Assignment 2

State and District Academic Standards Professional Development - Rubric

Learning Objectives 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Learning Objectives

5. Target 2.5 points

Learning objectives to be mastered by teachers during the PD are expertly crafted.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

Learning objectives to be mastered by teachers during the PD are appropriate.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Learning objectives to be mastered by teachers during the PD are adequate.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Learning objectives to be mastered by teachers during the PD are unclear and/or

incomplete.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Agenda and Time Allocations 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Agenda and Time Allocations

5. Target 2.5 points

Agenda, including time allocations for each item, is realistic.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

Agenda, including time allocations for each item, is reasonable.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Agenda, including time allocations for each item, is partially complete.

Collapse All

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Agenda, including time allocations for each item, is incomplete.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Activities 5 points

Criteria Description

Activities

5. Target 5 points

Activities aligned to the school vision and mission are included and descriptive

details allow for clear visualization of all activities.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

Activities aligned to the school vision and mission are complete and include

descriptive details that allow for visualization of most activities.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Activities aligned to the school vision and mission are included, but some include

only limited details that make visualizing some activities difficult.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

Activities aligned to the school vision and mission are not descriptive enough for

each activity to be visualized.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Techniques 7.5 points

Criteria Description

Techniques

5. Target 7.5 points

Techniques for incorporating state and district standards into content-based

learning materials and strategies, while still maintaining quality, engaging

instruction are exceptional.

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

Techniques for incorporating state and district standards into content-based

learning materials and strategies, while still maintaining quality, engaging

instruction are clear and complete.

3. Approaching 5.55 points

Techniques for incorporating state and district standards into content-based

learning materials and strategies, while still maintaining quality, engaging

instruction are included, but somewhat ambiguous.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

Techniques for incorporating state and district standards into content-based

learning materials and strategies, while still maintaining quality, engaging

instruction are inadequate.

Accountability Plan 7.5 points

Criteria Description

Accountability Plan

5. Target 7.5 points

Accountability plan to ensure participants make data-driven, student-centered

instructional decisions for classroom implementation is exemplary.

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

Accountability plan to ensure participants make data-driven, student-centered

instructional decisions for classroom implementation is reasonable and effective.

3. Approaching 5.55 points

Accountability plan to ensure participants make data-driven, student-centered

instructional decisions for classroom implementation is overly simplistic.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

Accountability plan to ensure participants make data-driven, student-centered

instructional decisions for classroom implementation is unclear and confusing.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction 5 points

Criteria Description

Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction

5. Target 5 points

Incorporation of Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction in presentation and presenter’s

notes are extensive.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

Incorporation of Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction in presentation and presenter’s

notes are complete.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Incorporation of Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction in presentation and presenter’s

notes are cursory.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

Incorporation of Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction in presentation and presenter’s

notes are minimal.

Evaluation Feedback 5 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation Feedback

5. Target 5 points

Evaluation skillfully allows participants the opportunity to provide feedback on the

effectiveness of the session, and briefly describe how they will use the information

they learned.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

Evaluation clearly allows participants the opportunity to provide feedback on the

effectiveness of the session, and briefly describe how they will use the information

they learned.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Evaluation marginally allows participants the opportunity to provide feedback on

the effectiveness of the session, and briefly describe how they will use the

information they learned.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

Evaluation does not allow participants the opportunity to provide feedback on the

effectiveness of the session, nor briefly describe how they will use the information

they learned.

Evaluation Administration 5 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation Administration

5. Target 5 points

Evaluation substantially includes 5-6 questions with at least one open-ended item.

Description of how evaluation will be administered to participants is excellent.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

Evaluation effectively includes 5-6 questions with at least one open-ended item.

Description of how evaluation will be administered to participants is logical.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Evaluation include less than 5-6 questions with at least one open-ended item.

Description of how evaluation will be administered to participants is vague.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

Evaluation does not include 5-6 questions with at least one open-ended item.

Description of how evaluation will be administered to participants is poor.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal

5. Target 2.5 points

The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat and professional. Work

would be highly desirable for public dissemination. Appropriate and thematic

graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the

understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and color are expertly

used.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor organizational flaws.

Work would be desirable for public dissemination. Thematic graphic elements are

used, but not always in context. Visual connections mostly contribute to the

understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and color are well used

and consistent.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

The overall appearance and organization of material is generally acceptable. Work

would be adequate for public dissemination. Minimal use of graphic elements is

evident. Elements do not consistently contribute to the understanding of concepts.

There is some variation in layout, type size, and color.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be presentable for public

dissemination. There are few or no graphic elements or variation in layout, type

size and color

Organization 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 2.5 points

The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas

that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides

the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the

required word count.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The

content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is

within a reasonable range of the required word count.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with

a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the

required word count.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The

ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the

summary is widely outside of the required word count.

Mechanics of Writing 2.5 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use

5. Target 2.5 points

Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-

developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are

varied and engaging.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent

language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

1. No Submission 0 points

Documentation of Sources 2.5 points

Criteria Description

citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and

style

5. Target 2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style. Format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some

key formatting and citation errors are present.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. No Submission 0 points Total 50 points