Walkthrough Name Site Template Name

Formal 1 Sunrise Drive Elementary School TAP 2016-2017

Category Start Date / Time End Date / Time
<none> Sep 22, 2016 12:50 PM Sep 22, 2016 01:25 PM
Staff
Zhiwei Shepard
Page 1
Formal Observation
Informal Observation
TLF TEACH 1 : LEAD WELL-ORGANIZED OBJECTIVE-DRIVEN LESSONS
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions TLF T1 -

Note :
Ms. Shepard led a well-organized objective-driven lesson. The learning goals were specific, measurable, and aligned to the CFSD adopted
curriculum:
I can describe the attributes of two dimensional shapes.
I can solve a puzzle using two dimensional shapes.
Ms. Shepard ensured that students understood the importance/relevance of the learning goal. The students discussed shapes in their
environment. All parts of the lesson are connected to the learning goals:
Activator- Identify different shapes: triangle, rhombus, trapezoid, hexagon, and square
Direct Instruction- Describe various shapes: triangle, rhombus, trapezoid, hexagon, and square
Problem Solving- Solve open ended puzzle using shapes provided. Collect and organize data about shapes used in a table.
Ms. Shepard referenced the learning goal at critical points in the lesson elements as she transitioned from one lesson element to another.
She asked students to describe the shapes and as she monitored their independent work. As students completed the task, she asked
students to share the solutions. Students knew the learning goal and demonstrated their progress toward mastery by orally describing the
shapes and solving the puzzle using the shapes. As a result of the well-organized objective-driven lesson, students demonstrated progress
toward master of the learning goal.

Consider asking students to describe how their effort, such as level of focus, contributes to their success. Students could use a signal after
a few seconds to reflect, such as, Think about your level of effort in todays lesson. Think about your level of focus in todays lesson. If you
were focused for some of the lesson, show thumbs down. If you were focused for half of the lesson, show thumbs to the side. If you were
focused for the majority of the lesson, show thumbs up. The concept of focus should be defined with observable behaviors such as the
following:
I listening carefully.
I share my ideas with a partner.
I take accurate notes.
This could be listed on a chart in English for Math and Mandarin for the rest of the day for students to reference.

Score 3: Effective
Stated learning goal(s) is specific, measurable, and aligned to the CFSD adopted curriculum (standards/
benchmarks and measurement topics). (The teacher conveys what students are learning and what they will
know/be able to do by the end of the lesson.)
Teacher ensures students understand the importance/relevance of learning goal.
All parts of the lesson are connected to each other and aligned to the learning goal; and, each part efficiently
moves students toward achievement of the learning goal. (See Nested Thinking Behind Learning Goals in
Appendix).
Teacher and/or students refer back to learning goal at key points in the lesson.
Most students interviewed can communicate the lesson objectives/learning goals AND how they are
progressing.
Score 2: Developing
Stated learning goal(s) may be missing one component and only somewhat conveys what students are
learning and be able to do by the end of the lesson. (Goal may not be specific or measurable, or it may not be
aligned to CFSD standards.)
Teacher explains the importance/ relevance of learning goal, but in a way that does not effectively lead to
understanding. (Learning goal might not be in student-friendly language or at appropriate level of difficulty.)
Some parts of the lesson are not closely connected to each other or aligned to the learning goal, or some
parts do not significantly move students toward achievement of the learning goal.
Teacher misses opportunities to refer back to the learning goal, when doing so would have focused the
learners.
Half of the students interviewed can communicate (in a student-friendly manner) the lesson
objective(s)/learning goal(s) and how they are progressing.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T1

Note :
Page 1
Score 1: Ineffective
Stated learning goal(s) may be missing more than one component, or the learning goal does not convey what
students are learning or what they will be able to do by the end of the lesson.
Teacher does not explain the importance/relevance of learning goal, or students do not understand its
importance.
Most parts of the lesson are not aligned to the learning goal, or do not significantly move students toward
achievement of the learning goal. (Students are confused about what to do, etc.)
Teacher rarely refers back to the learning goal during the lesson.
Less than half of the students interviewed can communicate (in a student-friendly manner) the lesson
objective(s)/learning goal(s) and how they are progressing.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T1

Note :

Score 4: Highly Effective

Teacher ensures that students understand how the learning goal connects to the broader unit goals or larger
context of what they are learning. (Utilizes a concept map, students explain the relevance of the goal, make
connections to essential question.)
All students interviewed can explain in their own words what they are learning, why what they are learning is
important, and how their effort contributes to their success, beyond simply repeating the teacher's explanation.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T1

