Post Observation Rating Scale

for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
(PRS – ToM)
Observer Manual
Cathy Yun
Dale Farran, PhD
Mark Lipsey, PhD
Elizabeth Vorhaus, MEd
Deanna Meador, MA

Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN
(2010)

 
 
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 2 of 27 

Post Observation Rating Scale

for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
(PRS – ToM)
Observer Manual

The Post Observation Rating Scale (PRS) is a 5-point Likert-type scale for rating classroom-
level characteristics. The PRS includes items regarding general classroom characteristics as well
as teacher practices, classroom activities, and children’s social and academic behaviors. The PRS
for the Tools of the Mind curriculum (ToM) includes items specific to the essence of ToM, and
the rating scores are calibrated to the particular goals of the ToM curriculum. This manual
describes the intent of each PRS item and provides scoring guidelines for raters. The manual is
divided into the following sections that coincide with the PRS-ToM instrument:

 Overall: General descriptive items about the classroom, assistant, and children
 Center Time: ToM-specific characteristics of Center Time
 Classroom Management: Teacher behavior management style and preparedness, and
general child behavior
 Teacher Responsiveness: Teacher attentiveness to children
 Community: Child social interactions and behaviors
 Academic and Learning-Related: Child behaviors during academic activities

General Instructions:

The PRS-ToM should be completed immediately after a classroom is observed or as soon as

possible after the observation. Raters should assign one score to each item. Anchors are provided
for points 1, 3, and 5 on the 5-point scale. Points 2 or 4 should be used when none of the anchors
are fully consistent with raters’ observations. *Note: In the PRS-ToM instrument, the word and
is often represented by a comma (,) and the word or by a slash (/).

Rater Consensus:

When two raters concurrently observe the same classroom, each rater should first complete the
PRS-ToM independently. Once both raters have completed the PRS-ToM, raters should compare
rating scores for each item. Raters should discuss items on which their independent scores do not
agree and assign a consensus score for each item based on their discussion. The observer
completing the Narrative Record should make any necessary changes on the PRS-ToM to reflect
consensus scores for data importation.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 3 of 27 

Overall:

1. The overall impression of the classroom (subjective overall “feel”) was:

This item is a rating of the overall, or general, atmosphere of the classroom, taking into
account classroom environment, class activities, teacher-child interactions, child-child
interactions, child behavior, and child engagement. Raters should be careful not to let one
classroom event prejudice this score.

1-Poor:
In general, children were off-task and unengaged in classroom activities.
This may have been because of poor activity management by the teacher, low-
interest activities, lack of materials, or child behavior.
AND
Children often exhibited negative affect and/or negative or inappropriate behavior.
Behaviors may have included aggression, inattentiveness, refusal to participate in
activities or follow directions, crying, or bullying.
AND
The teacher was unresponsive and/or unpleasant and did not actively engage children.
In general, the teacher may have ignored children, used sarcasm, discouraged
child bids for attention, or had negative interactions with children.

3-Fair:
Children were somewhat engaged in classroom activities.
Children may have been on-task and engaged in some classroom activities but not
in others. Alternatively, children may have been consistently, but only
moderately, engaged during activities. It may have been the case that some
children were on-task and considerably engaged during activities but others were
not.
AND
Children inconsistently exhibited appropriate behaviors.
Children sometimes participated, followed directions, and interacted positively
with peers but sometimes exhibited aggression, inattentiveness, or negative affect.
AND
The teacher was inconsistently responsive to children.
The teacher may have had some negative interactions with children or interacted
with children only some of the time.

5-Excellent:
In general, children were engaged in classroom activities and seemed to be learning.
Most children were interested and engaged in most classroom activities.
AND
Most of the time, children seemed happy and exhibited prosocial and school-appropriate
behaviors.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 4 of 27 

Most children were smiling or laughing. Children had positive interactions with
their peers and followed directions.
AND
The teacher was pleasant and responsive to children, both academically and socially.
The teacher actively engaged and scaffolded children during academic activities.
The teacher interacted socially with children and was responsive to children’s
requests for attention. The teacher’s interactions with children were consistently
pleasant.

2. In general, across the class, children’s emotional and behavioral self-regulation was:

This item is a rating of the extent to which children were able to control their behaviors
and emotions independent of teacher directions, reminders, or incentives. Controlling
behaviors includes following directions and acting appropriately for different contexts.
For example, running is not appropriate in the classroom but could be when playing
outside. Controlling emotions includes the ability to calm down after becoming upset or
angry as well as not becoming over-excited.

