| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ECS-585 | ECS-585-O500 | STEM/STEAM Instructional Tools Chart Plan | 50.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Instructional Tools | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Instructional tools listed are not all developmentally appropriate and/or descriptions insufficiently explain how each tool could be used to support STEM/STEM education. | Instructional tools listed are generally developmentally appropriate for the students. Description briefly explains how each tool could be used to support STEM/STEAM education. | Instructional tools listed are developmentally appropriate for the students. Description explains how each tool could be used to support STEM/STEAM education. | Instructional tools listed are innovative and well-suited for the age and level of students. Description skillfully demonstrates how each tool could be used to enhance STEM/STEAM education. |
| Link and Citation | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Links of where the tools are found are mostly inaccurate and/or citations include incorrect format or several major errors. | Links of where the tools are found are mostly accurate. Citations include correct format but include several minor errors. | Links of where the tools are found are clear error free. Citations include correct format with only minor errors. | Links and citations of where the tools are found is clear and error free. |
| Differentiation | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Support for a student with exceptionalities is inappropriate for the age or exceptionality described. | The instructional tools lack detail in explaining how they would support a student with exceptionalities. | The instructional tools include clear, appropriate support for a student with exceptionalities to promote positive outcomes in the classroom. | The instructional tools include skillfully and creatively designed support for a student with exceptionalities to promote positive outcomes in the classroom. |
| Reflection | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Reflection insufficiently highlights how integration of all content areas creates a stronger foundation for learning. Explanation of personal stance on STEM in K-3 education is incomplete or unclear. | Reflection minimally highlights how integration of all content areas create a stronger foundation for learning. A broad explanation regarding personal stance on STEM/STEAM in K-3 education is given. | Reflection clearly highlights how integration of all content areas create a stronger foundation for learning. Soundly explains personal stance on STEM/STEAM in K-3 education. | Reflection skillfully and concisely highlights how integration of all content areas create a stronger foundation for learning. Convincingly and professionally explains personal stance on STEM/STEAM in K-3 education. |
| Reflection of Lesson Plans | 15.0% | Not addressed. | An explanation of how candidate would incorporate technology and literacy into previously created lesson plans is incomplete or illogical. | An explanation of how candidate would incorporate technology and literacy into previously created lesson plans is underdeveloped. | An explanation of how candidate would incorporate technology and literacy into previously created lesson plans is clear and appropriate. | An explanation of how candidate would incorporate technology and literacy into previously created lesson plans is creative and realistic. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors are be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
rnixon@12345
Rubric_Print_Format11.xlsx
