by COE MSIT Georgia State University

Teacher Work Sample Assessment

Page List
 
 

Assessment

The Teacher Work Sample Project

The Teacher Work Sample is a learning project that will be completed by all students in Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) programs in MSIT. The student's work will be evaluated by his/her university supervisor, who will use the rubrics below to rate the student's work for each section.  The ratings from the rubrics will be used as part of the justification for the student's final grade in Practicum II and III - Student Teaching. (See instructions below for calculating a grade.)The supervisor will assign an overall rating for Planning (Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, and Design for Instruction) and for Impact on Student Learning (Instructional Decision-Making, Analysis of Student Learning, and Reflection & Self-Evaluation). These overall assessments are linked to the PEF's Conceptual Framework and reflect the goals of the Professional Education Faculty in the College of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences.  The supervisor will also assign detailed ratings for the following sections:

  • Contextual Factors
  • Learning Goals
  • Assessment Plan
  • Design for Instruction
  • Instructional Decision-Making
  • Analysis of Student Learning
  • Reflection and Self-Evaluation
  • Writing Mechanics and Organization

Instructions for converting the TWS rubric to a grade or point value:

Total the points for all sections (Do not include points for Overall Assessment). The highest possible score is 175 points.  Divide the total points earned by 175.  Round the result to 2 decimal places for a percentage value. Multiply the percentage times the point value for the TWS assignment for the course.  Round up to the nearest point. For example, if the student earned 150 points on the assignment, and the total TWS assignment is worth 35 points of the grade for Student Teaching, use the following calculation:

150  ÷  175 = .8571 (round up to .86)

.86  X 35 = 30.1   (round up to 31)

Overall Assessment - Planning and Impact on Student Learning - With Links to Conceptual Framework

Overall Assessment - Planning and Impact on Student Learning - With Links to Conceptual Framework
Does Not Meet Expectations (1 pt) Meets (2 pts) Exceeds (3 pts) Far Exceeds (4 pts)
Planning - Contextual Factors (1.000, 25%) GA-GSU-COE-CF.3.1        
Planning - Learning Goals (1.000, 25%) GA-GSU-COE-CF.2.1 GA-GSU-COE-CF.2.2        
Planning - Assessment Plan; Design for Instruction (1.000, 25%) GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.1        
Impact on Student Learning - (Instructional Decision-Making; Analysis of Student Learning; Reflection and Self-Evaluation) (1.000, 25%) GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.3        

Contextual Factors

Contextual Factors
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Knowledge of Community, School and Classroom Factors (1.000, 20%) Candidate displays no knowledge of
the community, school, and
classroom
Candidate displays minimal,
knowledge of
the community, school, and
classroom
Candidate displays some knowledge of
the community, school, and
classroom
Candidate displays a comprehensive knowledge of
the community, school, and
classroom
Candidate explains an in-depth knowledge of
the community, school, and
classroom
Knowledge of Characteristics of Students (1.000, 20%) Displays no knowledge of
student differences (e.g.,
development, interests,
culture,
abilities/disabilities)
Displays minimal,
stereotypical, or irrelevant
knowledge of student
differences (e.g.,
development, interests,
culture,
abilities/disabilities).
Displays general
knowledge of student
differences (e.g.,
development,
interests, culture,
abilities/disabilities).
Displays general and
specific knowledge of
student differences
(e.g., development,
interests, culture,
abilities/disabilities).
Displays and explains
in-depth knowledge of
student differences
(e.g., development,
interests, culture,
abilities/disabilities).
Knowledge of Students' Varied Approaches to Learning (1.000, 20%) Fails to demonstrate
understanding of a
variety of approaches to
learning among students,
e.g., multiple
intelligences and/or
learning modalities.
Demonstrates general
understanding of a variety
of approaches to learning
among students and may
know one or two learning
modalities but not a variety.
Demonstrates general
understanding of a
variety of approaches
to learning among
students and can
distinguish between
multiple modalities.
Articulates an
understanding of
varied learning
modalities and
multiple intelligences.
Articulates general and
specific understanding
of varied learning
modalities and multiple
intelligences
Knowledge of Students' Skills and Prior Learning (1.000, 20%) Displays no knowledge of
students’ skills and
previous learning and
does not indicate either is
important.
Identifies the value of
understanding students’
skills and previous learning
but demonstrates its
importance for the whole
class only.
Identifies the value of
understanding
students’ skills and
previous learning for
the group and
individuals
Displays knowledge of
understanding
students’ skills and
previous learning,
including special
needs students.
Articulates an in-depth
understanding of
students’ skills and
previous learning for the
group and individuals
including special needs
students.
Implications for Insgtructional Planning and Assessment (1.000, 20%) Does not provide
implications for
instruction and
assessment based on
student individual
differences and
community, school, and
classroom characteristics
or provides inappropriate
implications
Provides minimal
implications for instruction
and assessment based on
student individual
differences and community,
school, and classroom
characteristics or provides
inappropriate implications
Provides general
implications for
instruction and
assessment based on
student individual
differences and
community, school, or
classroom
characteristics.
Provides specific
implications for
instruction and
assessment based on
student individual
differences and
community, school,
and classroom
characteristics.
Provides specific
implications and
analyzes decisions for
instruction and
assessment based on
student individual
differences (ELL and
inclusion students) and
community, school, and
classroom
characteristics.

