| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ELM-210 | ELM-210-O502 | Aligned Assessments | 60.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (65.00%) | Approaching (75.00%) | Acceptable (85.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Purpose and Characteristics of Each Assessment Type | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Purpose and characteristics of each assessment type insufficiently describe and demonstrate minimal understanding of assessment types. | Purpose and characteristics of each assessment type sufficiently describe and demonstrate basic understanding of assessment types. | Purpose and characteristics of each assessment type suitably describe and demonstrate considerable understanding of assessment types. | Purpose and characteristics of each assessment type proficiently describe and demonstrate thorough understanding of assessment types. |
| Examples of Each Assessment Type | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The examples of each assessment type is inappropriate for students and/or does not represent the assessment type accurately. | The examples of each assessment type meets basic student needs and broadly represents the assessment type. | The examples of each assessment type is appropriate for students and clearly represents assessment type. | The examples of each assessment type demonstrates best practices for students insightfully represents the assessment type. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages of Technology | 15.0% | Not addressed. | The description of technology's use with each assessment type is vague. | The description of technology's use with each assessment type is in context. | The description of technology's use with each assessment type is logical. | The description of technology's use with each assessment type is comprehensive. |
| Aligning Assessments to Objectives | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The description of how teachers align assessments to objectives is unfocused and demonstrates minimal understanding of the alignment process. | The description of how teachers align assessments to objectives is adequate and demonstrates cursory understanding of the alignment process. | The description of how teachers align assessments to objectives is clear and demonstrates considerable understanding of the alignment process. | The description of how teachers align assessments to objectives is comprehensive and demonstrates proficient understanding of the alignment process. |
| How Assessment Data is Used | 15.0% | Not addressed. | The explanation of how the assessment data is used is vague. | The explanation of how the assessment data is used is rudimentary. | The explanation of how the assessment data is used is logical. | The explanation of how the assessment data is used is innovative. |
| Formative and Summative Assessments Aligned to Topic 2 Standard and Objective | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Assessments described are unclear or not aligned to the standard or learning objective. | Assessments described are sufficient and somewhat aligned to the standard and learning objective. | Assessments described are appropriate and directly aligned to the standard and learning objective. | Assessments described are thorough and expertly aligned to the standard and learning objective. |
| Presentation | 5.0% | Not addressed. | The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be presentable for public dissemination. | The overall appearance and organization of material is generally acceptable. Work would be adequate for public dissemination. | The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor organizational flaws. Work would be desirable for public dissemination. | The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat and professional. Work would be highly desirable for public dissemination. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Includes some practice and content-related language. | Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few minor errors are present. Includes appropriate practice and content-related language. | Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/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 present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are documented completely and correctly, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
mdavis_1
Rubric_Print_Format24.xlsx
