Details
Professional Development Plan Rubric
Professional development: Design for adult learners, technology standards for teachers. Professional educators approach educational technology in a variety of ways. Using your knowledge of technology adoption, what works in adult education, and technology effectiveness, design a professional development experience that leads teachers to a more accomplished stage in the use of a selected technology. The target teachers may be a group you know or work with, or the plan may be for you or your peers in this course. The final plan must be submitted to Blackboard.
Look at these important sites:
- NETS for Teachers: http://www.iste.org/archive/standards-old/standards-for-teachers
- Florida Teacher Professional Development Standards: http://www.fldoe.org/teaching/professional-dev/professional-dev-stards.stml
- NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development: http://learningforward.org/standards/#.Vjat7rerTIU
- National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/what_teachers.pdf
You or your group will be evaluated based on the quality of the Professional development plan.
Professional development plan checklist:
- Title of plan
- Author and date created
- Entry level of teachers (Learner Characteristics)
- Teacher technology and professional development standards addressed. Cite your source.
- Target outcomes (Learning Goals and Objectives)
- Technology and curriculum focus (including Technology and other resources)
- Rationale for methods: technology adoption model, adult learning theories, technology effectiveness research
- Learning activities including embedded assessments and tentative timeline
Professional Development Plan Grading 100
| Category | Description | Points Possible | Points Received | |
| Completeness | Incomplete, lacking 2 or more items from checklist | 5 | ||
| All checklist items present | 10 | |||
| Completeness Total | ||||
| Standards connection: Teacher technology and professional development standards addressed | Connection between all standards and activities not evident | 5 | ||
| Connection between all standards and activities evident | 10 | |||
| Standards connection Total | ||||
| Quality of activities: Do activities match with the Learner characteristics and needs, Instructional Goals and Objectives? Do activities engage learners? | Activities are not well-paced, important or engaging, | 10 | ||
| Activities are well-paced, important and engaging | 20 | |||
| Quality of activities Total | ||||
| Assessments: Do assessments match with the Instructional Goals and Objectives? | Assessments are not appropriate or justified | 7 | ||
| Assessments are appropriate and justified | 15 | |||
| Assessments Total | ||||
| Rationale for methods: Technology adoption models, learning theories, literature about technology effectiveness | Rationale does not sufficiently explain why chosen methods help with teachers’ learning or adoption of technology | 10 | ||
| Rationale sufficiently explain why chosen methods help with teachers’ learning or adoption of technology | 20 | |||
| Rationale Total | ||||
| Technology and curriculum focus | Rationale for focus, outcomes and curriculum is not well-reasoned or documented | 5 | ||
| Does technology focus connect to curriculum or enhance instruction? | Rationale for focus, outcomes and curriculum is well-reasoned and documented | 10 | ||
| Technology & curriculum focus Total | ||||
| Writing Mechanics: Well written, clear organization, uses standard English grammar, contains minor, if any, spelling errors |
Inadequate due to lack of organization, grammar, and/or major spelling errors | 5 | ||
| Well-written and well-organized | 10 | |||
| Writing Mechanics Total | ||||
| Timeliness Submitting by stated due date |
Submitted by deadline | 5 | ||
| Submitted no more than 24 hours after deadline | 2 | |||
| Submitted more than 24 hours after deadline or not submitted | 0 | |||
| Timeliness Total | ||||
| Overall: | 100 | |||
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.