Learning Goals

Learning Goals
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Significance, Challenge and Variety (1.000, 25%) Goals are not in
evidence.
Goals reflect only one
type or level of learning
Goals reflect several
types or levels of
learning but lack
significance or
challenge
Goals reflect several
types or levels of
learning and are
significant and
challenging.
Goals are significant
and challenge thought
and expectations
including three or
more levels and types
Clarity (1.000, 25%) Goals are vague or
not in evidence.
Goals are not stated
clearly and are activities
rather than learning
outcomes.
Some of the goals are
clearly stated as
learning outcomes.
Most of the goals are
clearly stated as
learning outcomes
Goals are clearly
stated in behavioral forms
Appropriateness for Students (1.000, 25%) Goals presented are
inappropriate for the
class or set unrealistic
expectations for
students.
Goals are not
developmentally
appropriate; nor address
pre-requisite knowledge,
skills, experiences, or
other student needs.
Some goals are
developmentally
appropriate and
address some prerequisite
knowledge,
skills, experiences,
and other student
needs.
Most goals are
developmentally
appropriate;
addresses prerequisite
knowledge,
skills, experiences and
other student needs
are considered.
Goals demonstrates
realistic expectations
for all students in
addition to providing
for students’ critical
thinking and reflection.
Alignment with Local, State and National Standards (1.000, 25%) Fails to develop
goals aligned with
national, state and
COE standards
Goals are not
aligned with
national, GA
standards or COE
standards.
Some goals are
aligned with
national, state or
COE standards.
Most of the goals
are explicitly
aligned with
national, state and
COE standards.
Goals are aligned
with national,
state, COE
standards and are
articulated through
the lesson
presentations.
Alignments are
explained.