Note :
Page 2
TLF TEACH 2: EXPLAIN CONTENT CLEARLY Score 3.0
Rubric not observed
Notes -

Note :
Ms. Shepard explained the content clearly. Ms. Shepard offered clear, precise and accurate explanations to build student understanding of
the content. She used diagrams and drawings to explain the vocabulary: side, angle, and corner. Many explanatory devices were used
during the lesson. Ms. Shepard drew shapes on the board for students to describe and identify by circling. The students manipulated
pattern blocks as they solved the puzzle. The teacher and students used the academic vocabulary. Students, such as Liliana, counted
sides, corners and angles in Mandarin. The students repeated the vocabulary using the target language: side, angle, corner and shape
names. Ms. Shepard provided repeated practice as she pointed to the parts of a shape or a shape and the students identified the key
vocabulary. Ms. Shepard cued to attend to critical information about the content. For example, she asked in the target language, How
many sides does a hexagon have? as she pointed to the sides of the shape. The students successfully comprehending the question, which
included the content vocabulary. When an explanation was not effectively leading students to understand the content, Ms. Shepard
adjusted the lesson. She used cues when Simon circled a rhombus instead of a triangle, pointing to the other triangles and asking him
again to select a triangle. Simon attended to the cue and details to successfully identify another triangle. As a result of Ms. Shepard clearly
explaining the content, the students demonstrated mastery toward the learning goal.

Create a vocabulary wall or chart for students to reference in the lessons. The chart can be added to as students develop new vocabulary
throughout the unit. The chart should include an image and Mandarin character.

Score 3: Effective
Teacher has adequate subject/content knowledge and knows how to teach the subject matter to students.
Teacher gives clear, precise, and accurate explanations and/or definitions to build student understanding of
content.
Teacher uses academic language of the discipline to explain the content.
Teacher cues/identifies critical/important information about the content.
When an explanation is not effectively leading students to understand the content, teacher adjusts quickly
and uses an alternative way to explain concept.
Teacher embeds opportunities for students to make connections to previous material or prior knowledge as
appropriate to learning goal.
Score 2: Developing
Teacher has some gaps in subject/content knowledge which limits his/her ability to convey the subject matter
to students.
Teacher sometimes gives explanations and/or definitions that are not completely clear, precise, or accurate as
evidenced by student confusion.
Teacher inconsistently uses the academic language of the discipline to explain the content.
Teacher sometimes cues or identifies critical/important information about the content; students are
sometimes unclear about the main ideas of the content.
When an explanation is not effectively leading students to understand the concept, the teacher sometimes
moves on or re-explains in the same way rather than providing an alternative explanation.
Teacher [instead of the students] makes connections to previous material or prior knowledge. (Makes a
reference to what students were doing in the previous lesson, etc.)
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T2

Score 1: Ineffective
Teacher has significant gaps in subject/content knowledge which limits his/her ability to convey the subject
matter to students.
Teacher rarely gives clear, precise, or accurate definitions/explanations, as evidenced by student confusion,
frustration, or disengagement.
Teacher rarely uses the academic language of the discipline to explain the content.
Teacher rarely emphasizes critical/ important information when necessary, such that students are often
unclear about the main ideas of the content.
Teacher adheres rigidly to the initial plan for explaining content even when it is clear that an explanation is
not effectively leading students to understand the concept.
The lesson does not build on students prior knowledge, or the teacher assumes prior knowledge, so it is not
elicited.
Page 2
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T2

Score 4: Highly Effective

Teacher actively & effectively engages students in the process of making their own connections (to other
disciplines, own experiences/interests, current events, prior or future learning, etc.) in order to make the
content relevant and build understanding.
Students ask and answer higher-order questions that require elaborate inferences, synthesizing, evaluating,
and or critiquing, demonstrating that they understand content at a higher level.
Teacher recognizes student misconceptions that interfere with learning and creates experiences to bulid
accurate, conceptual understanding.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T2

Examples of Explanatory Devices -

Simple cues
Highlighting important information
Analogies
Diagrams
Graphic organizers
Pictures or pictographs
Audio and visual recordings
Presentation software
Models
Mental imagery
Modeling thinking aloud
Translation into simpler language
Charts, whiteboards, SMARTboards
Other
Page 3
TLF TEACH 3: ENGAGE STUDENTS AT ALL LEVELS IN RIGOROUS WORK
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions TLF T3 -