1-Poor:
Overall, children had difficulty controlling behaviors and emotions independently.
Most children needed frequent reminders or incentives to control their own
behaviors and/or emotions.

3-Fair:
Children were sometimes able to control behaviors and emotions independently.
In general, children were inconsistent in controlling behaviors and emotions and
may have needed reminders. Alternatively, some children may have been able to
control their behaviors and emotions most of the time but others were
inconsistent.

5-Excellent:
Most children were able to control behaviors and emotions independently.
In general, children independently controlled their behaviors and emotions most
of the time. Children acted appropriately without being told or reminded. There
may have been one or two children who did so inconsistently or one child who
may have had considerable trouble controlling behaviors and/or emotions.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 5 of 27 

3. Seating and groupings (small-groups, pairs) were determined by child choice:

This item is a rating of the number of opportunities children were given to choose seats,
partners, or small-groups. For this item, raters should consider opportunity in absolute
terms, rather than relative to the number of classroom-specific occurrences. For example,
a classroom in which children came to the carpet once, moved to tables once, and had no
paired or small-group activities would never be rated “Very often” even if children were
free to choose their seats both times. Likewise, a classroom in which children moved to
the carpet or tables several times, and had many paired or small-group activities can be
rated “Very often” even if children were not free to choose in all instances.

Raters should consider every time children went to the carpet or tables, since large-group
activities on the carpet can occur several times throughout the day. If children seemed to
be consistently sitting in the same spots, it is likely they had assigned seats. Even if seats
were not permanently assigned, name cards placed on tables or teacher verbal direction
should be counted as assigned seating. Pairings and groupings should be counted as
assigned if children were specifically told who to partner with or which group to join. If
children were first given a choice and then directed by the teacher because they were
unable to choose independently, this should not be counted as teacher assignment since
they were given the opportunity to choose. (If it is unclear whether seats, partners, or
small-groups are assigned, ask the teacher or assistant.)

1-Never:
Seating, partners, and groups were always determined by the teacher.
Children had assigned seats at tables and on the carpet. If there were partner or
small-group activities, the teacher determined children’s partners or groups.

3-A few times:

Children chose seating, partners, or groups for a few activities.
Children had a few opportunities to sit where they wanted or to choose partners or
small-groups. Alternatively, some children may have been assigned seats,
partners, or groups during one or two activities, for whatever reason.

5-Very often:
Children chose seating, partners, or groups for many activities.
Children may have had assigned seats, partners, or small-groups for one or two
activities but had freedom to choose for many other activities.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 6 of 27 

4. Children were talking:

This item is a rating of both the extent to which children were allowed to talk and the
amount of child-talk that actually occurred in the classroom. For this item, child-talk
includes both social and academic talk. Raters should consider child-talk that was child-
initiated as well as talk that was elicited by the teacher. Teacher discouragement of child-
talk includes requiring silence during activities and telling or signaling children to be
quiet.

1-Never:
Children not allowed to talk or discouraged from talking.
Children were not given any opportunities to talk during activities.
OR
Children were allowed to talk but did not.
Children may have had some opportunities to talk but did not. Children may not
have volunteered responses to the teacher’s questions or talked to peers during
Center Time even though they were allowed to.
AND
The teacher did most of the talking.

3-A few times:

A few children talked a few times.
A few children were given the opportunity to talk a few times. This may have
been for a few children during one activity or for one or two children during a few
activities.
AND/OR
Children were discouraged from talking during some activities.
There were some activities during which children were required to be silent.

5-Very often:
Almost all children talked to the teacher or peers.
Most children talked to either the teacher or to peers several times.
AND
Children were allowed or encouraged to talk.
Children were free to talk during most activities or given opportunities to talk.
Children may have had freedom to talk to peers while seated at tables. The
teacher may have asked many questions during large-group activities or given
children opportunities to discuss ideas with a partner. The teacher did not require
children to be silent or may have asked children to be quiet once.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 7 of 27 

5. Have children internalized the flow of classroom activities (mark one box only)?

This item is a rating of the extent to which children in the classroom were familiar with
classroom procedures, expectations, and activities. Raters should select only one score
from the rating matrix. This item requires raters to consider two dimensions: the number
of children and the number of activities. Raters should first consider, overall, how many
children (a few, some, or most) seemed to be generally familiar with classroom
procedures, expectations, and activities, and select the corresponding column in the rating
matrix. Then, within that column, raters should select the cell that belongs to the row
corresponding to how many activities for which this was true. The rating score in the
resulting cell-selection is the score that should be assigned for this item. For example, a
classroom in which most children seemed familiar with only some of the activities would
receive a rating of 4.