Assessment Plan

Assessment Plan
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Alignment with Learning Goals and Instruction (1.000, 20%) Minimal plans for
pre and post
assessments are
provided;
assessments do not
measure learning
goals.
Content and methods of
assessment lack
congruence with learning
goals or lack cognitive
complexity.
Some of the learning goals
are assess through the
assessment plan, but many
are not congruent with
learning goals in content and
cognitive complexity.
.
Each of the learning goals
is assessed through the
assessment plan;
assessments are
congruent with the
learning goals in content
and cognitive complexity.
All learning goals are
assessed by the
assessment plan,
and provide students
with constructive
feedback on their
learning
Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Perrformance (1.000, 20%) The assessments
contain no criteria
for measuring
student performance
relative to the
learning goals.
Assessments contain
poorly stated criteria for
measuring student
performance leading to
student confusion.
Assessment criteria have
been developed, but they
are not clear or are not
explicitly linked to the
learning goals.
Assessment criteria are
clear and are explicitly
linked to the learning
goals.
Assessment criteria
are linked to learning
goals; accurately
documenting student
learning
Multiple Modes and Approaches (1.000, 20%) The assessment
plan fails to
demonstrate
evidence of student
assessment other
than after
instructions. Limited
knowledge of
formal/informal
assessments
The assessment plan
includes only one
assessment mode and
does not assess students
before, during, and after
instruction.
The assessment plan
includes multiple modes but
all are either pencil/paper
based (i.e., they are not
performance assessments)
and/or do not require the
integration of knowledge,
skills and critical thinking.
The assessment plan
includes multiple
assessment modes
(including performance
assessments, lab reports,
research projects, etc.)
and assesses student
performance throughout
the instructional sequence.
The assessment plan
uses formal/informal
assessments and
student’s self-assessments
to
assess student
performance and
effectiveness of the
instructional
sequence
Technical Soundness (1.000, 20%) Assessments are
not designed to
measure lessons
goals and
objectives; scoring
procedures are
inaccurate.
Assessments are not
valid; scoring
procedures are
inaccurate; items or
prompts are poorly
written; directions and
procedures are
confusing to students.
Assessments appear to
have some validity. Some
scoring procedures are
explained; some items or
prompts are clearly
written; some directions
and procedures are clear
to students
Assessments appear to
be valid; scoring
procedures are
explained; most items or
prompts are clearly
written; directions and
procedures are clear to
students.
Assessments
appear to be valid
and clearly written.
Assessments data
used to document
students’ strengths
as well as
opportunities for
learning
Adaptations Based of Individuals Needs of Student (1.000, 20%) Teacher does not
address or link
assessments to
identified
contextual factors.
.
Teacher does not
adapt assessments to
meet the individual
needs of students or
these assessments are
inappropriate.
Teacher makes
adaptations to
assessments that are
appropriate to meet the
individual needs of some
students.
Teacher makes
adaptations to
assessments that are
appropriate to meet the
individual needs of most
students.
Teacher’s
adaptations of
assessments for all
students needs to
be met.
Adaptations are
creative and show
evidence of
outstanding
problem-solving
skills by teacher
candidate

Design for Instruction

Design for Instruction
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Alignment With Learning Goals (1.000, 16%) No lesson is
linked to learning
goal. No learning
activities are
aligned to
learning goals.
.
Few lessons are explicitly
linked to learning goals.
Few learning activities,
assignments and resources
are aligned with learning
goals. Not all learning
goals are covered in the
design.
Most lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals. Most
learning activities,
assignments and
resources are aligned
with learning goals. Most
learning goals are
covered in the design.
All lessons are explicitly
linked to learning goals.
All learning activities,
assignments and
resources are aligned
with learning goals. All
learning goals are
covered in the design.
All lessons are
explicitly linked to
learning goals,
demonstrating critical
thinking and reflection
in activities and
assignments
Accurate Respresentation of Content (1.000, 16%)
Teacher does not
demonstrate
purpose and
relevancy of
content.
Teacher’s use of content
appears to contain
numerous inaccuracies.
Content seems to be
viewed more as isolated
skills and facts rather than
as part of a larger
conceptual structure.
.
Teacher’s use of content
appears to be mostly
accurate. Shows some
awareness of the big
ideas or structure of the
discipline.
Teacher’s use of content
appears to be accurate.
Focus of the content is
congruent with the big
ideas or structure of the
discipline.
Teacher provides
cross-content
approach to student
learning, stressing
depth and breadth of
content
Lesson and Unit Structure (1.000, 16%) The lessons
within the unit do
not demonstrate
knowledge of
how content is
created and
developed.
The lessons within the unit
are not logically organized
(e.g., sequenced).
The lessons within the
unit have some logical
organization and appear
to be somewhat useful in
moving students toward
achieving the learning
goals.
Most lessons within the
unit are logically
organized and appear to
be useful in moving
students toward
achieving the learning
goals.
All lessons within the
unit demonstrate how
knowledge of content
is created and
organized and
integrates knowledge
from other
Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignmnets and Resources (1.000, 16%) A single,
instructional
modality is used
with textbook as
only reference.
Little variety of instruction,
activities, assignments, and
resources. Heavy reliance
on textbook or single
resource (e.g., work
sheets).
Some variety in
instruction, activities,
assignments, or
resources but with limited
contribution to learning.
Significant variety across
instruction, activities,
assignments, and/or
resources. This variety
makes a clear
contribution to learning.
Instructional strategic
assignments are
varied to
accommodate
individual learners and
to achieve lesson
goals.
Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources (1.000, 16%) Instruction has
not been based
upon knowledge
of subject matter,
students or preassessment
data.
Instruction has been
designed with very limited
reference to contextual
factors and preassessment
data.Activities and assignments
do not appear productive
and appropriate for each
student.