Note :
Ms. Shepard engaged students at all levels in rigorous work. Ms. Shepard communicates high standards for student performance and
quality work. When providing the procedures for solving the puzzle, Ms. Shepard demonstrating using a blue rhombus. Then, Riley
demonstrated solving the puzzle using a different combination of shapes. Next, Ms. Shepard provided a non-example. The models and
examples defined the expectation and supported the students independent work time. Ms. Shepard proactively differentiated instruction to
make the lesson more assessable to all students. The learning tasks challenging students to solve a puzzle, was inherently differentiated
by readiness. Students used a combination of shapes to solve the puzzle. In addition, Ms. Shepard purposefully checked in with specific
students more frequently to support their progress toward the learning goal: Jason, Tristan and Grace. Ms. Shepard prepared an anchor
task for students that finished before others. They were assigned an addition fact card game that each students eagerly engage in as the
other students solved the puzzle. Ms. Shepard developed the lesson to provide an appropriate balance between teacher-directed and
student centered learning. The 35-minute lesson included 14 minutes of direct instruction with students responding to prompts and
questions orally or by recording responses on the board. The remaining 21 minutes was devoted to problem solving as students complete a
puzzle, collected and analyzed data. Ms. Shepard provided opportunities for students to work independently and collaboratively to problem
solve. The open-ended problem solving task challenged students think critically and creatively as they selected the shapes that fit within
the boundaries provided. As a result of the students being engaged at all levels in rigorous work, the students successfully worked on the
challenging problems.

Score 3: Effective
Teacher communicates high standards for student performance and quality work. (For example:
communicates criteria for success and makes it available to students; provides exemplars of quality work,
provides/explains scoring rubrics, etc.)
Teacher differentiates instruction, proactively, to make lesson accessible to all students (including ELL, gifted,
SPED, 504, etc.), (Differentiates content leveled texts; process flexible grouping; and/or product tiered/
parallel assignments.)
There is an appropriate balance between teacher directed instruction and rigorous student centered learning.
Students have multiple opportunities to independently or collaboratively (learning teams) problem solve,
discuss, negotiate, and think with their peers to demonstate what they are learning.
Score 2: Developing
Teacher communicates standards for student performance and quality work, but for some students the
standards are not at the appropriate level of rigor or quality.
Teacher primarily improvises or reactively differentiates, making the lesson accessible to some students. (See
Notes 3 and 4)
There is more teacher-directed/whole group guided instruction than student-centered learning.
Students have some opportunities to independently practice or apply what they are learning.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T3

Score 1: Ineffective
Teacher does not communicate standards for student performance and quality work or the standards are too
low for most students.
Teacher makes the lesson accessible to few students. (See examples in Score 3.0)
The lesson is highly teacher-directed.
Students have limited opportunities to practice and demonstrate what they are learning.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T3

Score 4: Highly Effective

Teacher communicates high standards, provides multiple models of quality student work/professional
products/work samples, AND engages students in the analysis of exemplars.
Students are regularly engaged in relevant complex thinking/extended reasoning tasks. (Argumentation/
debate, synthesizing multiple sources; reasoning processes that promote critical and creative thinking etc.)
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T3
Page 4
TLF TEACH 4: Provide Students Multiple Ways to Engage with Content
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions -

Note :
Ms. Shepard engaged students with multiple ways to engage with the content. She utilized a variety of engagement strategies/techniques
to elicit intellectual engagement from most students throughout the lesson. Students identified shapes, described shapes, compared
shapes using pattern blocks, and solved a puzzle using pattern blocks, and collected/recorded data on a chart. Ms. Shepard matches
engagement strategies to the learning goals, which enhanced learning. Ms. Shepard provided each student with a set of pattern blocks,
which supported creativity. The students were not distracted by needing to share materials and instead could focus on filling the space
accurately. Challenging students to record the number of each shape used supported students making connections about the relationship
between shapes as they compared solutions. Ms. Shepard noticed when students were not engaged and took steps to re-engage the
students. Jason was the only student who needed redirection. The other students responded to Ms. Shepards continual monitoring and
physical proximity as she moved from table to table. Ms. Shepard utilized a variety of strategies that develop literacy skills across
disciplines. As the students reviewed the names of shapes, Ms. Shepard wrote the Mandarin character below so that students would
connect the image, verbal cue and written symbol for each shape. As a result of Ms. Shepard engaging students in multiple ways with the
content, the students demonstrated progress toward master of the learning goal.

