Internship
Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: Project Paper: Final Grading Rubric rev 2252019
Description: This rubric has been modified to include a metric for assessing deliverables created fro the practicum site in fulfillment of program competencies selected by the student at the outset of the practicum. Artifacts should be attached as appendices and discussed in the discussion section of the paper.
| Not Present | Developing | Proficient | Advanced | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content: Introduction | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) An introduction section is missing from the final paper. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The introduction is not well integrated or lacks a logical connection between the biological, epidemiological, sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological arenas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The introduction provides some sense of the public health issue being addressed but lacks some of the more intricate details connecting it to the biological, epidemiological, sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological arenas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The introduction contains a clear thesis statement and provides a well-defined sense of the public health problem being addressed. A clear overview of the practicum’s relevance to public health practice complete with biological, epidemiological sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological data is provided. Feedback: |
| Content: Methods | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A methods section is missing from the final paper. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The methodologies given by the student lack a clear link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health; the section as written fails to accurately present the activities accomplished by the student during the practicum; or fails to provide adequate measures for data management. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The methodologies designed by the student could be modified to provide a better link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health. As written, the section could be revised to provide either a better overview of the activities conducted by the student during the practicum and/or the measures for data management. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The methodologies designed by the student provide a clear link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health. As written, the section accurately reflects the activities accomplished by the student during the practicum and provides adequate measures for data collection and analysis. Feedback: |
| Content: Results/Analysis | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A results section is missing from the final paper. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range:
1 (1.00%) - 20.9 (20.90%)
Data are not well presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are • Underused and insufficient; • Overused and unclear; or • Dependent on explanation. The data measures and analysis need significant medication to effectively provide the biostatistical or epidemiological foundation for good public health discussion. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 21 (21.00%) - 22.9 (22.90%) Data are presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are used but need modification to reach the standard needed for publication. Enhanced data measures or analysis could be employed to provide a more solid basis for further discussion. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 23 (23.00%) - 25 (25.00%) Data are clearly and concisely presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are used when needed to simplify data presentation and are capable of “standing alone.” The data measures are consistent with practicum goals and objectives and are thoroughly analyzed to provide a solid basis for further discussion. Feedback: |
| Content: Discussion | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A discussion section is missing from the final paper. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 20.9 (20.90%) The discussion of student results and experiences lack correlation to other public health activities. The student’s conclusions lack viable suggestions or are disconnected from the student data and experience. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 21 (21.00%) - 22.9 (22.90%) Student results and experiences are good but do not consider important alternative viewpoints from the public health literature. The conclusions provided in the discussion could be better linked to the student’s practicum experience, fulfilling selected program competencies, and/or accepted public health practices; or, the student’s conclusions need some revision to better advance the case for future public health endeavors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 23 (23.00%) - 25 (25.00%) Student results and experiences are compared with differing viewpoints from the public health literature to provide a comprehensive discussion leading to valid conclusions about the data obtained during the practicum experience. The discussion addresses the competencies practiced by the student. Appendices for deliverables related to fulfilling selected competencies are included as part of the final submission supporting the meeting of all selected program competencies. The student’s conclusions include viable suggestions for future public health endeavors. Feedback: |
| Mechanics: Structured Abstract | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) An abstract is missing from the final paper. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 3 (3.00%) The abstract does not meet the criteria of the AMA Manual of Style. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%) Abstract is consistent with AMA criteria established in the AMA Manual of Style; however, the length of the abstract exceeds 250 words. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%) Abstract is consistent with AMA criteria established in the AMA Manual of Style, and the length of the abstract does not exceed 250 words. Feedback: |
| Mechanics: Properly Formatted References/Citations | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A reference section is missing from the final paper or no citations have been made. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The reference section contains fewer than the 20 resources. The sources are not listed numerically in accordance with current AMA style, or the formatting contains major errors, and/or the quality of the chosen sources is affected by being non-peer-reviewed or older than 10 years. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The reference section contains 20 sources listed numerically as they are first cited in the body of the paper, and materials are cited using current AMA style. The formatting contains some minor errors, and/or the quality of the chosen sources is affected by being non-peer-reviewed or older than 10 years. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The reference section contains at least 20 scholarly sources listed numerically as they are first cited in the body of the paper. All materials are properly cited using current AMA style. Sources are fewer than 10 years old unless historical documentation is needed to adequately understand the subject. Additional sources (above the required 25) are used judiciously to enhance understanding. Feedback: |
| Mechanics: Structure/Headings | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) The paper lacks paragraphing and logical structure. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 3 (3.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections lack fluidity. Better use of headings or paragraph structure is necessary to adequately communicate to the reader. The paper needs substantial revisions to provide concise and logical presentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections are relatively smooth. Headings are used but need revision to match the correct format. The paper needs slight revision to achieve a concise and logical presentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections are clear. Headings are used when required and are correctly displayed. The paper is organized in a concise and logical manner. Feedback: |
| Mechanics: AMA Formatting Style | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) The paper has not been written using the AMA standards of grammar or organization. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The paper does not follow current AMA format. The paper has multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The paper generally follows current AMA format. The paper has some spelling and grammatical errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The paper accurately follows current AMA format. The paper is without any significant spelling and grammatical errors. Feedback: |
