Dimension |
0=Unacceptable |
Poor (40% to 65% of available points) |
Fair (65% to 85% of available points) |
Good |
Points |
Content |
No overview provided. | Non-concise, rambling overview; not a complete overview. | Concise and accurate overview; explains major topics that will be addressed; provides information about skills and dispositions, as well as course and students to be taught. | Concise and accurate overview; explains major topics that will be addressed, including skills and dispositions; mentions unifying concepts, issues, and technology; provides broad goal statements in relation to Learning Standards |
|
Rationale (5 points) |
No rationale provided. | Only weakly explains the relevance of the subject matter to the needs of the students. | Explains the relevance of the subject matter to the needs and interests of the students, and also relates it to the larger framework of human endeavor and understanding. | Explains the relevance of the subject matter to the needs and interests of the students, and also relates it to the larger framework of human endeavor and understanding; provides a rationale for process skills and dispositions chosen to teach or promote. | |
Alternative Conceptions (5 points) |
Little to no consideration for alternative conceptions; no references. | Lists only a very limited array of students' alternative conceptions known to exist within topic area. Limited references. | Lists a wide variety of preconceptions and misconceptions that students have in relation to subject matter of unit. Clearly referenced. | Lists a wide variety of preconceptions and misconceptions that students have in relation to subject matter of unit, plus links various alternative conceptions to specific classroom activities. Clearly referenced. | |
Objectives, Activities, and Assessments |
Little or no consideration of the social context. | Provides a list of community resources that could be integrated into instruction. | Explains hypothetically how one might use human and institutional resources in the intended community to advance the education of students in science. | Acceptable plus provides substantive detail about how one or more human resources from within the community can be employed to engage students in learning. | |
Metacognitive Practices (5 points) |
No consideration given for metacognitive practices at all; provides no examples. | Plan for metacognitive practices is limited only to specific situations; provides three or fewer examples. | Plan for metacognitive practices infuses student self-assessment and self-regulation throughout unit. Provides five examples. | Plan for metacognitive practices infuses student self-assessment and self-regulation throughout unit. Provides five examples, plus includes innovative approaches to get students actually doing the work of metacognition. | |
Classroom Environment (5 points) |
No consideration given for classroom environment, or shows clear lack of understanding. | A very inadequate understanding of the need for or procedures associated with classroom environment. | A faulty understanding of the four classroom environments mandated by the NSES, little to no concern shown for the role of climate setting in relation to inquiry. | Clear statement of the meaning of the four classroom environments mandated by the NSES, as well as good accounting for climate setting to offset student concerns about inquiry. | |
Safety Concerns (5 points) |
Little to no consideration given to safety concerns. | Some safety concerns identified, but no information provided about how to help ensure student safety. | Includes partial summary of all substantive safety concerns related to subject matter of unit; notes potential sources of harm, and ways to mitigate harm should a hazardous activity be included in unit. | Includes complete summary of all substantive safety concerns related to subject matter of unit; notes potential sources of harm, and ways to mitigate harm should a hazardous activity be included in unit. |
|
Total points out of 100 available: Comments below: |