Score 3: Effective
The teacher utilizes a variety [over time] of active engagement strategies/techniques that elicit intellectual
(minds-on) engagement from most students throughout the lesson.
Teacher appropriately matches engagement strategies/techniques to the learning goal(s), which enhances
learning.
Teacher notices when specific students or groups of students are not engaged and takes action to re-engage
students.
Teacher utilizes a variety [over time] of strategies/techniques that develop literacy skills across disciplines
(critical reading/writing strategies, use of mentor texts, etc.)
Score 2: Developing
Teacher utilizes [over time] a narrow range of engagement strategies/techniques to elicit intellectual (minds-
on) engagement from some students for some parts of the lesson.
Teacher utilizes engagement strategies/ techniques that are mismatched to the learning goals.
Teacher notices when students are not engaged, but does not apply specific strategies/techniques to re-
engage them.
Teacher utilizes [over time] a narrow range of strategies/techniques to support literacy development across
disciplines.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T4

Score 1: Ineffective
Teacher limits student engagement by overusing the same engagement strategies/techniques.
Teacher does not consider the match between engagement strategies/ techniques and the learning goals.
Teacher rarely notices when students are disengaged.
Teacher limits student engagement by overusing the same engagement strategies/techniques to support
literacy development across disciplines.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T4

Score 4: Highly Effective

Teacher utilizes a variety [over time] of active engagement strategies/ techniques that highly and
intellectually engage virtually all students with the content.
Re-engagement strategies utilized by the teacher successfully re-engage students with the lesson and sustain
engagement for the duration of the lesson.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T4
Page 4
Examples of Engaging with Content -
Accommodate different learning needs/styles/interests
Utilize technology as tools to access, interpret, evaluate, and apply information
Make connections between content and real world applications
Preview new content
Cue/identify critical/important information
Ask preview/focus quesitons
Present information in small chunks
Ask students to process/summarize new information
Ask students to record and represent knowledge
Use academic games and inconsequential competition
Manage response rate techniques (wait time, hand signals, technology, choral responses) during questioning
Use pacing techniques (e.g. time limits)
Use friendly controversy techniques
Present unusual or interesting/novel information
Use activities that are challenging and compelling
Create relevant, authentic work
Provide work/tasks with student choice/options
Use stories/anecdotes, engaging body language/tone/volume, humor to demonstate enthusiasm for the
content
Use active participation strategies
Four key elements for engaging students: grouping of students, activities and assignments, structure and
pacing, and instructional materials and resources
Other
Page 5
TLF TEACH 5: CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING & RESPOND TO MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions: -

Note :
Ms. Shepard checked for student understanding and responded to misunderstanding. She checked for understanding of content as a
regular embedded part of instruction using signals, oral responses, and written responses. Ms. Shepard used various methods to check for
understanding throughout the lesson, which resulted in an accurate assessment of the class understanding. As students solved the puzzle,
she provided specific feedback. For example, she pointed out Theo lack of precision and directed him to reconsider the placement of a
shape so that it fit the puzzle shape with accuracy. Ms. Shepard recognized the need to adjust the instruction and persist with other
approaches that lead to understanding. Alexandra incorrectly recorded the number of shapes used. Ms. Shepard asked her to recount each
shape and adjust her written responses. Ms. Shepard went back to the students later in the lesson to see if students have successfully
overcome their previous misunderstanding/misconceptions. Ms. Shepard returned to Theo, Alexandra, Tristan and Grace to ensure the
made progress toward the learning goal and all misconceptions were clarified. As a result of Ms. Shepard checking for understanding and
responding to misconceptions, the students developed increase clarity of the content.

