Teacher Administrator Librarian

Description

Overview:
Developed in 2009, this framework was designed for Washington educators to evaluate instructional content for bias using five dimensions: Gender/Sex, Multicultural, Persons with Disabilities, Socio-Economic Status, and Family.Visit the updated 2020 version: Screening for Biased Content in Instructional Materials | OSPI
Subject:
Education
Level:
Graduate / Professional
Material Type:
Teaching/Learning Strategy
Author:
, ,
Date Added:
06/03/2020
License:
Creative Commons Attribution Creative Commons Attribution
Language:
English
Media Format:
Text/HTML

Comments

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Utility of Materials Designed to Support Teaching: Limited (1)

The integration of materials however, limited because the objectives are not clear as to whether they will address the variety of learners in the classroom.

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Quality of Assessments: Limited (1)

The "Do Now" is introduced in each lesson does not determine what students' prior knowledge of the lesson and the Exit Tickets are limited to what students learned during the lesson. In the lesson plan it does not indicate how the teacher plans to check for understanding.

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Opportunities for Deeper Learning: Limited (1)

Very limited deeper learning skills are identified.

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Quality of Explanation of the Subject Matter: Strong (2)

Teacher used "I do" to model the lessons expectations, "We do" together and "You do" which can be collective or done independently.

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Quality of Technological Interactivity: Strong (2)

There is an interactive component within the lesson plans however, plans do not indicate if the students will be on technology the entire lesson or limited use.

Katrina Davis
on Feb 26, 10:36am Evaluation

Quality of Instructional and Practice Exercises: Limited (1)

Within the lesson plan there are limited number of exercises due class time length. Exemplars are present but very few complex exercises.

Reviewers

Standards

Evaluations

Achieve OER

Average Score (3 Points Possible)
Degree of Alignment2 (1 user)
Quality of Explanation of the Subject Matter2 (1 user)
Utility of Materials Designed to Support Teaching1 (1 user)
Quality of Assessments1 (1 user)
Quality of Technological Interactivity2 (1 user)
Quality of Instructional and Practice Exercises1 (1 user)
Opportunities for Deeper Learning1 (1 user)

Tags (6)