Learning Domain: Writing
Standard: Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Degree of Alignment:
Not Rated
(0 users)
Learning Domain: Writing for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Standard: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
Degree of Alignment:
Not Rated
(0 users)
Learning Domain: Writing
Standard: Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Degree of Alignment:
Not Rated
(0 users)
Learning Domain: Writing for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Standard: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
Degree of Alignment:
Not Rated
(0 users)
Cluster: Production and Distribution of Writing.
Standard: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
Degree of Alignment:
3 Superior
(2 users)
Cluster: Text Types and Purposes.
Standard: Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Degree of Alignment:
2.7 Superior
(3 users)
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.6-8.4: Superior (3)
The Evidence-Based Writing rubric helps to ensure learners meet the expectations of this standard.
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7.1: Strong (2)
This lesson covers all elements of the standard except using credible sources. Since the exercise only uses a fictitious scenario, there is no opportunity for the learner to research a credible source. Perhaps adding a component that allows the learner to research salary data on payscale.com would solve this problem.
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
Utility of Materials Designed to Support Teaching: Strong (2)
There are no suggestions for using the materials with different learners.
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
Quality of Assessments: Limited (1)
The evaluation component is underdeveloped because it asks for volunteers to present an argument for critique, which means that learners who do not volunteer do not get evaluated.
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
Quality of Instructional and Practice Exercises: Strong (2)
There a sufficient number of well-written exercises to support the development of the targeted skills, but there is no feedback during the guided practice. Perhaps adding a peer-to-peer feedback component would boost the effectiveness of the guided practice and ensure learners are on the right track.
on Apr 30, 05:58am Evaluation
Opportunities for Deeper Learning: Superior (3)
This lesson:
* has appropriate scaffolding with the model for the argument in the PPT presentation
* identifies three deeper skills (applying knowledge to real world, communicating effectively and constructing a viable argument)
* provides an adequate range of cognitive demands