 |
|
 |
|
 |
Integration of Technology |
Excellent |
Fair |
Poor |
- Proposed technology use is engaging, age appropriate, beneficial to student learning, and supportive of higher-level thinking skills.
- Technology is integral to the success of the Unit Plan.
- A clear relationship between the use of technology and student learning is exhibited by the student samples.
- Use of technology enhances the Unit Plan by using the computer as a research tool, a publishing tool, and a communication device.
|
- Proposed technology use is engaging and age appropriate, but is unclear as to how it enhances student learning.
- Technology is important, but not integral, to the Unit Plan.
- A limited relationship between the use of technology and student learning is exhibited by the student samples.
- Use of technology is limited to using the computer as a research tool, a publishing tool, or a communication device.
|
- Proposed technology is not age appropriate, not engaging, and does not enhance student learning.
- Importance of technology to the Unit Plan is unclear.
- No relationship between the use of technology and student learning is exhibited by the student samples.
- The Unit Plan does not take advantage of research, publishing, and communication capabilities.
|
Student Learning |
Excellent |
Fair |
Poor |
- Unit Plan requires students to interpret, evaluate, theorize, and/or synthesize information.
- Targeted learning objectives are clearly defined, well articulated, and supported by the Essential and Unit Questions.
- Student samples address the Unit Questions in a meaningful way.
- All learning objectives clearly align with state frameworks, content standards, and benchmarks of the subject area(s).
- Unit Plan has well-defined accommodations to support a diversity of learners.
|
- Unit Plan requires students to analyze and apply information, solve problems, and/or make conclusions.
- Targeted learning objectives are defined and moderately supported by the Essential and Unit Questions.
- Student samples moderately address the Unit Questions in a meaningful way.
- Some learning objectives align with state frameworks, content standards, and benchmarks of the subject area(s).
- Unit Plan offers minimal accommodations to support a diversity of learners.
|
- Unit Plan requires students to define, identify, describe, and/or summarize. Very little higher-level thinking is required.
- Targeted learning objectives are vague and not clearly supported by the Essential and Unit Questions.
- Student samples do not address the Unit Questions in a meaningful way.
- Relationship between learning objectives and state frameworks, content standards, and benchmarks is unclear.
- Unit Plan does not accommodate a diversity of learners.
|
Implementation |
Excellent |
Fair |
Poor |
- Unit Plan provides a well-developed model and guideline for implementation.
- Unit Plan can be easily modified and implemented in a variety of classrooms.
|
- Unit Plan provides a model for project replication, but the model needs more complete guidelines.
- Unit Plan might be applicable to other classrooms.
|
- Unit Plan model and guidelines for replication lack clarity.
- Unit Plan is limited to the teacher's own classroom.
|
Student Assessment and Evaluation |
Excellent |
Fair |
Poor |
- Instrument(s) for authentic assessment and evaluation are included.
- A clear relationship is evident between learning objectives and assessment of student learning.
- Assessment tools contain topic-specific criteria in order to serve as a helpful scaffold for students.
|
- Instrument(s) for assessment of most targeted objectives are included.
- Some relationship is evident between learning objectives and assessment of student learning.
- Assessment tools contain some topic-specific criteria but may be unclear to students.
|
- Instrument(s) for assessment of targeted objectives are not included or the assessment does not match the targeted objectives.
- Relationship between objectives and assessment tool is unclear.
- Assessment tools contain only general criteria.
|
|
 |
 |
|