ORC Resource Review Rubric
Lessons and units representing best and promising instructional practices are
selected according to a rubric developed by
ORC. The first draft of the Resource Review Rubric was created in October
2000. Since that time, the Content Review Boards have used the rubric to review
instructional practices and, in the process, have suggested changes and
refinements to it. We expect that the rubric will continue to evolve.
Effective use of the rubric is dependent upon the knowledge and expertise of its
users.
The rubric asks reviewers to make judgments about alignments with Ohio's
academic content standards and accountability system. The rubric requires its
users to have a solid knowledge of content, curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and research.
Ohio educators and higher education faculty, who are members of the Content
Review Boards, use the ORC Resource Review Rubric
for determining whether web-based lessons meet the high expectations
established by ORC. All lessons and units are fully correlated to Ohio's
academic content standards and applicable national standards.
The ORC Resource Review Rubric guides the work of the content review boards as
they select best and promising practice lessons and units for the ORC
collection. The rubric delineates 15 categories and specifies criteria for
each.
Alignment with Ohio's Educational System
If the resource does not rate an "A" or "B" on this item, it should not be
selected for the ORC website.
| |
A |
B |
C |
| 1. Alignment with Standards |
The resource has a direct and explicit
link to Ohio's Academic Content Standards. |
The resource would clearly contribute to
student learning of one or more standards, benchmarks, or grade level
indicators. |
The resource is not well aligned with
Ohio's Academic Content Standards. |
Research Base for the Resource
If the resource does not rate an "A" or "B" on this item, it should not be
designated "best practice."
| |
A |
B |
C |
| 2. Research Base |
The resource includes data or other
information that indicates that use of the resource results in increased
student learning. |
The resource reflects research that is
widely known and generally accepted. |
The resource is antithetical to commonly
accepted research findings. |
Quality and Usability Measures
Items 3–10 are the criteria that tell us whether, in your judgment, the resource
suggests an effective teaching strategy. If a resource garners no "C's" and at
least one "A" in this group of items, then it is a candidate for "best" or
"promising" practice. If the resource does not meet these minimal quality and
usability criteria, it should not be selected for the ORC website.
| |
A |
B |
C |
|
3. Content |
The content is accurate and developed in
a way that promotes student understanding. |
The content is not inaccurate, but may
not include desirable details or examples. |
The content contains factual or other
errors. |
| 4. Equity |
The resource explicitly supports equity
and access. |
The resource implicitly supports equity
and access. |
The resource contains substance that
suggests bias against identifiable populations. |
| 5. Student Engagement |
The resource would be interesting to most
students in the age range and requires the active participation of students in
their own learning. |
The resource would hold the interest of a
variety of students and promotes student activity and thinking. |
The resource would hold little interest
for the majority of students in the age range. |
| 6. Contextual Learning and/or Meaningful
Application |
The resource frames the content in a
context that is meaningful to students and significant in the world at large. |
The resource frames the content in a
context that is meaningful to students. |
The resource is largely devoid of either
"real-world" or "student engaging" context. |
| 7. Response to Need |
The resource responds to a generally
identified need (e.g., physics materials that address the lack of female
participation in high school physics). |
The resource responds to an often
expressed need (e.g., students who have not learned their multiplication tables
by the end of sixth grade). |
The resource is not responsive to the
wants or needs of Ohio teachers or students (e.g., a unit on California
history). |
| 8. Adaptability to a Variety of Settings |
The resource is adaptable to a variety of
learning settings, and there is discussion that helps teachers adapt the
resource to different settings. |
The resource is adaptable to a variety of
learning settings. |
The resource has too narrow a range of
use (e.g., female first graders in classes with fewer than 10 students). |
| 9. Classroom Discourse |
Use of the resource requires significant
conversation and reflection by the students and teacher, with suggested
questions for discussion. |
Use of the resource provides opportunity
for significant conversation and reflection by the students and teacher. |
Use of the resource inhibits meaningful
conversation and reflection by the students and/or teacher. |
| 10. Appropriate Use of Technology |
The resource reflects highly appropriate
use of technology, with suggestions to the teacher for adapting the lesson to
the equipment available. |
The resource reflects appropriate use of
technology. |
Technology or tools are inappropriately
used or are not used when they should be. |
General Considerations
Items 11–15 are additional criteria for judging the quality of a website. A
rating of "C" on one or more of these items does not automatically remove the
resource from consideration for the ORC website but can affect the overall
rating of the resource.
| |
A |
B |
C |
| 11. Assessment |
The resource includes a tool for helping
teachers determine if the resource has effectively increased student learning. |
The resource includes suggestions for
assessing student learning. |
The resource does not include suggestions
for assessing student learning. |
| 12. Originality |
The resource offers a highly innovative
approach that teachers are unlikely to have seen before. |
The resource may not be innovative but
reflects good, solid practice of value to most students and teachers. |
The resource is fairly mundane or
simplistic. |
| 13. High Expectations |
The resource captures the imagination of
teachers and students; it is highly motivational and epitomizes high
expectations for all students. |
The resource is interesting and fun for
students and addresses "worthwhile" content. |
The resource reflects average
expectations for students. |
| 14. Navigability |
The resource is remarkably easy to
navigate. |
The resource is navigable without serious
difficulty. |
The resource presents some identifiable
navigation problems. |
| 15. Presentation |
The resource is clearly written and
carefully edited. |
The presentation is good enough not to be
distracting. |
The resource suffers from too many typos
or is too terse to be easily understandable. |
The Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading
http://www.ohiorc.org
|