- Lesson Plan 1
4. Above Average: The student clearly identifies the work’s focus and understands the role of emerging technology on business operations. Is able to name at least three types of emergent technology and three industries they benefit in specific ways. Demonstrates clear attention and capability for understanding these issues.
3. Sufficient: Student expresses moderate understanding of emergent technology; is able to explain two technologies and/or two industries it is currently helping. Demonstrates intermediate knowledge of topics discussed and showcases moderate attention and engagement in class activities.
2. Developing: Clear presentation of central ideas of the lesson (emergent technology in business); can name at least one type of emergent technology and one industry it is used in. Some gaps in understanding of the details and nuances of the work, but not a complete failure to comprehend the material.
1. Needs Improvement: Total failure to understand the central concept of emergent technology, and inability to name any types of emergent technology or industries it is used in. Lack of focus or attention in conversations about concepts of ET.
For the sake of this lesson plan, I adapted it to assume an IEP for a student with autism. To that end, I chose a holistic rubric with a 4 point scale, as I feel that is simple enough to evaluate the engagement of a student who needs to understand merely the basics of emergent technology and their usefulness in business. The only real metric I chose to change for the lesson plan itself is the change from a written assessment taken home every day to a face-to-face conversation with the student after class, to give them some personal attention and fill in any gaps in their understanding they may have.
The holistic rubric is meant to gauge a very rudimentary understanding of emergent technology in business; I wanted to make sure that the basic ideas were learned rather than penalizing them for more specific technical work that would not be reasonably learned by them. Students with IEPs and learning disabilities should not be expected to have the same level of specific evaluation as other students, due to their differing needs. Therefore, the holistic rubric provides the opportunity for scale-based grading in a wider sense that does not judge the students too harshly, or overly complicate the assessment of their progress.
- Lesson Plan 2.
4. Above Average: Student shows active engagement in presentation and class discussion, and can clearly describe the positive benefit of business on human life that they choose.
3. Sufficient: Student shows moderate engagement in presentation and class discussion.
2. Developing: Student’s engagement is adequate, and is somewhat focused in class discussion.
1. Needs Improvement: Student shows no engagement in either class discussion or presentation.
For the sake of this lesson plan, I adapted it to assume an IEP for a student with learning disabilities. When discussing the positive benefits of business on human life, it is a very open-ended discussion, which means the need for adaptability is key. Therefore, I once again went with a holistic rubric; I feel as though this permits a more even-handed approach to the student’s learning. By eliminating the need for a written exam, and instead allowing the student to go up in front of class, it demonstrates their ability to understand the basic concepts behind human life being improved by business. The key is to promote engagement in class, as that is where the student as an individual will receive the most well-rounded education.
For this particular lesson, I believe this is the best assessment for the class, as the rather subjective concept of ‘positive benefits to human life through business’ is a wide one, which can mean different things to different people. To that end, it might benefit all students, whether in IEPs or no, to simply demonstrate an understanding of the material and concepts behind what is being discussed. The reason for this is that it offers a measure of evaluation of the advancement of these issues outlined in the lesson, and a way to adequately grade them on how they are doing.
3. Lesson Plan 3.
4. Above Average: Student is able to fill in all the blanks, clearly discuss in class why they recognize those logos more than others.
3. Sufficient: Student fills in most of the blanks, discusses in class the importance of promotion with decent clarity.
2. Developing: Student fills in half of the blanks, intermittently discusses business promotion in class with moderate clarity.
1. Needs Improvement: Student fills in none to few of the blanks, shows lack of focus in class when discussing lesson materials.
For these adapted lesson plans, I chose to use a holistic rubric; I felt that, given the needs that are endemic to students who require IEPs, the goal would be to not evaluate end performances or products, but merely judge the extent to which the student develops the skills and values we wished to impart upon them in these courses. This allows the evaluation itself to be infinitely adaptable, and permits the instructor to look for the basic understanding of the concept of promotion and how it affects their lives (the goal with the logo worksheet is to show just how successful good promotion is in getting people to remember corporate brands even if they don’t necessarily buy their products). The evaluation being structured in this way also prevents the accuracy of the answers in the worksheet from being the only metric; it can be adjusted depending on the quality of the conversation of the concepts included, even if they specifically are not familiar with the brands used in the worksheet.
Given all of these modifications to lesson plans for students with IEPs, I believe that rubrics (specifically holistic ones) are more effective than portfolios. It provides a good middle ground for those students who need some guidance, but whose specific needs do not hold up well to the rigors of strict evaluation of specific issues. Portfolios, on the other hand, provide little room for scale-based grading, making it harder to give feedback and evaluate progress.