A Few Children Some Children Most Children

Most 3 4 5
Activities
Some 2 3 4
Activities
A Few 1 2 3
Activities
*Note: The 1 – 5 score on this item cannot be selected by clicking on the corresponding bubble.
Instead, scores must be entered using the number buttons in the matrix itself. Once a score is
selected by clicking a number button, it cannot be deleted. However, the score can be changed
by clicking on a different button in the matrix.

The rating for this item should reflect an overall characterization of the classroom, rather
than of a subset of children or activities. For example, in a classroom in which most
children were familiar with most activities, it necessarily means that some or a few
children were familiar with only some or a few activities. However, because the rating
should generally characterize the classroom, it should be 5 for “Most children” and “Most
activities.” A rating of 2 for “Some children” and “A few activities” would mean that
some children were familiar with only a few activities but that the other children in the
classroom were familiar with less than a few activities.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 8 of 27 

1-A few children; A few activities:

For only a few activities, procedures and expectations seemed familiar, predictable, and
routine, only for a few children.
The remaining children in the classroom seemed familiar with none of the
activities. This rating indicates that most children in the classroom seemed like
they did not know what was going on most of the time.

3-Some children; Some activities:

For some activities, procedures and expectations seemed familiar, predictable, and
routine for some children.

5-Most children; Most activities:

For most activities, procedures and expectations seemed familiar, predictable, and routine
for most children.

6. The materials available in the classroom were:

This item is a rating of the classroom materials that were available for use by children.
Materials considered for this item should include materials and supplies for activities
such as art materials, center materials such as blocks, and academic materials such as
books. This item is not intended as a rating of the presence of child-made play props
versus teacher-made props or commercial versus authentic props or materials.

1-Poor or absent:
Materials were scarce and had limited variety. Available materials were of poor quality or
broken.

3-Adequate:
Materials were minimally adequate for children’s activities and play.

5-Exemplary:
Materials were varied and abundant and seemed particularly suited for specific activities
and/or conducive to children’s play.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 9 of 27 

7. The organization of the classroom environment was:

This item is a rating of the quality of the physical environment of the classroom. This
includes spatial organization of the furniture and flow of traffic as well as neatness and
organization of materials and cleanliness of the furniture and classroom. Neatness and
organization refers to materials being placed in designated locations and in containers
when appropriate, as well as materials being easy to locate and access.

1-Poor or absent:
Materials and areas were disorganized, messy, or even hazardous.
AND/OR
Some areas looked dirty.

3-Adequate:
There was some disorganization but nothing was in the children’s way.
AND
Some space was not used optimally.

5-Exemplary:
Areas were arranged for optimal use.
AND
Centers were physically distinct.
AND
Materials were put away when not in use. The classroom was neat and clean.

8. The assistant’s involvement directly with the children was:

This item is a rating of the extent to which the assistant interacted directly with children.
This item is intended to be an absolute quantification of the assistant’s role in the
classroom, not in relation to the role of the assistant as dictated by the head teacher. Thus,
an impression that the teacher did not allow or invite the assistant to take on an
instructional role should not prevent a low rating on this item. Furthermore, this item is
not intended as a measure of the teaching skill of the assistant. Raters should be careful
not to let the quality of the assistant’s involvement influence the rating on this item.

1-Low:
The assistant rarely interacted with children.
The assistant was not involved with children in any instructional or monitoring
capacity. The assistant rarely assisted children, even with non-academic tasks
(putting on coats, brushing teeth, washing hands). Most of the time, the assistant
was doing administrative or preparatory tasks (setting up chairs, passing out
materials, pouring paint into bowls) or not involved in classroom activity (talking
on phone, self-care).

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 10 of 27 

3-Medium or inconsistent:
The assistant monitored children’s behavior from the periphery of activities, mostly did
other tasks, or was involved with children only for self-help activities.
The assistant was involved in monitoring children and in behavior management.
The assistant also assisted children with non-academic activities. However, the
assistant did not engage with children in any instructional capacity (no leading of
small-groups, no academic scaffolding). Alternatively, the assistant may have
provided some instruction during academic activities but did so inconsistently.
Such sporadic assistant involvement may have been self-initiated or teacher-
directed.

