Iterative post-teaching analysis with rubric-aligned written feedback and revise-and-resubmit cycles¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

A clinical-instructor routine in which candidates submit written post-teaching analyses, the instructor identifies gaps in evidence and alignment with rubric criteria, and candidates revise and resubmit. The instructor "provided regular, detailed written feedback on candidates' reflections via the online submission system and also offered real-time verbal feedback following teaching episodes." Feedback included questions such as "What evidence from what the students said during class or wrote down on their work makes you say that?" The cycle (Figure 3) proceeds from initial submission, to instructor feedback, to revised resubmission, to further support as needed.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clinical instructor who prompts and gives rubric-guided feedback; use of structured prompts (PTAA/RPTAA) aligned to rubric criteria

Constraints¶

• Mentor teachers were informed of the tasks and rubric but were not required to use the exact prompts; most prompting came from the clinical instructor

Target Learners¶

• teacher candidates during clinical (practicum) experiences

Target Learning Goals¶

• evidence-based analysis of student learning and one's own pedagogical decisions

Related Strategies¶

• Revision And Resubmission
• Revision_Cycles
• Equitable Assessment Rubrics

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Janis, S., Schmeichel, M., Grace, C., Wegrzyn, K., & Lee, J. (2025). Making Learning Visible: Shaping Teacher Candidates' Pedagogical Judgment in Clinical Experiences. Journal of Educational Supervision 8(3). https://doi.org/10.69772/jes.8.3.1