Classroom Resources

The Evaluation Rubric

Evaluated Resources

The Museum of Science is working to provide the very best resources to all educators! Many resources in the MoS Technology and Engineering Curriculum Review Search have been independently evaluated, according to a rigorous rubric which holds resources accountable for the depth of their standards mappings, the types of activities used, the design approaches implemented, and the assessment types employed.

The Mos Technology and Engineering Curriculum Review Evaluation Rubric

The educators involved with this curriculum review project followed strictly defined guidelines in determining their evaluations.Evaluations were determined using the following criteria:

Assessment Types

The different types of assessments of student performance provided within the curricula were categorized into straightforward categories, and average percentages were taken for each, including:

Paper and pencil
Open-ended questions
Portfolios, records, or journal
Performance based
Interview
Student presentation
Discussion
Other (refers to rubrics, extension activities, etc.)

Activity Types

A broad sample of student activities/classroom projects was chosen from each curriculum, and these challenges were categorized into specified groups.

Have no set schedule assigned for completing the challenge
Allow for more freedom of choice on how to structure the process
Emphasize student autonomy; teachers provide guidance only when asked
Result in a unique/personalized end product

Scheduled exploration in which steps are established
Fewer choices are available to the student in addressing the challenge
Steps lead the student through the activity
More teacher influence, less student autonomy
Unique/personalized end products are created

Exploration with predetermined schedule of steps to follow
No room for deviation from the structure
Standard end product expected

Design Approach

Activities were further classified based upon the specific type of design approach used within the challenge.

Asks students to participate in a design challenge with full autonomy
Requires ability to understand and implement the design process
Results in a unique and personalized end product
Corresponds to open-ended activities

Students follow a preset outline in the design challenge's completion
Allows for less student autonomy
Process results in a unique and personalized end product
May correspond to guided activities and/or recipe activities

Students are asked to improve existing products
Involves innovation and/or creating new product uses
Introduces basic design skills to young students
May correspond to recipe activities

Students are asked to examine an object's functioning properties
Introduces basic skills like observation, data collection, and reporting
May correspond to recipe activities

Students participate in observation activities and/or brief experiments
Investigates properties of materials, laws of science, or other introductory concepts
Teaches students readiness skills

Usability Score

This score measures the extent to which the curriculum is considered appropriate for the classroom. Various categories are considered, and an overall score is composed using each criteria.

(1) Over $50
(2) Under $50
(3) Under $10
(4) No extra cost

(1) Special order item
(2) Catalog item
(3) Purchase from a local store
(4) Available in a school stockroom

(1) Over an hour
(2) Under an hour
(3) Under 30 minutes
(4) Under 15 minutes

(1) Unclear tasks, unable to monitor, no accountability of students
(2) Poorly defined tasks, hard to monitor, poor accountability of students
(3) Fairly clear tasks, fairly simple to monitor, good accountability of students
(4) Clearly defined tasks, easy to monitor, full accountability of students

(1) Dangerous materials, no safety warnings, unorganized
(2) Poor supervision instructions, poor safety warnings, not well organized
(3) Good supervision instructions, good safety warnings, well organized
(4) Safe materials, clear safety warnings, completely organized

Teacher Support Score

A general average score was determined for each curriculum's level of teacher support, based upon the following criteria.

Background knowledge and grade-level content knowledge
Extension activities, handouts, et al
Embedded supports for differentiated teaching and learning of all students
Vignettes and specific classroom examples
User-friendly teacher guides
Suggestions for integrating technology with other areas of the curriculum

Tailoring learning opportunities to student needs
Facilitating inquiry and encouraging collaboration
Providing a balance of student-directed and teacher-facilitated activities
Encouraging students to consider technology concepts
Focusing on students and their learning

Do the teacher support materials address student assessment that is integrated, include multiple assessment means, and incorporate technological problem-solving and data collection?
Do they provide ongoing assessment instruments and/or support, as well as guidance to create rubrics that students helped design?
Do they ensure assessment of all aspects of technological knowledge, and do they include opportunities to assess students' prior knowledge?

Do the teacher support materials correlate to the standards by creating an appropriate learning environment and making main ideas clear, including background content knowledge?
Do they provide a justification for technology education and literacy, and do they stimulate student interest and confidence in technological studies and professional development?
Do they provide a framework for planned student experiences, and do they engage students in creating design plans and suggest further means of integrating technology into curriculum?

Technological literacy,
Effective communication and collaboration skills,
Inventive thinking, and
High productivity

Museum of Science, Boston