Evaluating Lesson Plans

/in /by

Teachers engage in a continuous cycle of planning, facilitating instruction, assessing learning, reflecting on experiences and outcomes, then planning again (and continuing through the cycle). The lesson plan template is the primary tool used in the planning and instruction stages.

Compare the “Small Group Guided Reading Lesson Plan” with the “Parts of a Plant Lesson Plan” to determine which is the most effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood special education students. Address the following questions on the “Evaluating Lesson Plans Template” to complete this assignment:

  • How well do the learning targets/objectives align with the national/state learning standards? Are the learning targets/objectives written well enough?
  • Do the learning activities align with the learning targets/objectives? Are learning activities engaging and developmentally appropriate for the intended group of students?
  • Is there sufficient differentiation to meet the learning needs of the intended students?

Include a 250-500 word justification on the template, based on your findings, explaining which lesson plan would be more effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood and special education students.

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.

This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code
ECS-501 ECS-501-O501 Evaluating Lesson Plans 100.0
Criteria Percentage 1: No submission (0.00%) 2: Insufficient (69.00%) 3: Approaching (74.00%) 4: Acceptable (87.00%) 5: Target (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Category 100.0%
Learning Targets/Objectives 15.0% Not addressed. At least one of the lesson plans is poorly evaluated in terms of how well the learning targets/objectives align with the national/state learning standards; or more than one of the statements regarding how well the learning targets/objectives are inaccurate or significantly underdeveloped. At least one of the lesson plans could be more adequately evaluated in terms of how well the learning targets/objectives align with the national/state learning standards; or at least one of the statements regarding how well the learning targets/objectives are written requires further development. Each lesson plan is adequately evaluated in terms of how well the learning targets/objectives align with the national/state learning standards. A statement regarding how well the learning targets/objectives are written is included for each of the lessons. Each lesson plan is appropriately evaluated in terms of how well the learning targets/objectives align with the national/state learning standards. An insightful statement regarding how well the learning targets/objectives are written is included for each of the lessons.
Learning Activities 15.0% Not addressed. At least one of the lesson plans is poorly evaluated in terms of how well the learning activities align with the learning targets/objectives standards; or more than one of statements regarding how engaging or developmentally appropriate the learning activities is inaccurate or significantly underdeveloped. At least one of the lesson plans could be more adequately evaluated in terms of how well the learning activities align with the learning targets/objectives standards; or at least one statement regarding how engaging or developmentally appropriate the learning activities requires further development. Each lesson plan is adequately evaluated in terms of how well the learning activities align with the learning targets/objectives standards. A statement is included regarding how engaging and developmentally appropriate the learning activities are for each of the lessons. Each lesson plan is appropriately evaluated in terms of how well the learning activities align with the learning targets/objectives standards. An insightful statement is included regarding how engaging and developmentally appropriate the learning activities are for each of the lessons.
Differentiation 10.0% Not addressed. At least one of the lesson plans is poorly evaluated in terms of whether there is sufficient differentiation to meet the learning needs of the intended students. At least one of the lesson plans could be more adequately evaluated in terms of whether there is sufficient differentiation to meet the learning needs of the intended students. Each lesson plan is adequately evaluated in terms of whether there is sufficient differentiation to meet the learning needs of the intended students. Each lesson plan is appropriately evaluated in terms of whether there is sufficient differentiation to meet the learning needs of the intended students.
Justification [CEC S3.2; NAEYC 1a, 4c, 4d, 5c; InTASC 2(g), 2(h), 7(i)] 30.0% Not addressed. The justification, based on the findings, regarding which lesson plan would be more effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood and special education students is presented poorly. The justification, based on the findings, regarding which lesson plan would be more effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood and special education students requires further development. Includes adequate justification, based on the findings, regarding which lesson plan would be more effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood and special education students. Includes appropriate justification, based on the findings, regarding which lesson plan would be more effective for meeting the learning needs of early childhood and special education students.
Organization 10.0% 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 may not be adequately organized 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.
Mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 20.0% 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 distract the reader. Inconsistent language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking. 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.
Total Weightage 100%