rating. Reviewers should use the most criteria across Categories I, II, & III of the rubric. (total score ~8–9) evidence of quality across categories to guide the final E/I: Example of high quality NGSS design if Improved—Adequate design for the NGSS, rating. In other words, the but would benefit from some improvement in one or more categories; most criteria rating could differ from the total have at least adequate evidence (total score ~6–7) E E/I R N score recommendations if the reviewer has evidence to R: Revision needed—Partially designed for the NGSS, but needs significant revision in support this variation. one or more categories (total ~3–5) N: Not ready to review—Not designed for the NGSS; does not meet criteria (total 0–2) Overall Summary Comments:
rating. Reviewers should use the evidence of quality across categories to guide the final rating. In other words, the rating could differ from the total score recommendations if the reviewer has evidence to support this variation. most criteria across Categories I, II, & III of the rubric. (total score ~8–9) E/I: Example of high quality NGSS design if Improved—Adequate design for the NGSS, but would benefit from some improvement in one or more categories; most criteria have at least adequate evidence (total score ~6–7) R: Revision needed—Partially designed for the NGSS, but needs significant revision in one or more categories (total ~3–5) N: Not ready to review—Not designed for the NGSS; does not meet criteria (total 0–2) E E/I R N Overall Summary Comments:
EQuIP%20Rubric%20for%20Sci%20MISD%20Rev.docx