Students sit together to work
but interact minimally.
3
Tasks for group work are
organized, and groups are
managed so most pupils are
engaged most of the time.
Student teacher facilitates
interaction between group
members.
4
Tasks for group work are well
organized, and groups are
managed so most pupils are
engaged at all times and are
working collaboratively.
1
Much time is lost during
transitions.
2
Transitions are sporadically
efficient, resulting in some
loss of instructional time.
3
Transitions mostly occur
smoothly, with minimal loss of
instructional time.
4
Transitions occur smoothly,
with almost no loss of
instructional time.
1
Materials are handled
inefficiently, resulting in
significant loss of
instructional time.
3
Routines for handling materials
and supplies are mostly efficient,
with minimal disruption of
instruction.
4
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
consistently efficient.
1
No standards of conduct
appear to have been
established, or pupils are
confused as to what the
standards are.
2
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
sporadically efficient,
resulting in some disruption
of instruction.
2
Standards of conduct appear
to have been established for
most situations, and most
pupils seem to understand
them.
3
Standards of conduct are clear
to all pupils.
4
Standards of conduct are
clear to all pupils, and there is
evidence of some student
participation in their
formulation.
1
Pupil behavior is not
monitored, and student
teacher is unaware of what
pupils are doing.
1
2
Student teacher is generally
aware of pupil behavior but
misses the activities of some
pupils.
2
3
Student teacher is alert to pupil
behavior most of the time.
4
Student teacher is alert to
pupil behavior at all times and
pupils participate in the
monitoring process.
4
10. TRANSITIONS
11. MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES
12. MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS
13. AWARENESS OF PUPIL
BEHAVIOR
3
1/23/2015
18
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _______________________
INSTRUCTION
14. LESSON STRUCTURE
AND TIME
MANAGEMENT
15. CLARITY OF GOALS
16. KNOWLEDGE OF
STUDENTS: PUPILS’
SKILLS , CULTURAL
HERITAGE,
KNOWLEDGE,
INTERESTS, LEARNING
STYLES
INSTRUCTIONAL
NEEDS
The lesson has no clearly
defined structure. The pace
of the lesson is too slow, or
rushed or both. Classroom
time is not spent on
instruction or there is
significant loss of
instructional time.
1
Goals for lessons are
unidentifiable or are clearly
unsuitable for most pupils in
the class.
The lesson has a
recognizable structure,
although it is not uniformly
maintained throughout the
lesson. Pacing of the lesson
is inconsistent. There is
some loss of instructional
time.
2
Goals for lessons can be
identified but are unclear or
implemented such that there
is considerable confusion.
Identified goals are partially
suitable for most pupils in
the class.
The lesson has a clearly
defined structure around which
the activities are organized.
Pacing of the lesson is generally
appropriate with minimal loss of
instructional time.
The lesson’s structure is
highly coherent, so that there
is almost no loss of
instructional time. Pacing of
the lesson is appropriate for
all students.
3
Goals for the lessons can be
identified and are partially
reflected in implementation of
the lesson. Identified goals are
appropriate in their content and
level of expectation for most
pupils in the class.
1
Student teacher
demonstrates an inadequate
knowledge of pupils’ skills,
knowledge and learning
styles, and does not indicate
that such knowledge is
valuable.
2
Student teacher recognizes
the value of understanding
pupils’ skills, knowledge and
learning styles, but displays
this knowledge for the class
only as a whole and rarely
for those with special needs.
3
Student teacher demonstrates a
sufficient knowledge of pupils’
skills, knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils
including those with special
needs and recognizes the value
of this knowledge.
4
Goals for the lessons are
clearly identifiable and
reflected in implementation of
the lesson. Identified goals
are appropriate in their
content and level of
expectation for most pupils in
the class.
4
Student teacher demonstrates
a strong knowledge of pupils’
skills, knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils and
recognizes the value of this
knowledge including those
with special needs.
1
2
3
4
1/23/2015
19
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
17. STUDENT TEACHER/
PUPIL
COMMUNICATIONS
18. DISCUSSION STYLE
19. CONTENT
INSTRUCTION
Semester: _______________________
Student teacher’s or pupils’
spoken language is
inaudible, or written
language is illegible.
Spoken or written language
may contain many grammar
and syntax errors.
Vocabulary may be
inappropriate, vague, or
used incorrectly, leaving
pupils confused.
1
Interaction between student
teacher and pupils is
predominantly recitation
style, with student teacher
mediating all questions and
answers.