Content: Introduction--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) An introduction section is missing from the final paper. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The introduction is not well integrated or lacks a logical connection between the biological, epidemiological, sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological arenas. Proficient 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The introduction provides some sense of the public health issue being addressed but lacks some of the more intricate details connecting it to the biological, epidemiological, sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological arenas. Advanced 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The introduction contains a clear thesis statement and provides a well-defined sense of the public health problem being addressed. A clear overview of the practicum’s relevance to public health practice complete with biological, epidemiological sociological, environmental, political, and/or theological data is provided. Feedback:Content: Methods--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A methods section is missing from the final paper. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The methodologies given by the student lack a clear link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health; the section as written fails to accurately present the activities accomplished by the student during the practicum; or fails to provide adequate measures for data management. Proficient 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The methodologies designed by the student could be modified to provide a better link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health. As written, the section could be revised to provide either a better overview of the activities conducted by the student during the practicum and/or the measures for data management. Advanced 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The methodologies designed by the student provide a clear link between the practicum activities and best practices in public health. As written, the section accurately reflects the activities accomplished by the student during the practicum and provides adequate measures for data collection and analysis. Feedback:Content: Results/Analysis--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A results section is missing from the final paper. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 20.9 (20.90%) Data are not well presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are• Underused and insufficient;
• Overused and unclear; or
• Dependent on explanation. The data measures and analysis need significant medication to effectively provide the biostatistical or epidemiological foundation for good public health discussion. Proficient 21 (21.00%) - 22.9 (22.90%) Data are presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are used but need modification to reach the standard needed for publication. Enhanced data measures or analysis could be employed to provide a more solid basis for further discussion. Advanced 23 (23.00%) - 25 (25.00%) Data are clearly and concisely presented. Tables, graphs, and figures are used when needed to simplify data presentation and are capable of “standing alone.” The data measures are consistent with practicum goals and objectives and are thoroughly analyzed to provide a solid basis for further discussion. Feedback:
Content: Discussion--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A discussion section is missing from the final paper. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 20.9 (20.90%) The discussion of student results and experiences lack correlation to other public health activities. The student’s conclusions lack viable suggestions or are disconnected from the student data and experience. Proficient 21 (21.00%) - 22.9 (22.90%) Student results and experiences are good but do not consider important alternative viewpoints from the public health literature. The conclusions provided in the discussion could be better linked to the student’s practicum experience, fulfilling selected program competencies, and/or accepted public health practices; or, the student’s conclusions need some revision to better advance the case for future public health endeavors. Advanced 23 (23.00%) - 25 (25.00%) Student results and experiences are compared with differing viewpoints from the public health literature to provide a comprehensive discussion leading to valid conclusions about the data obtained during the practicum experience. The discussion addresses the competencies practiced by the student. Appendices for deliverables related to fulfilling selected competencies are included as part of the final submission supporting the meeting of all selected program competencies. The student’s conclusions include viable suggestions for future public health endeavors. Feedback:Mechanics: Structured Abstract--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) An abstract is missing from the final paper. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 3 (3.00%) The abstract does not meet the criteria of the AMA Manual of Style. Proficient 4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%) Abstract is consistent with AMA criteria established in the AMA Manual of Style; however, the length of the abstract exceeds 250 words. Advanced 5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%) Abstract is consistent with AMA criteria established in the AMA Manual of Style, and the length of the abstract does not exceed 250 words. Feedback:Mechanics: Properly Formatted References/Citations--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) A reference section is missing from the final paper or no citations have been made. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The reference section contains fewer than the 20 resources. The sources are not listed numerically in accordance with current AMA style, or the formatting contains major errors, and/or the quality of the chosen sources is affected by being non-peer-reviewed or older than 10 years. Proficient 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The reference section contains 20 sources listed numerically as they are first cited in the body of the paper, and materials are cited using current AMA style. The formatting contains some minor errors, and/or the quality of the chosen sources is affected by being non-peer-reviewed or older than 10 years. Advanced 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The reference section contains at least 20 scholarly sources listed numerically as they are first cited in the body of the paper. All materials are properly cited using current AMA style. Sources are fewer than 10 years old unless historical documentation is needed to adequately understand the subject. Additional sources (above the required 25) are used judiciously to enhance understanding. Feedback:Mechanics: Structure/Headings--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) The paper lacks paragraphing and logical structure. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 3 (3.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections lack fluidity. Better use of headings or paragraph structure is necessary to adequately communicate to the reader. The paper needs substantial revisions to provide concise and logical presentation. Proficient 4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections are relatively smooth. Headings are used but need revision to match the correct format. The paper needs slight revision to achieve a concise and logical presentation. Advanced 5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%) The transitions between paragraphs and sections are clear. Headings are used when required and are correctly displayed. The paper is organized in a concise and logical manner. Feedback:Mechanics: AMA Formatting Style--
Levels of Achievement: Not Present 0 (0.00%) - 0 (0.00%) The paper has not been written using the AMA standards of grammar or organization. Developing 1 (1.00%) - 8.3 (8.30%) The paper does not follow current AMA format. The paper has multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Proficient 8.4 (8.40%) - 9.1 (9.10%) The paper generally follows current AMA format. The paper has some spelling and grammatical errors. Advanced 9.2 (9.20%) - 10 (10.00%) The paper accurately follows current AMA format. The paper is without any significant spelling and grammatical errors. Feedback:Name:Project Paper: Final Grading Rubric rev 2252019
Description:This rubric has been modified to include a metric for assessing deliverables created fro the practicum site in fulfillment of program competencies selected by the student at the outset of the practicum. Artifacts should be attached as appendices and discussed in the discussion section of the paper.