Score 3: Effective
Teacher checks for understanding as a regular embedded part of instruction. (When checking is necessary to
inform instruction going forward; before moving on to the next step of the lesson or partway through the
independent practice, etc.)
Method chosen for checking for understanding results in an accurate assessment of the class understanding.
Teacher recognizes the need to adjust instruction and persists with other approaches that lead to
understanding.
Teacher goes back to student(s) later in the lesson to see if student(s) have successfully overcome their
previous misunderstanding/misconception.
Score 2: Developing
Teacher misses key opportunities during the lesson to check for understanding of content.
The method chosen for checking for understanding results in a partial assessment of the class understanding,
or the check may not be appropriate for the lesson.
Teacher recognizes the need to make an adjustment, but uses the same or a similar approach, which does not
clear up the misunderstanding(s). (Re-explaining a concept, etc.)
Teacher sometimes goes back to student(s) later in the lesson to see if student(s) have successfully overcome
their previous misunderstanding/misconception.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T5

Score 1: Ineffective
Teacher rarely checks for understanding of content or only checks for understanding of directions.
The method chosen for checking for understanding does not get an accurate assessment of the class
understanding. (The teacher might neglect some students or ask very general questions that do not effectively
assess understanding, etc.)
Teacher does not acknowledge the need to make adjustments, or persists in using a particular approach even
when it is not succeeding.
Teacher rarely goes back to student(s) later in the lesson to see if student(s) have successfully overcome their
previous misunderstanding/ misconception.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T5

Score 4: Highly Effective

Teacher anticipates most student misunderstandings and preemptively addresses them; directly or through
the design of the lesson. (Teacher is pre-planned with an extensive repertoire of strategies, uses improvisation,
makes on the spot decisions etc.)
When there is a misunderstanding, teacher is able to address it effectively without taking away from flow of
the lesson or losing engagement of students who do understand.
Teacher asks clarifying or probing questions to discover precisely where in the sequence of learning the
student(s) went off-track and became confused (isolate point of confusion with pinpoint questions).
Page 5
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T5

Examples of Checking for Understanding -

Use questioning/dipsticking
Asks students to rephrase material
Conference with individual students
Draw upon peer conversations/explanations
Respond on white boards
Vote on answer choices
Require evidence to support claims/responses
Use "think/pair/share"
Scan progress of students working independently or in small groups
Use choral response
Use reciprocal teaching
Use discussion prompts
Use Socratic seminars
Use signals (thumbs up, signal cards)
Use technology (clickers, ipad apps- Socrative Teacher/Student)
Use graphic organizers
Other
Examples of Responding to Misunderstandings -
Activate prior knowledge
Ask leading, clarifying, or pinpoint questions
Break the task/information into smaller parts/chunks
Give hints or cues with mnemonic device
Model using an alternate approach
Use sequencing activities
Provide visual cues and prompts
Provide partial solutions, guides, and structures
Suggest strategies or procedures
Reteach to small group or individual based on need
Use manipulatives or a hands-on model
Use "think alouds"
Use peer groups and cooperative learning
Use analogies
Adjust the next days lesson to respond to continued misunderstanding
Other
Page 6
TLF TEACH 6: Develop Higher-Level Thinking and Understanding
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions TLF T6 -

Note :

Score 3: Effective
Teacher frames authentic problems/ issues or scenarios for students to analyze and solve. (Using stems such
as In what ways might we or How might we to invite critical and creative thinking, etc.)
Teacher uses a variety of questioning strategies to develop/elicit higher-level thinking and understanding.
(Uses open-ended questions; invites students to offer multiple possible answers; asks questions that require
indepth inferences; etc.)
Students are asked to summarize critical concepts, big ideas, and/or understandings of the content or skills
they are learning.
Teacher develops students capacity to apply critical/creative thinking to authentic or novel problems/tasks.
(Provides direct instruction on error analysis, comparing, classifying, creating metaphors/ analogies, analysis
and critique; explaining etc.)
Score 2: Developing
Teacher frames problems/issues or scenarios; however students need to be guided through the process in
order to analyze or solve them.
Teacher uses some questions that are not effective in developing higher-level understanding. (Questions may
be convergent with a single answer, primarily uses questions that only elicit factual information and/or they are
posed in rapid succession, etc.)
Teacher asks students to primarily recall or repeat teachers summary of critical concepts and/or skills.
Teacher primarily engages students in practice activities with limited opportunities for higher-level thinking
and learning.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T6

Score 1: Ineffective
Teacher provides problems/issues or scenarios and the students are directed step-by-step on how to analyze
or solve them. (The teacher models and students copy; all students working on the same problem/issue at the
same time, etc.)
Most of the teachers questions are not effective in developing higher-level understanding, or promote low-
level factual understanding. (One question type is used repeatedly - Why? in response to their answers;
questions elicit recitation.)
There is little evidence of summarizing critical information by the teacher or students.
Teacher engages students in rote learning and/or practice activities that elicit low-level factual thinking and
learning.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T6