Some instruction has
been designed with
reference to contextual
factors and preassessment
data. Some
activities and
assignments appear
productive and
appropriate for each
student.
Most instruction has
been designed with
reference to contextual
factors and preassessment
data. Most
activities and
assignments appear
productive and
appropriate for each
student.
All instruction
addresses the diverse
needs of individual
students and
contextual factors of
community, school
and class
Use of TechnologyElement 6 (1.000, 16%) Teacher does not
use technology
during
instruction.
Technology is
inappropriately used and
inappropriate rationale is
provided.
Teacher uses technology
but it does not make a
significant contribution to
teaching and learning or
teacher provides limited
rationale for not using
technology.
Teacher integrates
appropriate technology
that makes a significant
contribution to teaching
and learning or provides
a strong rationale for not
using technology.
Teacher integrates a
variety of media and
technology into
instruction and relates
both directly to lesson
goals

Instructional Decision Making

Instructional Decision Making
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Sound Professional Practice (1.000, 33%) Instructional
decisions are
inappropriate for
age of student,
content, and
community.
Many instructional
decisions are inappropriate
and not pedagogically
sound.
Instructional decisions are
mostly appropriate, but
some decisions are not
pedagogically sound.
Most instructional
decisions are
pedagogically sound (i.e.,
they are likely to lead to
student learning).
Most instructional
decisions are
pedagogically
sound and build on
concepts and skills
previously learned
Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning (1.000, 33%) Teacher treats
class as “one
plan fits all” with
no modifications.
Fails to
demonstrate
evidence of
instructional
modifications.
Limited modifications of the
instructional plan have
been made, to
accommodate individual
learners.
Some modifications of the
instructional plan are
made to address individual
student needs, but these
are not based on the
analysis of student
learning, best practice, or
contextual factors.
Appropriate modifications
of the instructional plan
are made to address
individual student needs.
These modifications are
informed by the analysis of
student
learning/performance, best
practice, or contextual
factors.
Appropriate
modifications of
the plan are made
to individualize
instruction.
Rational to
improve student
progress is
provide
Congruence Between Modifications and Learning Goals (1.000, 33%) Inappropriate
modification in
instruction.
Modifications in instruction
lack congruence with
learning goals.
Modifications in instruction
are somewhat congruent
with learning goals.
Modifications in instruction
are congruent with
learning goals.
Modifications in
instruction are
congruent with
learning goals and
cites current
research as the
rationale for the
modifications

Analysis of Student Learning

Analysis of Student Learning
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Clarity and Accuracy of Presentaion (1.000, 25%) Presentation does not
include data.
.
Presentation is not
clear and accurate; it
does not accurately
reflect the data.
Presentation is understandable and
contains few errors.
Presentation is easy
to understand and
contains no errors of
presentation.

Presentation is
communicated with
the use of technology
and media. Contains no errors of
presentation
Alignment with Learning Goals (1.000, 25%) Neither analysis of
student learning nor
visual representation is
aligned with learning
goals.
Analysis of student
learning is aligned
with learning goals.
Visual
representations do
not include whole
class, sub-groups or
individual students.
Analysis of student
learning is general
with learning goals
and/or fails to provide
a comprehensive
profile of student
learning relative to
the goals for the
whole class,
subgroups, and two
individuals.
.
Analysis is fully
aligned with learning
goals and provides a
comprehensive
profile of student
learning for the whole
class, subgroups,
and two individuals.
Analysis is thorough
and complete,
recognizing student
progress in developing
content proficiency.
Visual and narrative
summaries
demonstrate the
extent of student
progess
Interpretation of Data (1.000, 25%) Interpretation is
unsupported by data
Interpretation is
inaccurate, and
conclusions are
missing.
Interpretation is
technically accurate,
but conclusions are
missing or not fully
supported by data.
Interpretation is
meaningful, and
appropriate
conclusions are
drawn from the data.

