TWT Course
Assessment Rubric (Spring 2005)

 

 

F *

Score = 0

C

Score = 1

 

B

Score = 2

 

A

Score = 3

 

1.  Needs Assessment

A “real” need is not evident. The need is not based on student assessment evidence and/or connected to content standards. It is more of a unit description than a needs assessment.

A real need is identified but the information provided is vague. And/Or evidence of the match between the need and the goal is not strong. The need is based primarily on antidotal comments or general statements.

A real need is identified.  The need is based on two or more pieces of student assessment evidence and is written with sufficient detail. Quantitative (numeric) assessment information is provided where appropriate.  Research based information documenting the need may also be provided.

A clear and imminent need is identified.  The need is based on two or more pieces of student assessment evidence.  The need and assessment evidence is connected to content standards.  Both qualitative and quantitative information provide evidence of need.  Research based information documenting the need may also be provided.

 

2. Enduring Understanding and Essential Questions

Enduring understanding statement(s) and essential questions are not included or are not written correctly.

Enduring understanding statement(s) and essential questions do not match the guidelines in the curriculum (are too narrow, not “kid friendly,” etc.) and/or lack student appeal.

Enduring understanding statement(s) and essential questions are well written, “kid friendly,” and will guide, intrigue and keep the students focused on the unit goal.

 

Same as the “B” level with an even clearer sense that students will see a vital connection to their learning beyond the classroom.

3. Instructional Goal(s)

The goal(s) is not well formed. And/Or there is not a good match between the need and the goal.

The instructional goal(s) is not well-formed and/or is written more like a measurable objective or a brief description. And/Or the evidence of the match between the need and the goal is not strong.

 

The goal(s) is generally aligned with the need and well-formed with only minor improvement possibilities.

The goal(s) is aligned with the need and exceptionally well-formed.

4. Learning Objectives

Learning  objectives are written incorrectly and/or do not match the instructional goal(s).

Learning objectives are appropriately aligned but many are not well-written in terms of verb choice and/or the criteria of audience, behavior, condition, and degree.

 

Learning objectives are appropriately aligned with very minor improvements needed. May be missing one or two criteria (audience, behavior, condition, degree).

Learning objectives are appropriately aligned and are exceptionally well-written to include all necessary criteria (audience, behavior, condition, degree).

 

5. Student Assessments

It is unclear how one would determine if the learner achieved the learning objectives.

 

 

 

 

The assessment methods are identified but vague or limited.

Multiple methods of assessment are identified and include some authentic characteristics.

 

Multiple and authentic assessment methods are identified. There is a learner role in the assessment process.

 

6. Teaching and Learning Strategies

The overall strategies are not identified or do not match the analysis.

The overall strategies are identified and appropriate but are not explained in sufficient detail.

The strategies are identified and appropriate.  Details on cooperative learning, inquiry-based, problem-based, and/or project-based learning illustrate how these strategies elevate student learning.

Same as the “B” level with increased explanation and examples that illustrate a thorough understanding of the variety of engaged learning strategies.

 

 

7. Developing/

Selecting Instructional Materials/
Activities

The instructional materials/activities are not aligned with the instructional goals, objectives and analyses or the quantity is not acceptable.

The instructional materials/activities are aligned and minimally acceptable. 

The explanations are vague or hard to follow.  It would be difficult for another teacher to implement this based on the information provided.

 

 

The instructional materials/activities are aligned and the explanations are acceptable.  Specifics such as websites used or other examples are provided.  Minor improvements could be made by providing more examples, more details on context, grouping, assessment, tools, etc. 

 The instructional materials/activities are aligned and the explanations are exceptional.  A comprehensive explanation is provided – allowing for easy implementation by another teacher. Specific examples are plentiful within the explanation.

8. Implementation, Student Projects, and Review

The final unit was not implemented.

The unit was implemented and at least one student product is available.

The unit was implemented and multiple student products provide a good illustration of the process.

 

Same as “B” level with a “tips” reflection on what worked and what didn’t.

9. Technology  Use and Integration

There is little evidence of technology use or integration.

The technology use and integration is limited and exists at the entry level.

The technology use and integration is appropriate and exists at the adaptation level.

The technology use and integration is exceptional and exists at the transformation level.

10. Grammar & Spelling

Very frequent grammar and/or spelling errors.

Six or more errors.

Very few errors (5 or less).

All grammar and spelling are correct.

11. Timeliness

 TWT interim review was never requested or was requested after April 30, 2005 and/or final project submitted more than one week late (after June 10th).

 TWT interim review was requested late - between April 7th and April 30th, 2005 and/or final project submitted up to one week late (by June 10th).

 TWT interim review requested up to two days late (April 6th) and/or final project submitted up to two days late (on June 4th or 5th).

 TWT interim review was requested on or before the April 4, 2005 deadline and the final project was submitted on time (on or before June 3rd).

 

Total Score

  

*  If a rubric category from rows 1-9 is designated an “F” the entire project is deemed unacceptable.

Grading Guidelines: 

 A

30-33 points

Consistently Exceptional Performance – All work illustrates the highest quality and is beyond what is assigned in terms of amount and quality.

B

22-29 points

Fully Satisfactory Performance – All assigned work is completed and the quality exceeds the minimum expectations. 

C

11-21 points

Minimum Performance – The amount and/or quality of work is less than expected on one or more course deliverables.

F

<11 points

Unacceptable Performance