eq-ees-teacher-evaluation
eq-ees-teacher-evaluation eq-ees-teacher-evaluation
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom: What does it mean? How does it look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1): 3–6. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Teaching all students. Educational Leadership, 61, 6–87. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roper Review, 26: 188. Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Differentiated Instruction. Theory Into Practice, 4, 185–273. 2.5 Teacher designs lessons based on prior experiences, learning styles, multiple intelligences, strengths and needs Aligns with InTASC Standard #2: Learning Differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that allow each learner to reach his/her full potential. Danielson (1996, 2007) asserts that excellent teachers carefully monitor their students. Such monitoring provides plenty of information about individual student achievements and challenges, and also provides a great deal of information about the effectiveness, appropriateness, and appeal of the curriculum. An increasing number of teachers are adopting an approach incorporating Gardner’s (1993, 1999) “Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory” which suggests there are a number of types of intelligence rather than just what has been traditionally considered in the measurement of IQ. This often results in improved teaching performance and classrooms that meet the needs of more students. Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2001) further define intelligence as the general potential, independent of prior knowledge. A 2008 study (Burton, Douglas, & Reese-Durham) examined how Multiple Intelligences and Direct Instruction as teaching strategies affect the achievement scores of students enrolled in an eighth grade mathematics class. The results suggested that performance on a post-mathematics assessment for students exposed to MI scored was considerably higher (25.48 points) compared to those taught using Direct Instruction (17.25). References: Burton, K. S., Douglas, O., & Reese-Durham, N. (2008). The effects of the multiple intelligence teaching strategy on the academic achievement of eighth grade math students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 182+. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Missouri’s EDuCATor EVALuATioN sYsTEM
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Hoerr, T. (2002, January). Applying mi in schools. Columbia, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Education. Available from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/hoerr2.htm/ Kagan, L. (2000). Multiple intelligences: structure and activities. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishings. Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2001). Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas. 2.6 Teacher designs instruction with considerations for language, culture and family and community values Aligns with InTASC Standard #2: Learning Differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that allow each learner to reach his/her full potential. Several studies have found evidence that instruction should ensure sensitivity to student culture and agree on the need for teachers to have a deep understanding of the subjects they teach so that they can create the multiple representations necessary to address the diversity of prior experiences and understandings present in their classrooms (Au, 1998; Ladson- Billings, 1994; McDiarmid, 1995; Moll, 1998; Ruddell, 1997; Schmidt, 2005). Gay’s (2000) work on cultural responsive teaching showed that African, Asian, Latino, and Native American students will perform better on multiple measures of achievement when teaching is filtered through their own cultural experiences and frames of reference. She noted that key components of of culturally responsive teaching include teacher caring, teacher attitudes and expectations, formal and informal multicultural curriculum, culturally informed classroom discourse, and cultural congruity in teaching and learning strategies. References: Au, L. J. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students with diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297-319. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learning for all students: A framework for the professional development of Kentucky teachers. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Moll, L. C. (1998). Turning to the world: Bilingual schooling, literacy, and the cultural mediation of thinking. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 59-75). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Missouri’s EDuCATor EVALuATioN sYsTEM
- Page 81 and 82: Sample Student Survey Questions (fo
- Page 83 and 84: Sample Survey Question Alignment Mi
- Page 85 and 86: 8. My child’s teacher regularly g
- Page 87 and 88: Growth Plan Missouri’s Educator E
- Page 89 and 90: Professional Growth Plan for Identi
- Page 91 and 92: Improvement Plan for: Identify Indi
- Page 93 and 94: Missouri's educator evaluation syst
- Page 95 and 96: Summative Evaluation Form Missouri
- Page 97 and 98: Standard 8: Self-Assessment and Imp
- Page 99 and 100: New Teacher Feedback Forms Missouri
- Page 101 and 102: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Augus
- Page 103 and 104: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Novem
- Page 105 and 106: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Febru
- Page 107 and 108: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - June
- Page 109 and 110: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Augus
- Page 111 and 112: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Novem
- Page 113 and 114: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Febru
- Page 115 and 116: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - June
- Page 117 and 118: Research and Proven Practices Misso
- Page 119 and 120: Links to Research and Resources Mis
- Page 121 and 122: Introduction to the Literature Revi
- Page 123 and 124: MO Standard Evaluative Criteria for
- Page 125 and 126: feedback, and engage students in di
- Page 127 and 128: 1.4 Teacher makes interdisciplinary
- Page 129 and 130: Rothstein, P. (1990). Educational p
- Page 131: & Brown, 2005; Tieso, 2003; Tomlins
- Page 135 and 136: Danielson (1996, 2007) asserts that
- Page 137 and 138: 0.61) on student achievement. Accor
- Page 139 and 140: Available from http://merc.soe.vcu.