Appropriate
conclusions are drawn
from the data.
Candidate has
detailed the
assessment and
evaluation of student
gainsInterpretation is
comprehensive.
Evidence of Impact on Students' Learning (1.000, 25%) Analysis is weak and
fails to provide
subgroup achievement
Analysis of student
learning fails to
include evidence of
impact on student
learning in terms of
numbers of students
who achieved and
made progress
toward learning
goals. No
remediation is
provided.
Analysis of student
learning includes
incomplete evidence
of the impact on
student learning in
terms of numbers of
students who
achieved and made
progress toward
learning goals.
Limited remediation
is provided.
Analysis of student
learning includes
evidence of the
impact on student
learning in terms of
number of students
who achieved and
made progress
toward each learning
goal. Remediation is
specific.
A thorough analysis of
the learning gains of
all students and
subgroups is
presented.
Remediation is
specific

Reflection and Self-Evaluation

Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Inadequate (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Interpretation of Student Learning (1.000, 20%) No evidence or
reasons provided to
support conclusions
drawn in “Analysis of
Student Learning”
section.
Provides one
possible reason as
evidence to support
conclusions drawn in
Analysis of Student
Learning.
.
Provides evidence but
simplistic, superficial
reasons are given or
hypotheses to support
conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Uses evidence to support
conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Uses evidence to support
more than four
conclusions drawn in
“Analysis of Student
Learning” section.
Explores multiple hypotheses for why some
students did and others
did not meet learning
goals
Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment (1.000, 20%) Provides no rationale
for why some activities
or assessments were
more successful than
others.
Rationale for
activities or
assessments
presented in
confusing manner;
insights limited to
knowledge-based
instruction and use of
formal assessments.
Identifies successful and
unsuccessful activities or
assessments and
superficially explores
reasons for their
success or lack thereof
(no use of theory or
research).
.
Identifies successful and
unsuccessful activities and
assessments and provides
plausible reasons (based
on theory or research) for
their success or lack
thereof.
Reflects on own
performance as a teacher
focusing on the impact of
the experience on student
learning. Current
research findings are
incorporated as
supportive
documentation
Alignmnet Among Goals, Instruction and Assessment (1.000, 20%) Does not connect
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment results in
the discussion of
student learning and
effective instruction
and/or the connections
are irrelevant or
inaccurate.
Connections among
learning goals,
instructions and
assessments are
irrelevant or
inaccurate.
Connects learning goals,
instructions, and
assessment results in
the discussion of student
learning and effective
instruction, but
misunderstandings or
conceptual gaps are
present.
Logically connects
learning goals, instruction,
and assessment results in
the discussion of student
learning and effective
instruction.
Connects learning goals,
instruction and
assessment results in the
discussion of student
learning and effective
instruction. Current
research findings are
incorporated as
supportive
documentation
Implications for Future Teaching (1.000, 20%) Provides no ideas or
inappropriate ideas for
redesigning learning
goals, instruction, and
assessment.
Provides limited
ideas for redesigning
learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment.
Rationale is
inadequate; or
absent.
Provides ideas for
redesigning learning
goals, instruction, and
assessment but offers
no rationale for why
these changes would
improve student
learning.
Provides ideas for
redesigning learning goals,
instruction, and
assessment and explains
why these modifications
would improve student
learning.
Provides a repertoire of
strategies, offering
specific alternative
actions complete with
probable successes for
student learning.
Implication for Professional Development (1.000, 20%) Provides no
professional learning
goals.
Provides goals that
are not related to the
insights and
experiences
described in this
section.
Presents professional
learning goals that are
not strongly related to
the insights and
experiences described in
this section and/or
provides a vague plan
for meeting the goals.
Presents professional
learning goals that emerge
from the insights and
experiences descried in
this section.
Presents four or more
professional learning
goals that clearly emerge
from the insights and
experiences described in
this section. Describes at
least two specific steps to
meet these goals.

