The Residency II Evaluation is a culminating clinical performance assessment completed during the final student teaching experience. Candidates are evaluated by mentor teachers at both midterm and final checkpoints using the Danielson Framework for Teaching (2022), a research-based model of professional teaching practice. The framework is organized into four domains—Planning & Preparation, Learning Environments, Learning Experiences, and Principled Teaching—and provides a structured approach for assessing candidate growth and performance during clinical experiences. Results from the Residency II Evaluation provide evidence of candidate readiness for professional practice and growth across the four domains of effective teaching. Results presented on this page are based on 45 midterm evaluations and 46 final evaluations completed during the 2025–2026 academic year.
Residency II Clinical Performance for Academic Year 2025-2026
Scale: 4 = Distinguished, 3 = Proficient, 2 = Basic, and 1 = Unsatisfactory. Growth Score represents the difference between the final mean and midterm mean. Positive values indicate improvement between evaluation checkpoints.
Residency II candidates demonstrated overall growth from a midterm mean of 3.49 to a final mean of 3.70, representing an average increase of 0.21 points across evaluated teaching competencies during the culminating clinical experience.
Residency II Candidate Growth by Danielson Domain
Residency II candidates demonstrated growth across all four Danielson Framework domains from midterm to final evaluation. The largest increase was observed in Domain 3: Learning Experiences (+0.22), followed closely by Domain 2: Learning Environments (+0.20). All domains concluded with mean scores above 3.60, indicating strong performance within the Proficient range during the culminating clinical experience.
| Danielson Domain | Midterm Mean Score | Final Mean Score | Growth Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Planning & Preparation | 3.54 | 3.71 | +0.17 |
| Domain 2: Learning Environments | 3.61 | 3.81 | +0.20 |
| Domain 3: Learning Experiences | 3.44 | 3.66 | +0.22 |
| Domain 4: Principled Teaching | 3.45 | 3.63 | +0.18 |
| Overall | 3.49 | 3.70 | +0.21 |
Danielson Framework Component-level Results
The table below provides component-level results for each Danielson Framework for Teaching component evaluated during Residency I. Growth scores were calculated by subtracting the midterm mean from the final mean. Positive values indicate improvement between evaluation checkpoints.
| Danielson Framework Component | Midterm Mean | Final Mean | Growth Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1: Applying Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy | 3.41 | 3.67 | +0.26 |
| D1: Knowing and Valuing Students | 3.72 | 3.85 | +0.13 |
| D1: Setting Instructional Outcomes | 3.35 | 3.56 | +0.21 |
| D1: Using Resources Effectively | 3.57 | 3.73 | +0.16 |
| D1: Planning Coherent Instruction | 3.50 | 3.69 | +0.19 |
| D1: Designing and Analyzing Assessments | 3.26 | 3.60 | +0.34 |
| D2: Cultivating Respectful and Affirming Environments | 3.67 | 3.85 | +0.18 |
| D2: Fostering a Culture for Learning | 3.63 | 3.83 | +0.20 |
| D2: Maintaining Purposeful Environments | 3.52 | 3.77 | +0.25 |
| D2: Supporting Positive Student Behavior | 3.63 | 3.81 | +0.18 |
| D2: Organizing Spaces for Learning | 3.58 | 3.81 | +0.23 |
| D3: Communicating About Purpose and Content | 3.46 | 3.65 | +0.19 |
| D3: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques | 3.43 | 3.60 | +0.17 |
| D3: Engaging Students in Learning | 3.39 | 3.69 | +0.30 |
| D3: Using Assessment for Learning | 3.37 | 3.63 | +0.26 |
| D3: Responding Flexibly to Student Needs | 3.57 | 3.75 | +0.18 |
| D4: Engaging in Reflective Practice | 3.54 | 3.75 | +0.21 |
| D4: Documenting Student Progress | 3.43 | 3.60 | +0.17 |
| D4: Engaging Families and Communities | 3.33 | 3.60 | +0.27 |
| D4: Contributing to School Community and Culture | 3.39 | 3.59 | +0.20 |
| D4: Growing and Developing Professionally | 3.49 | 3.60 | +0.11 |
| D4: Acting in Service of Students | 3.50 | 3.67 | +0.17 |
Continuous Improvement
Residency II evaluation results are reviewed annually by faculty and program leadership as part of the COEPD Quality Assurance System. Findings are used to monitor candidate readiness for professional practice, inform clinical supervision practices, support curriculum discussions, and identify opportunities for continuous improvement. Particular attention will continue to be given to components related to assessment practices, family and community engagement, student progress monitoring, and instructional planning as part of ongoing program review efforts.