INTRODUCTION Lesson plans with a strong pedagogical backbone and alignment to na

INTRODUCTION
Lesson plans with a strong pedagogical backbone and alignment to national science standards are vital to student success. The attached Lesson Evaluation Rubric provides criteria to measure the alignment and overall quality of lessons and units with respect to the K–12 Framework and is based on the Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products (EQuIP) rubric for science. In this task, you will evaluate a lesson plan using this rubric.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Category I: Alignment to the Three Dimensions
A. Select the attached 5E science lesson plan for your intended area of licensure/certification and evaluate it against the criteria in category I (Alignment to the Three Dimensions) of the attached “Lesson Evaluation Rubric” by doing the following:
1. In the “Criteria” column, check the boxes for the following criteria that are evident in the lesson plan:
• A. Three Dimensions
• B. Explaining Phenomena/Designing Solutions
• C. Integrating the Three Dimensions
2. Document specific evidence from the lesson and reviewers’ reasoning that demonstrates whether or not the lesson addresses each criterion in the “Specific evidence from materials and reviewers’ reasoning” column.
3. Evaluate the evidence to determine whether each dimension is sufficiently addressed within Criteria A and check the appropriate box (i.e., none, inadequate, adequate, or extensive) for each dimension separately.
4. Evaluate the overall evidence of quality for each criterion, and check the appropriate box (i.e., none, inadequate, adequate, or extensive) in the “Evidence of Quality?” column.
5. Develop at least two suggestions for the lesson for specific improvements in meeting the criteria of each criteria in category I in the “Suggestions for improvement” column.
6. Rate the degree to which there is enough evidence to support a claim that the lesson meets these criteria in the “Rating for Category I” row.
Category II: Instructional Supports
B. Evaluate the 5E science lesson plan you selected in Part A against the criteria in category II “Instructional Supports” of the attached “Lesson Evaluation Rubric” by doing the following:
1. In the “Criteria” column, check the boxes for the following criteria that are evident in the lesson plan:
• A. Relevance and Authenticity
• B. Student Ideas
• C. Building Progressions
• D. Scientific Accuracy
• E. Differentiated Instruction
2. Document specific evidence from the lesson and reviewers’ reasoning that demonstrates whether the lesson addresses each criterion in the “Specific evidence from materials and reviewers’ reasoning” column.
3. Evaluate the overall evidence of quality for each criterion, and check the appropriate box (i.e., none, inadequate, adequate, or extensive) in the “Evidence of Quality?” column.
4. In the “Suggestions for Improvement” column, develop at least two suggestions for the lesson criteria in each row.
5. Rate the degree to which there is enough evidence to support a claim that the lesson meets these criteria in the “Rating for Category II” row.
Category III: Monitoring Student Progress
C. Evaluate the lesson plan you selected in Part A against the criteria in category III “Monitoring Student Progress” of the attached “Lesson Evaluation Rubric” by doing the following:
1. In the “Criteria” column, check the boxes for the following criteria that are evident in the lesson plan:
• A. Monitoring 3D student performances
• B. Formative
• C. Scoring guidance
• D. Unbiased tasks/items
2. Document specific evidence from the lesson and reviewers’ reasoning that demonstrates whether the lesson addresses each criterion in the “Specific evidence from materials and reviewers’ reasoning” column.
3. Evaluate the overall evidence of quality for each criterion, and check the appropriate box (i.e., none, inadequate, adequate, or extensive) in the “Evidence of Quality?” column.
4. Develop at least two suggestions for the lesson for specific improvements in meeting the criteria of each criteria in category III in the “Suggestions for improvement” column.
5. Rate the degree to which there is enough evidence to support a claim that the lesson meets these criteria in the “Rating for Category III” row.
D. Summarize the lesson quality based on the evidence and suggestions for improvement.
E. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
F. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.