| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ECS-580 | ECS-580-O500 | Benchmark - ELA, Social Studies, and Arts Differentiated Instructional Planning | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 100.0% |
| Part 1: Revised and New Lesson Plans Integration of Literacy, Social Studies, and Arts [COE 2.3; CEC 3.1; InTASC 4(c), 4(f)] | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Revised lesson plans do not integrate literacy, social studies, and arts effectively. Some components of the lesson plan templates are missing, incomplete, or unclear. Content sections do not represent well planned instruction of concepts, knowledge, and skills within the disciplines. Learning progressions are not developed in consideration of student factors and needs. Differentiation strategies are incorrect or inadequate in meeting the students learning needs. | Lesson plans are revised to integrate literacy, social studies, and arts adequately. Many components of the lesson plan templates are complete. Content sections represent appropriately planned instruction of concepts, knowledge, and skills within the disciplines. Learning progressions are broadly developed in consideration of student factors and needs. Differentiation strategies are inexplicit and the lack of detail indicates students learning needs will not be met. | Lesson plans are revised to integrate literacy, social studies, and arts clearly and accurately. Most components of the lesson plan templates are complete, descriptive, and competent. Content sections represent valid planned instruction of concepts, knowledge, and skills within the disciplines. Meaningful learning progressions are developed in consideration of student factors and needs. Differentiation strategies are adequate in meeting the needs of students in the field experience classroom. | Lesson plans are revised to integrate literacy, social studies, and arts effectively and seamlessly. All components of the lesson plan templates are complete, clear, and thorough. All content sections represent in-depth planned instruction of concepts, knowledge, and skills within the disciplines. Meaningful learning progressions are expertly developed in consideration of student factors and needs. Differentiation strategies are well-researched and thoughtful to the students in the field experience classroom. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Integrated Standards [COE 2.2; NAEYC 5c; InTASC 4(a)] | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Summary insufficiently details how the content standards selected are appropriate for the unit. Rationale for the alignment of the standards to the lessons learning and assessment activities is unclear or irrelevant. | Summary vaguely details how the content standards selected are appropriate for the unit. Provides an overly simplistic rationale for the alignment of the standards to the lessons learning and assessment activities. | Summary reasonably details how the content standards selected are appropriate for the unit and the students. Provides a clear rationale for the alignment of the standards to the lessons learning and assessment activities. | Summary convincingly details how the content standards selected are appropriate for the unit and the students. Provides a solid rationale for the alignment of the standards to the lessons learning and assessment activities. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Strategies for Language Development and Communication Skills [COE 2.5; CEC 5.4; InTASC 2(e)] | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Summary ineffectively explains how the strategies within the lesson plans are designed to enhance students language development and communication skills. | Summary vaguely explains how the strategies within the lesson plans are designed to enhance students language development and communication skills. | Summary reasonably explains how the strategies within the lesson plans are designed to enhance students language development and communication skills. | Summary convincingly explains how the strategies within the lesson plans are designed to enhance students language development and communication skills. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Learning Resources and Technology [COE 2.1; CEC 3.2; NAEYC 5a, 5b; InTASC 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(e); ISTE 1b, 1c] | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Explanation of learning and technological resources needed to effectively execute the lesson plans does not relate to student needs or is unclear. Rationale for the role of identified resources in creating engaging opportunities for students is incomplete or underdeveloped. | Summary includes an overly simplistic explanation of learning and technological resources needed to effectively execute the lesson plans. Rationale for the role of identified resources in creating engaging opportunities for students is minimally developed. | Summary includes a clear and descriptive explanation of learning and technological resources needed to effectively execute the lesson plans. Rationale for the role of identified resources in creating engaging opportunities for students is detailed and accurately developed. | Summary includes a convincing and thorough explanation of learning and technological resources needed to effectively execute the lesson plans. Rationale for the role of identified resources in creating engaging opportunities for students is insightful and clearly relates to the students needs. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Differentiation and Accessibility [COE 2.4; CEC 3.3; InTASC 2(b), 2(h), 4(g)] | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Summary ineffectively explains differentiation to make the lesson plans accessible and appropriate for all students, including individuals with exceptionalities, or modifications described are inappropriate. | Summary either minimally explains appropriate differentiation to make the lesson plans accessible and appropriate for all students, including individuals with exceptionalities, and/or changes presented are inadequate for the students needs. | Summary clearly explains appropriate differentiation to make the lesson plans accessible and appropriate for all students, including individuals with exceptionalities. Changes made are supported with a reasonable rationale. | Summary convincingly explains the appropriateness of the differentiations to make the lesson plans accessible and appropriate for all students, including individuals with exceptionalities. Changes made are supported with an insightful and accurate rationale. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Consideration [COE 5.4 Interpret implications of applying a Christian worldview as an educator in a school setting.] | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Individual student backgrounds are insufficiently considered when making instructional decisions. Instructional choices ineffectively prevent social and cultural bias from affecting student learning. | Individual student backgrounds are minimally considered when making instructional decisions. Instructional choices are overly simplistic and weakly prevent social and cultural bias from affecting student learning. | Individual student backgrounds are considered when making instructional decisions. Instructional choices appropriately prevent social and cultural bias from affecting student learning. | Individual student backgrounds are thoughtfully considered when making instructional decisions. Instructional choices demonstrate high-order thinking in realistically preventing social and cultural bias from affecting student learning. |
| Part 2: Reflective Summary Research | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Rationale is supported by questionable research, or research presented is lacking credibility and/or relevance. | Rationale is minimally supported by recent research-based sources. | Individual student backgrounds are considered when making instructional decisions. Instructional choices appropriately prevent social and cultural bias from affecting student learning. | Rationale is strongly supported by 3-5 insightful, high-quality research-based sources. |
| Organization | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Several paragraphs and transitions lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Organization is unclear. | Paragraphs are not always fully developed. Ideas show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. | There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. |
| Mechanics of Writing and Format (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use and appropriate format) | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure may be incorrect. Practice-related vocabulary may be incorrect or not used. APA formatting is not followed or is incorrect or missing several elements. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, distracting to the reader. Sentence structure is correct, but overly simplistic with minimal use of accurate practice-related vocabulary. APA is used. Formatting is evident, although some errors are present. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer employs a variety of effective sentence structures and accurately uses practice-related vocabulary. APA is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Practice-related vocabulary is well-developed and used throughout. All format elements are correct. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
rnixon@12345
Rubric_Print_Format158.xlsx
