| Course Code | Class Code |
| ELM-560 | ELM-560-O501 | Benchmark - Mathematics and Literacy Integrated Unit | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Math Unit Plan | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Unit Plan is includes poor and unrelated information for the lesson title, math standards, learning objectives, instructional strategies, summary of instruction, differentiation, materials, resources, and technology, and formative and summative assessments. | Unit Plan is complete and includes minimal information for the lesson title, math standards, learning objectives, instructional strategies, summary of instruction, differentiation, materials, resources, and technology, and formative and summative assessments. | Unit Plan is complete and appropriately includes lesson title, math standards, learning objectives, instructional strategies, summary of instruction, differentiation, materials, resources, and technology, and formative and summative assessments. | Unit Plan is thoroughly complete and proficiently includes lesson title, math standards, learning objectives, instructional strategies, summary of instruction, differentiation, materials, resources, and technology, and formative and summative assessments. |
| Math Content COE 2.3 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Unit plan does not address one or more major mathematical concept and related procedures that are appropriate for the profile of students. Learning objectives are not standards-based and instructional activities are confusing, unrelated to the objectives or inappropriate for the profile of students. | Unit plan is not clearly designed to teach one or more major mathematical concept and related procedures, appropriate for the profile of students. Learning objectives may be standards-based, but instructional activities are not developed enough to meet those objectives. | Unit plan is appropriate for teaching one or more major mathematical concept and related procedures for the profile of students. They are generally aligned to standards-based learning objectives and include appropriate instructional activities that support critical thinking and problem solving. | Unit plan is well crafted to teach one or more major mathematical concept and related procedures for the profile of students. They are strongly aligned to standards-based learning objectives and include varied representations of mathematical ideas and engaging instructional activities that stimulate critical thinking and problem solving. |
| Teaching Strategies COE 3.3 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Unit plan is missing key details of teaching strategies, media, resources, and technology that poorly and inadequately encourage development in critical thinking and problem solving, with minimal focus on literacy. | Unit plan includes teaching strategies, media, resources, and technology that are overly simplistic and marginally encourage development in critical thinking and problem solving, with minimal focus on literacy. | Unit plan clearly and accurately incorporates teaching strategies, media, resources, and technology that correctly encourage development in critical thinking and problem solving, with a clear focus on literacy. | Unit plan creatively and meaningfully incorporates teaching strategies, media, resources, and technology that thoughtfully encourage development n critical thinking and problem solving, with a clear focus on literacy. |
| Effective Communication COE 3.5 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Lesson plans do not use effective verbal, nonverbal, and electronic media communication tools and techniques in a way that would create opportunities for learning and collaboration. | Lesson plans minimally address student or class needs, and/or include thinly designed use of verbal, nonverbal, and electronic media communication tools and techniques to create opportunities for learning and collaboration. | Lesson plans include competent, appropriate use of student-centered verbal, nonverbal, and electronic media communication tools and techniques to create opportunities for learning and collaboration. | Lesson plans demonstrate well-developed and skillful use of effective, student-centered verbal, nonverbal, and electronic media communication tools and techniques to create opportunities for active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction. |
| Meeting the Varied Learning Needs of Students | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Lesson plans instruction and instructional supports ignore students' learning needs as identified in the Class Profile. | Lesson plans do not fully differentiate instructional activities and supports. They inadequately address the needs of the students represented in the Class Profile. | Lesson plans include basic differentiated instructional activities and supports that are designed to generally meet the needs of students represented in the Class Profile. | Lesson plans have creative, well-developed differentiated instructional activities and supports clearly designed to meet the needs of specific individuals or groups with similar needs, consistent with the Class Profile. |
| Rationale | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Rationale is incoherent and inconsistent in describing purposes behind instructional strategies and how formative assessments promote development. Rationale poorly explains the value of using knowledge from professionals. | Rationale vaguely describes purposes behind instructional strategies, with an overly simplistic description of how formative assessments promote development. Rationale superficially explains the value of using knowledge from professionals. | Rationale describes logical explanation for choices of instructional strategies, with a detailed description of how formative assessments promote development. Rationale includes a clear explanation as to the value of using knowledge from professionals. | Rationale clearly describes carefully planned, plausible reasoning for choices of instructional strategies, with an in-depth description of how formative assessments promote development. Rationale includes a thorough explanation as to the value of using knowledge from professionals. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 15.0% | 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 several minor formatting errors are 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. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Varieties 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Royce0615
Rubric_Print_Format2.xlsx
