SIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY

DIVISION OF EDUCATION
Professional Dispositions Assessment

Teacher Candidate: Amanda Metz

ID #: 582454 Date Completed: February 15, 2019
Advisor(s): Dr. Eleanor Wollett Class Standing (circle): FR SOPH JR SR
Candidate Major/Minor: Elementary Education/Language Arts
Completed by: University Faculty/Advisor Name: _________________________
Cooperating Teacher (during clinical experience)
___X__ University Supervisor (during clinical experience): Julie Ross
Teacher Candidate

Rubric categories for the four (4) major dispositions are taken from and aligned with the Charlotte
Danielson Framework for Teaching. Beginning in Fall 2017, the Danielson Framework for Teaching
will be used to assess each teacher candidate’s clinical teaching experiences. The selected
measures in this instrument focus on professional dispositions that Siena Heights University
considers critical to teacher candidate success. Alignment with the Danielson Framework provides
teacher candidates an opportunity to know what these expectations are and begin working towards
meeting or exceeding expectations from the beginning of their program, thus establishing
consistency throughout. Danielson category descriptors are targeted to teachers in practice, so
some wording has been edited to flow smoothly for and reflect the experiences of the teacher
candidate. Danielson designates performance at the Basic level (SHU’s Met Expectations level) as
characteristic of student teachers or new teachers. By working on these dispositions from the first
class in teacher education, teacher candidates may achieve proficiency (SHU’s Above Expectations
level) in some categories by the end of their program.

* Candidates earning a majority of “Below Expectations” at any point in the pathway will be up for
review by the education committee prior to any advancement on the certification pathway
.
Time of Completion/Expectations: EDU 201 (Some Below, while most Met Expectations)
EDU 301 (Few Below, while most Met Expectations)
EDU 360/371/372 (Met Expectations)
___X__ EDU 495/SED 495 (Met or Above Expectations)
______ Content faculty to be included in Full Acceptance app.
Other (please specify):
1
Please circle or use a check mark to indicate the ranking level for EACH component.

DISPOSITION 1: RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY (InTASC Standards 1, 2, 7; CAEP Standard 3.3)

Danielson Element Below Expectations Met Expectations Above Expectations

1b. Knowledge of Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
students’ interests and displays little or no recognizes the value of recognizes the value of
cultural heritage knowledge of students’ understanding understanding
interests or cultural students’ interests and students’ interests and
heritage and does not cultural heritage but cultural heritage and
indicate that such displays this knowledge displays this knowledge
knowledge is valuable. only for the class as a for groups of students.
whole.
1b. Knowledge of Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
students’ skills, displays little or no recognizes the value of recognizes the value of
knowledge, and knowledge of students’ understanding understanding
language proficiency skills, knowledge, and students’ skills, students’ skills,
language proficiency knowledge, and knowledge, and
and does not indicate language proficiency language proficiency
that such knowledge is but displays this and displays this
valuable. knowledge only for the knowledge for groups
class as a whole. of students.
1b. Knowledge of Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate is
students’ special needs displays little or no displays awareness of aware of students’
understanding of the importance of special learning and
students’ special knowing students’ medical needs.
learning or medical special learning or
needs or why such medical needs, but
knowledge is such knowledge may
important. be incomplete or
inaccurate.
1b. Knowledge of the Teacher Candidate sees Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate’s
learning process (how no value in recognizes the value ofknowledge of how
students learn) understanding how knowing how students students learn is
students learn and learn, but this accurate and current;
does not seek such knowledge is limited orapplies this knowledge
information. outdated. to the class as a whole
and to groups of
students.
Comments/Evidence: Both Ms. Metz’ lesson planning and her journal reflections are evidence of her
strong desire and commitment to knowing her students and supporting them both professionally and
personally.

2
DISPOSITION 2: LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH (InTASC Standards 1, 3, 9, 10; CAEP
Standard 3.3)

Danielson Element Below Expectations Met Expectations Above Expectations

4e. Receptivity to Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
feedback from resists feedback on accepts, with some welcomes feedback
colleagues (and performance from reluctance, feedback from colleagues when
faculty/supervisors) either supervisor on performance from made by supervisors
(faculty) or more both supervisors (faculty) or when
experienced (faculty) and opportunities arise
colleagues. professional through professional
colleagues. collaboration.
4e. Service to the Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
profession makes no effort to finds limited ways to participates actively in
share knowledge with contribute to the assisting other
others or to assume profession. educators.
professional
responsibilities.
4d. Involvement in a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
culture of professional avoids participation in becomes involved in actively participates in
inquiry a culture of inquiry, the school’s culture of a culture of
resisting opportunities inquiry when invited to professional inquiry.
to become involved. do so.
4d. Service to the Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
school avoids becoming participates in school volunteers to
involved in school events when participate in school
events. specifically asked. events, making a
substantial
contribution.
Comments/Evidence: It appears that Ms. Metz is easily bored and is, therefore, always looking for
ways to do more to improve her own professional practice and to support her colleagues, her school,
and her students.