Score 4: Highly Effective

Students apply content and skills to authentic problems/issues or contexts through the lens of interdisciplinary
themes.
The teacher routinely engages students in developing metacognitive processes (thinking about thinking).
(Deliberately selecting thinking strategies; planning, monitoring, and evaluating thinking processes, etc.)
Students ask and answer higher-order questions that require elaborate inferences, synthesizing, evaluating,
and/or critiquing, etc., demonstrating that they understand the content at a higher level.
Virtually all students are engaged in substantive discussions/discourse, invite comments from their peers, and
challenge one anothers thinking.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T6
Page 7
TLF TEACH 7: Maximized Instructional Time
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions TLF T7 -

Note :
Ms. Shepard maximized instructional time. The students know and follow routines with minimal prompting from the teacher. For example,
students sit on the assigned sit-spot and face the board and teacher. Students attend to their peers as they work at the board or share
information. Transitions between activities occur in an orderly manner with some teacher direction. The students transitioned efficiently,
such as moving from sit-spots to the tables and begin working in 64 seconds. The pace of the lesson is appropriate, with the teacher
spending sufficient time on each part of the lesson, allowing for closure and student reflection. Ms. Shepard provisioned the materials so
that no delay occurred as students transitioned from one lesson element to another. The lesson provided time for students to summarize
their thinking with Ms. Shepard on a one-to-one basis as she checked for understanding. Student behavior was appropriate. Ms. Shepard
monitored student behavior against established standards of conduct. She whispered reinforcing feedback to model quiet voices as the
students worked independently. Ms. Shepards response to misbehavior was consistent, proportionate, respectful to students and effective.
The students respond to redirection quickly as was observed when Jason left his sit-spot, Ms. Shepard pointed to the floor and said,
Jason, using a calm voice as she continued with direct instruction, and he returned to the spot. During the independent work time, Jason
began talking and was off task. Ms. Shepard firmly redirected and Jason returned to the task and sustained engagement for the remainder
of the work time. As a result of Ms. Shepard maximizing the instructional time, the students were productive as they demonstrated
progress toward the learning goals.

Score 3: Effective
Students know and follow established routines and procedures with minimal prompting from the teacher. (Do
not have to ask questions about what to do next.)
Student transitions between activities occur in an orderly manner with some teacher direction.
Pacing of the lesson is appropriate, with the teacher spending sufficient time on each part of the lesson,
allowing for closure and student reflection. (Little instructional time is lost.)
Student behavior is appropriate. (Students positively engage with teacher/peers, inappropriate off-task
behavior rarely interrupts or delays lesson.)
The teacher monitors student behavior against established standards of conduct. (The teacher uses specific
reinforcement to acknowledge students' positive behavior, etc.)
Teacher response to student misbehavior is consistent, proportionate, respectful to students, and effective.
(The teacher's intervention does not draw attention to misbehavior, respects students' dignity, and is sensitive
to individual student needs etc.
Score 2: Developing
Students appear to be unclear about routines and procedures and require frequent teacher prompting and
direction to follow them.
Transitions are fully directed by the teacher and are not as orderly and efficient as they could be.
Pacing of the lesson is uneven. It is suitable in parts, but rushed or too slow in others with limited time for
either closure or reflection. (Some instructional time is lost; students are sometimes left with nothing purposeful
to do, or waiting for the
Student behavior is sometimes inappropriate and interrupts or delays the lesson. (Students occasionally
interrupt, or are respectful and attentive to the teacher, but not to peers, etc.)
Teacher has little/no awareness of or ignores student disruptions. (Teacher rarely acknowledges or reinforces
positive behavior; inappropriate or off-task student behavior frequently interrupts or delays the lesson;
classroom environment is chaotic, etc.)
Teacher response to student misbehavior is inconsistent. (The teacher sometimes reinforces positive behavior
and quality academic work, or does for only some students, or does not do so in a meaningful way [nonspecific
group praise], etc.)
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T7
Page 7
Score 1: Ineffective
Students appear to be confused about routines/procedures and require frequent teacher prompting and
direction to follow them or do not follow teacher directions. (Students ask what to do or look to other for clues;
teacher directs every routine.)
Transitions are disorderly and/or inefficient.
Pacing of the lesson is unsuitable and wastes time needed for important parts of lesson. (Significant
instructional time is lost; students are waiting for the teacher for extended periods; essential components of
lesson are missing.)
There appears to be little or no teacher monitoring of student behavior and few established standards of
conduct. (Students challenge the standards of conduct, frequently interrupt, or are inattentive when the teacher
or their peers are speaking, etc.)
Teacher has little/no awareness or ignores student disruptions. (The teacher rarely acknowledges/reinforces
positive behavior; inappropriate or off-task student behavior frequently interrupts/delays the lesson;
environment is chaotic etc.)
Response to students misbehavior is ineffective or disrespectful of student dignity.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T7