- Page 141 and 142: deviations higher than the achievem
- Page 143 and 144: Several other studies have demonstr
- Page 145 and 146: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Practice
- Page 147 and 148: Research and Proven Practices of Dr
- Page 149 and 150: Missouri Domain 1 Teaching Routine
- Page 151 and 152: Missouri Indicator # of Marzano str
- Page 153 and 154: MDQ 2.9 Based on student needs, the
- Page 155 and 156: Teacher Growth Guide 1.2 - Marzano
- Page 157 and 158: MDQ 5.24 The teacher scans the room
- Page 159 and 160: Teacher Growth Guide 1.4 - Marzano
- Page 161 and 162: Teacher Growth Guide 1.5 - Marzano
- Page 163 and 164: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
- Page 165 and 166: MDQ 3.18 When content is informatio
- Page 167 and 168: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
- Page 169 and 170: MDQ 3.18 When content is informatio
- Page 171 and 172: MDQ 2.9 Based on student needs, the
- Page 173 and 174: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
- Page 175 and 176: MDQ 3.19 When the content involves
- Page 177 and 178: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
- Page 179 and 180: Standard 3: Curriculum Implementati
- Page 181 and 182: MDQ 2.11 The teacher asks inferenti
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.<br />
Hoerr, T. (2002, January). Applying mi in schools. Columbia, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Education. Available<br />
from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/hoerr2.htm/<br />
Kagan, L. (2000). Multiple intelligences: structure and activities. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishings.<br />
Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2001). Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:<br />
Wadsworth/Thomas.<br />
2.6 Teacher designs instruction with considerations for language, culture and family and community values<br />
Aligns with InTASC Standard #2: Learning Differences. The <strong>teacher</strong> uses understanding of individual differences and<br />
diverse communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that allow each learner to reach his/her full potential.<br />
Several studies have found evidence that instruction should ensure sensitivity to student culture and agree on the need for<br />
<strong>teacher</strong>s to have a deep understanding of the subjects they teach so that they can create the multiple representations<br />
necessary to address the diversity of prior experiences and understandings present in their classrooms (Au, 1998; Ladson-<br />
Billings, 1994; McDiarmid, 1995; Moll, 1998; Ruddell, 1997; Schmidt, 2005).<br />
Gay’s (2000) work on cultural responsive teaching showed that African, Asian, Latino, and Native American students will<br />
perform better on multiple measures of achievement when teaching is filtered through their own cultural experiences and<br />
frames of reference. She noted that key components of of culturally responsive teaching include <strong>teacher</strong> caring, <strong>teacher</strong><br />
attitudes and expectations, formal and informal multicultural curriculum, culturally informed classroom discourse, and<br />
cultural congruity in teaching and learning strategies.<br />
References:<br />
Au, L. J. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students with diverse backgrounds. Journal of<br />
Literacy Research, 30, 297-319.<br />
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press.<br />
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful <strong>teacher</strong>s of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<br />
McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learning for all students: A framework for the professional development of<br />
Kentucky <strong>teacher</strong>s. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.<br />
Moll, L. C. (1998). Turning to the world: Bilingual schooling, literacy, and the cultural mediation of thinking. In T. Shanahan<br />
& F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 59-75). Chicago, IL:<br />
National Reading Conference.<br />
Missouri’s EDuCATor EVALuATioN sYsTEM