Final Project (Week 12)InstructionsEDTC605 Final Project Information Literacy Unit PlanFor the final project in this course, you are going to create a unit plan for your classroom (or your future clas

University of Maryland University College Graduate School Department of Education EDTC 605: Information Literacy Unit Plan Rubric
Lesson Plan Description: Completeness, Insight, and Quality of Writing Weight: 60%	54 – 60 points Virtually all elements of the description portion of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are thoroughly addressed, to meet the requirements of the assignment. The unit shows deep insight and will culminate in significant student learning. Technology used is seamlessly and effectively integrated into the unit to maximize learning in the content area. The unit is also strongly coherent, with standards, objectives, activities, and assessments all closely aligned; and activities effectively sequenced. The description of the unit is consistently well-written: clear, coherent, well developed. The paper contains few if any mechanical errors.	48 – 53 points Most elements of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are addressed thoroughly although there may be a few gaps. The lesson overall is well-done, with activities linked to student learning and technology integrated to advance learning in the content area. Also, the lesson has coherence. While some elements of the lesson may show deep insight, the lesson is uneven, with some aspects being strong and some aspects needing more development or clearer focus. The description of the lesson is mostly well written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.	42 – 47 points Most elements of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are addressed, but many of these elements may lack sufficient detail, depth, or relevance. The lesson may have important flaws in coherence, alignment, technology use, and contribution to student learning. The description of the lesson may have many mechanical errors or may be unclear in many places.	Below 42 points Most elements are superficially addressed, if at all; or a significant number of elements are entirely missing. The lesson may have little clarity or coherence. Technology may not be integrated or the connection to the learning objectives may be totally unclear. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.
Lesson Plan Analysis: Completeness, Insight and Quality of Writing Weight: 15%	13.5 – 15 points The analysis section is written as an essay and provides a full rationale for the unit. It consistently shows deep insight about teaching and learning in the content area and about technology's contribution to learning. The analysis section uses detail and evidence from the unit to convincingly support the rationale. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.	12 – 13.4 points The analysis section provides a good rationale for the unit and shows sound understanding of teaching, learning, and technology integration. It addresses most, if not all of the elements on the unit plan form, but may need additional explanation or support in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.	10.5 – 11.9 points The analysis section provides a rationale for the unit, but the rationale may be vague, overly descriptive, or have serious gaps. The section may be poorly written.	Below 10.5 points The analysis section provides a superficial analysis, at best, has serious gaps, and lacks detail. The section may be unacceptable because of a serious lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.
Lesson Plan Reflection: Completeness, Insight and Quality of Writing Weight: 15%	13.5 – 15 points The reflection section is thorough and shows deep insight into what has been learned throughout the assignment.. It draws important conclusions, supported by detail. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.	12 – 13.4 points The reflection section explains what has been learned through the writing of the unit integrating technology and shows clear self-assessment vis a vis technology integration and teaching. The section may be uneven, however, and need additional depth or breadth in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.	10.5 – 11.9 points The reflection section makes conclusions about learning, but these may be vague, superficial, or unsupported. The section may be poorly written.	Below 10.5 points The reflection section is descriptive only and does not show any critical thinking about the learning. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.
End-of Semester Reflection: Completeness, Insight, and Quality of Writing (Weight: 10%)	9 – 10 points The end-of-semester reflection section is thorough and shows deep insight into what has been learned throughout the semester. It draws important conclusions, supported by detail. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.	8 – 8.9 points The end-of-semester reflection section explains what has been learned throughout the semester. The section may be uneven, however, and need additional depth or breadth in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.	7 – 7.9 points The end-of-semester reflection section makes conclusions about learning throughout the semester, but these may be vague, superficial, or unsupported. The section may be poorly written.	Below 7 points The reflection section is descriptive only and does not show any critical thinking about the learning. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.
*References: References should be given in correct APA style (in-text and references) and annotated references should have specific detail about what is used intact and what is adapted, synthesized, or changed.
Total Score (based on a possible 100 points): Comments:

University of Maryland University College

Graduate School Department of Education

EDTC 605: Information Literacy Unit Plan Rubric

First Name: Last Name:

Date:

Course Label:

Section Number:

CRITERIA

4 (Exemplary)

3 (Accomplished)

2 (Developing)

0-1 (Beginning)

Score (use point ranges in red)

Lesson Plan Description: Completeness, Insight, and Quality of Writing

Weight: 60%

54 – 60 points

Virtually all elements of the description portion of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are thoroughly addressed, to meet the requirements of the assignment. The unit shows deep insight and will culminate in significant student learning. Technology used is seamlessly and effectively integrated into the unit to maximize learning in the content area. The unit is also strongly coherent, with standards, objectives, activities, and assessments all closely aligned; and activities effectively sequenced. The description of the unit is consistently well-written: clear, coherent, well developed. The paper contains few if any mechanical errors.

48 – 53 points

Most elements of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are addressed thoroughly although there may be a few gaps. The lesson overall is well-done, with activities linked to student learning and technology integrated to advance learning in the content area. Also, the lesson has coherence. While some elements of the lesson may show deep insight, the lesson is uneven, with some aspects being strong and some aspects needing more development or clearer focus. The description of the lesson is mostly well written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.

42 – 47 points

Most elements of the Annotated Lesson Plan Form are addressed, but many of these elements may lack sufficient detail, depth, or relevance. The lesson may have important flaws in coherence, alignment, technology use, and contribution to student learning. The description of the lesson may have many mechanical errors or may be unclear in many places.

Below 42 points

Most elements are superficially addressed, if at all; or a significant number of elements are entirely missing. The lesson may have little clarity or coherence. Technology may not be integrated or the connection to the learning objectives may be totally unclear. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.

Lesson Plan Analysis: Completeness, Insight and Quality of Writing

Weight: 15%

13.5 – 15 points

The analysis section is written as an essay and provides a full rationale for the unit. It consistently shows deep insight about teaching and learning in the content area and about technology's contribution to learning. The analysis section uses detail and evidence from the unit to convincingly support the rationale. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.

12 – 13.4 points

The analysis section provides a good rationale for the unit and shows sound understanding of teaching, learning, and technology integration. It addresses most, if not all of the elements on the unit plan form, but may need additional explanation or support in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.

10.5 – 11.9 points

The analysis section provides a rationale for the unit, but the rationale may be vague, overly descriptive, or have serious gaps. The section may be poorly written.

Below 10.5 points

The analysis section provides a superficial analysis, at best, has serious gaps, and lacks detail. The section may be unacceptable because of a serious lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.

Lesson Plan Reflection:

Completeness, Insight and Quality of Writing

Weight: 15%

13.5 – 15 points

The reflection section is thorough and shows deep insight into what has been learned throughout the assignment.. It draws important conclusions, supported by detail. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.

12 – 13.4 points

The reflection section explains what has been learned through the writing of the unit integrating technology and shows clear self-assessment vis a vis technology integration and teaching. The section may be uneven, however, and need additional depth or breadth in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.

10.5 – 11.9 points

The reflection section makes conclusions about learning, but these may be vague, superficial, or unsupported. The section may be poorly written.

Below 10.5 points

The reflection section is descriptive only and does not show any critical thinking about the learning. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.

End-of Semester Reflection: Completeness, Insight, and Quality of Writing

(Weight: 10%)

9 – 10 points

The end-of-semester reflection section is thorough and shows deep insight into what has been learned throughout the semester. It draws important conclusions, supported by detail. The section is cogently written, well-organized and well-developed.

8 – 8.9 points

The end-of-semester reflection section explains what has been learned throughout the semester. The section may be uneven, however, and need additional depth or breadth in spots. The section is well-written, although it may have a few grammatical or organizational errors.

7 – 7.9 points

The end-of-semester reflection section makes conclusions about learning throughout the semester, but these may be vague, superficial, or unsupported. The section may be poorly written.

Below 7 points

The reflection section is descriptive only and does not show any critical thinking about the learning. The section may be unacceptable because of a lack of clarity or grammatical correctness.

*References: References should be given in correct APA style (in-text and references) and annotated references should have specific detail about what is used intact and what is adapted, synthesized, or changed.

Total Score (based on a possible 100 points):

Comments: