Roles in Assessing Clinical Practice

The teacher candidate, the university supervisor, and the cooperating teacher share responsibility for candidate performance assessment, reflection, and review during clinical practice.  The ONU Lesson Plan Template includes a high expectation for reflective response after a lesson so the teacher candidate has been well-prepared throughout the program for professional self-evaluation.  When the university supervisor observes the student teacher (5-8 times), it is typical that the student teacher presents the supervisor with a copy of the lesson plan to be taught.  The university supervisor reviews the lesson plan and observes its implementation.  Most often, the teacher candidate and the university supervisor meet for debriefing immediately after the lesson and the teacher candidate is invited to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of each part of the lesson.  The university supervisor completes the Classroom Observation Form and the developmental Evaluation of Student Teaching Form during each observation and also shares those responses during the debriefing session.  The Classroom Evaluation Form outlines the developmental process for the candidate's progress where the candidate and the supervisor set goals for each observation, the supervisor observes with those goals in mind, reflection on whether the goals have been met are included in the debriefing, and the supervisor and candidate set new goals for the next observation.  The Evaluation of Student Teaching Form allows the supervisor to rate the candidate on some subset of the unit's KSDs during each observation with each observation focusing on a different subset.  These ratings are also shared with the student teacher during the debriefing conversation and may inform the new goals which are set.

The cooperating teacher observes the student teacher more regularly and typically has frequent informal conversations with the candidate concerning strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.  The cooperating teacher has access to all instruments used by the university supervisor to formalize the responses if so desired.  At a minimum, formal input is provided for both the mid-term and final evaluation conferences.  These conferences include the student teacher, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor.  Each completes the Student Teaching Mid-Term/Final Evaluation Form which iis aligned with the unit's KSDs as described earlier (Former Instrument, Pilot Instrument).  The three then meet to discuss and compare responses which leads to further conversation about perceptions of the experience and the candidate's performance.  At the mid-term conference, the candidate is given a clear picture of progress made and any necessary steps to take to complete a successful student teaching experience.  The cooperating teacher and the supervisor then take any necessary steps to support the candidate in the further development.  The final conference serves as the culminating review of the student teacher's entire experience.  Both the mid-term and final evaluation documents are submitted to the Field Experience Placement Specialist electronically for review and aggregation.

The university supervisor is responsible for assigning the final grade to the student teaching experience in consultation with the cooperating teacher and the Director of Teacher Education, if needed.  The unit currently assigns a S/U grade (pass/fail) to student teaching although the commitment has been made by the Center for Teacher Education to transition to a letter grade system.  Discussion continues about appropriate methods for determining the final grade and this process has not yet been implemented.