Writing Mechanics and Organization

Writing Mechanics and Organization
Unacceptable (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Acceptable (3 pts) Proficient (4 pts) Exemplary (5 pts)
Writing Mechanics (1.000, 33%) The use of standard
written English is
unsatisfactory at this
level. More than 10
errors in punctuation,
capitalization, subjectverb
agreement may
exist or excessive
fragments or run-ons
may detract from the
overall content of the
writing.
The use of standard
written English needs
attention. More than 9
errors in punctuation,
capitalization, subject-verb
agreement may
exist or 2 or more
fragments or run-ons
may exist
The use of standard
written English is
adequate with no
more than 8 errors in
punctuation,
capitalization, subject-verb
agreement may
exist or 1 or more
fragments or run-ons
may exist.
The use of standard
written English is
good with no more
than 5 errors.
The use of standard
written English is
outstanding with no
more than 2 errors in
punctuation,
capitalization, subject-verb
agreement may exist. No fragments or
run-ons may exist
Syntax (1.000, 33%) Syntax and word choice
may be unsatisfactory,
or the writing may lack
cohesion.
Syntax and word
choice may need
attention, or the writing
may lack cohesion.
Syntax and word
choice are
satisfactory, and the
writing is cohesive.
Syntax and word
choice are
appropriate, and the
writing is cohesive
Syntax and word choice
are clearly superior, and
the writing is very
cohesive.
Organization of TWS Portfolio (1.000, 33%) Poorly organized
with no section
dividers.
No table of
contents.
Not placed in a
binder, no cover
page.
Subsection not well
defined and papers
poorly placed in
sections.
Table of contents is
brief and vague.
Binder or notebook is
in poor condition with
a poorly worded,
difficult to read cover
page.
Subsections are
labeled and papers
placed in appropriate
sections.
Table of contents is
well organized.
Binder or notebook is
organized with an
appropriate cover page.
Subsections are
labeled and stand
out from folder and
papers are placed in
appropriate
sections.
Table of contents is
clear and reader can
locate information
with ease.
Binder is appropriate
and the cover page
is professionally
done.
Subsections are labeled
and tabs stand out from
the contents of the
portfolio with thoughtful
placement of contents in
appropriate places.
Table of contents is clear
and alerts reader to
contents of portfolio;
reader can locate material
easily.
Binder is attractive and
cover page is professional,
eyecatching and
appropriate

Standards

GA-GSU-COE-CF.1
Informed and Empowered
GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.1
Our candidates use their knowledge of child, adolescent, and adult development and theories of learning to design meaningful educational opportunities for all learners.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.2
Our candidates possess and use research-based, discipline-specific knowledge and pedagogy to facilitate learning for all.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.3
Our candidates reflect critically upon data as part of a recursive process when planning, implementing and assessing teaching, learning, and development.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.1.4
Our candidates critically analyze educational policies and/or practices that affect learners in metropolitan contexts.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.2
Committed
GA-GSU-COE-CF.2.1
Our candidates know and respect individual differences, establish productive and ethical relationships with students, and modify the learning environment to positively impact student learning.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.2.2
Our candidates create engaging learning communities where the diverse perspectives, opinions, and beliefs of others are acknowledged and respected.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.2.3
Our candidates commit to continuing personal and professional development.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.3
Engaged
GA-GSU-COE-CF.3.1
Our candidates use knowledge of students’ cultures, experiences, and communities to create and sustain culturally responsive classrooms and schools.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.3.2
Our candidates coordinate time, space, activities, technology and other resources to provide active and equitable engagement of diverse learners in real world experiences.
GA-GSU-COE-CF.3.3
Our candidates implement appropriate communication techniques to provide for learner interaction within local and global communities.