| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ECS-590 | ECS-590-O500 | Benchmark - Small Group Assessment Plan | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: No Submission (0.00%) | 2: Insufficient (69.00%) | 3: Approaching (74.00%) | 4: Acceptable (87.00%) | 5: Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| CRITERIA | 100.0% |
| PART 1: Technology-based Assessment to Collect Data CEC 5.2; NAEYC 3b; InTASC 6(i); COE 4.2 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Assessment selected is not technology-based, is inappropriate for the students being assessed, and/or is not aligned to the area being assessed so the resulting data would not inform future instructional decision-making. | Assessment selected is technology-based, but is not well-designed for the students being assessed, and/or is not adequately aligned to the area being assessed so that the resulting data may inform future instructional decision-making. | Assessment selected is technology-based, appropriate for the students being assessed, and is generally aligned to the area being assessed so that the resulting data could inform future instructional decision-making. | Assessment selected is technology-based, well-suited for the students being assessed, and is well-aligned to the area being assessed so that the resulting data could inform future instructional decision-making. |
| PART 1: Differentiated Assessment CEC 4.1; NAEYC 3c; InTASC 6(a), 6(b), 6(e), 6(h); ISTE 2d; COE 4.3 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Justification for differentiating or not differentiating the assessment for individual students is insufficient, and does not demonstrate responsible assessment practices. | Justification for differentiating or not differentiating the assessment for individual students is overly simplistic, and does not clearly demonstrate responsible assessment practices. | Justification for differentiating or not differentiating the assessment for individual students is proficient and appropriate, and demonstrates responsible assessment practices. | Justification for differentiating or not differentiating the assessment for individual students is thoughtful and convincing, and clearly demonstrates responsible assessment practices. |
| PART 2: Lesson Plan CEC 4.2; NAEYC 3a; InTASC 6(c), 6(g); ISTE 2d; COE 4.1 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Revised lesson plan is not complete and/or does not meet the needs of the designated students based on the pre-assessment data. Target outcomes, activities, and post-assessment implementation do not align to each other, and are inappropriate for teaching and assessing the academic area. | Revised lesson plan is complete, but is overly simplistic in meeting the needs of the designated students based on the pre-assessment data. Target outcomes, activities, and post-assessment implementation do not clearly align to each other, and/or are not well-suited for teaching and assessing the academic area. | Revised lesson plan is complete, broadly and generally designed to meet the needs of the designated students based on the pre-assessment data. Target outcomes, activities, and post-assessment implementation are aligned to each other and appropriate for teaching and assessing the academic area. | Revised lesson plan is complete, creative, and skillfully designed to meet the needs of the designated students based on the pre-assessment data. Target outcomes, activities, and post-assessment implementation are well-aligned to each other, and well-suited for teaching and assessing the academic area. |
| PART 3: Description of Pre- and Post-Assessment Data to Build Partnership with Family CEC 4.3; NAEYC 3d; InTASC 6(i); COE 4.4 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Letter inaccurately or insufficiently describes the pre- and post-assessment data. It does not connect to families or invite a partnership for promoting positive student outcomes and building effective learning environments. | Letter relays minimal information to the family without fully describing the pre-and post-assessment data in an understandable way. The personal connection to families, inviting them to collaborate and promote positive student outcomes and learning environments, is minimal. | Letter relays relevant information to the family. It describes the pre- and post-assessment data clearly and appropriately. It appropriately fosters a partnership for promoting positive student outcomes and building effective learning environments. | Letter is respectful and supportive of the family. It describes the pre- and post-assessment data plainly and understandably. It is empathetic and fosters a partnership for promoting positive student outcomes and building effective learning environments. |
| PART 3: Description of Post-assessment At-home Activity CEC 4.4; InTASC 6(d), 6(f); COE 4.5 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | At-home activity does not suit the child's needs and/or is not based on the assessment data. | At-home activity does not clearly suit the child's needs, based on the assessment data. Activity is vaguely described. | At-home activity is appropriately suited for the child's needs, based on the assessment data. Activity is broadly described. | At-home activity is engaging, high quality, and well-suited for the child's needs, based on the assessment data. Activity description is through and understandably described for the parent/student audience. |
| PART 3: Description and Rationale of At-home Activity Supporting Grade Transition CEC 5.5; NAEYC 2c, 6b, InTASC 7(b), 7(e), 10(d), 10(m); ISTE 5c; MC 1 | 10.0% | Not addressed. | At-home activity does not suit the child's needs or grade level transition and/or is not based on the assessment data. | Activity rationale detailing appropriateness for meeting child needs and supporting grade level transition is not logical, only loosely incorporates assessment data, and/or is not adequately supported by relevant research. | Activity rationale detailing appropriateness for meeting child needs and supporting grade level transition is logical, incorporates assessment data, and is supported by relevant research. | Activity rationale detailing appropriateness for meeting child needs and supporting grade level transition is clear and logical, incorporates assessment data, and is supported by quality research. |
| Research Citations and Format | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Many citations are missing where needed; or many of the sources are inappropriate for the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but many aspects are missing or mistaken. | Some citations may be missing where needed; or some of the sources do not support the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but some aspects are missing or mistaken. | All sources are credible, adequate, and support the submission. All required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission. | All sources are credible, appropriate, and strongly support the submission. All required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission. |
| 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 and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. | 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
rnixon@12345
Rubric_Print_Format3400.xlsx
