# Criteria 0–1
Poor: The writer neither defines nor Average: The writer defines and discusses
discusses the terms teaching and learning
and their relationship, and/or does not
Definitions of teaching
1. ground the discussion within knowledge of
and learning
the literature. The examples and reflection
on experiences with others are
inappropriate or missing.
Poor: The discussion of this relationship
shows little congruence with the writer’s
definitions of teaching and learning and
with his or her view of the learner.
Goals, expectations, and
Grounded in little or no examples, and
2. beliefs of the student–
reflections illustrate neither the nature of
teacher relationship
the student/teacher interactions nor the
critical elements of the relationship.
Poor: Grounded within little or no
knowledge of the literature and with little
evidence of consideration for discipline-
specific expectations, assessment and
learner characteristics, the writer fails to
Teaching methods and demonstrate evidence of his or her ability
3.
evaluation to use a variety of teaching and
assessment strategies. Selection of
specific strategies are incongruent with the
writer’s definitions of teaching and learning,
views of the learner and understanding of
the student/teacher relationship.
Poor: The writer fails to present a
congruent progression throughout beliefs,
actions and goal dimensions. In addition,
the writer fails to provide congruence
4. Organization
between some components of the model.
There is a need for language and grammar
checking.
2–3
Superior: The writer clearly and personally
the terms teaching and learning and their
relationship, while grounding the
discussion within some knowledge of the
literature. Some appropriate examples and
reflection on experiences with others are
discussed.
Average: The discussion of this
relationship shows some congruence with
the writer’s definitions of teaching and
learning and with his or her view of the
learner. Grounded in some knowledge of
the literature, examples and reflections
illustrate either or both the nature of the
student–teacher interactions and the
identified critical elements of the
relationship.
Average: Grounded within some
knowledge of the literature as well as
discipline-specific expectations,
assessment and learner characteristics,
the writer demonstrates evidence of his or
her ability to use a variety of teaching and
assessment strategies. Selection of
specific strategies are somewhat
congruent with the writer’s definitions of
teaching and learning, views of the learner
and understanding of the student–teacher
relationship.
Average: The writer presents a congruent
progression throughout beliefs, practice,
and goal dimensions. In addition, the writer
provides congruence between some
components of the model. The language
and writing style are satisfactory with
reference to the knowledge group.
4-5
defines and discusses the terms teaching
and learning and their relationship, while
grounding the discussion within an
extensive knowledge and experience.
Appropriate examples, and reflection on
experiences.
Superior: The discussion of this
relationship is congruent with the writer’s
definitions of teaching and learning and
with his or her view of the learner.
Grounded in knowledge of the literature,
examples and reflections strongly illustrate
both the nature of the student–teacher
interactions as well as the identified critical
elements of the relationship.
Superior: Grounded within an extensive
knowledge of the literature as well as
discipline-specific expectations,
assessment and learner characteristics,
the writer clearly demonstrates evidence of
his or her superior ability to use a wide
variety of teaching and assessment
strategies. Selection of specific strategies
are congruent with the writer’s definitions
of teaching and learning, views of the
learner and understanding of the student–
teacher relationship.
Superior: The writer presents a congruent
progression throughout beliefs, practice,
and goal dimensions. In addition, the writer
provides congruence between components
of the model. The language and writing
style are beyond expectation with
reference to the knowledge group.