# CodePath Curriculum Evaluation Rubric (v0.1)

######

| | Below Expectations | Meets Expectations | Above Expectations |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------ | ------------------ | ------------------ |
| Course includes well defined prerequisites (e.g., knowledge, skills,etc.) and preconditions (e.g., anticipated time commitments, hardware/software needs & support) students are expected to meet | - | - | - |
| Course includes various opportunitites for formative/summative assessment, testing, and evaluation (e.g., quantitative / qualitative feedback from students regarding the course) | - | - | - |
| Course includes a syllabus which lists unit/module/lesson overviews and details, learning outcomes, supplemental resources (e.g., links or references), and intended delivery and assignment sequence / schedule (e.g., pacing) | - | - | - |
| Course content aligns with recognized, relevant, and practical industry and / or other governing body standards (e.g., W3C, NIST, OWASP) | - | - | - |
| Course contains at least two learning activities (e.g., lab, project) with applicable content coherence per unit | - | - | - |
| Course provide at least one discussion or team based activity per unit/module/lesson to foster social interaction | - | - | - |
| Course describes grading and evaluation criteria for individual assignments and overall. | | | |

## Notes

- Session/curriculum format
- Missing category
- Video/guide resources
- Lab/Projects Evaluation Rubric
- Prereq
- Hidden scope
- Rigor (amount of time/effort)
- Payoff per rigor
- Clear learning objectives
- Hidden scope
- Student gratification
- Entertaining/Fun
- Something that students are proud of and want to show to other people.
- Practical relevance
- Payoff
- Personalized leveling
- Required, optional features
- Low floor, high ceiling
- Multiple avenues of success
- Authentic student choice
- Overall narrative

"Quality experience factors"

- We could have well-designed series of assessments/labs/projects, or a poorly designed series.
- Each individual lab or project in a unit, and the sequence, pacing and narrative between units
- Example aspects would be: Poorly or well-documented, engaging, and proper increase in difficulty from the previous week.
- Supportive (hints or troubleshooting to help students unstuck themselves)
- Contextualized relevance or not (is the content grounded in industry context or interlaced with real-world examples or references)
- Elastic and flexible (works for a range of students at different comprehension, optional or stretch with a core that most can complete)
- What percentage of the content is directly practical and reinforced via hands-on exercise or work or is a lot of content purely conceptual/theoretical

Other:

- Easy indicators for perceived comprehension (intra-lab activity, 20 mins to understand where they are on comprehension)