Score 4: Highly Effective

Students are highly self-directed and take the initiative with their peers to ensure that their time is used
productively.
Students themselves ensure that transitions and other routines are accomplished in an orderly, efficient, and
systematic manner.
Teachers monitoring of student behavior is preventive. (Students correct behavior with a verbal signal from
teacher, individual goal setting/plannng to ensure positive behavior)
Students take an active role in monitoring their own behavior against standards of conduct.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T7
Page 8
TLF TEACH 8: Build a Supportive, Learning-Focused Classroom Community
Rubric not observed
Notes/Questions TLF T8 -

Note :

Score 3: Effective
Students are invested in their work and strive for academic success. (Excited about work, work hard to
complete tasks of high quality, remain focused on learning without frequent reminders, and persevere through
challenges, etc.)
Teacher has a positive rapport with students and builds appropriate relationships with them. (There is
reciprocal respect between teachers and students and interactions are appropriate to the ages of the students.)
Classroom environment encourages most students to take on challenges/academic risks. (Students are eager
to answer questions, feel comfortable asking for help, & do not respond negatively when a peer answers a
question incorrectly.)
Teacher develops skills in cooperation, leadership, and collaboration/teamwork by organizing students into
learning teams. (Cooperative learning, CFSD traits for teamwork, etc.)
Teacher encourages and acknowledges effort, perseverance, and quality academic work for all students.
Teacher creates an inclusive environment that is sensitive to diversity and differing perspectives, treating
students respectfully and equitably (Perceived ability differences, disabilities, social or cultural backgrounds,
language, race, or gender, etc.)
Score 2: Developing
Students are compliant in their work, but do not appear invested in it. (Interested in completion of tasks,
rather than quality; may need reminders to stay focused on work; teacher or student refers to grades or
external reasons for task completion.)
Teacher has a positive rapport and builds appropriate relationships with some students, but not others
(interactions between teachers and students are usually respectful with some exceptions).
Teacher creates a classroom environment that encourages some students to take on challenges and academic
risks.
Teacher provides some opportunities to work in learning teams to develop skills, such as cooperation,
leadership, and collaboration/teamwork.
Teacher sometimes acknowledges effort, perseverance, and quality academic work, or does so for some
students, or does not do so in a meaningful way (nonspecific group praise).
Teacher is sometimes unaware and/or unresponsive to differing perspectives and diversity.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Developing TLF T8

Score 1: Ineffective
Students appear disinterested or lack investment in their work. (Students might be unfocused or unmotivated,
not working hard, may use delay tactics or dont attempt task/ assignment, etc.)
There is little or no evidence of a positive rapport between the teacher and the students, or there is a
negative rapport with some students (interactions between teachers and students are frequently disrespectful).
Classroom environment inhibits some students from taking on challenges and academic risks. (Students are
reluctant to answer questions or take on challenging assignments, hesitant to ask for help, or students are
critical of each other.)
There is little or no evidence that the teacher provides opportunities for developing leadership, cooperation,
and collaboration/teamwork through student learning teams.
Teacher rarely acknowledges effort, perseverance, and quality academic work.
Teacher lacks sensitivity and/or shows bias toward differing perspectives and/or differences that students
bring to the classroom.
Claim/Evidence/Impact Ineffective TLF T8
Page 8
Score 4: Highly Effective
Students are invested in the success of their peers. (Collaborating with and helping each other without
prompting from teacher, give unsolicited praise or encouragement to peers etc.)
Teacher actively teaches and develops student leadership, cooperation, and collaboration/ teamwork skills in
an authentic context. (Mock trial/election, debates or friendly controversy, etc.)
Teacher capitalizes on diversity & differing perspectives as an asset in the classroom. (Modeling and instilling
traits of cultural competence, multiple perspectives, culturally relevant teaching, and assumes responsibility for
an inclusive environment.)
Claim/Evidence/Impact Highly Effective TLF T8

Note :