5-High:
The assistant was an integral part of the classroom, regularly interacted with children, and
participated in instruction.
The assistant was an active participant in instruction during academic activities
when appropriate. The assistant may have led small-groups, provided scaffolding
during large-group activities or centers, or led large-group activities. It is not
necessary for the assistant to have been directly involved with children during all
activities, however. During some activities, it may have been appropriate for the
assistant to monitor children or perform other duties.

9. The assistant’s interactions with children were:

This item is a rating of the overall quality of the assistant’s interactions with children.
Raters should consider the assistant’s affect, behaviors, and language when rating this
item. If the assistant did not interact directly with children, raters should mark NA for this
item.

1-Highly negative:
The assistant had consistently negative interactions with children.
Highly negative interactions include those in which the assistant may have been
yelling, using sarcasm, being critical, displaying irritation, or employing a general
negative tone.

3-Mixed:
The assistant had some positive or consistently neutral or flat interactions with children.
Some of the interactions between the assistant and children may have been
positive while others were negative. Alternatively, interactions may have been
characterized by a neutral tone that was not negative but could not be described as
positive.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 11 of 27 

5-Highly positive:
The assistant had consistently positive or pleasant interactions with children.
The interactions between the assistant and children were characterized by positive
affect and tone. The assistant was consistently pleasant.

10. The teacher used a language other than English to communicate to children who had a
home language other than English:

This item is pertinent only to children who are English Language Learners (ELL). If there
were no children who were ELL, raters should mark NA for this item. (*If it is unclear
whether there are any children who are ELL, ask the teacher or assistant.)

This item is a rating of the frequency with which the teacher used the home language of
any children who were ELL in order to communicate instructions, academic content, or
non-academic information. This is not a rating of whether the teacher used a language
other than English to expose English-speaking children to a different language.

1-Never:
The teacher never used a language other than English for children with a different home
language.

3-A few times:

The teacher used a language other than English a few times but missed several
opportunities.

5-Very often:
The teacher regularly used a language other than English, across all activities, throughout
the observation.

11. Worksheets and/or rote copying activities were used:

This item is a rating of the extent to which worksheets and/or rote copying were used as
academic activities in the classroom. This includes alphabet letter worksheets, line-
tracing handwriting practice worksheets, copying teacher-written sentences, and coloring
sheets.

1-Very often:
Worksheets and/or rote copying were the principal activity types apart from centers.

3-A few times:

Worksheets and/or rote copying activities were observed a few times.

5-Never:
No worksheet or rote copying activities were observed.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 12 of 27 

Center Time:

12. How many children chose the center/area to play in?

This item is a rating of the number of children who were given the opportunity to choose
the center or area in which to play. This item is applicable to academic, make-believe, or
free-choice centers. However, of the Center Time that did occur, this item should be rated
for only the most restrictive case. For example, if both academic and free-choice centers
occurred, and some children were able to choose their centers for academic centers, but
all were able to choose for free-choice, the most restrictive case would be the academic
Center Time, which would receive a rating of 3. If no Center Time occurred, raters
should mark NA for this item.

1-None:
None of the children were permitted to choose centers.

3-Some:
Some children chose the centers they played in.

5-Most:
Most children chose the centers they played in.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 13 of 27 

13. Of the children observed during centers, how many children used pretend role speech?

This item is a rating of the number of children who used role-appropriate speech while
enacting a pretend role during Center Time. This item is applicable to academic, make-
believe, or free-choice centers. Furthermore, this item should be rated across all and any
Center Time that occurred in the classroom within the same observation period. For
example, if both make-believe and free-choice centers occurred, this item should be rated
across both. If no Center Time occurred, raters should mark NA for this item.

For this item, role speech is defined as language that is employed in enacting a pretend
role. The statement “I’m the doctor.” would only count as role speech if a child said it
while enacting the role of the doctor, for example, to a child who was playing the role of
a patient. The same statement would not count as role speech if the child used it only in
an informational capacity outside of the role or during role assignment (e.g. “I’m the
doctor, you’re the patient”).

1-None:
None of the children used any pretend role-appropriate language during centers.

3-Some:
Some children used pretend role-appropriate language during centers.

5-Most:
Most children played some pretend role during centers and used role-appropriate
language for at least part of Center Time.

