social justice

1 No submission  0.00%

2 Insufficient 65.00%

3 Approaching 75.00%

4 Acceptable 85.00%

5 Target 100.00%

100.0 %Content

70.0 %Essay Persuades Stakeholders for or Against using A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

Not addressed.

Essay does not persuade stakeholders for or against using A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack in a professional development for teachers.

Essay takes a position either for or against using A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack in a professional development for teachers. Examples are present, but broad and somewhat simplistic.

Essay persuades stakeholders for or against using A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack in a professional development for teachers. Specific examples are provided that discuss whether the materials could be used to help broaden teachers' cultural competence, build stronger relationships, and create more relevant educational experiences.

Essay convincingly persuades stakeholders for or against using A Class Divided and White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack in a professional development for teachers. Realistic, compelling examples are provided that support or refute that the materials could be used to help broaden teachers' cultural competence, build stronger relationships, and create more relevant educational experiences or that the materials prove to be more detrimental than beneficial to teacher development.

10.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose

Not addressed.

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive, reflective of the arguments, and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

10.0 %Argument Logic and Construction

Not addressed.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Sources used are credible and generally support the claim.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative and clearly support the claim.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative and thoroughly support the claim.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Not addressed.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

Not addressed.

Template is missing key elements or includes pervasive errors. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Appropriate template is used, but formatting includes several minor errors.

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

All format elements are correct.

100 %Total Weightage