The following standards implementation rubrics are designed support PD providers as they self-assess how well their programs align with the CSTA Standards for CS Teachers and key principles of effective PD.
The content covered in individual PD workshops may be very different depending on the focus and priorities of the PD, and the level of expertise and prior experience of the participants. Not every measure is necessary for every PD, but over the long range, quality PD should cover the breadth of knowledge needed for a teacher to meet these Standards.
Audience
PD providers can use the provided rubrics to reflect and self-assess their programs when they are:
- Designing a new PD program
- Updating an existing PD program
- Communicating about an existing PD program
Choose a Rubric
Two rubrics are provided:
- Full Rubric for PD provided over multiple days or weeks: Tabs within this spreadsheet align with each of the five Standards and include multiple subcategories of criteria that serve as benchmarks for PD experiences.
- Mini-Rubric for short workshops (PD provided to one day): Key aspects of PD are summarized within each of the five content areas to evaluate how the PD clearly communicates what is covered to participants, where it models good practices, and what tools or resources are provided for teachers to implement in their classroom.
Full Rubric
Mini-Rubric
Complete Your Reflection
Have at least one and ideally two or more members of your team complete the chosen rubric to the best of their ability, evaluating how well your proposed or existing PD program addresses each of the Standards for CS Teachers.
Afterwards find time to review your decisions and have a discussion with team members responsible for designing your program. Discuss the following questions:
- Which standards are addressed most extensively?
- Where are there gaps and are those gaps intentional?
- Is there any “low hanging fruit” identified that could improve the PD program?
- How might the PD experience fit into a broader learning journey for teachers?
- How are teachers connected to additional PD experiences, especially to target standards missing in this PD?
- Which areas for improvement feel most important to target next?
Take notes throughout your discussion and note what themes emerge. In total you should expect this process to take roughly 2 – 3 hours, with an hour set aside to complete the rubric and 1 – 2 hours used in the subsequent discussion.
Note that these rubrics are designed to spur discussion and reflection, not to rank PD programs. Categories in the rubric are relative and the greatest benefit from this exercise comes from discussions with peers.
The most valuable outcome of this process is not your completed rubric, but rather the reflections it spurs and the insights that arise out of conversation. To help illustrate this, three professional development providers offered to share reflections spurred by completing the rubric and discussing findings.
| PD Provider | Links to Self-Reflection and Sample Agenda | Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Code.org | Sample agenda Reflection | This reflection is on the Computer Science Discoveries (CSD) professional development which is intended for novice teachers who are learning to teach an introductory upper-middle or lower-high school level computer science class. The PD is intended for a full week (5 days) and covers only the first few units of the curriculum with highly-recommended quarterly follow-up sessions offered to introduce material in the later units. |
| BootUp PD | Sample agenda Reflection | This reflection is for Scratch professional development which is intended for teachers at an upper elementary level. This PD program spans multiple years and meets with teachers throughout the school year. |
| Carnegie Mellon Python Academy | Sample agenda Reflection Sample teacher communication | This reflection is on a 3-day long Python professional development intended for high school teachers who are teaching an introductory or AP CS-Principles level class using the Python programming language. |
License & Attribution
Authors: Dianne O’Grady-Cunniff, GT Wrobel, Jared O’Leary, Chrystalla Mouza, Rebecca Dovi, Grant Smith, Jiang Li, Julie Molnar, Justin Cannady, Maya McCoy, and Renee Henderson
Suggested Citation: O’Grady-Cunniff, D., Wrobel, G.T., O’Leary, J., Mouza, C., Dovi, R., Smith, G., Li, J., Molnar, J., Cannady, J., McCoy, M., and Henderson, R. (2020). PD Alignment Rubrics. CSTA Standards for CS Teachers. Retrieved from https://csteachers.org/pd-alignment-rubrics.
This rubric was inspired by the Teacher Accessibility, Equity, and Content (TEC) Rubric for Evaluating Computing Curricula developed by David Weintrop, Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, and Diana Franklin.
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
CSTA membership is not just for teachers. We welcome curriculum and PD providers, too!