14. How often did pretend roles cross center boundaries?

This item is a rating of the extent to which children carried over pretend roles from one
center area to another. Carry-over of pretend roles is defined as enacting a particular role
in one center area and then continuing to enact that same role in a different center area.
Any instance of boundary-crossing should be counted for this item, regardless of the type
of Center Time in which it took place. If no Center Time occurred, raters should mark
NA for this item. (e.g. A doctor gives a patient a prescription in the Examination Room
Center and then the patient goes to the Pharmacy Center to have the prescription filled.)

1-Never:
No instances of center boundary-crossing were observed.

3-A few times:

A few children enacted pretend roles in at least two different centers one time.
OR
One child enacted a pretend role in at least two different centers more than once or across
several centers.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 14 of 27 

5-Very often:
Many children enacted pretend roles in at least two different centers.
OR
Several children enacted roles in at least two different centers more than once or across
several different centers.

15. During centers, how often did children use symbolic props?

This item is a rating of the extent to which children used materials symbolically during
make-believe play. Symbolic props are defined as any materials that are used in play to
represent pretend objects. For example, a wooden block that is used as a telephone is a
symbolic prop. Only child-imposed symbolic representation should be counted for this
item; materials which the teacher assigned as representative of pretend objects do not
count for this item rating. Any instance of symbolic play should be counted for this item
regardless of the type of Center Time in which it took place. If no Center Time occurred,
raters should mark NA for this item.

1-Never:
Children were not observed using materials symbolically.

3-A few times:

A few children used materials symbolically at least once during center play.

5-Very often:
Across the class, children used materials symbolically during center play.
Classroom Management:

16. Tangible behavior reinforcers (stickers, clothespins, color cards) were observed:

This item is a rating of the extent to which tangible rewards or systems were used to
manage child behavior in the classroom. Such reinforcers include stickers and sticker
charts, clothespins, warning or status cards, class or school “cash,” check or tally marks,
behavior jar, etc. Reinforcers and systems may have been on the individual, group, or
class levels.

1-Very often:
Tangible behavior reinforcers were observed throughout the observation period as part of
a behavior management system for all children.

3-A few times:

Tangible behavior reinforcers were observed a few times but seemed individualized for a
few children.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 15 of 27 

5-Never:
Tangible behavior reinforcers were not observed.
AND
Tangible reinforcers were never used as behavioral feedback.
Both of these conditions must have been true to assign this rating. If raters did not
observe reinforcers being used, but there was clear evidence of some kind of
system (e.g. signs, charts), a rating of 4 should be assigned.

17. The teacher used threats (to take away privileges, contact parents) to manage behavior:

This item is a rating of the extent to which the teacher threatened children as a strategy
for managing child behavior. Threats may include removal of privileges, exclusion from
activities, punitive assignments, office referral, parental contact, etc.

1-Very often:
The teacher regularly used threats to regulate children’s behavior.

3-A few times:

The teacher used threats a few times.

5-Never:
The teacher did not threaten children to regulate behavior.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 16 of 27 

18. Behavior management interrupted lessons/activities:

This item is a rating of the extent to which behavior incidents and/or explicit teacher
management of child behavior interrupted the flow of instructional lessons or activities.
Behavior incidents could include behavior that involves or distracts other children.
Behavior management could include the teacher reminding children to pay attention or to
sit “crisscross applesauce” as well as addressing specific behavior incidents.

1-Very often:
Lessons or activities were continually interrupted by behavior incidents and/or behavior
management.
AND
Behavior incidents and/or management interfered with instruction.
Lessons or activities often stopped while the teacher engaged in behavior
management, or behavior incidents often prevented children from attending to
instruction. The teacher or children could not fully engage in instruction because
behavior management was a significant distracter.

3-A few times:

Behavior incidents and/or explicit behavior management interrupted, but did not impede,
instruction.
Instruction and engagement were interrupted but not noticeably or significantly
hindered.

5-Never or once:
Lessons or activities were never (or once) interrupted by behavior incidents or
management.
There were no behavior incidents that interrupted instruction. No instructional
time was devoted to behavior management. There may have been one minor
behavior incident or instance of behavior management that did not interfere with
instruction.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 17 of 27 

19. Children’s participation during lessons/activities was:

This item is a rating of the level of children’s participation across all instructional lessons
and activities. Raters should be careful to differentiate participation in this item from
engagement in item 34. Participation for this item is defined as appropriate behavior and
compliance as required by specific activities. Therefore, it is possible to have a high
rating on participation even though engagement or interest level may be receive a low
rating.

