evaluating lesson
Evaluating Lesson Plans
|
|
1 1: No submission 0.00% |
2 2: Insufficient 65.00% |
3 3: Approaching 75.00% |
4 4: Acceptable 85.00% |
5 5: Target 100.00% |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
10.0 %Thoroughness |
Not addressed. |
The statement regarding the thoroughness of the lesson plan components is not presented well. |
The statement regarding the thoroughness of the lesson plan components could be more fully developed. |
A statement regarding the thoroughness of the lesson plan components is included. |
A complete description regarding the thoroughness of the lesson plan components is included. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
20.0 %Alignment |
Not addressed. |
The statement regarding the alignment between the standard, learning objectives, learning and teaching activities, and assessments is not presented well. |
The statement regarding the alignment between the standard, learning objectives, learning and teaching activities, and assessments could be more fully developed. |
A statement regarding the alignment between the standard, learning objectives, learning and teaching activities, and assessments is included. |
A well-informed statement regarding the alignment between the standard, learning objectives, learning and teaching activities, and assessments is accurately provided. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
15.0 %Real-World Relevance |
Not addressed. |
The statement regarding the real-world relevance of the learning and teaching activities is not presented well. |
The statement regarding the real-world relevance of the learning and teaching activities could be more fully developed. |
A statement regarding the real-world relevance of the learning and teaching activities is included. |
A well-crafted statement regarding the real-world relevance of the learning and teaching activities is included. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
15.0 %Evidence or Artifacts of Learning |
Not addressed. |
The statement regarding how the teacher would know that the students have mastered the learning objectives is not presented well. |
The statement regarding how the teacher would know that the students have mastered the learning objectives requires further development. |
A statement regarding how the teacher would know that the students have mastered the learning objectives is included. |
A thorough statement regarding how the teacher would know that the students have mastered the learning objectives is included. Examples are provided. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
10.0 %Engagement Level |
Not addressed. |
The statement regarding the expected engagement level is not presented well. |
The statement regarding the expected engagement level requires further development. |
A statement regarding the expected engagement level is included. |
An insightful statement regarding the expected engagement level is included. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
10.0 %URL Provided |
Not addressed. |
The URL or example provided does not match the evaluation. |
The URL or example is not prominently included within the submission. |
Includes the URL or example of the lesson plan that is evaluated. |
Clearly includes the URL or example of the lesson plan that is evaluated. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
10.0 %Organization |
Not addressed. |
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other. |
The content could be organized better even though it provides the audience with a sense of the main idea. |
The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. |
The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. |
|
|
100.0 %Criteria |
|
|||||
|
10.0 %Mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) |
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 are present but are not overly distracting to the reader; or inconsistent language or word choice is present; or sentence structure could be more 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. |
|
|
100 %Total Weightage |
|
|