DISPOSITION 3: ETHICS, HONESTY, FAIRNESS (InTASC Standards 3, 6, 9, 10; CAEP Standard 3.3)

Danielson Element Below Expectations Met Expectations Above Expectations

4f. Integrity and Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate
ethical conduct displays dishonesty in honest in interactions displays high standards
interactions with with colleagues of honesty, integrity,
colleagues (faculty, (faculty, staff, and confidentiality in
staff, students) and the students) and the interactions with
public. public. colleagues (faculty,
staff, students) and the
public.

3
 4f. Compliance with Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
school and district does not comply with complies minimally complies fully with
(university) regulations school and district with school and district school and district
(university) regulations.
(university) regulations, (university) regulations.
doing just enough to
get by.
4f. Advocacy Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
contributes to school does not knowingly works to ensure that all
practices that result in contribute to some students receive a fair
some students being ill students being ill opportunity to
served by the school. served by the school. succeed.
Comments/Evidence: Ms. Metz is consistently competent and ethical.

DISPOSITION 4: RESPECT FOR OTHERS (InTASC Standards 3, 10; CAEP Standard 3.3)

Danielson Element Below Expectations Met Expectations Above Expectations

2a. Student Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
interactions with other interactions are does not demonstrate interactions are
students characterized by disrespect for others. generally polite and
conflict, sarcasm, or respectful.
put-downs.
4d. Relationships with Teacher Candidate’s Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate
colleagues (faculty, relationships with maintains cordial relationships with
staff, students) colleagues are negative
relationships with colleagues are
or self-serving. colleagues to fulfill characterized by
duties that the mutual support and
university requires. cooperation.
Comments/Evidence: Ms. Metz is respectful to and respected by students, colleagues, and
administrators.

PROFESSIONALISM (Some rubric categories adapted from Seidel School of Education and
Professional Studies, Salisbury University):

Disposition Unacceptable Developing Acceptable Target

Punctuality Frequently late. Punctuality is Generally Always on time.
(InTASC Stds 9, detrimental to punctual.
10; CAEP Std 3.3) performance.
Comments/Evidence:

Attendance Habitually absent. Absences Rarely absent, Perfect

(InTASC Stds 9, detrimental to informs attendance.
10; CAEP Std 3.3 ) one’s performance. instructor prior
to absence.
Comments/Evidence:

4
Organization Unable to set Able to set realistic Able to set Able to set
(InTASC Stds 9, realistic priorities priorities but realistic priorities priorities for self
10; CAEP Std 3.3) and/or manage time unable to manage most of the time and tasks so that
effectively to time effectively to so that program program
complete program complete program requirements are requirements are
requirements. requirements completed completed
successfully. successfully. successfully.
Comments/Evidence:

Dependability Unwilling to take Willing to complete Is able to Successfully

(InTASC Stds 9, responsibility for commitments for complete most completes
10; CAEP Std 3.3) course and course and commitments for commitments for
professional professional course and course and
commitments. responsibilities but professional professional
lacks consistency. responsibilities. responsibilities.
Comments/Evidence:

Disposition Unacceptable Developing Acceptable Target

Professional Refuses to adapt Understands Usually presents Always presents
Presentation appearance to reasons for oneself in oneself in a
(InTASC Stds 3, professional professional professional manner
10; CAEP Std 3.3) settings. appearance, but is settings acceptable by
inconsistent. appropriately. peers, instructors
and school sites.
Comments/Evidence:

Communication— Does not listen with Is inconsistent with Usually listens Always listens
Listening (InTASC respect to what listening with with respect to with respect to
Stds 5, 9, 10; others are saying; respect to what what others are what others are
CAEP Std 3.3) interrupts; talks others are saying; saying; rarely saying; does not
over others. sometimes interrupts and/or interrupt and/or
interrupts and/or talks over others. talk over others.
talks over others.
Comments/Evidence:

Communication— Oral communication Oral Oral Oral

Oral (InTASC Stds is very unclear with communication is communication is communication
5, 9, 10; CAEP Std many grammar inconsistent and usually clear with is always clear
3.3) errors. can be unclear with minimal and uses proper
distracting grammar errors. grammar.
grammar errors.
Comments/Evidence:

5
 Communication— Written Written Written Written
Written (InTASC communication is communication can communication is communication
Stds 5, 9, 10; unacceptable with be unclear with usually clear with is always clear
CAEP Std 3.3) no evidence of distracting (4-5) only a few (< 3) and uses proper
proofreading, grammar and/or grammar and/or grammar with no
unclear and spelling errors; no spelling errors. spelling errors.
confusing, many evidence of
grammar and proofreading.
spelling errors (> 5).
Comments/Evidence:

Summary Page:

Summary of Ratings #
for Dispositions 1-4
Below Expectations
Met Expectations 1
Above Expectations 12

Summary of Ratings
for Professionalism
Categories
Unacceptable
Developing
Acceptable
Target 8

Additional Comments: Ms. Metz could honestly be the poster child of professionalism.