1-Poor or absent:
In general, children had difficulty participating in activities.

3-Adequate:
Some children exhibited appropriate participation in activities.

5-Exemplary:
All or most children participated appropriately in classroom activities.

20. Children acted appropriately during transitions (participating in clean-up, waiting

patiently):

This item is a rating of the frequency of children’s appropriate behavior during transitions
in the absence of adult reminders. Raters should consider not only the appropriateness of
child behavior, but also the extent to which children seemed to understand the procedural
aspects of different transitions.

1-Never or once:
In general, children had difficulty participating in clean-up and acting appropriately
during transitions.
Children did not demonstrate appropriate behaviors during transitions without
adult reminders or did so once.
AND
Children were reminded by an adult multiple times.
Children needed to be closely monitored and externally directed during clean-up
and transitions.

3-A few times:

A few children independently acted appropriately during clean-up and most transitions.
AND/OR
On some occasions, some children were supervised or reminded.

5-Very often:
All or most children acted appropriately during all clean-ups and transitions.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 18 of 27 

AND
Children acted appropriately without being told or reminded.
Children demonstrated appropriate clean-up and transition behaviors without
adult reminders most of the time. Children seemed to know what to do and did so
independently.

21. The teacher had materials prepared for activities other than make-believe play centers:

This item is a rating of the frequency with which materials for activities were prepared
ahead of time. This item is related to, but different from, item 22 in that this item is
intended as a measure of teacher preparation and planning exclusively concerning
materials.

1-Never or once:
For every activity and center (or all but one), necessary materials were not ready. The
teacher had to search to locate and gather materials.
There may have been one time when the teacher had materials ready or at-hand.
OR
Materials were missing, or there were not enough materials to go around.

3-A few times:

For a few activities or centers, necessary materials were ready.
OR
For most activities, necessary materials were easily located but required some on-the-spot
teacher searching or preparation.

5-Very often:
For most activities and centers, necessary materials were gathered together ahead of time
and ready for immediate use.

22. Children were waiting to begin activities with nothing to do:

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children were waiting and were not
involved in any activity or instruction. This item is slightly different from item 21: it does
concern teacher preparation, but this item also takes into consideration the teacher’s
ability to direct transitions, maximize instructional time, and manage other classroom
situations that may interrupt instruction and/or provide openings for behavior issues.

1-Very often:
Before many activities, children waited for the teacher with nothing else to do.

3-A few times:

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 19 of 27 

Children waited for a few activities.

5-Never or once:
Children did not have to wait and were immediately engaged in all activities (or all but
one).
When activities did not begin immediately, children were engaged in a
transitional activity such as a song or finger-play that focused or directed their
attention. Children may have waited a short amount of time on one occasion.

Teacher Responsiveness:

23. The teacher’s initiation and engagement in interactions with children during academic
activities was:

This item is a rating of the deliberateness and quality of the teacher’s instructional
interactions with children. Raters should look for teacher-initiated interactions and
connection with children during academic activities. This is not a rating of the teacher’s
social interactivity with children; this item is concerned with academic interactions only.

1-Poor or absent:
The teacher actively discouraged interactions from children.
AND/OR
The teacher did not actively interact with children during instruction.
AND
The teacher dominated activities.
Children’s contributions during instruction were ignored or discouraged. Children
were passive receivers of instruction, and the teacher did not make any attempts to
engage children more actively.

3-Adequate:
The teacher drew some children into academic-related interactions across a few activities.

5-Exemplary:
The teacher drew all or most children into academic-related interactions across most
activities.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 20 of 27 

24. The quality of the individual instruction and scaffolding provided by the teacher was:

This item is a rating of the individual scaffolding that the teacher provided to children.
For this item, scaffolding is defined as individualized one-on-one instruction that assists a
child in successfully performing a task at a level that may not be independently attainable
for that particular child.

1-Poor or absent:
The teacher did not provide any individualized instruction.
OR
The teacher gave individual attention to children who did not seem to need it and/or
ignored those who did.
The teacher gave attention to children who were able to complete tasks
independently but did not assist children who seemed to struggle with particular
tasks (perhaps demonstrated by off-task behavior or taking a long time to
complete tasks).

