iRubric: Fall 2014 - W200 - Case Analysis rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Fall 2014 - W200 - Case Analysis W200 - Case Analysis Spring Semester 2014 Rubric Code: J59A2 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Education Type: Assignment Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Case Information Descriptions
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts	Incomplete 1 pts	Missing 0 pts
Description of Case	Excellent Case information is copied and pasted to the template. Key information is highlighted, and they align with the problems/needs identified in Step I.	Good Case information is copied and pasted to the template. Key information is highlighted.	Fair Case information is copied and pasted to the template. Some key information is not highlighted.	Poor Case information is missing some parts. OR Key information not highlighted.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Step 1. Analyze the Case
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts	Incomplete 1 pts	Missing 0 pts
Identifying Standards and Goals -Completeness -Quantity -SMART goals	Excellent Appropriate Indiana Academic or Common Core Standards are selected, and copied into the template, including any related performance indicators. Number of instructional goals are appropriate, and aligned to the selected standards are appropriate. Goals are described in a Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely way.	Good Selected Indiana Academic or Common Core Standards are appropriate to the case, and copied into the template. Number of instructional goals are appropriate, and aligned to the selected standards. Goals are described in a measurable and attainable way	Fair Selected Indiana Academic or Common Core Standards are copied into the template. Number of instructional goals are aligned to the selected standards, but are too few or too many.	Poor Standards are not appropriate to the case. Instructional goals do not align with standards.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Teaching Context -Completeness -Relevance	Excellent Relevant contextual factors are listed and described in detail. This includes: learner characteristics, teacher beliefs, availability of technology, and levels of prior knowledge. Instructional concerns related to the context are discussed at length.	Good Relevant contextual factors are listed and described in detail. However, some aspects could be improved. Instructional concerns related to the context are discussed.	Fair Relevant contextual factors are listed. Instructional concerns related to the context are minimally discussed or simply listed.	Poor Relevant contextual factors are listed, but some are missing. Instructional concerns are not discussed, or unrelated to contextual factors.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Summarizing Problems	Excellent All problems are summarized in a concise manner. Problem descriptions exhibit thorough and deep understanding of the case.	Good All problems are summarized in a concise manner Problem descriptions exhibit reasonable understanding of the case.	Fair Problems are summarized, but is either too concise, or too lengthy. Problem descriptions show an incomplete understanding of the case.	Poor Problems are missing from the summary. Problems are poorly described and not logical.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Searching Options
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts	Incomplete 1 pts	Missing 0 pts
Technology Options -Relevance -Proper Links	Excellent All technology options are strongly relevant to their corresponding goals/problems. All technology options have good links to the source.	Good Most technology options are strongly relevant to their corresponding goals/problems. All technology options have good links to the source.	Fair Major goals/problems are addressed in the technology options. Some links are broken.	Poor Goals/problems are addressed in the technology options, but some goals/problems are not addressed. Many options are not linked.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Number of Options -Quantity -Variety	Excellent Minimum 10 good options per member are listed. There should be no overlaps. More than 2 options per goal are listed. The number of options is balanced across the goals. * Group is responsible for all members’ equal participation.	Good Minimum 10 good options per member are listed. There should be no overlaps. More than 2 options per goal are listed.	Fair Minimum 9 good options per member are listed. There should be no overlaps. Some goals have only 1 option.	Poor Minimum 9 good options per member are listed. There should be no overlaps.	Incomplete Less than 7 options per member are listed. There should be no overlaps.	Missing No Submission
Description -Type, Feature/Function	Excellent The kind of the tool and its functions/features towards supporting the goals/problems are identified and well described for all technology options.	Good The kind of the tool and its functions/features towards supporting the goals/problems are identified and well described for about 80% of the technology options.	Fair The kind of the tool and its functions/features towards supporting the goals/problems are identified and well described for about 60% of the technology options.	Poor The kind of the tool and its functions/features towards supporting the goals/problems are identified and well described for about 40% of the technology options.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Solution selected
	Excellent 10 pts	Good 8 pts	Fair 6 pts	Poor 4 pts	Incomplete 2 pts	Missing 0 pts
Instrucitonal Alignment	Excellent Instructional goals and technology choices are well aligned. Justifications for technology decisions are convincingly aligned with instructional goals.	Good Instructional goals and technology options are aligned. Justifications for how the selected technology aligns with instructional goals are understandable.	Fair Instructional goals and technology options are aligned. Justifications for how the selected technology aligns with instructional goals lack clarity.	Poor Alignment between instructional goals and selected technology is unclear. Justifications for technology choices are not related to the instructional goals.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Justification	Excellent Justification was discussed based on the 3 e’s. Significant e’s were discussed with convincing rationales.	Good Justification was discussed based on the 3 e’s. Significant e’s were discussed with appropriate rationales.	Fair Justification was discussed based on the 3 e’s. E’s were discussed with rationales, but they do not provide in-depth understanding of the 3 E’s. (i.e., mostly re-using vocabulary used in the lecture)	Poor Justification was discussed based on the 3 e’s. E’s were discussed with inappropriate rationales.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Instructional Sequence
	Excellent 15 pts	Good 12 pts	Fair 9 pts	Poor 6 pts	Incomplete 3 pts	Missing 0 pts
Sequence of Steps	Excellent The instructional sequence constitute a well developed plan. Plan is described well enough that a substitute teacher would be able to easily follow the instructions.	Good The instructional sequence is workable. A substitute teacher would be able to follow the instructions.	Fair The instructional sequence may work, but is not sufficiently clear. A substitute teacher may have some difficulty following the instructions.	Poor The instructional sequence probably will not work. A substitute teacher would have difficulty following the instructions.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission
Revisiting Problems
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts	Incomplete 1 pts	Missing 0 pts
Summarizing the problem & solution	Excellent Problems are restated clearly, with good argumentation on how each of them have been addressed in the technology choices or sequence.	Good Problems are restated clearly, with explanations on how each of them have been addressed in the technology choices or sequence.	Fair Problems are restated, with some explanations on how each of them have been addressed in the technology choices or sequence.	Poor Problems are not fully restated, and there is little or no explanation on how each of them have been addressed in the technology choices or sequence.	Incomplete Incomplete	Missing No Submission

Subjects:

Education

Types:

Assignment

Discuss this rubric