1
Student teacher makes
content errors or does not
correct errors made by
pupils, reflecting inadequate
understanding or knowledge
of academic content.
Student teacher’s or pupils’
spoken language is audible,
and written language is
legible. Both are used
correctly. Student teacher
vocabulary is correct but
limited or is not appropriate
to pupils’ ages or
backgrounds.
Student teacher’s and pupils’
spoken and written language are
sufficiently clear and appropriate
to pupils’ age and interests.
Student teacher’s spoken and
written language is clear,
correct, and enhances the
learning of the subject. Pupils
are mastering the standard
written language as writers
and readers.
2
Student teacher attempts to
engage pupils in discussion,
with uneven results.
3
Most classroom interaction
represents discussion, with
student teacher taking a
facilitating role.
4
Classroom interaction
represents discussion, with
student teacher stepping,
when appropriate, to the side
so pupil-pupil talk dominates.
2
Student teacher displays
basic understanding and
knowledge of academic
content and key concepts
but lacks awareness of how
concepts relate to one
another. Explanation of the
content is uneven; some is
done skillfully, but other
portions are difficult to
follow.
3
Student teacher displays
sufficient understanding and
knowledge of academic content
and key concepts. Explanation
of content is appropriate,
connects key concepts within
the topic and discipline, and
connects with students’
knowledge and experience
1
2
3
4
Student teacher displays a
strong understanding and
knowledge of academic
content and key concepts.
Explanation of content is
imaginative, connects key
concepts both within and/or
beyond the topic area and
discipline, and connects with
students’ knowledge and
experience. Pupils contribute
to explaining concepts to their
peers
4
1/23/2015
20
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
20. FLEXIBILITY AND
RESPONSIVENESS
Student teacher adheres
rigidly to lesson plan, even
when a change is clearly
needed. Students’ questions
or interests are ignored or
brushed aside. When
difficulties arise, the student
teacher blames students or
contextual factors.
Semester: _______________________
Student teacher attempts to
adjust a lesson when
needed or to accommodate
students’ questions or
interests. Adjustments are
only partially successful with
disruption to the pacing of
the lesson. When difficulties
arise, the student teacher
accepts responsibility but
only has a limited repertoire
of instructional strategies to
draw upon
2
Student teacher makes minor
adjustments to a lesson when
needed or to accommodate
students’ questions or interests,
and the adjustment occurs
smoothly with minimal disruption
to the pacing of the lesson.
When difficulties arise, the
student teacher persists in
seeking approaches, drawing on
a broad repertoire of strategies
Student teacher’s
relationships with adults are
negative or self-serving.
Student teacher maintains
cordial relationships with
adults.
Support and cooperation
characterize relationships with
others.
Student teacher is able to
maintain positive relationships
with adults and functions
effectively as part of a team.
1
Student teacher appears to
be unaware of the cultural
context of the school and
community.
2
Student teacher
demonstrates knowledge of
the cultural context of the
school and the community.
3
Student teacher demonstrates
sufficient knowledge of the
cultural context of the school
and the community.
4
Student teacher demonstrates
an expanding knowledge of
the cultural context of the
school and the community.
1
Student teacher has no
suggestions for how a
lesson may be improved
another time.
2
Student teacher makes
general suggestions about
how a lesson may be
improved.
3
Student teacher is becoming a
reflective practitioner and makes
a few specific suggestions of
what might be tried if the lesson
was taught again.
3
4
Student teacher is a reflective
practitioner, is able to learn
from mistakes and successes
and adjusts accordingly.
1
3
Student teacher successfully
makes a major adjustment to
a lesson when needed or to
take advantage of teachable
moments building on student
interests or needs. When
difficulties arise, the student
teacher persists in seeking
effective approaches, using
an extensive repertoire of
strategies and soliciting
additional resources from the
school
4
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
21. RELATIONSHIPS WITH
ADULTS: SUPERVISOR,
COOPERATING
TEACHER, TEACHERS,
SCHOOL STAFF, &
PARENTS/ GUARDIANS.
22. CULTURAL CONTEXT
OF SCHOOL AND
COMMUNITY
23. ABILITY TO REFLECT
1
2
4
1/23/2015
21
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R
Student teacher Name: ____________________________
Supervised by: ______________________________
Semester: _______________________
OTHER COMMENTS
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
INSTRUCTION
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1/23/2015
22
Inspired by Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION.
DRSTOS-R