3-Adequate:
The teacher provided generic one-on-one support (same for every child), but it seemed
inappropriate at times.
The teacher did provide individual instruction that assisted children in completing
tasks, but it may have been too much or too little support for particular children.
One-on-one support did not seem deliberately tailored to individual strengths and
weaknesses; it seemed similar child to child.

5-Exemplary:
The teacher provided individualized instruction or scaffolding (different child to child).
One-on-one instruction differed for each child, suggesting that the teacher took
into account the individual instructional needs of children.

25. The teacher’s verbal or nonverbal responsiveness to children’s questions or requests

for attention (including social interactions) was:

This item is a rating of the quality of the teacher’s interactions with children when those
interactions were child-initiated, which differentiates this item from item 23.
Responsiveness refers to both the receptiveness of the teacher to children’s questions,
comments, and requests, as well as the quality of the teacher’s reply or reaction. Raters
should consider both academic and social interactions for this item.

1-Poor or absent:

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 21 of 27 

In general, the teacher ignored children, did not respond, or gave irritated, critical, or
sarcastic responses.

3-Adequate:
The teacher gave superficial or hurried responses most of the time but occasionally
provided an elaborated response.

5-Exemplary:
The teacher gave positive acknowledgment to children and extended or elaborated
responses to children’s questions.

Community:
26. Peer interactions in the classroom across the observation were:

This item is a rating of the overall quality of the interactions among children in the
classroom. Raters should consider children’s affect, behaviors, and language when rating
this item.

1-Highly negative:
All or most child interactions were characterized by negative interactions like arguing,
physical aggression, name-calling, insulting, or bullying.

3-Mixed:
Child interactions included positive affect, behaviors, and/or but also occasional arguing
and/or aggressive behavior.

5-Highly positive:
All or most child interactions were characterized by positive affect (smiling or laughing),
behaviors, and/or language.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 22 of 27 

27. Children were socially isolated or excluded by their peers:

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children were intentionally isolated or
excluded by peers. A child’s choice to work or play alone or a child working or playing
alone coincidentally should not be counted as social exclusion when rating this item.
Evidence of social exclusion may include verbal rejection such as “Go away!” or “You
can’t play with us.” Evidence may also include actions such as moving or turning away
from the excluded child. Ignoring a peer may also be counted as evidence of social
exclusion.

1-Very often:
There were many instances of children being excluded or ignored by peers. Several
children were excluded or ignored once or twice.
OR
A few children were excluded or ignored several times.

3-A few times:

A few times, children were purposefully excluded or ignored by peers. A few different
children were excluded or ignored once.
OR
One child was excluded a few times.

5-Never:
Children were neither purposefully excluded from activities or groups nor ignored by
peers.

28. Sharing among children (using or playing with something together) occurred:

This item is a rating of the frequency of peer sharing. Child-sharing for this item may
include using materials equitably or playing with materials together. For this item,
sharing does not include formal game-playing or any structured activity with set rules and
a sequence. Sharing may have occurred either because children offered to share or agreed
to share but should only be counted if child-initiated. Teacher-directed sharing should not
be counted for this item.

1-Never:
No instances of sharing were observed.

3-A few times:

A few times, children offered to share or agreed to share when asked by another child.
The teacher sometimes directed children to share.

5-Very often:

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 23 of 27 

Throughout the observation, children offered to share materials or toys with other
children.
AND/OR
Children always agreed to share when asked by another child.
AND
The teacher did not have to direct children to share.

29. Cooperative behavior among children (taking turns, following set rules and a sequence with a
clear goal) occurred:

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children demonstrated cooperative
behavior. For this item, cooperative behavior is defined as participation with others in an
activity with predetermined rules and/or a set sequence or any activity in which there is a
common goal. According to this definition, children playing a formal game such as
Candy Land would count as cooperative behavior, as would helping each other clean up
materials.

1-Never:
No instances of cooperative behavior were observed.

3-A few times:

Children did activities with rules and/or a sequence or helped each other to achieve
common goal a few times.

5-Very often:
Throughout the observation pairs or groups of children engaged in formal games or any
other activity with a set of rules, a sequence, or a common goal.

30. Children demonstrated disruptive aggression (throwing a tantrum, banging objects,

breaking things):

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children demonstrated aggressive
behavior that disrupted instruction or class activities. This item excludes aggression
toward other people but includes aggression toward objects or self and undirected
aggression. Aggression toward objects may manifest as throwing or breaking things.
Self-hitting, self-hair-pulling, or otherwise hurting oneself would be manifestations of
self-aggression. Undirected aggression would include throwing a tantrum, uncontrolled
crying, or foot-stomping.

1-Very often:
Several children exhibited disruptive behaviors, which created a distressing classroom
environment.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 24 of 27 

3-A few times:

A few children exhibited aggression once.
OR
One child exhibited aggression a few times.

5-Never:
No disruptive aggression was observed.

31. Children demonstrated aggression toward others (yelling, name-calling, threatening, hitting,
scratching, shoving):

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children demonstrated aggressive
behavior specifically toward other people, which can include both peers and adults.
Aggression toward others can include physical aggression such as hitting, shoving,
scratching, or biting as well as verbal aggression such as yelling, name-calling, teasing,
or threatening.

1-Very often:
Several children demonstrated aggression toward other children, making the classroom
feel unsafe.

3-A few times:

A few children demonstrated aggression toward others once.
OR
One child demonstrated aggression toward others a few times.

5-Never:
No instances of aggression toward others were observed.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 25 of 27 

Academic and Learning-Related:

32. Children asked academically related questions or made comments that were contextually
appropriate without being prompted to do so:

This item is a rating of the frequency of children’s academically related questions and
comments including those that occurred during large-group, small-group, paired, or
center activities. Raters should consider the contextual appropriateness and relevance of
children’s questions and comments when rating this item. Only content-related questions
and comments should be counted for this item; questions or comments regarding
directions should not be counted. This item should be differentiated from item 4 in two
ways: only academic child-talk and only talk that is child-initiated should be considered
when rating this item. Child-talk that is social in nature or teacher-elicited should not be
counted for this item.

1-Never:
Children did not volunteer any relevant questions and/or comments.

3-A few times:

A few children volunteered a relevant question and/or comment during some activities.

5-Very often:
Different children volunteered relevant questions and/or comments across many
activities.

33. Children maintained attention during large-group activities:

This item is a rating of the extent to which children maintained attention during large-
group instruction. Maintaining attention can be observed for this item in behavioral
indicators such as looking at the teacher or speaker, looking at instructional materials,
sitting still, and being quiet. This is different from participation in item 19 in that this
item is specific to large-group instruction for which it is commonly necessary for children
to sit still and ignore distractions for a prolonged period of time. However, as in item 19,
raters should differentiate attention in this item from engagement in item 34.

1-Poor or absent:
Several children were not able to maintain any attention. Children had to be monitored
and prompted throughout activities.

3-Adequate:
Children were attentive at first, but their ability to attend waned as activities progressed.

5-Exemplary:
Most children appeared to pay prolonged attention throughout large-group activities.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 26 of 27 

34. Overall, children’s engagement in academic activities can be characterized as:

This item is a rating of children’s apparent levels of interest, focus, and involvement in
academic activities. Behavior al indicators of engagement can include enthusiasm, lack of
distractibility, and on-task behavior.

1-Poor or absent:
Several children were “spaced out” or disruptive during most activities.

3-Adequate:
Children seemed reasonably interested in classroom activities, but sometimes, children
were not particularly focused.

5-Exemplary:
Most children were focused on classroom activities and able to ignore other things going
on in the classroom.

35. Children carried out instructions without reminders:

This item is a rating of the frequency with which children were able to carry out and
follow-through with teacher instructions independently, without reminders. Reminders
may have been necessary because children were not able to remember instructions,
required external regulation, or ignored instructions.

1-Never:
Children had difficulty carrying out instructions. The teacher had to repeat instructions
several times for most activities.

3-A few times:

Children independently carried out instructions a few times. Some reminders were
necessary.

5-Very often:
Children generally carried out instructions without reminders from the teacher.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure
Post Observation Rating Scale Manual
for the Tools of the Mind Curriculum
Yun, C., et al.
Peabody Research Institute
Page 27 of 27 

36. How many children were careful when doing activities?

This item is a rating of the number of children who seemed to perform tasks with
deliberateness and care. Raters should consider how children performed activities as well
as how children handled classroom materials.

1-None:
No children were careful when handling materials. Children seemed to do things
haphazardly.

3-Some:
Some children seemed careful at times, but some seemed to put little thought into some
activities.

5-Most:
Most children seemed careful, intentional, and organized when doing activities or
handling materials across most activities.

Permission from author must be

requested to use measure